Slashdot Mirror
Broadband Barrage Balloons
alnya writes "BBC Online are reporting a story of a York-based company called SkyLinc who are floating baloons connected to a fibre optic pole which, they say, can deliver broadband access at "more than double the speed of most broadband services currently available" - whatever that means. Only 18 balloons would be necessarily to blow BT out the water (according to the article). Is this on the horizon?"
We used to use weather balloons for field day. It's ok, until a good wind kicks up.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
in other news Steve Case is no longer the largest windbag in broadband.
Mike
Pellet gun.
Banaaaana!
this story is just a load of hot air
Before adopting WHATWG, read the moonlight.NET EULA [http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx]
According to the article, the ballons would be 1.5 Km above the Earth's surface. Good luck finding a high-powered rifle, let alone a pellet gun, that would be able to accurately hit one of these ballons.
In C++, friends can touch each others private parts.
Is this on the horizon?
No, it's overhead.
I have to say...I've got DSL. Would I pay $10 more for twice the speed? Nope. I, like most people, I think, divide expectations into two categories: instant and "a while". I expect page loads to be instant, and I expect a video I'm downloading to take "a while". DSL delivers on these. So basically, the improvement only comes in "a while".
In that "a while", I go off and do other things, perhaps (gasp!) even leaving the computer for a while. That that will take 5 mintues rather than 10, or 30 seconds rather than a minute delivers very little value to me, and I think "good enough" might really crowd out "best" here.
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
Biggest problem I see; these balloons are filled with helium, when they use a pipe to channel the voices thru these things, won't they come back sounding like that nervous duck? I dunno, IANAE (engineer)
Ahh, the upgrade to RFC 1149 is here at last.
We'll reward 50,000$ anyone who shoots those evil pirate balloons!
Remember: When you are download MP3, you are downloading COMMUNISM !!!
-- This message is brought to you by the RIAA/MPAA.
from the article:
The technology behind the idea has been around for years, with the US Government operating several such aerostats as communication systems on its borders and the US military employing similar technology for about 50 years.
so, it seems to be pretty workable, and according to the article its not to expensive. so whats the reason this isn't already wildly addapted? i didn't see any problems mentioned in the article
People will subscribe to this for the exact same reason you subscribe to DSL. Remember on 56k when web pages were "instant", "a while" was for music (if you're lucky), and video was "read war and peace and see if the stream is done downloading"? $10 more/month is definitely worth double bandwidth.
if(!toilet_paper) roll.replace(new roll);
Ok,just to stop silly pellet gun comments... it would take one that could shoot 1.5km accurately (according to article that is how high they are and for the metrically impaired that's just under a mile), so that would be one nifty pellet gun. But it wouldn't suprise me in one such toy weapon existed in the US....
The article only mentions the opportunity for UK coverage but what about countries where laying fiber/cable would be a huge undertaking. 3rd World contries could certainly benefit from this kind of technology, if it works as well as they say it does. Wiring countries without the usual western infrastructure might be much more cost effective with this approach. Though I am not holding my breath on this... though the article does mention that the US military uses things like these...
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -Tom Waits
What is more, it is would not slow down as more and more people use the service which is the case with DSL - broadband via the phone line.
finally, infinite bandwidth...on another note... I'm off to go play with my perpetual motion machine...
From the article: What is more, it is would not slow down as more and more people use the service which is the case with DSL - broadband via the phone line. Huh? I fail to see how just 18 base stations would provide total UK coverage and at the same time be able to provide, say, 2Mbps up and down to all customers at the same time. The United Kingdom has a lot of people in it, last I checked. And DSL only slows down if the ISP's resources are over-provisioned from their point up. Cable is the one where resources are over-provisioned at the last-mile and up. Or does DSL somehow work different in the UK?
Also, although the article does address the issue of weather, I'd assume that performance must decrease somewhat during an electrical storm as more errors are introduced into the bitstream.
I doubt the military will be using them - it's an awfully easy target. Not open to a pellet gun attack, obviously, but perhaps to air-to-ground missile attack.
I assume that eavesdropping would have to be done at their altitude? Or could you listen in on unencrypted communication from wherever you could stick an antenna?
Perhaps the existing ground level wiring will make a nice backup for customers that want this sort of security.
While most Americans consider blimps only suitable for promotional purposes and overhead golf shots, the merry olde English are trying to find some use for the obsolete gasbags.
