Slashdot Mirror
New Wireless Technologies
Codex The Sloth writes "The Economist has an article on 4 emerging wireless technologies: (1) Smart Antennas for improved base-station capacity, (2) Mesh Networks to make each wireless reciever also be a relay,
(3) Ad hoc networking to use network devices as routers, (4) Ultra wideband to transmit 100 mbs wirelessly (but only for distances of 10 feet...). Some of these are already in use while others are still in the lab."
Doh...and I had such high hopes for UWB.
Ultra wideband to transmit 100 mbs wirelessly (but only for distances of 10 feet...).
Also accomplished by tossing DVD's back and forth....what's the point of that? I mean, only ten feet? Why not just use a cable at that point?
What's your damage, Heather?
...the article about the wireless technology in the 75ghz range that can span miles and maintain speeds of gigaBYTES a second. I dont like the fact that UWB can only go 10 ft at that speed :-(. Will we see any improvements?
In college, really poor, need a flatscreen.
there are several good articles about uwb at UWBPlanet. It appears the Economist is quite wrong about UWB.
Why not just use a cable at that point?
A cable is probably fine if the stations aren't moving, but that is not necessarily the case. One can easily imagine robots which will be moving around within a single room; even though the range would be sufficient, any cable could very easily get tied into knots.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
All I hope for is that they agree on one standard before beginning mass deployment. Not the early-cellphone debacle all over again please...
superblog.org: all your favourite blogs on o
the little sticker you put on the back of your cell phone to increase range. Isn't that an emerging wireless technology???
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Me: Hey Joe, got that file?
:)
Joe: Yeah, it's on a floppy.
Me: Toss it here.
Joe: Frisbee's the Floppy across the room (20 ft. [6.1 meters]).
Me: Catches floppy (Sure it was aimed at my head).
Me: Thanks.
Joe: Make sure it gets to Mike tomorrow.
Me: Ok. (uses sneaker net)
Look familiar?
If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.
I can see it now...
The New Corporate Structure
June 21, 2002
New York, Due to the advent of new short-range high speed Mesh Networking systems there has been a huge increase in the need for temp employees. Apparently, when CEOs discovered that their new high-speed UltraNet(R) connections would only work ten feet away from another UltraNet(R) based system they decided to hire UltraNet(R) Extenders(UE) - temporary employees that are specially trained to walk ten feet away from the CEO with an UltraNet(R) rebroadcaster.
Some UE chains - lines of UltraNet(R) Extenders - have been known to reach twenty or thirty UEs, with the record taking place between the law firm of Samuel, Johonson, & Dickie and the local courthouse three blocks away. When one of the UEs was asked about the experience his response was "I'm just glad I'm not one of them that needed to stand in the road." Of the two injuries incured during the record-breaking event both happened to UEs standing in the streets.
Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but copyright will always protect me.
FUNNY!
.you're single, or married to a fat girl, right?
So. .
What kind of latency does this add up to? I mean thats really the weakest link when it comes to doing things that require fast response like online games. It's not neccesarily how much data that can get there in a specific time but how quickly you can get the data to a location.
Scientific American has an article about the last mile by laser.
0 69 E-808A-1D06-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0008
NT = no text, foo.
Wouldn't this run into the same problem that the gnutella network has run into? I mean, as has been reported on /. (too lazy to search for the article), Gnutella doesn't scale very well because you have too much burden in handling the peer-to-peer communication. As more people got connected, wouldn't you run out of bandwidth for actual data?
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
IANANE(I am not a network engineer), but it seems to me that widespread mesh and ad hoc networks decentralized nature might prove difficult to "police". Already we see Snort and other tools designed to break into exsisting WiFi networks. The distributed nature of these new networks would lend itself to such attacks. While strong encryption would prevent a properly configured station from being cracked, the real problem with WiFi and perhaps these new networks is foolish people leaving them wide open. Then there is the question of accountablity. What happens when my feed starts providing resticted intellectual property like "Oops!...I did it again"? Just who gets sued. Present laws dictate that ISPs are not liable as long as they take steps to immediately cut the source. Assuming, you would be protected under such a law it seems to me the central feature of the network(relaying others data) is discouraged by legal the standards.
