Slashdot Mirror


Wi-Fi VoIP At 80 mph

fredo123 writes "Almost faster than a speeding bullet. As reported in Muniwireless minutes ago, RoamAD and WI-VOD have tested mobile VOIP over Wi-Fi at over 130 Km/h over an 8km stretch of Interstate highway somewhere near the Mexican border. Gee... I wonder what this is for?" No need to guess: according to the MuniWireless link, "the network is for public safety personnel (police, fire, ambulance and border patrol) first, with various community agencies, schools, business and local residents being added as the deployment expands beyond its targeted coverage areas."

142 comments

  1. ...i had to say it by r84x · · Score: 4, Funny

    All hail the Information Superhighway!

    --
    Karma: Can there be a void?

    .. -. - . .-. .-. --- -...

    1. Re:...i had to say it by SirXavier · · Score: 1

      it`s very good because VOIP & whireless is simple and the best !

      --
      SirXavier
    2. Re:...i had to say it by Lucky+Kevin · · Score: 1

      At 88 mph you can go back to the future on the information superhighway!

      --
      Kevin
      "It's not the cough that carries you off, it's the coffin they carry you off in" O. Nash
    3. Re:...i had to say it by tonsofpcs · · Score: 1

      Only if the flux capacitor is properly polarized, and Mr. Fusion is working properly. (ok, you can do without the Mr. Fusion, but still...)

  2. Security? by networkBoy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    VOIP and wireless, now the Drug runners cn listen in on conversations. Remember some of the bigger cartels are funded as well as governments.
    -nB

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    1. Re:Security? by temojen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's sooo much easier to eavesdrop with a police scanner.

    2. Re:Security? by Cthefuture · · Score: 1

      Maybe this is exactly why they are looking at VOIP. VOIP is a lot easier to encrypt and secure than cellphones.

      I still wonder why they don't just use cellphones though. They would probably be a lot more reliable due to the huge infrastructure already present.

      Although I like VOIP, if I go by my own experiences using it, I can say it's not as realiable as the regular old phone system. VOIP needs a lot more technology to make it work. Eventually I see it as being better than the old phone system, but we are a ways off from that right now.

      --
      The ratio of people to cake is too big
    3. Re:Security? by ChuckSchwab · · Score: 0

      Don't be ridiculous. The government is superior to all of the cartels combined. Imagine a war, government against drug cartels. So they're holed up in a house with a dozen hostages? Slam an anti-tank missile through the window. So they've set up a strong-point protected by nests of machine-guns? Napalm the block. So their shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles are threatening our helicopter gunships? Call in an artillery strike from twenty miles away. The only reason the cartels are even around is because the government lets them.

    4. Re:Security? by Various+Assortments · · Score: 1

      *chuckle*

      kids these days, they watch a few spy movies and they think their technological armies are infallable.

      i've got news for you, sparky. each of those high-tech toys they hold in such high esteem have vulnerabilities you could drive a guerilla troop carrier through. thanks to the fact that americans can never keep their yaps shut whenever they develop a new battle technology, that information is quickly disemminated to the general public.

      guerilla war will ALWAYS triumph on native soil.

    5. Re:Security? by ChuckSchwab · · Score: 0

      guerilla war will ALWAYS triumph on native soil. Only because their governments give them rules of engagement that prevent them from ever winning. Start allowing torture and public executions of insurgents and watch their numbers dwindle.

    6. Re:Security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that worked really well for the Nazis in France.

    7. Re:Security? by ChuckSchwab · · Score: 0

      It did the job.

    8. Re:Security? by MacJedi · · Score: 1

      If by 'did the job' you mean, 'lead to their eventual defeat' then, by golly, I guess you are right!

      --
      2^5
    9. Re:Security? by ChuckSchwab · · Score: 1

      The French "resistance" didn't lead to their defeat. It was the allied invasion that did them in.

    10. Re:Security? by MacJedi · · Score: 1
      You should read more history [1]. The French resistance supplied the allies with crucial intelligence reports, massive disruptions of the German supply and communication lines and numerous acts of infrastructure sabotage. "Between April and May [1944], the resistance destroyed 1,800 railway engines." [2] French intelligence and support was crucial in planning and executing D-Day. All this in the face of torture, execution, threats against family members, etc. I believe if you could plot "frenchmen involved in the resistance as a function of time" you would see that the members in the active resistance grew as the war went on and the German's/Vichy government started employing tough tactics, not the opposite.

      1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_resistance
      2. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/french_resist ance.htm

      --
      2^5
  3. ...why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why not just get them normal cell phones or something?

    1. Re:...why? by XorNand · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My guess that it's less costly than buying cell phones for everyone and then having to pay for airtime ontop of that. Plus it would be easier for that to record, log, etc. calls from HQ, regardless of who the officer calls.

      --
      Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
    2. Re:...why? by chia_monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are a few reasons they could be trying this. One, they can deploy and control their own private network. This gives them more control over what kind of equipment they can use, how they use it, etc. Also, perhaps cell coverage blows in this area but setting up their WiFi network gives them full coverage. Also, with such network, they can also have their laptops or PDAs in the car to connect with the network and transmit valuable data (records, news flashes, etc) back and forth.

      --

      "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
    3. Re:...why? by Preeminence · · Score: 1

      You need internet to get background checks, run license plate numbers, etc. The chase becomes very different if you're behind a known drug runner.

    4. Re:...why? by gotpaint32 · · Score: 1

      The cops do use cell phone tech, just not cell phones... I know for a fact in dc, mpd uses cdpd for data transmission in their squad cars. It also runs win98 :[

      --
      Nuclear war would really set back cable. - Ted Turner
  4. How Fast? by th1ckasabr1ck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anybody know how fast you would have to be going (theoretically or otherwise) before the Doppler Effect makes the signal unusable?

    1. Re:How Fast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure 3.0 x 10^8 m/s would be too fast.

    2. Re:How Fast? by k4_pacific · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fast enough that you'd be out of range of the access point before you could find out if it worked or not.

      Officer: Are you aware that you were going 0.90c in a 55 mph zone?

      Driver: Ummm... I was?

      Officer: Didn't you notice the blue shift son?

      --
      Unknown host pong.
    3. Re:How Fast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speed of light (Seriously)

    4. Re:How Fast? by Hadriel · · Score: 1

      Depends on the frequency sensativity of the antenna/reciever circuit. If the frequency cuttoff is relatively shallow then you should be able to go pretty quick, but as it appears to be designed mainly for cars then doppler shouldn't really be a prob.

      --
      I blame the rodents, all of them. They're watching us you know, biding thier time. They are evil I tell you - pure evil.
    5. Re:How Fast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, doppler effects do not apply to EM waves. You do have blue shift and red shift, but that's a bit different.

    6. Re:How Fast? by temojen · · Score: 4, Funny

      Driver: All I saw was the green lights of your roadblock.

    7. Re:How Fast? by eobanb · · Score: 1

      What might actually happen if this really occurred would be a shift in frequency, which in itself could easily be overcome by software radio. But anyway, you'd have to be going thousands of miles per second. Consider that colour is really just the differences in visible light frequency because of Doppler. The world in front of you would be turning red, and the world behind you turning blue, before you'd probably notice any problem in your connection. Even then, the TCP overhead would probably just grow. No, the real problem with this stuff is implementing real mesh-networking. For stuff like web browsing, jumping between different APs could actually work, since with the right sort of browser you could load some of the page from one connection, and the rest of the page, from a different connection, possibly with a different IP address, network interface, whatever. There is no way that that would work for something as real-time as VoIP. Wi-Fi is just not suited for this kind of thing.

      --

      Take off every sig. For great justice.

    8. Re:How Fast? by DustMagnet · · Score: 5, Informative
      Light moves a lot faster than sound, so the amount of frequency shift is very small. A 2.4 GHz carrier would be shifted to 2.40000029 at 80 MPH.

      The frequencies of radios aren't very exact, so the tuners are designed to deal with some variation. Without knowing exactly how the tuners are designed (especially the filters), I can't answer your question, except to say, a whole lot faster than 80 MPH.

      --
      'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
    9. Re:How Fast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      IIRC, doppler effects do not apply to EM waves. You do have blue shift and red shift, but that's a bit different.

      No, it's all the same thing, except doppler is sound and red/blue are EM waves. All waves that propagate (redundant?) are affected by relative movements of the transmitter and receivers.

    10. Re:How Fast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Speed of light (Seriously)

      If you really want to be serious. . .

      You don't have to go that fast. A few percent of the speed of light would shift 2.4 GHz right out of it's band.

    11. Re:How Fast? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Light is an "EM wave". A phonton is a messager particle for electromagnetic force. Visible light is very high frequency compared to radio transmissions like cellphones. But it's just a different energy level. You can look at this chart for more info.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    12. Re:How Fast? by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Funny

      The lights were off! You sure that wasn't the themal coming off of our radiators?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    13. Re:How Fast? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      You mixed up your red/blue shifts.

      Moving quickly towards a transmitter will cause the wavelength to be shorter from your perspective, and the waves behind you longer, as they "lag" behind.

      At 0.9c, thermal and some higher freq radio (like microwaves) would probably appear to you as light, while normal light would be shoved up past your perceptions.

      Would certainly be an awsome experience, as looking behind, you could "see" UV, maybe X-Rays, ect.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    14. Re:How Fast? by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      That was me before (the AC, different machine). From what I remember, if you were on a "vehicle" travelling c, and you threw a baseball from the rear of the vehicle (exactly opposite the direction of travel), the EM waves emitting from the baseball will not change speed, defying any type of doppler effect. Perhaps I read that wrong all those years ago, but that's what I remember.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    15. Re:How Fast? by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      Well, looks like I'm none too smart, just looked it up. I wonder where I read that thing about the baseball though, I don't think that shit just appeared in my head. Son of a bitch.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    16. Re:How Fast? by auburnate · · Score: 2, Funny
      Anybody know how fast you would have to be going (theoretically or otherwise) before the Doppler Effect makes the signal unusable?

      No need to worry. Simply drive in reverse and it cancels the Doppler Effct.

    17. Re:How Fast? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
      The channels are normally spaced at around 8kHz or so for voice, but channels for IP will likely be far wider. Most RF front-ends are going to use some sort of AFC since that's wy more reliable and cheaper than dicking around with temperature controlled crystal oscillators etc. THis would mean you'd need a hell of a big doppler shift to make any detectable problems.

      Let's see. Supersonic aircraft still manage fine shifting digital data. So too do satellites and shuttles etc. Basically any car speeds are not going to register.

      --
      Engineering is the art of compromise.
    18. Re:How Fast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      When going over the doppler effect in my second semester of Physics, I asked the prof why our radios don't get distorted by the doppler effect when we are driving. He swiftly made me look like an ass by doing what I should have done instead of thinking out loud: plugged the numbers into the equation. As such, the equation.

    19. Re:How Fast? by renehollan · · Score: 2, Funny
      I once remarked to a former boss about a red sign that said, "If this appears blue, you have exceeded the speed limit."

      He didn't get the joke.

      I quit that job and got a different one as fast as practical.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    20. Re:How Fast? by swight1701 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't relativity state that light is constant speed for every observer? The speed of light is always the speed of light no matter of direction or speed? How does a doppler effect work with radio waves then?

      --
      - The latest in DVR video surveillance technology! www.remotesentrysystems.com
    21. Re:How Fast? by cy_a253 · · Score: 2, Informative
    22. Re:How Fast? by am+2k · · Score: 1

      Yes, the light speed is constant as measured in distance/time, but time itself isn't constant when you're moving (in relation to your time reference point).