Yes, we all know what a crime it is to be innovative and thoughtful in America, unless you have the funding of a large company behind you and you#ve been garanteed by market research that your project will have a large return.
It's really no surprise, the country loves it's eccentrics, from Sinclair's little electric scooter to the Osborne luggable to the Robin Reliant to their steam powered subway trains.
I'd love to see one of these steam powered subway trains you speak of, by my recollection they were put out of service quite some time ago. Of course when it opened on the 10th of January in 1863 steam was the norm, but that was phased out by 1961. You see, our underground train system is half the age of your whole damn country, and has inspired systems like it the world over and still it carrys more people than any other.
Their standard of living would improve if they ever upgrade their technology to at least 1970's level, but then their little country wouldn't have the Disneyesque appeal.
Have you ever actually been to the UK for more than tourism? The school I went to is older than the united states, by almost twice as much. Our country has great herritage and we like to preserve that herritage, and we do so while modernising our services. The touristy areas make these modernisations less apparent because they're less attractive to tourists. I suggest you come live here for a few years and make your mind up on the "Disneyesqe Appeal".
I think you'll find the US has far more luddite encampments dotted around the place, who embrace guns and spurn any sort of government or technology that there are over here, maybe they should be dealt with?
-- John Linford
Well, the C.A.A. has approved 2 of these sites in Yorkshire with cables extending to 1500m (approx 5000ft AGL).
Now, this is all very good and well until they decide to apply for licences in high aviation traffic areas say: West of the Pennines or anywhere within 75miles of Manchester Airport.
It seems unlikely that the licences would be granted as these things don't just require "Danger-Area" status but a complete DNF area status for serveral miles around. With the U.K. having very little airspace available below the 'airways', this could get to be a major hassle for G/A and Military aviation.
Note: For those of you not in the UK, airspace below the 'airways' is largely populated by Aerodrome Traffic Zones and MATZ due to the small land-mass and (relatively) high density of major airports.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
[Obligatory Critic Reference] From "Red Balloon 2 -- The Balloon's REVENGE":
Terrorist: "One more step and the red balloon becomes the dead balloon."
[Scared kid releases baloon]
Terrorist: "How did I not see that coming..."
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
One-word question:
Airplanes?
That's what I was thinking as I read this article. Fortunately most commercial airplanes fly well above 1.5km, just make sure you don't put these balloons near an airport. General aviation planes (that is, small private planes, not commercial airliners) often fly much lower, and these balloons would be a serious safety threat for them. The balloons would need to be brightly marked and lighted, and there presence would need to be depicted on aeronautical charts. Assuming that's done, however, and assuming there are not so many of them that flying at 1.5km or below becomes an obstacle course, I think it would be okay. If they put VOR transmitters (something pilots use for navigation) in the balloons, they could actually benefit pilots.
Of course, the main benefit as far as internet access goes is to be able to reach rural areas. My guess is that the speed claims would not hold true in real usage, and concerns about privacy and security would be significant. For those in rural areas that have little other choice, this could be one of the few choices they have.
Lessee...
Sinclair C5, I give you the Segway.
Osborne Luggable, I give you the C64-SX, not to mention a luggable that Compaq made for a while. (Still got one, somewhere...)
Robin Reliant, I give you the (Kaboom!) Pinto. Oh, and the Plymouth Reliant.
As for the steam powered subways, the then Metropolitan Railway was running in London in 1863, well before electric trains had been invented, and in 1890, the London Underground was the first to convert to electric power. Somebody tell this to the good folks in San Francisco, whose streetcars still use a cable drive, and the folks in NYC whose subway didn't get rolling until 1904. (Alfred Ely Beech didn't really count.)
Britain and Europe may be behind North American standards in technology in some respects, but far ahead in others. Phones, roads and railways come to mind. And if their Disneyesque standard of living is so bad, why does Disney like to copy it?
I'd definitely tend to agree with you. Our cable service is certainly 'good enough' for my web browsing and downloading needs.
However I think the real killer here is the wireless aspect. Imagine paying for one broadband account that you can use anywhere sans wires. For me I'd plunk down the extra $10 without a second thought.
regards,
Nik
The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
so, they might as well throw in a few cell phone antennas while they are at it. Oh and a few of those video surveillance cameras that they are so fond of over there.
my sig
networks crashing. Oh the humanity!
