[BC] What is left for the industry to do?

[Cowboy]

On Tuesday 18 October 2005 10:31 am, Barry Mishkind wrote:

>         What about other options? 

 I know of none up for serious consideration.
 It seems that we have acquiessed to Kahn, and his ilk.

>         Is there anyone 
>         out there thinking past the immediate
>         time frame, and how to improve the system
>         as we move down the road?

 Oh, sure, but we are a bit hampered by the present system, and
 it's lack of disclosure.
 ( That, and an apparent unwillingness of some to see "down the road"
 as being anything beyond next weeks stock quote )
 It may be that the only improvement possible ( politicly ) is after
 the train wreck that some forecast, which may not happen.

>         Is the lack of direction from the FCC the
>         problem,

 It's ONE problem, but not the only one.
 Anyone who expects serious direction from the FCC has been mislead.
 The FCC are bureaucrats, and will follow any tech lead that they can be
 convinced is a good one, no matter how good, or not, it may actually be.
 Direction is something, with very few exceptions, that doesn't
 come from the FCC.
 They merely ratify whatever direction they get elsewhere.
 ( LPFM being a major exception )

>         is everyone waiting until 
>         there are "standards?"  Is that why
>         ibiquity is exploiting?

 Why not ?
 Sage tried it with EAS, but there were a few of us opposed at that time.
 Even so, most of the comments, criticisms, coulda shoulda woulda were
 not heard until well after EAS was finally codified.
 This time, there seems to be no one with any merit voicing opposition
 where it counts, or when it counts.

 Actually, that's not true at all. 
 We've had some members of this very list file comments that make absolute
 and perfect sense, but how many included workable alternatives ?

 All of the "This is a bad idea, so we should do nothing." will ever fly.
 Neither will "I have no better idea, but this idea is wrong."

 Something more like.... "Witness the power and dominance of Linux in
 major internet infrastructure. Open standards work, and Linux is
 incontestable proof. Therefore, we should adopt the Ibiquity standard
 now, because it's the only one proposed, but ONLY as an open source
 standard, subject to change and revision as the open source market
 may provide." .....just *might* fly.

 It may not kill HD as a regulatory requirement, ( sorry Rich )
 but it just might get an open standard HD.

 Ya gotta start somewhere !

>         Can we discuss this from the standpoint
>         of what can be done, instead of the
>         fact that many feel left out up to this point? 

 Can't fault NPR for pushing the multiple stream idea.
 Can't fault antenna manufacturers for pushing space combining.
 Can't fault the NRSC for changing the mask standards to accommodate
 a new idea. ( whether you agree with the proposed mask is another issue )
 There are a few out there, pushing what can, and what might be done
 within the constraints given.

 Whether you agree with them, or not, it sure beats bitching on a mail list
 that doesn't ( to the best of my knowledge ) reach any of the folks that count,
 meaning the Commissioners and their advisory staffs.

 What *can* be done ?
 Well, someone could compile all of the comments made on these various
 mailing lists into a formal filing. Something legal, and easy to digest.
 Direct, and relevant.
 If someone would ( no, I'm NOT volunteering ) then no one on these lists
 could claim to have been left out.
 Out voted, yes, but not left out.
 That's just one suggestion.
 I'm sure that among this esteemed group, other productive and
 plausible suggestions could be had.....

-- 
Cowboy

http://cowboys.homeip.net

Real programmers disdain structured programming.  Structured
programming is for compulsive neurotics who were prematurely toilet-
trained.  They wear neckties and carefully line up pencils on otherwise
clear desks.