    23. Re:How Fast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Doesn't relativity state that light is constant speed for every observer? The speed of light is always the speed of light no matter of direction or speed? How does a doppler effect work with radio waves then?

      The Doppler effect doesn't change the speed of sound either. The distance between the transmitter and reciever is changing. That's why the waves don't look the smae to both. You have heard of red shift?

    24. Re:How Fast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i wonder what would happen with the ball, if you and the ball are at c, and you throw the ball backwards, slowing it down slightly, which would release (as in, where does it go) an infinate amount of energy, no?

    25. Re:How Fast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could have hired you, but since your resume is overhyped piles of crap that sinks so low it uses Slashdot articles as "publications", I think I'll pass and go for somebody who isn't waving a tiny penis in my face and passing it off as an elephant dick.

    26. Re:How Fast? by reifchen · · Score: 1
      The limiting factor is the amount of time it takes to lock onto a given base station, combined with the size of each base station's coverage. If using your typical home base station with its relatively small coverage, you can (in some cases) run your laptop through the area before it can lock on.

      Solution of course is to both up the coverage size per base station, and decrease the time to lock on, both of which are only slightly non-trivial to overcome.

    27. Re:How Fast? by DustMagnet · · Score: 1

      That's the relativistic doppler effect. I used the simpler non-relativistic formula. At 80 MPH relativity isn't much of an issue, so we get the same answer. A quick check shows the answers differ by a little over 10^-5 Hz, not enough to matter.

      --
      'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
    28. Re:How Fast? by emtechs · · Score: 1

      Been tried before by Casey and Andy!

  5. Public safety? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How safe is using WiFi for such critical communication? Any kid with the right hardware can interfere with the WiFi signal. Not only that, but WiFi network congestion already creates problems for some people.

    I don't know what the rage over VoIP is -- the telephone system has worked for many, many years. We're just opening ourselves up for another avenue of attack. Can anyone say terrorists with WiFi blockers?

    1. Re:Public safety? by k4_pacific · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, I'm sure police radios can be jammed too. As for traditional telephones, efforts to install land lines in the cruisers have proven unsuccessful.

      --
      Unknown host pong.
    2. Re:Public safety? by pclminion · · Score: 1, Funny

      Obviously the proper solution is for the emergency vehicles to drag a ten-mile strand of Cat5 behind them. Just imagine it -- an ambulance hurtling down the freeway with a blue network cable trailing behind, and a giant spool of Cat5 unreeling at 600 RPM... Tht tht tht tht tht tht tht

    3. Re:Public safety? by grasshoppa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know what the rage over VoIP is -- the telephone system has worked for many, many years. We're just opening ourselves up for another avenue of attack. Can anyone say terrorists with WiFi blockers?

      This I can answer:

      The office I work at has 3 locations ( soon to be four ) in wildly different area codes. We are getting larger, so we want to make our very own call center in one of the offices ( dr's office ), so the other three can simply focus on the patient.

      Using traditional methods, this would require all sorts of funky telco stuff, and a few 1800 numbers. Not even going to mention the shit from a phone supplier.

      However, using voip ( asterisk specifically ), I was able to build this for them with about a 30g budget. That includes the 4th office. And tons of redunancy. All calls from the different locations get routed ( over our vpn ) to a central office which then handles them efficiently. And it's completely transparent to the patient.

      A similar system from a phone companie ( *cough*avaya*cough* ) would run you will into the 100s of thousands. And it wouldn't be an open standard system. And it wouldn't have most of the features that this system does.

      Put simply; voip is a way to package and control a phone call. One I have the call, I can do whatever I want with it. The possibilities are staggering.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  6. eh by eobanb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I dont know, I think this is 1337-er :)

    --

    Take off every sig. For great justice.

    1. Re:eh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mis spelled g3hy-er

  7. In other news... by fireman+sam · · Score: 2, Informative

    Cars have radios.

    In the harbour tunnel in Sydney traffic reports are broadcast to most frequencies in the FM scale so people listening to the radio will here them.

    Mind you it would be cool to have a VoIP broadcaster in the car so you can tell that jerk doing 20 under the speed limit to get the hell out of the overtaking lane.

    --
    it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
    1. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      Mind you it would be cool to have a VoIP broadcaster in the car so you can tell that jerk doing 20 under the speed limit to get the hell out of the overtaking lane

      You can do this already with the mobile phone numbers on the side of tradesmen's vans.

      "Is that Jake the plumber?"
      "Yeah."
      "Then stop driving like a twat."

      They love it.

  8. Good News for Motorists by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny
    When the guy in the Luxus blasted past me at about 100 mph while blathering away on his cell call "hey fred, you should see how this thing handles on the shoulder of the road at 100 mph while one handed driving, marvelous..." he knew he could count on that keeping up with him. granted he was going substantially slower than the c (the speed of light).

    Now he's assured that he could steer with his knees and type away on his laptop while driving similarly "hey fred, how to you spell 'psychopath'?"

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Good News for Motorists by avalys · · Score: 1

      A Lexus, handling? Bah.

      Maybe a BMW or a Jaguar or an Infiniti. But not a Lexus.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
  9. Netbacks? by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Funny
    > have tested mobile VOIP over Wi-Fi at over 130 Km/h over an 8km stretch of Interstate highway somewhere near the Mexican border. Gee... I wonder what this is for?

    "DEY TUK R CONTENT!"
    - RIAA chair Cary Sherman

    "Goddamn netbacks!"
    - MPAA chair Jack Valenti

    "I! LOVE! THIS! COMPANY!"
    - Steve Ballmer, doing things you thought you could never get Americans to do for any price.

  10. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So is this for border control or to provide hotspots for our immigrating Mexican neighbors as they enter into the southwestern states?

    BTW, there's an Ariozna posse forming to patrol the border.

  11. oh please! by Jailbrekr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I predict that in a week, we'll be seeing articles about how they are stuffing mobile VoIP systems into pizza boxes with neon lights illuminating the insides.

