Slashdot Mirror
Breaking Old Regulations and Old Habits
tadghin writes ""Under the current regulatory regime, 802.11 would never have been legalized." Andy Oram reports this comment by David Reed in his summary of a wireless policy BOF session at the O'Reilly Emerging Technology conference. Andy discusses some of the hidden regulatory threats to wireless networking and what we might do about them, as well as many of the other sessions he attended, in a conference report on Wednesday's sessions."
I'm getting a bit sick of all of the industry friendly spectrum giveaw^H^H^H^H^H^Hauctions. How about a bit of spectrum for wireless broadband?
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
Unfortunantly, as long there is greed in the world, there will always be problems with government legalization. In addition, fear is often also a driving factor. Just look at the large amount of products out there to protect users from cell phonce radiation. People are always scared of new things. Especially if it has the oppurtunity to relive them of some of the money that they have been earning(drug war anyone?).
If it becomes a law for one, it's law for another.
:-)
Not really.
It's really not that difficult to imagine a law that was written such that those who licensed their IP (code) under certain criteria (zero cost, freely redistributable, modifiable, whatever. Think open source criteria) would be exempt. And in particular, any well-drafted law would have this property.
Whether one can expect that from the fine congress you folks have elected is another matter entirely.
-Rob Ewaschuk
While I realize there is much support for 802.11b in it's 2.4Ghz position, it seems likely that as devices continue to be developed with output in that range, it's going to be impossible to continue recieving clear signals, even in the small 100 foot range that most of the devices promise.
I also see no compelling reason to believe there is any commercial interest in keeping 802.11b around, as 802.11a devices provide faster throughput (supposedly), have fewer regulatory restrictions, and allow for higher prices / profit margins (due to the two reasons above).
Given the current political climate as it relates to emerging technologies and the 2.4Ghz band, I would expect to see 802.11b fade away to regulatory condemnation and watch 802.11a take over where 802.11b left off.
Except that Microsoft could afford to pay up the fine AND face any huge lawsuits by sheer muscle power. As would Sun. Or for that matter any of the bigger companies. It would mean nothing to them, and people would still continue to buy their stuff.
The resolution to this is to base the fine on per copy retail pricing. If Microsoft Shop (a theoretical planning package allowing you to plan and cost out building projects ranging from making a one legged stool through re-fitting your garage or basement as a manufacturing center) costs $79 per copy retail, and it unwittingly notifies your local zoning office that you plan on setting up a mass distribution center running out of your garage, Microsoft should be fined $79 per copy of Microsoft Shop sold.
As Microsoft is not the recipient of all of the $79 per copy, they would be paying above and beyond their profit for the product.
Personally I think this should be based upon the Suggested Retail Price at the time the product is released. So if a major software flaw is found in X-Box, they would be liable for the $299 per device, not the current or upcomming $199 per device.
Punative damages should be awarded based upon actual costs to consumers for the losses accumulated by the software. If the theoretical problem with Microsoft Shop ultimately cost you $1500 in legal bills to defend the fact that you did not implement the project that you played around with, that cost would be a added as punative damages to any class action suit.
But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
As a side effect, Free software (as in beer) would have significantly lower cost per failure. Unfortunately with the potential for punative damages as part of a class action suit, this would have a deletorious effect on poorly managed Open Source/Free software.
You never know...
What would the effects be? Unprecedented professionalism in the software industry. We like to call it Software Engineering. When a Civil Engineer signs off on a bridge, he's stating it is flawless to the best of his ability. He's also accepting liability for the bridge. If software people want to be treated like professionals, they need to accept the same standards as professionals. If you release something that's broken, and it can be proven you know better, your ass is in the can.
(Celui que tient la peur de devinir nuage)
Neither would asprin or alchohol or sunlight.
We live in a world with silly regulations. They even apply to technology.
=brian
Now, about a ham radio operator "actually" shutting down a network -- where and when? Hams are perhaps the most conscientious users of spectrum anywhere. They have clean signals and stay in their bandwidth -- bandwidth they are licensed to operate in. Consumer electronics, on the other hand, are the worst offenders. And 802.11b is unlicensed and must accept all interference caused to it by licensed users -- which includes microwave ovens. Read Part 15 and Part 18 of the FCC regulations.
ObDisclaimer: I am not (and have never been) a ham radio operator.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
Amateur Radio has a frequency allocation at 2390-2450 MHz. This overlaps the ISM band that is used with 802.11b and other unlicensed users. Unlicensed users must accept interference from licensed users and must not cause interference to licensed users.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat