Slashdot Mirror

there's this company named skylinc whose name I keep seeing pop up... they call their platform "Low-Cost Integrated Broadband Radio Access (LIBRA)." it's basically the same thing... a few aerostat baloons a few km up drag a fiber-optic teather up with them... they then have the capability of covering 5000 square kilometers with approx 2Mb per person at 15,000 people.



From their FAQ:
When will the system be available?
SkyLINC will launch the first LIBRA communications platform within the next 12 months. The first users of this system will be online during the second quarter of 2004.

Where will these systems be made available?
SkyLINC have a number of different opportunities available for the deployment of the first system. The business case and requirements for each location are being assessed and an announcement will be made in the near future. SkyLINC remain open to additional deployment opportunities and seek strategic investment/partnership to launch anywhere in the world.

Is the system affected by weather?
SkyLINC use a specially engineered aerostat, designed to remain in the sky for long periods of time, whilst withstanding strong wind and adverse weather conditions. However, it is expected that the aerostat would need to be grounded during a extreme conditions such as a tornado. Weather systems are monitored to ensure that the aerostat is protected.

Can the link be made secure?
Yes. By using Virtual Private Network (VPN) technology, any wireless network can be made secure for the transfer of confidential information. See the link for an explanation as to how a VPN operates.

Do I need to be able to see the Aerostat?
By using remote site distribution SkyLINC will ensure ubiquitous connectivity within the 40km foot print. Therefore line of sight to the aerostat is not necessary.

How does LIBRA interact with aviation users?
LIBRA will be deployed within an Air Traffic Zone(ATZ), sometime called no-fly zones, which is controlled by the Aviation authority. An ATZ appears on aero-nautical charts used by pilots and air traffic controllers.

What is contention?
In the case of some communication systems, multiple users connect on to a data pipe and hence, share bandwidth. This is known as Contention. Unfortunately, if all users decide to connect at the same time then the end user connection speed drops considerably. The acceptability of this 'drop' in bandwidth depends on the application of the link. Needless to say, during a video conference, a drop in bandwidth would result in loss of images. Hence, for some applications an uncontended link is essential.

What is a symmetrical link?
To communicate we need to transmit and receive data. The amount we can transmit and receive depends on the bandwidth for the up-link and down-link respectively. A symmetric service has the same bandwidth to receive and transmit! This is essential for some applications, such as video conferencing.

WAN like this maybe? (puts pinky to corner of mouth) Hmmmm?

Here you go: some pictures

Seems like a great idea, a neat way of overcoming the last-mile and bringing broadband to a lot more people in the UK.

IMHO, major obstacles stand in its way:

1) Cost. Each balloon may take millions (of UK pounds) to put up so any cost savings assume a sufficient subscriber base; and don't forget the satellite-TV style transceiver dish required for each customer site. Once the first one goes up, what's to stop existing providers dropping their prices to compensate?

2) Available bandwidth. Isn't unlikely that the system will "not slow down as more and more people use the service", especially as SkyLinc themselves state that the system is scaleable (i.e. why would it need to be scalable if performance never degraded with load?)

3) Weather. As every English-person knows, the weather in the UK can be erratic and extreme (for example, more tornadoes per unit area than anywhere in the world). Relying on an "antenna stabilisation system" may sound like a good idea, and it may even work, but who would believe it enough to spend the installation fee on it?

4) Coverage. Despite the article's optimistic "18 base stations" providing "total UK coverage, from densely populated towns to the remotest cottage in the Scottish Highlands" the SkyLinc website claims only "87% of UK SME business locations" for the same number of base stations - which I suspect counts out most remote locations.

5) CAA approval - SkyLinc might expect to make most money out of densely populated areas, but as these are often near airports what's the chance of CAA approval in all but a couple of test sites?

Of course, it serves the UK govt. to support this scheme and make encouraging sounds about it. At the very least it will stop most people from wondering why the govt. pushes 'broadband Britain' but allows a practical monopoly, paid for by the taxpayer, to slow the spread of broadband (hey, even remote cottages in the Scottish Highlands have BT phone lines).

Personally, I'm all for the idea, but I don't think it will ever get off the ground but if Guy Kewney says/implies/suggests it's a good idea then who am I to disagree! Hey, I even like the idea of having my own balloon to tow 'behind' my car in case of emergencies and traffic jams.

Seems like a great idea, a neat way of overcoming the last-mile and bringing broadband to a lot more people in the UK.

IMHO, major obstacles stand in its way:

1) Cost. Each balloon may take millions (of UK pounds) to put up so any cost savings assume a sufficient subscriber base; and don't forget the satellite-TV style transceiver dish required for each customer site. Once the first one goes up, what's to stop existing providers dropping their prices to compensate?

2) Available bandwidth. Isn't unlikely that the system will "not slow down as more and more people use the service", especially as SkyLinc themselves state that the system is scaleable (i.e. why would it need to be scalable if performance never degraded with load?)

