|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
I vote Disapprove.
My concern is that the document presumes in several places that the term “Wi-Fi”, as used in the consultation, means “Wi-Fi®” However, it’s my understanding that it doesn’t. The consultation says:
In this document we use the term Wi-Fi throughout because it is by far the most common WLAN/RLAN application and is widely understood by both industry stakeholders and consumers - but the discussion is also relevant to all other variations of WLAN/RLAN technology (e.g. LTE/LAA etc.).
Since the response uses the term “Wi-Fi” differently than does the consultation, if should explain that usage and contrast it to that of the consultation. Here is some text where it matters:
*Slide 5 asks for “Wi-FI” to “be treated as an de facto incumbent, and should be afforded the protection all of its adherents expect and deserve.” This has two very different meanings depending on whether Wi-Fi is Wi-Fi® or all “variations of WLAN/RLAN technology (e.g. LTE/LAA etc.)”.
*Slide 6 worries about the “entry into the spectrum dominated by Wi-Fi for 20 years, of other technologies”. As far as I know, the technologies of interest are all “variations of WLAN/RLAN technology”, so they are not “other technologies”, according to the consultation.
*Side 10 says “Wi-Fi has become the dominant wireless Internet access technology”. Is this intended to include all “variations of WLAN/RLAN technology”?
There are also a lot of grammatical errors that need to be cleaned up, which I’m sure you will take care of after approval of the motion. I would suggest that you rephrase “The trend in new Internet connected devices is only wireless connectivity,” because I don’t think it’s clear. Surely that’s not the only trend in Internet connected devices.
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.