    OH COME ON. Report things which are relevant and unique, not 'omg its a wireless link that works at 80mph!'. Cel service works at speeds far faster than that (just ask anyone who used a cel phone on a plane before the ban).

    --
    Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
    1. Re:oh please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      OH COME ON. Report things which are relevant and unique, not 'omg its a wireless link that works at 80mph!'. Cel service works at speeds far faster than that (just ask anyone who used a cel phone on a plane before the ban).

      The problem is hand off. WiFi wasn't designed for you to move from AP to AP. Cells were designed for it.

      BTW, airplanes is a dumb example, since you can see the same tower for far longer than you can in a car.

  12. Folks are doign it at 30k feet too by winkydink · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Many frequent flyers have reported good results using Lufthansa's wireless internet in the sky with Skype. By contrast, doign this on a highway just seems a little humdrum.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:Folks are doign it at 30k feet too by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      Many frequent flyers have reported good results using Lufthansa's wireless internet in the sky with Skype. By contrast, doign this on a highway just seems a little humdrum.

      Isn't the signal actually relayed to/from the jet?

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Folks are doign it at 30k feet too by Peyna · · Score: 1

      A lot less in the way of the signal when you're in the sky.

      --
      What?
  13. High Speed conversations by 06metzp · · Score: 0

    Now we know it's safe to use VoIP on the Autobahn. Of course by 'safe' I mean there'll be no signal loss...

    --
    This sig left blank for page turns.
  14. wargames by lokalhost · · Score: 3, Funny

    So how long before the wifi network gets a counterstrike server?

  15. Any kid with a crystal radio kit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or a telephone can already interfere with emergency services. Trust me when I say, the mechanisms are already in place.

  16. It sounds faster...measurement units by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    It sounds faster when given in kph (Thousand P's per Hour).

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  17. YASUOM by DoubleD · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yet another stupid unit of measure "almost faster than a speeding bullet."

    Also what the heck kind of slow lazy bullets are almost slower than 80mph.

    because I was curious I checked out the speed of a bullet. referencing this link:
    http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/MariaPereyra.s html
    puts the lower end of bullet speed at about 750mph and the upper end at 6700mph.

    At least "almost as fast as a carrier pigeon in a tornado" would have been more accurate.

    --
    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
    1. Re:YASUOM by hexdcml · · Score: 1
      is that an African pigeon or European one?

      --
      Fight Crime - Shoot Back!
    2. Re:YASUOM by RollingThunder · · Score: 1

      Shoot it down with a speeding bullet, and we should be able to tell upon closer inspection.

    3. Re:YASUOM by Peyna · · Score: 3, Funny

      I tried "1 speeding bullet to mph" on Google, but it wasn't able to do the conversion. They really need to update that.

      --
      What?
    4. Re:YASUOM by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      I don't know much about WiFi, but 80mph seems pretty darn slow for Internet communication. An electric signal can make it around the world in 50-100ms.

  18. Steven Wright by G27+Radio · · Score: 1

    Officer: I just clocked you driving 70mph. This is a 35mph zone.

    Steve: I know, but I didn't intend to be out that long.

    1. Re:Steven Wright by k4_pacific · · Score: 1

      Actually, a friend of mine who was caught speeding told the cop he wanted to get home before he ran out of gas.

      --
      Unknown host pong.
  19. Needs DeLorean compatibility by istewart · · Score: 3, Funny

    Make it work at 88 miles per hour and then they'll be on to something.

  20. Who are you and what have you done with Slashdot? by StikyPad · · Score: 2, Funny

    No need to guess: according to the MuniWireless link, "the network is for public safety personnel (police, fire, ambulance and border patrol) first, with various community agencies, schools, business and local residents being added as the deployment expands beyond its targeted coverage areas."

    Okay, what sort of alternate universe is this? This is the second story today where the submitter hasn't RTFA, but now this? Now the EDITOR actually read the story.

    Is anyone else feeling just a little freaked out right about now?

  21. 80mph in Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    VOIP over Wi-Fi at over 130 Km/h over an 8km stretch of Interstate highway somewhere near the Mexican border.

    Gee... I wonder what this is for?

    I could've used that last week... was visiting family in Mexico, and the border is a no-man's-land of U.S. and Mexican cellular zones fighting it out. At times I haven't been able to make cell calls 1 mile inside the U.S. because stupid TelMex signals were overpowering the weak AT&T signal down there.

    Plus the 80mph thing is not so outrageous. My SUV speedometer shows 110mph max. Let's just say that the manufacturer apparently didn't cheat me... (thanks to those nice, long, straight, lightly-policed freeways Mexico has built recently.)

    1. Re:80mph in Mexico by cayce · · Score: 1

      "TelMex" is not a cellular company. It is a telephone/internet/long distance/frame relay company. You would be probably getting signal from TelCel, Telefonica or Pegaso, plus the fault wouldn't be from any of those companies but from AT&T for providing such a low signals at that zone. Basically at the US/Mexico border, the company that provides stronger signal owns the area.

      I used to live at the border (about 5km inside mexico) and I was still able to put calls thru Nextel and I could use my Telcel phone as far as 20 km inside the US.

      There's not a very good legislation regarding who owns what frequencies at the border. It looks like the FCC (USA authority) and the COFETEL (Mexico authority) don't talk to each other that much.

    2. Re:80mph in Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "TelMex" is not a cellular company. It is a telephone/internet/long distance/frame relay company. You would be probably getting signal from TelCel, Telefonica or Pegaso, plus the fault wouldn't be from any of those companies but from AT&T for providing such a low signals at that zone. Basically at the US/Mexico border, the company that provides stronger signal owns the area.



      My apologies, you're absolutely right. I meant to type "TelCel" but instead typed "TelMex" out of habit. And you're also correct that the stronger signal wins. The Mexican city on that border is much larger than the U.S. city across the river, so it's obvious who has a larger, stronger cell infrastructure.