A Bombardier Learjet 45 cruises at 43,000 feet.
A Boeing 777 cruises at 35,000 feet.
A 1999 Cessna Skyhawk SP cruises at 14,000 feet
A Grumman AA5A (2 passenger) cruises at 8,500 feet.
These ballons would fly at under 5000 feet.
Now, look out your window. See any airplanes? It's not like the sky is thick with them. I live within 5 miles of a medium sized commercial airport (just a little too small for trans-atlantic/continental flights), and I barely ever hear an airccraft, let alone see one.
Now consider some fairly remote location that would benefit most form this kind of tech: Namely, places that wouldn't have the information infastructure that would normally be required to support a bust airfield.
I don't think it's a critical issue. Just mount a beacon light to them like you would with a tower or other tall structure, maybe even a radio beacon since visibility is always a concern.
=Smidge=
There's really nothing new here except the idea of using balloons. Wireless Internet has been available for a while now. The biggest flops so far have been Metricom (the original incarnation of the Ricochet Internet service) and Sprint Broadband Direct.
I had Metricom/Ricochet while I was in college. The Metricom radios, about the size of shoeboxes (1/1000 of a VW Beetle), were mounted on utility poles every kilometer or so. It was a great technology that was mostly killed by incompetent management, high deployment cost, and irrelevance as the rest of the world went from dial-up to DSL/cable. The bandwidth was pretty good for its day, but its latency sucked (typically 400ms minimum).
My dad got Sprint Broadband Direct after ditching DSL. Our DSL was unreliable since our house was too far from Pac Bell's switch box. Also, there is no cable modem service available in our area. So we turned to Sprint, which serves the San Francisco Bay Area through a tower in the Fremont Hills, about 50 km away. A Sprint technician came and installed a small dish antenna on our roof, and permanently aimed it at the tower.
We have been dissatisfied with Sprint Broadband Direct because:
- The latency sucks (400ms average)
- Lots of dropped packets, which I believe are due to the wireless link (10% typical, and worse when foggy)
The combination of those two factors make SSH use unbearable. We were stuck with it because Sprint requires a 1-year committment to offset the cost of installation.The Sprint service isn't for everyone, since it requires a clear line of sight to the tower on the hill, and the right to mount an antenna on the roof. Combined with the high cost of deployment, these drawbacks have forced Sprint to deprecate the service.
The SkyLinc system seems to be most like Sprint's. The elevation of the balloons will be an advantage (probably negated by the fact that the antennas are not exactly stationary), but they'll have to overcome the same difficulties that have plagued previous systems.
they oughta float some above Iraq, Baghdad as a stopgap measure until communications infrastructure is mended. come to think of it, would come in very handy in desaster stricken places, like Algeria, where earthquakes destroyed a lot of the infrastructure.
"A 1999 Cessna Skyhawk SP cruises at 14,000 feet"
IAAP and FWIW those altitudes are service ceilings. In other words it's the maximum altitude the airplane can effectively achieve. In practice general aviation aircraft almost never go that high (in fact, above 12,500 ft. FAA regulations require the use of supplemental oxygen). Normal cruising altitudes for light aircraft are typically between 2000-9000 ft, putting these balloons right in the airspace GA planes fly.
It doesn't really matter though, since their location will appear on charts so pilots can avoid them. The fact is, at least in the US, there are all sorts of towers, mountains, and whatnot that poke up high enough to be a potential hazard. But since they are stationary and their locations well known, they do not pose an undue threat. I am far more concerend about other airplanes than fixed obstacles. They are small and they move. But the sky is a very big place, and due diligence applied to what's going on outside of the cockpit will help ensure your safety.
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
The biggest problem with high-altitude tethered aerostats is that the tether is invisible to aircraft. Typically, they aren't even lit. And, of course, the balloons move with the wind somewhat, so you can't even be sure what location to avoid. Therefore, you'd have to have a pretty wide area to avoid.
That said, the US has several tethered aerostats along its southern border, used to monitor weather, to check for low-flying smugglers and to broadcast propaganda to Cuba. The internation border is, of course, an area with strict flying restrictions already, so it isn't too much of a burden.
