[Ham-80211] Re: High power 2.4 GHz rules change

[Jeff King]

On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:48:03 -0400, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
>jeff at aerodata.net wrote:
>>Ahh.. careful use of words. "Populated areas". Does this mean you
>>disagree with my statement that over the bulk of the U.S. landmass,
>>440 is as dead as a doornail (highly underutlized) most of the
>>time?
>
>you've had 2 m to that in the Boston area. 

Next time you are on a transcontential flight, look out the window. You'll find most of the landmass of the U.S. doesn't look like Boston.


>>Tell me why the goverment should provide welfare to the WISP
>>industry?
>
>well, there is a significant amount of corporate welfare which has
>been well documented in many newsmagazines and newspapers.  It takes
>the form of tax write-offs specifically targeted at a company to
>outright grants of cash.  why not wisp?

Your basis is others are doing it, so why not WISP's? Two wrongs don't make a right. Just as amateurs and broadcasters have to demostrate that they serve the public good for their "welfare", the WISP's should also. Oh, and did I mention, WISP are for profit?

> Otherwise if they can't manage
>their house in the part 15 spectrum, why would they deserve special
>spectrum allocations

Bingo.  I knew we could agree on something.