[MLB-WIRELESS] New submissions to the wireless broadband inquiry

[Toliman]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Park" <bpark at theage.fairfax.com.au>
To: <melbwireless at wireless.org.au>
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 6:42 PM
Subject: [MLB-WIRELESS] New submissions to the wireless broadband inquiry


>Hey all,
>There's been a few more submissions added to the wireless broadband inquiry
>website (http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/cita/Wbt/subslist.htm).
>Sadly, it includes this dross from Integrity Data Systems. The bits leading
>with *** are my own comments. How can we correct this?
>- Barry

easily enough, the best method of attacking an argument is to agree to
disagree. we won't get the last word, because there is no benefit to anybody
"right now", and no 'sides' of right or wrong. i guess that is why this
submission article is shaped so badly to attack the other efforts.

it seems to be, in their opinion, they are eliminating a threat of
competition in an attempt to secure an equally inefficient footing for
competitiveness. how they will manage to secure it, is anybody's guess,
since any tech provider will be able to give a lengthy technical posture why
2.4ghz is a 'no-mans land' for registration and regulation.

As such, it is very similar to the entrepreneurial efforts to "buy the
internet" in the mid 90's, no matter the costs. They did not understand the
market, or the ability of the network or even the principle of the
technology underlying it all, but they understood enough to realise it was a
massive economic growth possibility.

>>Using the analogy of the spectrum resource as a river, there would be an
>>uproar over the lax way we allow some to pollute it. We must protect it
from
>>the reckless or ignorant behaviour of a few so broadband is
cost-effectively
>>available for all.

how apt. i wish i could explain that a leaking microwave oven , radiating
signal noise at 2.4ghz is the equivalent of a tidal wave, the size of a 90
story building in comparison to the ripples of "RF pollution" from other
WISPs, nodes and other 802.11b equipment. in a lateral metaphor, if unwanted
signals are pollution, it does not quite "wash" that "unlicensed users" are
the equivalent of pollution of the spectrum. licensed users can pollute just
as badly as unlicensed or unregulated devices.

in a more apt metaphor, pollution could be defined as any unwanted use of
any device in a publically accessible spectrum, much like a "public pool"
ie. in a public pool, there are hundreds of people entering and leaving at
any time, one person, or many people could currently be urinating in that
vast reservoir of water. it is a risk one takes by being in a "public pool",
that no matter how "clean" the people entering, someone could be leaking
signal into the "pool".

To argue that this "public pool" requires regulation, is ineffectual. you
will probably never find out who is polluting or be affected by it in any
remarkable (obvious) way, it will keep occuring, and if you make it
difficult to enter the "pool" or charge fees and membership, people will
choose not to enter and go without or go elsewhere.

somehow i think this metaphor works better ...
Toliman.



To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message