bsteven@Apple.COM (Bill Stevens) (05/05/91)
Dear Reader,
On January 28, 1991, Apple Computer filed a petition with the Federal
Communications Commission, requesting the creation of a new radio
band, which we call "Data-PCS".
May 10, 1991 is the FCC's deadline for comments from the public on this
important issue. If created, Data-PCS will enable all computer
manufacturers to produce high performance wireless communications products
for the United States.
Please review the following information, and consider what benefits
YOU might gain from the creation of this new communications capability.
Instructions are included for writing directly to the FCC. Alternately,
you may simply "reply" to this posting, which will return your electronic
comments to Apple Computer. We will forward all such replies to the FCC.
The preferable approach, of course, is to mail a personal letter to the
Chairman of the FCC, as described below.
Thank you,
William M. Stevens
manager, Wireless Communications Research
Apple Computer
P.S. A "text" version of Apple's "Data-PCS" petition may be obtained
via anonymous FTP from:
ftp.apple.com
/pub/fcc/datapcs.txt
If you desire a copy of the petition but are unable to obtain it via
this method, please reply to this posting (at data.pcs@applelink.apple.com),
and indicate that you are requesting a copy of the petition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 24, 1991
An Open Letter from David Nagel,
Vice President for Advanced Technologies, Apple Computer, Inc.
Apple recently asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to allow
radio frequencies to be used for wireless data communications. We call this
new technology "Data-PCS," for Data Personal Communications Service. It will
permit high-capacity computer information to be communicated among people
using personal computers, throughout a radius of about 50 meters indoors.
Today there is no provision in the law assuring this function- and we need
your help to make Data-PCS possible.
Apple is asking that computers be able to communicate wirelessly the way they
do on wired networks (at high speeds and sharing the network equitably). We
are asking that a small part of the airwaves be made available to all computer
manufacturers and users, without requiring radio licenses or having to pay for
using the airwaves. Apple's vision of Data-PCS particularly focuses on
"spontaneous" computer communications, whenever and wherever you want to
access resources or collaborate with others having similarly equipped PC's or
other compatible equipment.
The convergence of wireless communications and computers, particularly
portable computers, will dramatically change the nature of computing. People
in business, scientists, engineers - those in all walks of life - will be
liberated from the constraints of physical networks. Creativity and personal
productivity will be enhanced. Students and teachers will no longer be
confined to a rigid classroom set-up. Instead, computing, communications, and
therefore learning, will take place everywhere.
John Sculley, Apple's CEO, recently said: "The key strength of twenty-first
century organizations will be not their size or structure, but their ability
to simultaneously unleash and coordinate the creative contributions of many
individuals." Data-PCS is one of the tools that will enable individuals to
realize this vision.
Data-PCS is being featured in numerous newspapers, magazines and professional
journals. Recently IBM, NCR, Tandy, Grid and other computer companies have
told the FCC that they strongly endorse the need for radio spectrum for Data-
PCS.
But Data-PCS is now a vision, not yet a reality. It will not happen unless
the FCC adopts new Federal regulations. Radio spectrum is a scarce and
valuable commodity, sought for many functions. Apple is asking the FCC to
give Data-PCS "equitable" consideration when viewing needs for spectrum. When
the FCC passes new regulations, Apple and a host of other companies can make
Data-PCS real.
The most powerful voices in support of Data-PCS will be those of users like
yourself. I ask you to write to the FCC, not only stating your support but,
to the extent you are willing, explaining how you might find Data-PCS of value
to you and your organization. Suggestions on how to direct your comments are
attached. The FCC's formal review process on Data-PCS has a next major
milestone May 10; I hope you'll write by then.
Thank you for considering this issue. The true value of Data-PCS will only be
realized when it is available to all of us. I hope you share our vision and
will help make it come true.
Very truly yours,
David Nagel
Vice President, Advanced Technology Group
Apple Computer, Inc.
Supporting Data-PCS:
Please write a letter using the reference number the FCC assigned our petition
for Data-PCS: "RM-7618." You should address and send your letter as follows:
(On your institution's letterhead if possible.)
(Date)
Hon. Alfred C. Sikes, Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
Reference: Rulemaking 7618
Dear Mr. Chairman:
We (I) understand that Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple") has asked
the FCC to allocate spectrum to establish a new radio service
("Data-PCS") for local area high speed communications among
personal computing devices. We are writing to urge you to grant
Apple's request (RM-7618).