3) Weather. As every English-person knows, the weather in the UK can be erratic and extreme (for example, more tornadoes per unit area than anywhere in the world). Relying on an "antenna stabilisation system" may sound like a good idea, and it may even work, but who would believe it enough to spend the installation fee on it?

4) Coverage. Despite the article's optimistic "18 base stations" providing "total UK coverage, from densely populated towns to the remotest cottage in the Scottish Highlands" the SkyLinc website claims only "87% of UK SME business locations" for the same number of base stations - which I suspect counts out most remote locations.

5) CAA approval - SkyLinc might expect to make most money out of densely populated areas, but as these are often near airports what's the chance of CAA approval in all but a couple of test sites?

Of course, it serves the UK govt. to support this scheme and make encouraging sounds about it. At the very least it will stop most people from wondering why the govt. pushes 'broadband Britain' but allows a practical monopoly, paid for by the taxpayer, to slow the spread of broadband (hey, even remote cottages in the Scottish Highlands have BT phone lines).

Personally, I'm all for the idea, but I don't think it will ever get off the ground but if Guy Kewney says/implies/suggests it's a good idea then who am I to disagree! Hey, I even like the idea of having my own balloon to tow 'behind' my car in case of emergencies and traffic jams.

Seems like a great idea, a neat way of overcoming the last-mile and bringing broadband to a lot more people in the UK.

IMHO, major obstacles stand in its way:

1) Cost. Each balloon may take millions (of UK pounds) to put up so any cost savings assume a sufficient subscriber base; and don't forget the satellite-TV style transceiver dish required for each customer site. Once the first one goes up, what's to stop existing providers dropping their prices to compensate?

2) Available bandwidth. Isn't unlikely that the system will "not slow down as more and more people use the service", especially as SkyLinc themselves state that the system is scaleable (i.e. why would it need to be scalable if performance never degraded with load?)

3) Weather. As every English-person knows, the weather in the UK can be erratic and extreme (for example, more tornadoes per unit area than anywhere in the world). Relying on an "antenna stabilisation system" may sound like a good idea, and it may even work, but who would believe it enough to spend the installation fee on it?

4) Coverage. Despite the article's optimistic "18 base stations" providing "total UK coverage, from densely populated towns to the remotest cottage in the Scottish Highlands" the SkyLinc website claims only "87% of UK SME business locations" for the same number of base stations - which I suspect counts out most remote locations.

5) CAA approval - SkyLinc might expect to make most money out of densely populated areas, but as these are often near airports what's the chance of CAA approval in all but a couple of test sites?

Of course, it serves the UK govt. to support this scheme and make encouraging sounds about it. At the very least it will stop most people from wondering why the govt. pushes 'broadband Britain' but allows a practical monopoly, paid for by the taxpayer, to slow the spread of broadband (hey, even remote cottages in the Scottish Highlands have BT phone lines).

Personally, I'm all for the idea, but I don't think it will ever get off the ground but if Guy Kewney says/implies/suggests it's a good idea then who am I to disagree! Hey, I even like the idea of having my own balloon to tow 'behind' my car in case of emergencies and traffic jams.

Seems like a great idea, a neat way of overcoming the last-mile and bringing broadband to a lot more people in the UK.

IMHO, major obstacles stand in its way:

1) Cost. Each balloon may take millions (of UK pounds) to put up so any cost savings assume a sufficient subscriber base; and don't forget the satellite-TV style transceiver dish required for each customer site. Once the first one goes up, what's to stop existing providers dropping their prices to compensate?

2) Available bandwidth. Isn't unlikely that the system will "not slow down as more and more people use the service", especially as SkyLinc themselves state that the system is scaleable (i.e. why would it need to be scalable if performance never degraded with load?)

3) Weather. As every English-person knows, the weather in the UK can be erratic and extreme (for example, more tornadoes per unit area than anywhere in the world). Relying on an "antenna stabilisation system" may sound like a good idea, and it may even work, but who would believe it enough to spend the installation fee on it?

4) Coverage. Despite the article's optimistic "18 base stations" providing "total UK coverage, from densely populated towns to the remotest cottage in the Scottish Highlands" the SkyLinc website claims only "87% of UK SME business locations" for the same number of base stations - which I suspect counts out most remote locations.

5) CAA approval - SkyLinc might expect to make most money out of densely populated areas, but as these are often near airports what's the chance of CAA approval in all but a couple of test sites?

Of course, it serves the UK govt. to support this scheme and make encouraging sounds about it. At the very least it will stop most people from wondering why the govt. pushes 'broadband Britain' but allows a practical monopoly, paid for by the taxpayer, to slow the spread of broadband (hey, even remote cottages in the Scottish Highlands have BT phone lines).

Personally, I'm all for the idea, but I don't think it will ever get off the ground but if Guy Kewney says/implies/suggests it's a good idea then who am I to disagree! Hey, I even like the idea of having my own balloon to tow 'behind' my car in case of emergencies and traffic jams.