Hi Fred.
re: "Wow, this thread is getting really bizarre."
If, by "bizarre", you mean that the discussion appears to have crawled outside the box, then I'll admit to being guilty as charged.
I've found that spaghetti tossing can sometimes result in some intriguing wall designs. In actuality, I think there is a great deal of substance to what has being implied and outwardly discussed in these few posts. At least it forces the issue of what constitutes the boundaries of where neutrality is arguably applicable.
If I slap a few IP protocols beneath the voice application layer that is now being carried by wireless mic links, would doing so qualify them as a form of ad-hoc IP wireless connection? If so, how are they any different from those enabled by WiFi (or any other client-side wireless technology) at the point at which they gateway onto the open Internet? Are you suggesting that ad-hoc links themselves fall outside the box as well? They probably do, but I'm merely illustrating how a plausible connection could be made to tie the mic links to the rest of the universe.
At a minimum, I would agree that, for all intents and purposes, and especially as relates to purposes of popular discourse, wireless mic links are different, but how different are they, really? What happens when innovations take us to cognitive radio designs that fall outside the borders of traditional, fixed-frequency bands that are now common and sanctioned as apropos of network neutrality considerations?
FAC
----- |