(Please describe in the text your views on how Data-PCS could be
important to you.)
Respectfully submitted,
Your name and title or function
If you would like a copy of Apple's Petition to the FCC for Data-PCS, or if
you have questions, please call (408) 974-4674 or email to:
internet: data.pcs@applelink.apple.com
applelink: data.pcsgranroth@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu (Larry Granroth) (05/10/91)
In article <52469@apple.Apple.COM>, bsteven@Apple.COM (Bill Stevens) writes: > . . . > If created, Data-PCS will enable all computer > manufacturers to produce high performance wireless communications products > for the United States. > . . . The article goes on to point out the wonderful benefits of this great new idea that Apple has come up with, and includes a form letter for computer users to send to the chairman of the FCC supporting Apple's petition for radio bandwidth. Now, it seems to me that posting such a thing to comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc was just asking for some less-than-gracious replies. I couldn't help myself. I replied with a somewhat modified version of their form letter suggesting that, judging from recent history, Apple's motives should be assumed to be more monopolistic than altruistic. I wondered how long it would be before Apple was sueing HAM packet radio operators for patent infringement. I didn't give the whole thing more thought than the time it took to type it in, and the result was (I thought) obviously frivolous. Apple's well-known legal department didn't agree. Both the chairman of my department and the departmental computer system manager have been subjected to lengthy discussions concerning the wisdom of my representing the University of Iowa. (Silly me. Not only did I forget to include the smiley, but forgot the standard disclaimer line.) None of this is going to cause me any difficulty, but I was wondering if anyone else has been receiving such personalized attention to their comments. Have any of you who have submitted positive comments had your credentials verified by phone calls from Apple representatives? "Enquiring minds want to know." -Larry Granroth@IowaSP.physics.UIowa.edu IOWASP::GRANROTH (I don't speak for the University of Iowa, but for all other sentient life in the galaxy. :-) :-) :-)
johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) (05/10/91)
In article <1991May9.214446.818@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu>, granroth@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu (Larry Granroth) writes... >In article <52469@apple.Apple.COM>, bsteven@Apple.COM (Bill Stevens) writes: >> If created, Data-PCS will enable all computer >> manufacturers to produce high performance wireless communications products >> for the United States. >Now, it seems to me that posting such a thing to comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc >was just asking for some less-than-gracious replies. Why? I have posted several times to comp.sys.ibm.pc.* and have gotten many gracious replies, despite asking and/or answering mainly DOS<->Mac- related questions. I fail to see that anything in Apple's Data-PCS proposal cuts the rug out from under anybody. If anything, it will bring more DOS portables into Mac networks as people look for cheap and portable ways of tapping into networks. Clones probably have there best technical advantage over Apple's product line in this area, one that will likely persist. This is not "MacRadio", or "DataTalk", or any other warm, fuzzy Cupertino name. It is a petition to reserve some radio bandwidth for computer users, period. From my reading of the DATA-PCS proposal it would appear to have broad backing in the industry. IBM, NCR, Tandy, and Grid have also endorsed the proposal. David Nagel's "Open Letter" requesting support for DATA-PCS concludes: "The true value of Data-PCS will only be realized when it is available to all of us." >>Message-ID: <52468@apple.Apple.COM> >>Date: 5 May 91 02:17:14 GMT >>Reply-To: data.pcs@applelink.apple.com (<-- e-mail for more info) Mr. Granroth of the University of Iowa writes: >...... replied with a somewhat modified version of their form >letter suggesting that, judging from recent history, Apple's motives >should be assumed to be more monopolistic than altruistic. I wondered >how long it would be before Apple was sueing HAM packet radio operators >for patent infringement. I really wonder if Mr. Granroth READ the proposal. >I didn't give the whole thing more thought >than the time it took to type it in, and the result was (I thought) >obviously frivolous. The lack of thought WAS obvious. >Apple's well-known legal department didn't agree. Both the chairman >of my department and the departmental computer system manager have been >subjected to lengthy discussions concerning the wisdom of my representing >the University of Iowa. (Silly me. Not only did I forget to include >the smiley, but forgot the standard disclaimer line.) None of this >is going to cause me any difficulty, but I was wondering if anyone else >has been receiving such personalized attention to their comments. >Have any of you who have submitted positive comments had your credentials >verified by phone calls from Apple representatives? I am surprised that you didn't hear from IBM, GRiD, Tandy, and NCR (now AT&T) also. Thoughtless stuff like this ruins the soup for all of us. Apple posted the request for comments and input to groups like comp.sys.ibm.pc.* and comp.misc in order to make sure everyone got their $0.02 in. The fight over transmission protocols can come later, but I would imagine that an industry conference like the one that led to standardization of "MIDI" would follow the allocation of radio bandwidth. And frankly, it doesn't hurt that the industry group petitioning the FCC is made up of US companies. Wait another few years and you can have a SONY network; will they post to comp.sys.ibm.pc.* to find out what you think? Bill (johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu)
