Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 00:25:17 -0700 From: Mauro <mcepeda@ualberta.ca> To: freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: airport estreme with Freebsd Message-ID: <1107761117.5639.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20050207045911.GA8619@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <1106542417.29481.168.camel@localhost.localdomain> <41F4ADC1.8070201@freebsd.org> <42017276.1010304@finnovative.net> <4201C54A.8090009@freebsd.org> <1107418085.4125.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050206002904.GJ9350@dragon.nuxi.com> <1107656286.4131.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050207045911.GA8619@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 2005-06-02 at 20:59 -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 07:18:06PM -0700, Mauro wrote: > > On Sat, 2005-05-02 at 16:29 -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 01:08:04AM -0700, Mauro wrote: > > > > I don't buy the theory about government frequencies. This theory asks > > > > one to believe that government frequencies are not intercepted or > > > > tampered with in some fashion. They are tampered with and can be done > > > > so easily. Legally sold scanners enable one to listen in to all sorts > > > > of private signals. > > > > > > One, don't top post -- it looses context. This isn't a Mickysoft list. > > > > > > Two isssue isn't necessarily about receiving certain frequencies as you > > > assume. As Peter said one of the issues is the FCC doesn't want you to > > > set the TRANSMITTING POWER above a certain power. > > > > To clarify my statement concerning ethnocentrism, > > don't assume we're all american and that the FCC dictates to > > non-americans their ideas concerning radio waves. So on a global level, > > the excuse that the FCC doesn't approve doesn't wash. > > It sure does then the company in question is a USA company. They > certainly *ARE* under the FCC's regulatory jurisdiction. > I doubt very much they are under FCC regulations because more than likely their manufacturing occurs outside of the states as this is the de facto. Without outsourcing one cannot remain competitive on the world level. Consider competitors are selling products for cheap by having them built in third world countries, outside the jurisdiction of the FCC, and thus forcing local companies to do the same. In doing so they are free of the FCC. Consider this analogy ... There were (some say still are) polygamous religious organizations in the US. Well, US marriage laws have not stopped these organizations from their beliefs and more importantly practising polygamy. They hope on over to Canada to practise it where localities in BC turn a blind eye. I think it is referred to as "wife smuggling". The point is if you can't do something within a nation because of restrictive laws, why should you be obliged to follow if you perform (manufacture) them outside your governmental regulatory confines considering the larger global market may not have the same FCC restrictions or you can just get away with it (and that catering to the global market is surely more profitable).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1107761117.5639.18.camel>