      I guess I was just venting my frustration. I'm happy to say that once I got further into Mexico my Cingular Treo 650 worked just fine, and showed service from TelCel and MoviStar at various stages of the trip. I have to say I appreciate their recent upgrades to GSM. I was able to surf the web on the highway between cities (I'm talking wilderness here). Not as fast as in the U.S., but even with dial-up like speeds it feels good to be connected.

      By the way, my sister's Sprint cell phone lets her use the U.S. Sprint network from a few miles inside Mexico. The signal is weak and iffy, but works most of the time. Like you said, the two governments' communications agencies don't seem to care so I guess she's not breaking any rules here.
    3. Re:80mph in Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My SUV speedometer shows 110mph max. Let's just say that the manufacturer apparently didn't cheat me...

      Wow, what a racing-machine.
      My 61hp Audi A2 also does 105+mph -- i verified it more than once.

  22. Re:FP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, no. You loose.

    I loose too, for responding to you.

    No go sulk in the corner and/or stare at goatse.

  23. Any school bus by jd · · Score: 1

    that travels at 130 Km/hour (81 miles per hour) has definite problems, besides that of the kids needing better connectivity for their World of Warcraft sessions.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Any school bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're travelling at 130 kelvin*meter/hour, you have DEFINITE problems.

  24. Three letters Q.o.S by PaulBu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Over IP it is "easy" (as in, standards exist) to support Quality of Service bits, and you can bet that police voice chat will get higher priority than some traveler's connection to maps.google.com.

    In cell phone network _maybe_ something like this is possible, but it would not be that easy to adjust in real time, I'd guess...

    A friend of mine told me that when he was stuck in really bad traffic on I5 (he used to commute LA to San Diego) his cellphone was almost useless exactly because everyone else was also trying to call home...

    Paul B.

  25. What about bluetooth VoIP? by ktorn · · Score: 1

    The current problem with WiFi VoIP is that you need a really big handset.

    What I really wanted was to use my mobile phone and make VoIP calls over bluetooth. Yes, the bluetooth range sucks, but at least it's a technology ready to use by my mobile. All it needs is an app (say J2ME) that handles the VoIP at the client side.

    - or -

    rather than use the mobile phone, use a bluetooth headset and link it straight to the bluetooth AP. The problem then being headset configuration and call making/receiving. Perhaps the mobile phone could act as a bluetooth remote control, or another alternative is to use something like this and have it link up directly to the bluetooth AP, which then runs some kind of mobile phone emulator on the server-side.

    I blogged about this before but only got a limited response (one guy who liked the idea, and that was it).

    Is it feasible? Is anyone trying or willing to give it a try?

    1. Re:What about bluetooth VoIP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do bluetooth voip all the time. Bluetooth link from headset to laptop, bluetooth link from laptop to cell phone for internet, cisco (or other voip software) at any freeway speed. It works very well. I have even used it to watch live tv over ip. (Not while driving of course.)

    2. Re:What about bluetooth VoIP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bluetooth is intended to be used over short ranges, i.e. a cable replacement. It's great for syncing your PDA, printing from your laptop, or connecting a headset to your phone.

      IIRC, the maximum range for Bluetooth is intended to be around 10 meters. I've managed to stretch the connection from my Palm (with the SDIO Bluetooth card) to a USB dongle up to about 25 meters. Even if you were to double that, you'd still end up with miniature Bluetooth "cell towers" every 100 meters or so.

      Telecom companies want bang for the buck. If they're going to install infrastructure, they want it to cover as much area as possible.

      Don't get me wrong; Bluetooth is great (especially when your AP is within range of the conference room where your all-day, doesn't-pertain-to-you-but-attendance-is-mandatory meeting is being held), but it's not meant for use over long distances. Stick to Wi-Fi for that. ;^)

    3. Re:What about bluetooth VoIP? by ktorn · · Score: 1

      One of the ideas that I was trying to get at was public Bluetooth APs in places where normal mobile networks don't reach (such as underground stations and trains).
      Allowing existing bluetooth mobile phones to be used in such areas would be very useful, and range wouldn't be much of an issue as users can only go so far inside a train ;)

    4. Re:What about bluetooth VoIP? by JoeyNumbers · · Score: 1

      I really don't think you mentioned Bluetooth quite enough...

  26. Re:Consumer access points: Speed of Roaming ? by crabpeople · · Score: 1

    Well i can tell you from experience that we had about 8 machines try and connect over a wireless link and all run IP telephones. This was VoIP.

    The router, an orinoco, crashed and burned after about 5 minutes. this is of course with users trying to do web traffic as well.

    Seems to be whenever the wireless loses signal (happens ALOT) the voip call is dropped imidiately.

    so yeah

    --
    I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
  27. Imagine... by SunPin · · Score: 1

    what this could do at _88_ mph with a 1.21 gigawatt spark?

    --
    Laws are for people with no friends.
  28. Illegal to drive using a cellphone... by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    in some countries. VoIP is fine though :-).

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  29. Cops and Cell Phones by ebooher · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In response to your statement about giving cops cell phones instead of a WiFi VoIP based solution. I'd like to add my opinion to the argument. Everyone ready?! It is time once again for my Bullshit Theory of the Day . (Patent Pending, of course.)

    Let's review what the police already use to their job. Every officer where I live, be they local, county, or state, has a laptop in their car. Their radio system is trunked and the laptop receives information from the station as well as offering multiple channels for voice communication to dispatch. At this time the technology, though having been in use for a while, is still somewhat proprietary and thus is expensive. A station must buy the trunking hardware to digitize, and mux traffic, then transmit that into the ether where it is picked up by everyone.