bsteven@Apple.COM (Bill Stevens) (05/10/91)
Having read Mr. Granroth's most recent posting to this newsgroup, I feel it may be of value to offer the perspective from the "other side of the telephone call", so to speak. About a week ago, I posted an "open letter from David Nagel", and a request for comments on the Data-PCS Petition, filed by Apple Computer. The intent of this posting was twofold. a) To inform what I considered an audience of above-average technical competence of the existence of the Petition, and b) offer a vehicle whereby they could either comment directly to the FCC (the normal channel), or if more convenient, provide comments directly to Apple Computer, to be forwarded to the FCC. Mr. Granroth responded as requested, by transmitting a filled-out version of the sample letter provided in my posting, to the address listed in the posting (data.pcs@applelink.apple.com). The letter was essentially as Mr. Granroth described in his most recent posting. (the letter is currently queued for submission to the FCC. Upon acceptance by the FCC, I will be happy to post the letter in its entirety, as at that time, it will be part of the public record.) Upon reviewing the letter, I was concerned that, although it was signed by Mr. Granroth, the address at the top of the letter was the address of the department by which he was employed. Also, his signature included his job title within that department. Not being a lawyer myself, I did not feel comfortable with submitting this letter, in this form, without further consideration. I contacted an Apple Computer lawyer, who has been familiar with the Data-PCS Petition since its inception, and asked his guidance on what steps I should take to ensure that the needs of all interests were considered. He advised me to contact the department named in Mr. Granroth's letter, to ensure that they were aware of his letter, and did not object to its submission with reference to their institution. I asked my secretary to locate a phone number for the department. She returned with a number for the (larger) department, of which Mr. Granroth's department is a component. >Both the chairman of my department and the departmental computer system >manager have been subjected to lengthy discussions concerning the >wisdom of my representing the University of Iowa. I called the number which my secretary had obtained. I reached an administrative person (secretary?) of the office of the (larger) Department. I spoke BRIEFLY with the department chairman, who provided me with two other names, which he instructed me to contact. I explained that perhaps it would be better if I could discuss the matter with him, but he refused to speak further with me, stating that if I would speak to one of the other gentlemen, then they would review the matter to him later. I thanked him and said goodbye. Total time for this dialogue was on the order of one minute - two minutes at the very top. The matter was not discussed with the chairman AT ALL. I called both other numbers and was unable to reach either party. As this was the day before the filing deadline, I was eager to reach someone with which to discuss this matter. I phoned back the administrative person at the chairman's office, and explained that I could not reach either of the other persons. She put me on hold to look for them (said she saw one of them in the hall a moment earlier). While on hold, I was looking over the letter, when I noticed that Mr. Granroth had included his phone number in the mail header. When the administrative person returned to the phone, she said that she was unable to locate either of the (other two) persons. She asked if I wished to speak to the chairman again, I said "not at this time. I have another number here which I would like to try first." I called Mr. Granroth, who much to my relief, answered. I announced myself and explained that I was seeking to speak to management at his institution regarding his submission, and asked if this was OK with him. He said that it was (OK). I then placed a call back to the "administrative person" and asked to speak to "other person number 1". He was still not available, so I left a number where I could be reached. "Other person number 1" returned my call in about a half an hour. I explained the purpose of my call - to inform the department that their name had been used as a return address on correspondence written by Mr. Granroth, and that the correspondence was scheduled to be submitted to the FCC the following day. I read the text of the letter to this person (he chuckled). We discussed the matter for perhaps twenty minutes. Most of this discussion was necessary to clarify the exact purpose of the call. I repeated several times that I was not calling to request that the text of the letter be changed (this person offered several times that he was not knowledgable on the subject, and could