----- Original Message ----- From: "Rich Comroe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
> > Now exactly why some people have to say I'm promoting anarchy, or that I'm > > against all government, or calling government universally evil, I dunno. > > Maybe you could explain it to me. > > Here's where I get the impression, from things you've written such as these > few excerpts below. > > >> Government policy MUST regulate wireless industries for the public good. > > > > Not really. > Uh, Rich... I specifically stated that the "industry" doesn't need to be controlled. The RF aspects are subject to regulation, as I think perhaps we pretty much all agree they should be. > >>Do you really truly believe that everyone always benefits from your > >> having "no restriction" whatsoever on what you choose to do? I respect > > your > > > > yes. Absolutely. Why must ** I ** be regulated? What possible public harm do you think me being in the internet business without federal oversight could happen? Too many people with broadband? Too cheap of prices? Too much profit? Too much profit lost by others? If I am free to conduct my business unhindered, it seems the only person who could be "hurt" in any way is my competition, and customers will benefit. > > > >> opinions immensely but I just can't help believe that deep down you know > >> from your own career experiences that this has never really been true > > under > >> all circumstances. > > I don't think I'm reading much between lines, but I guess I could be as > guilty as anyone. If I have, you've my humblest, sincerest appologies. I > knew better even as I was writing the crack which mentioned Ore/Wash. It > was a humble attempt at humor for all the anti-gov militia's that always > seem to be from there. I know better than to write such crap, but it > sometimes leaks out into my writing. Naw, they come from Idaho and Montana. Well, heck, I'd live in either if I could find a way to earn a living. Probably for the same reason... You get left alone in both states. Well, Montana's getting ruined by all the insane Californians, environmental wackos, and movie stars moving and destroying the state, but it's still pretty decent. > > >> Study some history of various industries (not restricted to just > >> wireless) > >> and you will find that lack of government "guidance" / or bad government > >> guidance (read: lack of vitally needed regulation) hurts everyone. We've > > > > Could you provide a few examples? I can't think of any. > > This is exactly the disconnect. You've often written that you want total > freedom from regulation to do whatever you want, and that this is somehow a > historically proven axiom that always works out for the best. Life doesn't > work that way. In connection with other threads I've written at length on > how the justice dept forcibly knocked down the most advanced > telecommunications system in the world to its current position way down in > the pack ... because of a complete fantasy that smaller competing phone > companies that needed to scratch just to stay in business could somehow > maintain a leadership position for the American people and American > industry. Total hogwash in a world where virtually every other country has The way I see it, the US innovated not a single thing, and we had completely unchanging and calcified technologically, in the POTS system. I can't imagine this being "good". What you saw was that there was almost NO consumer market for phone products. > a consolidated PTT (which immediately began gaining ground and passed the > United States in leadership, technology, features, etc., etc.). This badly > hurt you, me, and every other American. I've written at length in other I can't imagine how. I have far better service, it costs a small fraction of what it used to, and now I have options galore, for phone service. How you can call this bad, I can't imagine. I think it's the best thing to happen to Ma Bell. > threads how the FCC (with several large US manufacturers) took us down from > our #1 leadership position in the world in cellular technology and service > by totally reversing its own previous position on the standards that had at > one time made AMPS the world leader. This has badly hurt every American > that uses a cellphone, and totally eliminated all US manufacturers out of > world leadership (and yet it was originally advocated by US manufacturers > ... where my opinion comes from that business's don't necessarily know > what's in their own best interest). There's many examples of business's I think you're all wrong. The commoditization of cellular phones is what turned the industry from small potatoes, overly expensive products, to commodity cell phones produced by low-value commodity production systems. Just like we no longer have to pay a month's wages to buy a rather primitive TV. Now you can buy a great one for peanuts,. and Americans aren't slaving away at unskilled jobs producing them, either. > that gambled away their own market position and future success by choosing > to not go with a voluntary market standard for some short-sighted business > decision ... I got'ta believe in your years of background you know many of > these. Where wireless is involved it's doubly important for the FCC to > impose standards of operation, just like it did for amps (the exact opposite > of the way it behaved for 2nd generation digital cellular and beyond). When > the CB band was expanded (about 30 yrs ago) the FCC was encouraged by > business's that didn't know their own best interest to abandon tighter > performance standards that had been formulated (where an entire band can > become unusable). There's no shortage of examples. The more you look the > more you'll see. You can't best serve the American people best unless you The more I look, the more I see that the chaos of the free market is DRAMATICALLY better, and the longing for the old days of predictable, expensive, consumer-abusive monopolies is just a bit of nostalgic reminiscing. > can serve the most people. Solutions that interfere with one another cannot > ever be considered as serving the best interests of the market. Success > requires some discipline, regulation, standards, or whatever you want to > call it. It's best if they are selected by voluntary participation which > leads to concensus of the industry itself. But they've got'ta be mandatory, > meaning they've got'ta be enforced by the government. I disagree completely. Absolutely and totally disagree. The people are NEVER best served by these kinds of government planning. Big business might like it because it gets to exploit this stuff for big profits, but the interests of the individual and the consumer are never served. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
