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

[Jamie Lovick]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Toliman wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Barry Park" <bpark at theage.fairfax.com.au>
> >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.

Personally, I think the best way to tackle this is to proove them wrong.

If we continue on the general path we're going, but ensure that we are
openly seen to be making sure that we're aiming to stay within the class
licence, and within the current limitations of the Acts
(Telecommunications, Radiocommunications, Broadcast, and any other
revisions or laws), and are seen as self regulating, I think it would
provide a good example of just how wrong they are.

By each of the groups working together to set pseudo standards and by
showing that we can comply or integrate existing standards, it will
benifit everyone.

Things like certification or atleast registration of antenna designs on
each regions site, which has been tested in a propper testing facility
to allow us to provide gain and propagation information. If someone
wants to build their own, it should be checked .. the idea may be a
little over the top, but we have to be seen to be pro-active in doing
the right thing.

Their recommendation of registration of links is somewhat already in
place in the form of each states node databases.

If we are shown to do a bit of policing of the networks to ensure people
are within the law, it will show us in a good light.

We don't have to argue with these sorts of people, we just have to
proove them wrong.

> 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.

The more people that come into the industry, the lesser slice of the pie
they get.

Regards

Jamie

--
Jamie Lovick    <->  IT Consultant    <-> +614 1479 1681
Hobby     : Doof.org                   -> jalovick at doof.org
Director  : Drastic Solutions Pty Ltd  -> jalovick at drasticsolutions.com.au
----- Public Relations Officer - the Australian Wireless Association -----


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