not comment - I did not ask him to do so), but that I simply wanted some confirmation that the department did not object to the use of their name on the letter. The person asserted that it could not necessarily be construed to represent the department, simply because the department's name was on the letter. He stated that it was common practice to send out letters (from an individual) with such a return address, without it necessarily representing the institution. I explained that I was taking a conservative position, and simply was calling as a courtesy to the institution, to ensure that their interests were considered. This person never made a statement of approval or disapproval. I summarized by stating that I had voluntarily contacted the institution as a courtesy to offer an opportunity for them to review this statement of public record before I, as an agent of Apple Computer, duly forwarded the letter into the public record. I stated that I had made a good faith effort to do so, however I did not represent our conversation as an agreement of explicit approval from the institution. On this basis, I was satisfied to proceed with filing the letter with the FCC. He responded with, "That's what I would do." I thanked him and said goodbye. Total conversation was 20-30 minutes tops. >(Silly me. Not only did I forget to include the smiley, but forgot >the standard disclaimer line.) The letter was not submitted as a netnews posting. Had it been, I probably would have taken it in in the "smiley" spirit. However, Mr. Granroth forwarded the letter, as requested in my posting, with all appearances and form of a formal submission of comments to the FCC. I am responding accordingly. >None of this is going to cause me any difficulty None intended. Mr. Granroth's name was never used with the chairman of the department, and was provided to the "other" person, only upon request, and only after receiving Mr. Granroth's approval to discuss the letter with his department's management. Nothing whatsoever was stated or implied at any time regarding Mr. Granroth, other than to repeat the text of his letter. >I didn't give the whole thing more thought than the time it took to >type it in, and the result was (I thought) obviously frivolous. As mentioned above, frivolity was not apparent in Mr. Granroth's letter. If frivolity had been intended, I expected that he would have stated so in our phone conversation, or in response to a mail posting which I had previously sent to him, text following: >Dear Mr. Granroth, > >This is to confirm receipt of your comments on the Data-PCS Petition to >the FCC. Your comments will be forwarded to the FCC on or before Friday, >May 10, 1991. > >Best Regards, >William M. Stevens >Apple Computer I will answer the following question for Mr. Granroth: >Have any of you who have submitted positive comments had your >credentials verified by phone calls from Apple representatives? No. In fact, NOBODY's credentials have been questioned, including Mr. Granroth's. The call to his employer was not intended to accomplish any purpose other than to offer the institution an opportunity to consider the use of their name in this written instrument. Conclusion: I thank you for taking the time to read this very lengthy posting. My objective is to provide you with the most accurate accounting of the events I can, so that you can form your own opinions on the basis of what Mr. Granroth, and I, have both represented as the facts. It is my personal desire that this topic consume no further net resources. The deadline for the FCC comments is tomorrow, May 10, 1991. I will post no further (and in fact, have not) on the Data-PCS Petition. Your comments to the FCC are, as before, encouraged. Bill Stevens Apple Computer
granroth@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu (Larry Granroth) (05/10/91)
In article <53189@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, Mr Johnston of the University of Delaware criticizes my irreverent comments to Mr Stevens of Apple Computer regarding Apple's pettition to the FCC requesting radio bandwidth allocation. I would like to note a couple references in other news groups for people considering the Data-PCS petition: In comp.dcom.lans, Henry Spencer and Russ Nelson urge caution in considering Apples objectives in this matter. In article <15472@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, Bill Woodcock summarizes many of the potential negative aspects to granting the bandwidth. He suggests that Apple has latched onto a proposal originating with a group of Telcos and subverted it to their own ends, dropping provisions for voice capability. Apparently BellSouth, AT&T, local public utilities, and railroads are among the groups that may suffer from the granting of Apple's request. In private mail to me, Mr Johnston called my comments asinine. I agree, they were silly. If I had been serious, I would have spent time digging up background information on Apple's previous legal maneuverings and investigated the history of the current FCC proposal. My comments were an irreverent knee-jerk response in opposition to Apple. My point was to let Apple know that their tactics are resulting in such conditioned responses. Let me close by including an old note from Richard Stallman relating to Apple Computer: >Subject: Issues regarding Apple >Message-ID: <9010141905.AA07541@pogo> >From: rms@AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) >Date: 