Unfortunately, these balloons in England are planned (perhaps that's too strong a word. Shilled?) to be in the middle of fairly populated and high-traffic areas. Cordoning off all of these areas would be a problem, and unlikely to be 100% successful. Right now, people violate airspace accidentally all the time -- but it's usually not that big a deal -- it's just air. Running into one of these tethers would likely be a big deal -- you'd probably lose both the plane and the balloon.
Perhaps the balloons could be flown far higher somewhat offshore? The US flies its aerostats at 50,000 ft (about 16 km). From that altitude, the amount of ground area seen by the balloon would be almost 100x as great. Private planes typically don't fly very far offshore, so the risk of hitting the tether would be lower -- and in the case that there is a collision the wreakage would fall into the sea instead of a city.
Perhaps GPS will solve this problem. If all private planes had perfect GPS systems with all airspaces clearly marked and rigged to alarms, then this might work smoothly with the current plan. You'd probably have to legislate that all planes have certificated (or whatever the term is in England) GPS's -- but they would be broadly useful devices in any case.
Anyway, in the end, the idea of flying relays has been promoted innumerable times -- and it never happens. Cable is, in the end, cheaper, faster, more reliable, and safer. It's not as sexy as this system (although sexiness is in the eye of the beholder -- or should I say stockholder) but it gets the job done.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Yes, no need for high powered weapons when you apply the Black & Decker 4 1/2" Angle Grinder directly to the tether!!
Alright, alright, you do actually have to be inside the mooring compound to do it but if you are prepared to go running round the English countryside with large, high-powered rifles, this should be small-fry!
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
The latency would be trivial. Satellite internet feeds have latency because, the geostationary satellites are about 23,000 miles away. With the speed of light being 186,000 miles per second, this distance adds up.
Consider this - your request for a webpage originates on your desk. Goes up to the bird - there's 23,000 miles. Goes from the bird to wherever your sat ISP's switchgear is, there's another 23,000 miles (more, actually, depending on relative locations on the ground, a bunch of trig, and more math than this point warrants). Great, now your request is back on a land-based connection to the internet. You'll have the normal routing from there, to the host system.
At this point, the HTML you requested will get sent back to your ISP's gear, sent up to the bird (a third 23,000 mile trip), and down to your system (a fourth trip). We're at 92,000 miles, and all you have is the HTML, which tells your browser which objects to go fetch (graphics, style sheets, and so on). So, a single packet takes roughly 1/2 second just in space, speed of light transit time; let alone the rest of the ground and server-based waits.
Contrast this to the balloon, where it's about a mile up. Delay there will be 1/186,000ths of a second each trip.
So, yes, they both have a delay, we're talking many orders of magnitude in difference. Measureable, maybe. Noticable? Nope.
My,
Broadband is supplied via microwave from about 20 miles away and it works pretty good. I have a pizza box sized antenna on my roof and a cable extending to a cable modem like box. From there it is purely regular TCP/IP.
On the other end my understanding is that they have an array of transmitters on one big pole at the top of a mountain. Each transmitter broadcasts to a certain swath of the coverage area.
Now substitute the mountain with a balloon and you have essentially the same system.
But, as has been mentioned before, what about the weather and aviation issues (I could just see these balloons becoming prime targets for lunatic suicidal pilots).
If the signal could be transmitted from already existing cell phone towers without line-of-sight issues it seems that that would be a far preferable way to approach the problem.
My broadband setup proves that laying cable is just lame.
Has anybody ever looked at the manual for a police scanner? Did you notice how much spectrum is provided to railways, forestry service, etc. etc.? And did you try to listen in on a railway conversation? I programmed my scanner to pick up the railroads and I heard nothing from them for about a month. I want some of that spectrum!
Caution: Contents under pressure
No, it's overhead.
--jdp Maintainer of VisEmacs
You need a good grounding in practical aeronautics, like weight. I doubt very much these balloons would have any kevlar armor. Keerist, a balloon is a huge thing! The German balloons of WW I were military weapons going in harm's way and had no armor, do you really think anyone is going to armor a com balloon where every penny counts?
They may well compartmentalize the bag, but all that will mean is that it has to come down for repair when the bag is peirced, and they will be able to do that under some kind of graceful degradation control. Still a DoS. A mission kill doesn't necesarily mean destruction.
No, the communication gondola won't be shielded. Weight, weight, weight. There's a reason airplanes use so much expensive equipment and materials, they want to save weight, and as expensive as that is, it's cheaper than a bigger engine and wings, or bag in this case.
