We don't have to agree. I certainly respect differing opinions as long as their from people that seem to know the field.
I thought the switch to 2nd gen "put up whatever you want" was a departure from earlier FCC stand ... when all 1st gen cellular systems would follow the TIA approved AMPS standard. Why do I think the change was not for our best? Because the US manufacturers went from world domination of cellular (you could take your amps phone anywhere in the world), to last place (almost the entire world adopted the GSM standard in the face of the US meltdown in digital cellular standards). You can dislike GSM, but it became the defacto world standard and you can take your GSM phone anywhere. US cellular manufacturers world market share plumeted, and manufacturers that built to the USDC (TIA IS54) and CDMA (TIA IS95) found very few foreign markets that would accept product. The US became one of the very few nations on the planet where a carrier could deploy anything they wanted. The NexTel system, likewise, can be found almost nowhere except US / Canada. Pick any 2 people in the US with cellphones, and it's more likely than not they are incompatible & not able to receive service from the same tower. Technically it provides everyone in the entire United States with inferior coverage (considering the number of total towers providing service), more expensive phones (multi-mode), inferior voice quality (extra voice decoding / recoding becuase they all have incompatible voice codecs), and additional voice latency. Eventually European GSM became yet another US deployed technology adding to the mish-mosh. US Standards participants coined the phrase "if one standard is good, multiple standards are better." This is non-sense. If there's not a single standard you have no standard. A single standards does not inhibit technology, because standards continuously evolve and eventually extend to new technologies in a compatible, planned way. Just look at 802.11 ... it's a classic example of an "evolving" standard. Standards do inhibit something ... but it's not technology ... its the choice to deploy whatever you want. It imposes a certain discipline for the general public ... which I think is a good thing. It's disheartening as all hell to look at a field near me with 4 antenna towers (3 of them 500ft) and a different wisp providing service from each (from an interference standpoint). There's roughly 30 different 5.7GHz transmitters all within 1000ft and LOS of each other. There's so many examples like this which simply scream at you that the wisps would collectively have benefitted were some minimum media access procedures common across all these devices. Anyways, I appreciate your thoughts and enjoy comparing differing opinions. peace, Rich ----- Original Message ----- From: wispa To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 3:22 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Some "unlicensed" history.... On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:56:40 -0600, Rich Comroe wrote > Scriv- > > Mark- > > IMO the FCC has certainly been just responding to the market over > the last 15yrs (as you advocate). Actually, I disagree. I think the FCC was attempting to create a market on their own. Cellular type service flourished. The envisioned unlicensed PCS was a flop. I'm not going to profess to have the definitive answer as to why, my view of the topic is totally WISP centric, I don't really CARE about spectrum reserved for devices that can't reach more than a couple hundred feet at absolute best. I just think that we might gain some understanding of what's going on if we look at a current "flop" and "success". I'm not really sure the FCC is responding to the market, either. I think it responds to what those who can influence it say, and the motives for what anyone says to it are never totally selfless altruism. We want 3650 for our enrichment. But with that enrichment comes competitive services that benefit our customers. One wit once said that "democratic self governance is the worst form of governance, save all the rest", and many other parallels have been drawn by wiser folks than me. I'd restate it to say that free enterprise is the worst form of delivering necessities... except for any other form that's been invented so far. So while it's easy to knock and criticise the "jumble" we call our cellular and internet providing system, there's simply not a real better alternative. Over this period I think I've > become more and more against this as I assess how this has left > the US and our airways. In my opinion it's a BAD thing when I'm > standing under a cell tower that cannot service my phone even > though it's the same frequency. I could not disagree more. There's nothing more frustrating than being stuck with a "one technology must fit and serve for all" set of rules. I LEFT a GSM company due to the decidedly inferior service it provides, to go to one that runs a CDMA network on a lower frequency, because it's decidedly better. We all benefit from that kind of capability and freedom. In Europe all towers are mandated > compatible as was PREVIOUSLY true in the US (while the EC still > regulates European airways for what's best for their people). The > US airway have become a free-for-all of non-compatible > technologies, with destructive consequences for US manufacturers, > operators, and the public in general. I have no such emotions. LEt them (europe) have the sucky GSM system. Let providers use whatever they want, and let the best one win. When I worked for a > manufacturer I voted what management judged was best for that > manufacturer. However, I'm now retired, and I've become a vocal > advocate that the FCC should resume the role it once held as > oversee-er to (at minimum) insure that all deployed equipment > plays nice (if not compatibly). I'm disappointed that FCC rules > for unlicensed outdoor (all bands) never mandated a minimum set of > play-nice media access rules (not to say I didn't cheerfully > participate in a proprietary MAC product when I worked for one > manufacturer ... but I think I've seen the error of those ways). Well, you and I disagree. To follow your thoughts, WISP's would all be required to use the same technology, so we have "interoperability" between us. Bahhh, forget that noise. > > The classic argument against this is that it inhibits innovation. > Not true IMHO. Just look at the 2.4GHz IEEE standards. An > organized standards body can, and does evolve standards (802.11b > -> 802.11g) such that it is COORDINATED. It's simply not true > that standards lock you into obsolete technology. No, standards do not. They come and go. Forcing the USE of specific ones is always a negative, when it comes to letting someone invent and sell a better mousetrap. I think the FCC > relinquished its responsibility during the 2nd generation cellular > licensing process where they became infatuated with how much the > auctions could net monetarily ... if they simply allowed the > winner to deploy whatever technology they felt like. The airways > belong to the American people. It's my government, and I wished > they acted in my best interests ... and not as a revenue generator > for the federal budget. I, for one, happen to think they DID do the right thing. Thankfully, I'm not stuck with GSM garbage and I have a choice to use someone else's better idea for my area. Maybe I'll even find a way to make future 3650 work mobile in my valley and I'll make my own ip phone network for cheap. Or not. But I want the option. That "option" is essential. -------------------------------------------- Mark Koskenmaki <> Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