14 Oct 90 19:05:43 GMT > >Apple (along with Lotus, Xerox and Ashton Tate) is trying to make it >illegal to write software even partially compatible in its behavior >with existing software. If you write a program that does a simular >job, they will sue you. This is not a negligible threat; Lotus has >already won such a lawsuit. If Apple succeeds in monopolizing large >classes of window system features, it will be a disaster of the first >magnitude. > >The Free Software Foundation's response to this threat is to boycott >these companies. That is why our software releases don't contain >support for A/UX or for the Macintosh operating system. > >From time to time, people ask on the net for help in using GNU >software on those systems. I hope all of you will join in the boycott >and refuse to give such help--or any other kind of help with Apple >systems. > >Supporting third-party software on a system directly contributes to >the success of that system. This is illustrated by the special >developer incentives which all computer manufacturers offer to >encourage such support. Thus, if you facilitate the use of A/UX, you >might as well be donating your time to the Apple sales force. (Such >donations will not be deductible from your legal fees if you are hit >with a "look and feel" lawsuit inspired by the Apple lawsuit of >today.) > >To get more information on this issue, contact the League for >Programming Freedom, which is fighting to eliminate interface >copyright and bring back the freedom to write compatible software. >Send email to league@prep.ai.mit.edu and ask for copies of the >position papers. -Larry Granroth@IowaSP.physics.UIowa.edu IOWASP::GRANROTH (I don't speak for the University of Iowa, but for all other sentient life in the galaxy. :-) :-) :-)
lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) (05/11/91)
>In article <52469@apple.Apple.COM>, bsteven@Apple.COM (Bill Stevens) writes: >> . . . >> If created, Data-PCS will enable all computer >> manufacturers to produce high performance wireless communications products >> for the United States. >> . . . > In article <1991May9.214446.818@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu> granroth@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu (Larry Granroth) writes: >The article goes on to point out the wonderful benefits of this great new >idea that Apple has come up with, and includes a form letter for computer >users to send to the chairman of the FCC supporting Apple's petition >for radio bandwidth. > >Now, it seems to me that posting such a thing to comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc >was just asking for some less-than-gracious replies. I couldn't help >myself. I replied with a somewhat modified version of their form >letter suggesting that, judging from recent history, Apple's motives >should be assumed to be more monopolistic than altruistic. I wondered >how long it would be before Apple was sueing HAM packet radio operators >for patent infringement. I didn't give the whole thing more thought >than the time it took to type it in, and the result was (I thought) >obviously frivolous. > >Apple's well-known legal department didn't agree. Both the chairman >of my department and the departmental computer system manager have been >subjected to lengthy discussions concerning the wisdom of my representing >the University of Iowa. (Silly me. Not only did I forget to include >the smiley, but forgot the standard disclaimer line.) None of this >is going to cause me any difficulty, but I was wondering if anyone else >has been receiving such personalized attention to their comments. >Have any of you who have submitted positive comments had your credentials >verified by phone calls from Apple representatives? So it is perfectly moral and legal, in the minds of the Applelawyers, for THEM to misuse the 'net to create a mailing campaign to further THEIR selfish interests...yet these sleazebags use legal talent (oxymoron) to harass other net posters twitting their posting? This is really a pretty ugly precedent for a net subscriber to attempt to set. Perhaps a petition movement to have Apple's net access removed is in order? Seriously, if their legal beagles attempted to harass you for a public posting on the net, it would appear that complaints to internet appear in order....before Apple becomes the Big Brother on the net! (There are NO smiley's here....this is really a pretty ugly thing for a net subscriber to attempt, IMHO. ) I've always had a personal prejudice against Apple for their smug and litiginous attitude, but this tends to make it more militant. BTW, does Apple still HAVE an R+D staff, or have their offices all been taken over by the lawyers? >:-) (THAT was a smiley...it is a JOKE..in case you are too thick to get it...) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Obligatory Disclaimer. These are PERSONAL opinions only. They in no way represent any official or otherwise opinion of my employer...!!! _________________________________________________________________
lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) (05/11/91)
