Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!hplabs!pyramid!lstowell
From: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: Data-PCS (Apple) Petition - Please Comment!
Summary: Somebody else is already USING that bandwidth....
Message-ID: <155003@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Date: 10 May 91 20:02:10 GMT
Sender: daemon@pyramid.pyramid.com
Reply-To: lstowell@pyramid.com
Organization: Personal opinion only.
Lines: 69

In article <53189@nigel.ee.udel.edu> johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
>
>I fail to see that anything in Apple's Data-PCS proposal cuts the 
>rug out from under anybody.  If anything, it will bring more DOS
>portables into Mac networks as people look for cheap and portable
>ways of tapping into networks.  Clones probably have there best
>technical advantage over Apple's product line in this area, one 
>that will likely persist.  
>
>This is not "MacRadio", or "DataTalk", or any other warm, fuzzy
>Cupertino name.  It is a petition to reserve some radio bandwidth
>for computer users, period. 
>
    
    Unfortunately Apple is NOT requesting a "reservation" of
    bandwidth...it is requesting a RE-ALLOCATION of a bandwidth
    that is ALREADY IN USE!

    Apple is requesting 40 Mhz worth of bandwidth in the
    1850 to 1900 Mhz range for use by wireless LAN's.  This
    bandwidth is already in use by several commercial microwave
    and other users...who are forming a coalition to oppose the
    allocation.  

    It is NOT necessary to have this particular bandwidth to do
    PC wireless LAN's....there are already existing
    implementations w/o use of this bandwidth.

    What we have is a legitimate contention for resources...the
    PC folks want bandwidth already allocated to other
    users...who have a pretty significant inventory in existing
    equipment that would be obsoleted.

    This is not a simple issue...nor would it be the first time
    that existing equipment has been obsoleted.

	
I am neither for nor against Apple's proposal.  I am somewhat
concerned by their tactics of bullying opposing
viewpoints..which STILL does not cause me to automatically be
against their proposal....just their methods.


>
>And frankly, it doesn't hurt that the industry group petitioning
>the FCC is made up of US companies.  Wait another few years and
>you can have a SONY network;  will they post to comp.sys.ibm.pc.*
>to find out what you think?
>
    This is about the biggest mistatement in the whole
    article.  The segment OPPOSING the Apple proposal is ALSO a
    group of US companies.   

    It also indicates ignorance of spectrum allocation.  The FCC
    will review its recommendations with the NTIA prior to
    presentation to the forthcoming World Administrative Radio
    Conference....sponsored by the International
    Telecommunications Union (the telecom arm of the UN).   If
    "SONY" wants this spectrum reallocated for PC
    communications, it will have to face the ITU to do so.

    Of course "SONY" might just use another part of the spectrum
    rather than attempting to preempt useage of an existing
    bandwidth.... >:-)

This is a legitimate disagreement between US users and would-be
users of radio spectrum.  Bringing in the red herring of "Sony"
is really a pretty underhanded attempt to justify one's position
by a technically inaccurate attempt to engage in Japan bashing.