🚀 go-pugleaf

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)