On Tue, 8 Sep 2015, Dave Taht wrote:

> Well, no... we need the concept of "the public's" spectrum, also.

What does that mean? Only devices that have FOSS firmware are allowed to 
send in this spectrum?

Because I actually fail to see the fundamental difference to spectrum I 
use to communicate from my purchased devices from VENDOR1 and VENDOR2 that 
I run myself, and my purchased device I use to communicate that are from 
VENDOR1 and VENDOR2 where the device from VENDOR2 is run by a mobile 
provider. I mean, do we rule out wifi networks run by providers?

Now, I will admit that I have no idea how LTE-U looks like on RF, but 
what's so different about it compared to the different other things 
sending in there like Bluetooth and wifi (and wifi has many different 
encodings).

>>> One failed concept in america, at least, is the idea of a commons - as in
>>> a tragedy of the commons - elsewhere, for example, "public lands" are
>>> actually "the queen's" lands and people tend to treat them with more
>>> respect.
>>
>>
>> Yes, in sweden we have something called (translated) "Rights of public
>> access" to land for instance, I'm allowed to go camping in someone elses
>> forest as long as it's noncommercial and I leave it as I found it.
>
> What is the word, actually?

"Allemansrätten". Literally "everymansright".

> Well, pushing the responsibility back on the actual users of the 
> technology is fine by me. Enforcement seems only to be of a concern on 
> the DFS channels around a limited number of airports.



-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se