    Let's review that last word. Everyone. Where I live it is illegal to have a police scanner in a moving vehicle. (Technically, during transport ie you just bought it, the scanner must be in the trunk.) There really isn't anything to keep normal people, as well as criminals, from listening to communications. At best, the consumer scanners don't have the proper computer communication from headquarters and most sometimes can't follow a full conversation. (The trunks switch every mic key release, and the "computer" channels change every couple of days.) But you typically can hear what you need to in order to know where your friendly neighbor Officer Mitchell is doing his job.

    Also, pushing information like that through the ether can be hit or miss in rural communities. You have to remember, that the curvature of the Earth dictates distance for RF travel. Typically 70 miles before you hit the ground itself, unless you get the signal on a high tower. However, the trunk receiver on the cars can't be equally as high (and I'm starting to wondering if satellites are not getting involved. The trunk receivers now look like XM antennas) anyway, I digress. This means, technically, that unless you are bouncing the signal to orbit and back you can not talk to a field agent that is over 70-ish miles from home base.

    Enter tomorrows technology today. Setting up WiFi that allows vehicle transmission to push VoIP so that as long as you have an internet link, you can communicate with dispatch. This will not be limited to voice. The laptops the officers use to get information about plates and criminals will also switch to this WiFi based system, and for the Law Enforcement Pointy Haired Bosses, here comes the best part. PGP type encryption for PTP tunnel building so that the information between agent and base is "secure". Technically, it would take someone long enough to get the encrypt key, even if it's measured in minutes, to keep from knowing exactly when and where officer movement is occuring real time.

    The funny thing is that I used to do tech support for Motorola, and they have a wireless networking technology that is pretty cool. We also did tech for their international customers, and had this one crazy chick from China continuously calling. Had to be two or three times a week, for about four months. Asking all kinds of technical and really out there questions about the system, and why the system didn't work. We puzzled through it and finally got an interpreter involved and found out she had these things on *trains* Apparently Asian WiFi has already been doing this moving hand off for a while now, at least experimentally. The Chinese chick couldn't understand that this product was like ethernet cabling, without the cable. Had to be aimed and left. So the control center kept losing, and then regaining, contact to trains on board systems. So people want this to work, for a variety of reasons.

    I can't even begin to tell you how often I look and listen to what is going on without thinking to myself, "My God, we're in a badly ghostwritten William Shatner novel." ... or any other post apocalyptic work that envisions the future of the world with computers in our head. Ever hear of Masamune Shirow? I'm starting to think that dude is dead on about what's coming in the next 50 years.

    --
    "Genius may shine aloof and alone, like a star, but goodness is social, and it takes two men and God to make a Brother."
    1. Re:Cops and Cell Phones by HustlinPete · · Score: 1

      Actually any good digital scanner now can pick up trunked radio conversations very well. There are a couple systems that they can't pick up, but the Uniden BC296D or 796D can do most. RadioShack has their own model too, the PRO96 if I recall.

      The reason the antennas are so small is because the typical frequency of a trunked radio system is around 800mhz give or take. The antennas for this are comparable to mobile phone antennas. Back when the public safety systems were on CB frequencies you needed giant whips. When they were in the 156.000 Mhz range you could get away with a smaller whip, but now that they're getting near Ghz ranges the antennas have shrunk considerably. The other reason they're down to the size of Sirius antennas, is because you can shrink an 800mhz antenna down considerably when all you need it to communicate on is a very small range of frequencies.

      Lastly, A field agent could talk to another agent 70 miles away pretty easily if there are enough towers in enough critical locations. Michigan has implemented this for their state police. A trooper in the UP can talk to a trooper near Detroit through this network of towers. Everything on their network can be picked up on a scanner for around 600 US dollars, with the exception of the encrypted communications.

    2. Re:Cops and Cell Phones by TheRealSync · · Score: 1
      The funny thing is that I used to do tech support for Motorola, and they have a wireless networking technology that is pretty cool.

      Are you thinking of the Tetra network? I did a lot of the migration of the managing software from american to european standards for them. It's pretty cool.

      One of the more interesting stories I got while working for Motorola is regarding the radios sold to the british police.
      As technology is getting cheaper and better it's also getting smaller - which leaves the british police with a problem; they usualy prefer hitting suspects with their radios instead of the clubs they've been issued. Apparantly they don't have to file a report when they hit someone over the head with a radio - thus Motorola keeps making huge-ass radios, with a good punch, for the british police.
      --
      -- A good compromise leaves everyone mad. --Calvin and Hobbes
    3. Re:Cops and Cell Phones by NateTech · · Score: 1

      Oh boy, here we go... yep, this is mostly Bullshit, alright.

      First, tracking today's trunked radio systems is child's play, unless the control channels are encrypted.

      This is starting to happen, but slowly. Many agencies can't afford the upgrades necessary.

      You wouldn't believe how much simple encryption costs in commercial the two-way radio business -- it's an add-on feature, and some companies get upwards of $200 a radio.

      Okay, I have to ask this one:

      Is it legal in your area to have a police scanner in a PARKED vehicle?

      The whole "moving vehicle" thing sounds like either a stupid law, or you're not really reading your local laws very well. Most laws have been changed to say that police scanners can not be used in the commision of a crime. Much more useful law, when written that way -- perhaps you should suggest it to your local representative legislators. I feel sorry for you if your elected representatives were dumb enough to pass that whole "moving vehicle" thing. I'd also love to see how they're enforcing such a rule.

      As far as your pontification about RF topics:

      RF travels great distances in both ground-wave and sky-wave propagation when the correct frequencies for the distance are used. Your 70 mile story only accounts for VHF/UHF typical distances. HF frequencies easily circumnavigate the globe, but require large antenna systems to be effective.

      What you're describing is "using antennas and radios that are reasonably-sized for a police car".