In article <53189@nigel.ee.udel.edu> johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes: > >I fail to see that anything in Apple's Data-PCS proposal cuts the >rug out from under anybody. If anything, it will bring more DOS >portables into Mac networks as people look for cheap and portable >ways of tapping into networks. Clones probably have there best >technical advantage over Apple's product line in this area, one >that will likely persist. > >This is not "MacRadio", or "DataTalk", or any other warm, fuzzy >Cupertino name. It is a petition to reserve some radio bandwidth >for computer users, period. > Unfortunately Apple is NOT requesting a "reservation" of bandwidth...it is requesting a RE-ALLOCATION of a bandwidth that is ALREADY IN USE! Apple is requesting 40 Mhz worth of bandwidth in the 1850 to 1900 Mhz range for use by wireless LAN's. This bandwidth is already in use by several commercial microwave and other users...who are forming a coalition to oppose the allocation. It is NOT necessary to have this particular bandwidth to do PC wireless LAN's....there are already existing implementations w/o use of this bandwidth. What we have is a legitimate contention for resources...the PC folks want bandwidth already allocated to other users...who have a pretty significant inventory in existing equipment that would be obsoleted. This is not a simple issue...nor would it be the first time that existing equipment has been obsoleted. I am neither for nor against Apple's proposal. I am somewhat concerned by their tactics of bullying opposing viewpoints..which STILL does not cause me to automatically be against their proposal....just their methods. > >And frankly, it doesn't hurt that the industry group petitioning >the FCC is made up of US companies. Wait another few years and >you can have a SONY network; will they post to comp.sys.ibm.pc.* >to find out what you think? > This is about the biggest mistatement in the whole article. The segment OPPOSING the Apple proposal is ALSO a group of US companies. It also indicates ignorance of spectrum allocation. The FCC will review its recommendations with the NTIA prior to presentation to the forthcoming World Administrative Radio Conference....sponsored by the International Telecommunications Union (the telecom arm of the UN). If "SONY" wants this spectrum reallocated for PC communications, it will have to face the ITU to do so. Of course "SONY" might just use another part of the spectrum rather than attempting to preempt useage of an existing bandwidth.... >:-) This is a legitimate disagreement between US users and would-be users of radio spectrum. Bringing in the red herring of "Sony" is really a pretty underhanded attempt to justify one's position by a technically inaccurate attempt to engage in Japan bashing.
johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (05/11/91)
In article <1991May10.111211.819@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu>, granroth@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu (Larry Granroth) writes... >In article <53189@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, Mr Johnston of the University >of Delaware criticizes my irreverent comments to Mr Stevens of Apple Computer >regarding Apple's pettition to the FCC requesting radio bandwidth allocation. >In private mail to me, Mr Johnston called my comments asinine. Yes, I'll freely admit that. The comments were asinine and I said so by mail. Moreover, I'll agree that there are reasonable objections to the "DATA-PCS" proposal on legitimate grounds. As several previous posters have pointed out, several companies and other special interest groups object to the re-allocation of radio bandwidth for the purpose of computer networking. What I object to in Mr. Granroth's comments is the allegation that he was singled out for bullying by Bill Stevens of Apple Computer. Censorship is anathema on the USENET, and alleging that big monopolistic Apple is beating up on poor defenseless Mr. Granroth is a pretty easy way to appeal to the 'comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc' readership. Bill Stevens gave a plausible accounting of the purpose and content of his phone conversation with a University of Iowa official regarding Mr. Granroth's parody. It was posted to this newsgroup: Message-ID: <52691@apple.Apple.COM> Given the legitimate objections that many companies have to DATA-PCS, how plausible is Mr. Granroth's contention that he was "bullied" by Apple for submitting a parody of their form letter to the FCC? It seems more likely that Mr. Granroth is suffering from delusions of grandeur when he sees an Apple Lawyer behind every bush. Think about it. Apple posts a request for an endorsement of its proposal to the FCC to comp.misc and comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc, and ONLY Mr. Granroth's devasting attack, sure to single-handedly ruin Apple's schemes in its devasting cleverness, is singled out for the Apple Legal hit squad. ( I would imagine that by posting to those newsgroups, Apple received a diverse set of opinions, both pro and con, which is in keeping with their request for feedback. ) ONLY Granroth's was negative? Granroth defends his position with a gratuitous appeal to net.god Richard Stallman: >Let me close by including an old note from Richard Stallman relating to >Apple Computer: I know what Lloyd Bentsen would have to say on this one, but frankly, I don't know Richard Stallman. I have no idea what his opinion would be on taking radio bandwith from the phone company and the giving it to the computer industry. Computer industry, NOT Apple, by the way. IBM ... (heard of them?) is a supporter of the proposal too. I can only offer that invoking Stallman's name on the USENET is just as much a "guaranteed crowd-pleaser" as