Infuriate left and right
What problem is this supposed to address ?
Remember, we already have 100% coverage for UHF television, from a large number of extremely tall towers. If it was simply a matter of getting internet transceivers up high, the infrastructure already exists to do it.
But it isn't.
Since Japanese are generally smaller than British, I wonder how they compare on mass carried?
Al Haig's company (yes, he really is In Charge) Sky Station has been talking about this for years now. Might sound a bit hokey, but it's just an extension of the Aerostat technology that's been used for the past decade to provide better radar coverage for the Gulf of Mexico. And, it's one heck of a lot cheaper to put up another balloon to replace a failure than to launch another satellite...
...-.-
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.
Neglecting air resistance (hah!) .50 BMG bullets are about 700 grains or 0.045 kg. Muzzle velocity is around 1000 m/s, for kinetic energy of 22500 J. This implies a .50 BMG bullet could reach an altitude of 51,000 m maximum (at which point it would have zero velocity). But of course, you can't neglect air resistance, especially with fast-moving objects as it increases faster than linearly with velocity.
.50 BMG for surface-to-surface use, which is generally around 25,000 feet surface range and maximum height of around 8000 feet. At maximum height, horitzontal velocity is down to 100 m/s.
.50 BMG for anti-aircraft use, which tops out at 7500 feet altitude (but within 400 yards horizontal distance).
.50 BMG will generally not reach higher than 10,000 feet, and will probably be fairly useless in engaging targets much more than 7500 feet high.
I've seen a study looking at the maximum trajectory of
Another study has shown that rifle bullets tend to reach a maximum altitude of about 9000 feet.
Finally, here there is a quote about an Army firing table for the Browning M2 with
So extrapolating, I think it is safe to say that
water systems, sanitation and medical coverage are all problems which have a heavy information component, and in third world countries right now, the just about the only way to monitor and respond to that information is by having a trained human on the ground (which is why very little of it gets done.)
Now, imagine being able to monitor water quality and sewage processing flow remotely, and sending scarce resources to solve problems before they become cholera epidemics rather than after. Imagine being able to make every piece of modern medical information available to the nurse or medicine man who is the sole source of healthcare for a group of villages.
Broadband (or more importantly, wireless data access) is potentially a very big deal.
Don Negro
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
First, it makes practical sense. The technology certainly exists. I ponder whether a fully autonomous wireless balloon (solar-powered, etc?) could replace the tethered concept.
Second, I'll bet BT is disinclined to allow the competition. I know for sure it would never (no pun intended) get off the ground in the USA. You can bet as soon as it reared it's beautiful head over here in the States, the big money telecoms will be beating two paths: one to Congree to dump FUD on the proposal, and another to Tom Ridge's office, warning of some fantastic and fictional security threat posed by balloons.
There's too much money invested in bad/old technology to allow this idea an easy birth, as much as I regret to acknowledge that reality. I pray to be proven wrong someday soon, though!
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
I remember when my Dad was telling me about this company called SkyStation in 1997 which was going to do the same thing. I doubted it would be possible. They still haven't delivered.
n k/forschungundentwicklung/studien/HAPS.pdf
Their current FAQ boasts, "When will the Sky Station system be available?
With flight testing commencing later this year, Stratospheric Telecommunications Service will commence with the first Sky Station platform deployment in 2005. Sky Station platforms will be implemented in accordance with user demand as expressed by responsible organizations in each country."
Enter the Wayback Machine for this same FAQ page:
1998 claims of launch in 2000
1999 claims of launch in 2002
2001 claims of launch in 2004
Stating that a test launch will occur "later this year" (hey, that makes it easier to update the page), and they're planning deployment in 2005. How the hell can they even know when they'll be deploying if after 7 years they still haven't done a test launch.
Let's not forget StratSat or the Japanese Airships for cell phone use. Comon', someone show me a non-artist rendored picture or active deployment with one of these. Until I see that, it's all vaporware left over from the dot-com sucker era. I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm just wondering about it being economically feasible and the unreliable in the atmosphere from ever-changing winds and weather conditions.
Here is that promised document from China talking about all these other blimp-type platforms (a sucker is born every minute):
http://www.bakom.ch/imperia/md/content/english/fu