1998-09-10 - Re: radio net (fwd)

Header Data

From: Michael Motyka <mmotyka@lsil.com>
To: Matthew James Gering <mgering@ecosystems.net>
Message Hash: 069ef34185e0f1ec2003e206a366ecbe045d2cd8ad062cc63eadf06b48c439b0
Message ID: <35F7FCC0.30D4@lsil.com>
Reply To: <33CCFE438B9DD01192E800A024C84A19284623@mossbay.chaffeyhomes.com>
UTC Datetime: 1998-09-10 03:20:58 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 11:20:58 +0800

Raw message

From: Michael Motyka <mmotyka@lsil.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 11:20:58 +0800
To: Matthew James Gering <mgering@ecosystems.net>
Subject: Re: radio net (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <33CCFE438B9DD01192E800A024C84A19284623@mossbay.chaffeyhomes.com>
Message-ID: <35F7FCC0.30D4@lsil.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Matthew James Gering wrote:
> 
> Isn't there a similar ban on encryption-capable telephones and other
> electronic devices (other than computers).
> 
Not that I've ever heard of. Besides, what's the difference between a
crypto telephone and a computer? None that is significant.

>         Matt

I suspect that the reason that there aren't any $99 cryptophones at
Wal-Mart is that there really is not a significant market. The average
person just doesn't care. And the consumer electronics business is so
competitive and cost-sensitive that adding cost as a matter of principle
is just not going to happen. Oh, I suppose it's possible that anyone
trying to introduce a product like this could run into LEA interference
- endless audits, supplier problems, FCC approvals, you name it but lack
of market is probably the simplest explanation.

Mike





Thread