IP: : Must...have...MORE spectrum

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

> From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@warpspeed.com>
> [Note:  This item comes from reader Benn Kobb.  DLH]
>
> At 6:11 -0800 1/25/02, Bennett Kobb wrote:
> > From: Bennett Kobb <bkobb@newsignals.com>
> > To: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@warpspeed.com>
> > Subject: Must...have...MORE spectrum
> > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 06:11:04 -0800
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> >
> > Dave Hughes wrote:
> >
> > > [FCC should] approve and encourage FAR more advanced radio designs, 
> > > including smart radios, than what they approve now
> >
> > Which suppliers of advanced radio designs and smart radios are telling 
> > the FCC that regulation is blocking them from the market?
> >
> > > they would wake up under public, media, and Congressperns pressure and (1)
> >  open up more spectrum to be 'shared,'
> >
> > Is anyone advocating additional spectrum for 802.11? I mean, anyone with 
> > a financial interest in it? I don't see anyone doing that.
> >
> > I would think that if unlicensed needed more spectrum, there would be 
> > howling over the FCC's proposal to reallocate the UPCS bands to 3G (from 
> > unlicensed to licensed). I don't hear much protest.
> >
> > Unlicensed might well need additional spectrum in the future. But by the 
> > time that is clear, good candidate spectrum is likely to have been 
> > auctioned away as the private property of licensees.
> >
> > To paraphrase top FCC officials: if you want spectrum to be freely 
> > available for all, open to the public as a commons, then you can just go 
> > and buy it.
> >
> > That is the mentality to overcome. Perhaps not in the sense of defeating 
> > it so much as crowding it out.
> >
> > Benn Kobb

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/