On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 03:53:00 GMT John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
| On 22 Jul 2006 20:13:26 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote in
| <e9u0t60nbg@news4.newsguy.com>:
|
|>Basically, I've held a vision for years, well over a decade, of exactly
|>how to do this kind of technology, marrying radio and networking. What
|>we have today isn't too far from it. I would have used OFDM right from
|>the beginning, merely varying the signaling rate to vary data rate, for
|>example.
|
| Prohibited by the FCC in the beginning. Oops. ;)

The FCC is not immutable. Have you ever made petitions to the FCC for
rules changes *AND* gotten them approved to FR&O stage? I have.


|>If I were to make an access point device that actually would talk to
|>another access point device, many problems would be solved that are today
|>merely solved by having redundant equipment, often utilizing more channels
|>than necessary. I've heard horror stories of multi-office buildings being
|>overloaded on wireless, and now I can see why. Perhaps some of these
|>issues are perptrated by the vendors themselves in an effort to drive up
|>more sales by making people have to buy even more devices just to make
|>their network function. ...
|
| No, that's not it. As I wrote, there are good reasons. Go look them up
| instead of just presuming you know better.

What keywords? Was there a specific (public) discussion forum?

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2006-07-23-1345@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|