      There's not that much keeping any agency that needs longer-distance communication from getting it. There's land-line linking of radio systems, VoIP radio system linking built into most modern products (poorly, but done - one major manufacturer uses multicast packets between the dispatch console on a PC and the radio on the mountain with no provision for checking to see if they actually arrived and the voice of the dispatcher really went out over the air... better do a damn good job making THAT data network redundant, if they're a Public Safety Dispatcher!), simulcasting (two transmitter sites, accurately time-synchronized to be received in a common "overlap" area), and a whole plethora of other options for wide-area coverage systems. My own home State has a system that allows for statewide radio-to-radio private calls, interagency communication between field units and dispatchers alike, and the entire system is backhauled via microwave -- almost no reliance on the PSTN at all. And we're a western State with a lot of open back-country and have the Continental Divide running down the middle. An officer in any agency participating in the system can go two or three hundred miles in any direction and still talk to their dispatcher, far outside of their normal coverage areas. This stuff isn't hard.

      Your experience is very limited here, and it shows.

      Satellites are not the only answer, and the latency involved in transmitting and receiving to satellites in geosynchronous orbit is too high for VoIP to really be effective and good-quality. It can be done, but it's not the best solution, at all.

      As far as your comments about RF distance go:

      Depending on geography one can place the remote-bases or repeaters high on mountaintops overlooking town or on large structures like buildings in city skylines. Towers are not the only available answer there, either. FAA has been doing this for at least 30 years, for just one small example. RCO's (or "Remote Communication Outlets") are how Center controllers talk to virtually every aircraft in the sky.

      I guess what bugs me the most is that everyone always forgets the basics in these discussions:

      This whole discussion about VoIP over RF is retarded. If the police or any other agency wanted it, they can push VoIP over any fast data system out there. Remember the Seven Layer OSI model... build a Physical layer, and work your way up.

      Analyze what you have and layer. Any data transport of any kind can

      --
      +++OK ATH
    4. Re:Cops and Cell Phones by zero_offset · · Score: 1

      There really isn't anything to keep normal people, as well as criminals, from listening to communications.

      Where I live, "as well as criminals" is redundant.

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

  30. legality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is it legal to use a cellphone on a network thats outside the country?

    remember when you use a cellphone you are TRANSMITTING as well as receiving.

    when you use a network in your contry you have permission from the network who in turn have permission/license from the contries radio regulator (the FCC in the us case)

    but when your on a foreign network you do not have permission from your contries regulator either directly or indirectly.

  31. Tickets? by Primal_theory · · Score: 1

    Can you get pulled over for this? or is there no speed limit?

    --
    Your skill in reading has increased by one point!
  32. Offtopic, but funny. by thebes · · Score: 1

    Being an engineering student and having professors hound you for correct units, it IS fun to analyze how people abbreviate things and see what it is that they are really saying, according to the common use of particular abbreviations.

  33. car troubles by bird603568 · · Score: 1

    looks like my car is gonna have to break down there often

  34. Well after signal strengh abates by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I recently took a 10-hour Amtrak ride and picked up > 300 access points along the way. I could never keep signal to an access point for long enough to get a DHCP lease, much less see any doppler shift.

    If everybody had a nice high-gain antenna on their roofs this would seem practical, but the little linksys dipoles aren't meant for and don't cut it for MAN'ing.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  35. Immigration by sexysasian · · Score: 0

    I think the reference was to La Migra, yes?

  36. Raleigh Fading by renehollan · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I remember implementing communications code for packet radio modems way back in th' day... circa 1989, at 1200-9600 b/s.

    The big problem with mobile radio sysems (particularly in urban environments) is Raleigh Fading, otherwise known as "picket fencing" noise. What happens is that one receives the radio signal via multiple paths, reflected from buildings in the "urban jungle". Sometimes these signals interfere constructively, and sometimes destructively. When driving, in an urban environment, one tends to move from areas of constructive to destructive interferance and back again, on a surprisingly regular basis. The effect is called "Raleigh Fading", after the statistical distribution of constructive and destructive zones. On an analog voice radio channel, it sounds like someone running a stick past a picket fence, hence "picket fencing noise". Of course, in environments with less opportunities for radio signal reflections, the effect is less predictible, but it still happens.

    Naturally, transmitting and receiving a checksummed packet while driving through one of the areas of destructive interferance is, well, a challenge. If the non-acknowlegement retransmission rate, and speed are just so, you'll never get a packet through.

    There are two ways of dealing with this: spacial diversity antennas (multiple antennas separated at carefully computed distances so that one is always in an area of constructive interferance when the other is in an area of destructive interferance), and interleaved error correcting codes. The spacial diversity antennas work well at the higher VHF and greater frequencies, because the distance between individual antennas isn't all that great. However, at frequencies of around 150 Mhz and lower, the required distance between individual antennas is too great to allow for automobile mounting. So, one uses interleaved error correcting codes (generally Reed Solomon), and hopes that one travels between zones of constructive and destructive interferance "fast enough". Yes, there is a mimumum driving speed related to data rate, carrier frequency, and error correcting code and interleave chosen, below which the system would not work. One generally picks an error correcting code so that the minimum speed is low enough that it would be practical to stop in an area of constructive interferance.

    As I recall, at least one rural police force in Quebec, Canada was outfitted with the equipment we produced. Needless to say, the fade rate was not a problem when "Enos" (well, Jean-Guy in the Quebecois version of "Dukes of Hazzard") was in in "hot pursuit".

    No, we did not interface the modem to the cruise control to ensure the vehicle was moving "fast enough", though it was damn tempting...

    Of course, at modern data rates and carrier frequencies, spacial diversity antennas are a far better choice to combat this problem (and why wireless data network interfaces usually have two antennas).

    --
    You could've hired me.
    1. Re:Raleigh Fading by weicco · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that next time police stops me for speeding I just say to him "I'm trying to get rid of the interference" :)

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
    2. Re:Raleigh Fading by renehollan · · Score: 1
      I guess you could try that excuse :-)

      However, bewarned that (a) we chose error-correcting codes where the minimum speed was something like 20 km/h (about 16 mph), and (b) modern equipment works at sufficiently high carrier frequencies that spacial diversity antennas can be used instead.

