Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: fred g who wrote (35678)	9/14/2010 6:23:23 PM
From: Win-Lose-Draw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

What does "net neutrality" have to do with wireless mics? If net neutrality applies to signals being carried across fiber, then it should also apply to signals being carried across wireless, since the "spectrum" is just a replacement for the physical fiber. Saying a bunch of spectrum is to be set aside for a specific use (eg wireless mics) is like saying Verizon can set aside special access on its fiber for Google's traffic. Arguing for both is, of course, acceptable. So if wireless mics want to use spectrum, they should have no better (and no worse) privileges than any other data traffic that wants to use the spectrum. To do that, they should become "IP-capable". (And yes, I would extend this to television and radio as well)

To: fred g who wrote (35678)	9/14/2010 7:13:04 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

What is needed is to use $ signs to determine usage. If microphone people want to bid for spectrum and allocate it to their microphones that would solve the problem. If they find the price of sacred spectrum too high, they might find it more effective to invent electronics which can send signals 20 metres. Or they could buy service from Verizon or somebody who owns some spectrum who is willing to assign priority to microphone customers. It seems easy to make electronics for microphones so they can send signals a short distance without being ruined by others. Same for all users. Cognitive radio which talks when there is clear space is needed. People wanting guaranteed clear space at any particular time should pay for the privilege. Net Neutrality is not the answer. $$$ auctions are the answer. Mqurice

To: fred g who wrote (35678)	9/14/2010 7:17:17 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

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 -----