Couldn't really think of a better/propper name for it. But, I'm referring to that .. "activity" where a piece of mail was given to someone, and they were told a destination. So it'd pass through a shop owner to a company to a branch in a different country and get to the president sort of thing.. basically, just "fling" it and it starts going in the right direction.
This was thought of with routing. But, it can't work as things are set up now. The reason this works is because they're all grouped. Continents, countries, shop owners, policical candidates and such... computers are just 192.168.0.5. The other IP's can be given out randomly to any place at all.
Antennas like this, if they were to route in the same way, would need to know where they are, where the message wanted to go, in the physical world. Then the other antennas would need to be able to determine if they were between the source and the destination. And to prevent duplicate messages, tell people "I got it!!" like a football game(...).
so.. basically I'm saying until the way computers are groupped/assigned IP's is done in some logical manner like countries, the "human" (flinging? just send it out and hope it gets tehre...) form of routing won't work with computers.
just my comments on a topic that was brought up before..
-DrkShadow
Wahooo!!!! Better throw away all that useless ethernet cable that I've collected, we are all goin back to 10baseT!!!!!
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
From Slashdot: 4) Ultra wideband to transmit 100 mbs wirelessly (but only for distances of 10 feet...).
From the article: The FCC ruling limits the range of UWB transmissions to about ten metres, although longer ranges may be allowed in future once the question of interference has been sorted out. However, UWB is capable of a data rate of at least 100 megabits per second over such distances.
The first thing, the Slashdot post makes it sound like 10 ft is the maximum UWB can go, and second, its 10 METERS not 10 FEET
In college, really poor, need a flatscreen.
(so it appears, from previous comment posts). Either that or someone really uneducated about network addressing, CIDR, etc...
Then there is the question of accountablity. What happens when my feed starts providing resticted intellectual property like "Oops!...I did it again"? Just who gets sued. Present laws dictate that ISPs are not liable as long as they take steps to immediately cut the source. Assuming, you would be protected under such a law it seems to me the central feature of the network(relaying others data) is discouraged by legal the standards.
I think it comes down to who owns the antenna. If I own the antenna that's up on my roof and there are many people in my area with their own antenna then who's to stop us from developing our own protocol(s) to share data with each other directly without paying anyone? AOL et al will be trying to get legislation passed that outlaws people from communicating with their neighbor without a license. To get a license you would also have to submit to monitoring by the FBI, CIA, MPAA, RIAA, and maybe the DEA should be thrown in there too.
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
Sorry, I forgot to mention the homeland security thingy.
two minutes, two minutes dougie fresh you're on...on-on-on.
I haven't seen any technical papers about UWB, and i have some questions.
How do you make the signal? Is it just a pulse at many frequencies (f, f+k, f+2k, f+nk) where f is the lower limit, and f+nk is the upper?
Also, looking at an article at UWBPlanet.com, I see
"It can penetrate solid obstacles with virtually no degradation and has location capabilities that make GPS look like a blindfolded troll with a club. Furthermore, its location-sensing abilities are not limited to outdoor use in any way, as GPS solutions are."
What kind of solid objects do they mean (metallic, I think not)? Is the lack of degregation because the frequency range is so wide that, if the absorbtion of the object is frequency specific (resonates, etc), there are many frequencies that do not get absorbed?
It seems that they are being a little over confident...if your in a Faradays cage (building, or cage, heheh), you should still get poor to nill reception unless the wavelength of the signal was smaller than the smallest openening in the room (then of course you would be able to pick up a weak signal).
"Only a UWB receiver that knows the exact pulse sequence generated by the transmitted signal can in fact make use of the information in the signal"
This sounds like some kind of frequency hopping scheme more than anything. Unless it used some sort of TDMA scheme.
Anyone?
-Nomel
What would it take to have a peer-to-peer cell phone network that does not require cell towers -- or even a phone company!!
Synchronizing your high-capacity portable MP3 player or digital camera without having to buy a USB hub, for two. Bluetooth is one thing, but being able to move that much data in mere seconds has a real appeal. Right.
It would be a real bummer if the master computer sent an order to kill those pesky humans and the robot got snapped back by the network cable. I mean how embarrassing. Me: Hey Joe, got that file? Joe: Yeah, it's on a floppy. Me: Toss it here.
Joe: Frisbee's the Floppy across the room (20 ft. [6.1 meters]). Me: Catches floppy (Sure it was aimed at my head). Me: Thanks. Joe: Make sure it gets to Mike tomorrow.
