I’ll be brief here- I recently chatted with a gentleman on a controversial topic, and our exchange ended up as part of this article about Globalstar’s efforts to get TLPS approved by the FCC and put into production (for whatever that might amount to). I despise having my words not used right, and being misrepresented. Here are two problems I have with this article:
- I asked the author, multiple times, to attribute my comments as coming from me as an independent consultant and not to include my employer (Syracuse University) in the article. For some reason, that hasn’t been rectified. I do NOT speak for Syracuse University on this or any topic that falls outside of my direct campus duties. I do have an active freelance IT writing and consulting career, and it was in that spirit that I spoke to the author, despite the way he chose to write it up.
- I was also quoted this way: “From a physics perspective, there has to be interference when you have two devices operating on the same frequency,” said Lee Badman, a wireless network architect and adjunct professor at Syracuse University (his views do not necessarily reflect that of the university). “That is the case here.” In regards to TLPS and how it might interfere with Wi-Fi Channel 11. The part of my statement that was left off was “whether that interference will be perceptible to users remains to be seen” or something pretty darn close to that.
Both distinctions are important, and I’m quite frankly pissed about being played, whether intentionally or not, on the part of the author and editor here. The fact that I think TLPS is generally snake oil AS GENERALLY PRESENTED is beside the point. Everything in technology is nuanced, and those nuances are important. I want my own applied properly in this case.