allegations of bullying by Apple legal. >My comments were an irreverent knee-jerk response in opposition to Apple. >My point was to let Apple know that their tactics are resulting in such >conditioned responses. So it's Apple's fault that Mr. Granroth makes knee-jerk allegations? The content of Mr. Granroth's original posting borders on libel -- Granroth gives on version of a set of telephone calls TO WHICH HE WAS NOT A PARTY, and Bill Stevens, who did participate in the calls, gives a markedly different version. Before anyone else posts into this thread assuming Granroth's version to be true, how about giving thought to the possibility that Granroth's version is, shall we say, a bit fanciful? The University of Iowa has telephones, and the Iowa officials who were allegedly bullied by Stevens surely can corroborate Mr. Granroth's version of events? I have found Bill Stevens to be a man of integrity in my brief communication with him. Mr. Granroth comes off as a person who talks first, and thinks later. Bill (johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu) Bill Johnston; 38 Chambers St.; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949
mamos@uafhp.uark.edu (Mark _E_ Amos) (05/12/91)
All bickering aside, the May 28 issue of PC Magazine has Data-PCS discussed in Dvorak's column. He brings up some of the sensible issues at hand when propsing such a potentially large source of RF transmission in the work- place. Whether the Commisions involved in this proposal consider such a scheme relative to the use of bandwidth currently in use or an unused band- width, I believe they should also look at the health implications. Before everyone flies off the handle about paranoid reactions to the RF and ELF emissions, which seems to be the popular thing to be concerned about, consider the implications if we ignore the possibility of hazards from excessive RF etc. if the workplace, where most of us spend a good sized portion of our lives. The danger here is these hazards, if they are deemed such, would have long term effects and few short term. In this business, long term is too long to wait for the results of such testing. You can all agree we are moving very fast, but, to drive the point into the ground, can we afford to be in such a hurry when we are discussing the implications of potential health risks. Apple's lawyers may want to consider the lawsuits people may well present against Apple and whoever jumps onto this RF bandwagon. I don't believe FCC approval absolves all responsibility if "something" goes "wrong" down the road... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Am I required to put a disclaimer, I mean, is it the law now? mea1@engr.uark.edu mamos@uafhp.uark.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------------
jjwebb@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us (JJ Webb) (05/13/91)
Apple Lawyers - The hockey cops of the computer industry. Apple Lawyers - Vito, Lucca and 3-finger Dan just doing their job. Apple Lawyers - Men who can't tell the difference between a competitor's new product announcement and an ambulance siren. Apple Lawyers -
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/13/91)
This seems rather silly. Why did you not just contact the author directly and ask him to clarify his relationship with the department? A simple disclaimer (which he would undoubtedly have agreed to) would have prevented the whole sorry affair. Personally, I find it hard to take the petition seriously. It seems to me to be more business-politics BS rather than anything of technical interest. More time and resource wasted in legislation and litigation instead of engineering and innovation. Sigh. Once upon a time there was this great little computer company... -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
mcgredo@CS.ORST.EDU (Don Mcgregor) (05/14/91)
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > Personally, I find it hard to take the petition seriously. It seems to me to > be more business-politics BS rather than anything of technical interest. More > time and resource wasted in legislation and litigation instead of engineering > and innovation. That's exactly the point. If there is going to be any technical advancement in wireless LANs and wireless communication, something like this has to happen. If you don't jump through the hoops now, you don't get any neat toys to play with a couple years down the road. The Apple lawyers involved in this project are actually helping the technoids; they're doing all the groundwork so that the engineers can ship wireless products without being tossed into jail for illegal use of the airwaves. Don McGregor mcgredo@typhoon.cs.orst.edu
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) (05/21/91)
Folks, there's a *major* issue being overlooked here. How many companies would want one of these installed if they were aware of the risks to their communications security? In an awful lot of the environment proposed for this sort of thing, 50 meters will cover *several* suites. Just what you want, your network data spread all over the building. Unless *all* packets are protected by encryption, there's a risk here that few companies want. And the grade of encryption required is going to raise the price of the network boards considerably. -- Leonard Erickson leonard@qiclab.uucp personal: CIS: [70465,203] 70465.203@compuserve.com business: CIS: [76376,1107] 76376.1107@compuserve.com