Me: Ok. (uses sneaker net) (I am not a network engineer), but it seems to me that widespread mesh and ad hoc networks decentralized nature might prove difficult to "police".
Already we see Snort and other tools designed to break into exsisting WiFi networks. The distributed nature of these new networks is foolish people leaving them wide open.
Then there is the question of accountablity. What happens when my feed starts providing resticted intellectual property like "Oops!...I did it again"? Just who gets sued. Present laws dictate that ISPs are not liable as long as they take steps to immediately cut the source.
Assuming, you would be able to determine if they were to route in the same way, would need to know where they are, where the message wanted to go, in the physical world. Then the other antennas would need to know where they are, where the message wanted to go, in the physical world. Then the other!
--
Ask the Ya-Hoot Oracle Anything!
Mesh is pretty common in IP over satellite, especially to the edge, right now. Since there is no return path in satellite (or it has really high latency), Mesh is a prime mover.
Lots of intellectual property already staked out here.
Wake up people this UWB stuff has the potential
to make buggy whips out of a whole lot of cozy
arrangements. Let start at the beginning the
signal passed is in the white noise level all
across the spectrum with the current regs in place
and allowed power levels no license is required
for an effective range of 6-8 miles. Yes it is
below the current regulation threshold. The
current noise about UWB is a very concerted effort
by the powers that be to shove the genie back in
the bottle. DOD, the Gov., the phone company, the
cable companies are all are trying desperately to
control this tech. Picture this --a home based
wireless phone with a 5 mile range, what happens
to those high priced spectrum licenses, cable,
now anyone that can pay the downlink fee can
start a cable company with no wires, remember
one of the demo's of this tech shows reliable
comms thru 3 feet of reinforced concrete with less
than 1/4 of miliwatt, the last mile, no contest
bye bye local access fees, dsl overpriced wires,
security-- do you really want to try to follow
something that's hopping across 100 mhz with pico
second timing-- tap that boys couple this with
an user density in the order of 10-6. The laws to
govern the above uses came in with the second
half of satellite laws that allowed two way comms
a month or so back. The hold up is the DOD doing
a chicken little the sky is falling act. The
real kicker is china has been real keen on this
and may be the one to roll it out. Yes motorola
intel and company understand this real well. The
real problem is the current crop of special interest groups and assorted lobbyists that would be left holding the bag i.e. they would have to cozy up to a whole new crowd to be fed. Bear in
mind the current state of the art started with
a pissing match between a second year EE under grad and his Prof. in Arkansas, it was financed by chickens. The Gov. made a very concerted effort to put it under the black hole of national security, got caught breaking into the development lab trying to figure out the missing pieces, and had to issue two patents for it, one for the inventor, because his backers had the foresight to spread patents all around the world
long before they (gov)had a clue and one very lame patent for themselves.
Mesh Networks == bye bye telco monopolies on the last mile
I wonder if that has to do with the article posted today at techt tv from the etherlink company in California.
The JZA
It doesn't seem to me that the business model for deploying mesh networks is rocket science. The article seems to imply that figuring out how to get the neighborhood nodes out there is a problem.
I'd be willing to bet that for some suffeciently large (but reasonably small) radius, there exists just about everywhere a neighborhood containing at least one person willing to be an early adopter. Give this person a free serious broadband connection, paid training, and perhaps a small stipend, and have him/her keep it running. Everybody else in the neighborhood just buys wireless devices.
If I had some cash to drop and a telecom network to use, I'd start this myself.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
For some very cool product info on mesh networks.
Post is wrong. The article says it is 10 Metres not feet. And this is not even the theoretical maximum, it is just what they have so far.
six minutes..
... one of the reasons I read slashdot is for posts like yours. Mod this up! simple, clear, cut through the BS writing.
Hi,
;-)
your news reporter from Germany back again
Heise had a story about a wireless self organzing net that's up for testing in the city of Ratingen, Germany.
The main facts: 2,4 GHz like WLAN, max. 1 km distance between the antennas, 44 mbit bandwidth per node - 33 mbit for relaying with the other nodes (normally 3 * 11 mbit) and the rest for the user of the node.
The links:
Heise Story in German or google translated.
Link to the technology provider DIRC (click on FAQ to get the main points).
Bye
egghat.
-- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel