Marlon, I think I can appreciate most everything you've said. I can only
add to each of your points, while accepting your input, why I think that
your (and my) life would be better if we had some more constructive
requirements in the wisp market than "anything that fits the transmit mask".
It's interesting that you should bring up a 30 YEAR old technology as a
good example for an equipment life standards discussion. hehehehehe
It was just an example of how FATALLY flawed the change to "let the market
decide" between generation I cellular (analog) and generation II cellular
(first generation digital cellular) was, and we've all paid dearly for it
(whether most people know it or not). It was the blanket assertion that
No-Darwinism is necessarily worse than Darwinism and to be rejected
out-of-hand.
US manufacturers are free to choose who and what they want! It's working
perfectly.
I think you meant "carriers or providers" in the above. Where GSM rules
apply (that's most of the world) service is seamless ... it's the best world
for the customers. Since wisps business as service providing is mostly
fixed, I'll grant you that "seamless" is not a meaningful advantage. But
consider this. As a service provider in the GSM world all brands of GSM
equipment are interchangable. From a service provider perspective you can
get the best equipment prices (because there's more choices of suppiers).
From the manufacturer, they can sell the same equipment world-wide, so they
build in higher volume. From a manufacturer perspective I know this
inherently, but service providers should all know that the volume a
manufacturer produces has a higher impact than anything else on
manufacturing cost (and thus selling price). Equipment manufacturers &
providers who build & deploy GSM enjoy significantly lower equipment cost.
So let's try this again:
US manufacturers are free to choose who and what they want! It's working
perfectly.
If working perfectly means you don't care that the equipment costs more
because of the free-for-all and you've no protection from destructive
interworking, then I accept it's working perfectly!
We'll see. That's what the FCC just did with 3650.
Agreed. I'm hopeful that this was a good move.
And lets be real here eh? No matter how good something we do is, much of
Europe will do it differently just because we did it first.
Not quite the point. I don't care what Europe does either. More countries
on this planet now choose to establish rules compatible with ETSI than with
the US FCC (that's another big part of what the cellular free-for-all here
cost us). THAT was my point. Look at the manufacturers that you buy your
wisp equipment from. They are charging you for equipment that they can only
build for US markets and the few countries left on the planet that accept US
FCC wireless rules (not too many). Imagine how much less it might cost you
if they could manufacturer in the greater volume to sell to all markets.
As for having ALL devices be wifi? No thanks! There are good things
coming out of the proprietary market.
I agree, wasn't implying all devices have to be wifi. Consider this
example: One of the middle bands at 5GHz is being opened for ANY
technology, as long as they have a US DOT approved DFS (as I understand it).
Could be 802.11, could be Canopy, could be anything ... as long as they all
support the DFS so that they don't talk on the US military radar. This is
what I understood ETSI to have set for the 5GHz RLAN bands (in most
countries on the planet) ... doesn't have to be hyperlan2, as long as they
all support TPC & DFS. Where do you think 5.4 Canopy has been shipping for
some time already? A couple organizing standard requirements doesn't mean
everybody has to deploy the exact same technology, but it could make
everybody's life a whole lot better. This is what I suggested under the
term "middle ground" ... in your terms somewhere costructively between
Pure-Darwinism and No-Darwinism as you put it.
What made beta better than VHS? Certainly part of what made VHS better was
the availability.
Sony designed Beta, but intended to be the only supplier (Proprietary). VHS
was successful because of the availability, because of the consortium of
companies who all agreed to support a common design. VHS won precisely
because of the standard (the availability as you put it). When Sony came
out with their "next" format (8mm) they made sure they offered the design to
a consortium of companies who would agree to support a compatible design,
which is why 8mm was succesful ... a 180 from their previous (Beta)
position. Japanese learned fast. World 3rd generation cellular standards
are a battleground between Japan and Europe (US design is not even a
contender, but US manufacturers try to feed their inputs to both Japan and
Europe standards bodies ... but we're the outsiders in both venues).
Technically? Maybe Beta was better. I'd seen both but didn't really see
any difference. For me, the best one was the cheapest one.
I never saw Beta, but I've heard enough people who have describe it as
better to trust it probably was. VHS was the cheaper (and the one I chose
too), but it was cheaper because it was a standard! :-)
I don't see too much interest in the "big picture", so whether you agree or
not I'm happy to discuss the topic. Bye the way, since this is on a WISPA
list, one of the biggest things the Cellular Carriers have working for them
is that their "Industry Association" (CTIA) has such a powerful influence
over the manufacturers who build equipment for their members. APCO (another
operators association, for public safety radio systems) has the same
influence over companies that make equipment for their market. EVEN IF THE
FCC CHOSE NOT TO IMPOSE REQUIREMENTS, AN EFFECTIVE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION CAN.
But that's a different discussion.
Cheers,
Rich
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