      So, unless you were speeding in a parking lot, or 15 mph school zone, driving a 15 to 20 year old car, with equally old radio equipment, and likely a Zenith clamshell laptop running DOS (yes, been there, done that -- except for the speeding part), I doubt the judge will buy it.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    3. Re:Raleigh Fading by JoeyNumbers · · Score: 1

      Sorry but I missed the part where anyone was talking about analog signals. If i can sit in the middle of the Hampton Roads Tunnel and surf the net on my blackberry, then a cruiser can do VoIP through midtown Manhattan...without looking like a porcupine in heat.

    4. Re:Raleigh Fading by renehollan · · Score: 1
      It's all analog at some level (unless you get to the quantum level).

      But, things work for the cop because s/he is using spacial diversity antennas: either at the transmitter (rare), or at the receiver (common). At the carrier frequences these services operate, the individial antennals (three are typically used, though two can suffice), need only be inches apart, not feet, and are often in a common housing.

      --
      You could've hired me.
  37. Redundancy by div_2n · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The more modes of communication that law enforcements have available the better. I don't see why you would think that having one more is a bad thing. Remember that during 9/11 and the recent hurricanes that it was ham radio operators that did most of the communicating.

  38. Because public officers are super-human! by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Funny
    Remember folks, it's illegal for you to talk on a cell phone while driving, but it is perfectly ok for cops to type on a terminal while driving 80mph!

    Shouldn't the same rules apply to everyone?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Because public officers are super-human! by demmer · · Score: 0

      you sir are stupid. ever come across an ambulance with more than one passenger?

  39. In Other News... by Delta2.0 · · Score: 1

    13 people die in a 7 car pileup due to a man playing Unreal Tournament online while going 80

  40. In other news... by po8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    • WiFi VoIP tested in cold weather.
    • WiFi VoIP tested for use during full moon.
    • WiFi VoIP: can it work for brunettes?

    Seriously. What possible reason would WiFi VoIP work any differently at 80MPH than in the rest Earth reference frame?

    P.S. Before you say "Doppler Shift", go do the math and examine the chip specs. We have: we hope to shortly demonstrate 802.11b at Mach 2.

  41. Re:Who are you and what have you done with Slashdo by Peyna · · Score: 2, Funny

    Not only that, but the editor that RTFA was TIMOTHY of all people.

    I've already duct tapes all windows and doors in my apartment.

    --
    What?
  42. In Other, Other News... by TrIp0d · · Score: 0

    Family of four gunned down with Cheeze Wiz by 14 year old son due to a 'mobile UT server' crash.

  43. Huh? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    I repeat: "Huh? Over."

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  44. Are they smoking crack? by Keruo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You really really really don't want emergency service calls routed over packet switched network.
    The network described is best effort service with no built-in QoS features. Yes, you can set the qos bit, but can't users do that same with custom voip software aswell?
    I'd perfer my emergency calls routed through circuit switched network, since there's actually chance for them to get through in it.

    And what's with this reinventing the wheel again?
    TETRA is already existing standard for public safety communications, it still works at speeds of 200km/h, circuit switched, encrypted secure transfer medium by default, nationwide user groups, integraded ptt in devices etc etc.

    --
    There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
  45. Re:FP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No go sulk in the corner and/or stare at goatse

    I can't anymore. My admin added it to my Hosts file.

  46. MobileIP by buehlers · · Score: 1

    Actually it is funny that this topic has just surfaced, Im in the process of finishing a thesis studying Mobile IP actually MIPv6 and its capabilities, you'd be extremely surprised what you get when you start putting a few things together, using 802.1x and IPsec we can ultimately reduce handoffs between access routers on the same prefix to ~50ms or less and thats with an 802.1x authentication!! Sutff like this is really possible and can be done today without major infrastructure changes, we just need to start doing things. I think in the next few years we're going to see the next Major leap with technologies like this and the upcomming "Cell" processor (I cant wait for this one).

    BTW if anyone is interested do a google for MIPv6 you can narrow it to the ietf.org if you want. Killer stuff.

  47. Re:Metric!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF is with this metric bullshit. This was done in the United States not Europe.

    Ahhh, that's why the speeds are so low.

  48. 80mph.... by martin · · Score: 1

    In the UK that's about average speed for the motorway(highway).

    We'd need the thing to work up to at least 150mph so the fast cars can still get comms at 'chase speed'. (too many Subaru Imprezza turbos on both side of law).

  49. VoIP, Wlan and handover by omach · · Score: 1

    The main thing about this is how they have sucessfully made handover between each base-station along the route without cracks, mutes and dropped calls.

    Would be interesting to see these guys go up agains the EU DECT-standard.

  50. already done before by confused+one · · Score: 1

    While they were using a different communications mechanism, industry groups, in testing future ODBIII implementations, have already proven they can read out emissions data from automotive computers as vehicles drive by transponders embedded in the side of the road, in rush hour traffic, on a four lane highway, at 80 mph.

  51. Great! Now I can ... by Roadside+Couch · · Score: 0

    Taunt the police online as I head for the border after a wild night of tearing tags off of mattresses I don't own.

  52. ULTRA KILL!!! by winse · · Score: 1

    ok you can mod me down now. That probably wasn't funny.

    --
    this sig is deprecated
  53. but not as useful for emergency help by fantomas · · Score: 1
    :-) given the choice I'd rather trust an ambulance to pick me and ferry me to hospital and do some data transmission on the way (e.g. send forward info about my condition to emergency doctors) if I was bleeding to death, than rely on Lufthansa to park a jet outside my house and then get downtown to the local emergency surgery :-)


    Ambulances /other emergency service scenarios more humdrum but I'm happy if people are spending time and money working it out :-)

  54. Re:FP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK as you got rated -1, presumably for using the word fucktard, I'll let you in on a secret. I have a problem at the moment posting forms, so I'll give you the attention you crave with my test posts. There, made your day