IP: Re: DELETION OF UWB AGENDA ITEM FROM DECEMBER 12TH OPEN MEETING

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

[ As IPers who have  listened to my speeches know (see past IP messages for 
pointers) I agree with the note and Dewayne's comments djf]

> From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>

> [Note:  This comment comes from reader Benn Kobb.  I think that Benn does 
> a good job of summing up the matter.  The regulatory history of UWB is 
> starting to match that of spread spectrum and what happened back in the 
> early '80s with respect to that technology.  As I've said recently here, 
> this is not about science and reason anymore, its about politics and 
> power.  So ask yourself the question, who really will lose if UWB is 
> allowed to happen?  Also, ask yourself what the world might be like now if 
> spread spectrum was allowed according to the framework that was purposed 
> in the 1981 NOI?  DLH]
>
> At 19:29 -0800 12/11/01, Bennett Kobb wrote:
> > From: Bennett Kobb <bkobb () newsignals com>
> > To: dewayne () warpspeed com
> > Subject: Re: DELETION OF UWB AGENDA ITEM FROM DECEMBER 12TH OPEN MEETING
> > Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 19:29:36 -0800
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> >
> > Totally predictable. The idea that UWB might dare to actually make it 
> > onto the Commission's meeting agenda was plainly enough to kick the 
> > opposing lobbyists into high gear. So much for the FCC's grand call for 
> > new technologies and "thinking outside the box".
> >
> > The Defense Department's contention that it could "resolve" the issue of 
> > UWB operations in restricted bands, in 60 days, seems like so much baloney.
> >  If they haven't resolved it by now, will they ever?
> >
> > Benn Kobb

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