'Whispering' Wireless Internet

Zondar writes "MSNBC is reporting about a new radio filtering technology allows an ISP to use already-occupied frequencies to transmit and receive data. From the article: 'xMax, the latest innovation in broadband communications, is a very quiet radio system that uses radio channels already filled up with noisy pager or TV signals ...' and 'xMax is trespassing radio frequencies, although trespassing is not the right word, because we're allowed to transmit a signal if it doesn't interfere with other, stronger signals...' Too good to be true? Sounds like it would just raise the noise floor, to me."

Comments

Re:Range?

[timeOday]

1000 transcievers over a 40 square mile area doesn't sound so bad to me. If the population is much denser than that, then wired net access is likely available.

Will we become invisible to ET SETI searchers?

[G4from128k]

If everyone switches to wideband, low-power, densely-coded, mesh-network transmissions, then I suspect that the Earth will become virtually invisible to extraterrestrials who try to use SETI-style, pattern-in-RF methods. With nobody broadcasting at high power on a simple-coded narrow-band carrier, the RF emissions of the planet will become indistinguishable from noise.

I wonder if each civilization goes through a short RF-detectability phase before they so densely pack the spectrum with so many emitters that they become invisible, too.

Re:Will we become invisible to ET SETI searchers?

[stienman]

A very noisy planet will still stand out since it will be generating much more radio noise than the surroundings.

Saying that wide band communications is less visible than narrow band communications is like saying that white light is less visible than red light. You'll still be able to see the 'noisy' white light in the field of gray and black, and perhaps more easily than the red light.

-Adam

Re:Spread-spectrum

[the_weasel]

Thats pretty cool stuff, thanks for pointing out her contribution!

One thing that I find interesting is that her role as a scientist was somewhat celebrated. The wikipedia article still focuses on her celebrety as a movie star but I found myself most interested in how intensely driven she seems to have been.

Trespassing?

[serutan]

although trespassing is not the right word, because we're allowed to transmit a signal if it doesn't interfere with other, stronger signals...

Damn right it's not the right word, and it wouldn't be even if it weren't legal to transmit on those same freqs. You can't trespass on frequencies because frequencies are not anyone's property. We gotta shake off this relentless trend of treating rights and licenses as property. To use a more familiar example, nobody "owns" music, not even the composer. Rights holders don't own anything at all, they merely control the rights to do specific things for a limited time.

The distinction isn't semantic nitpicking, it's very important because treating rights as property gives the copyright control industry an unfair advantage in any public discussions about rights issues. They like to play the part of the plucky little old lady chasing down a purse snatcher, or the outraged homeowner defending his castle against burglars and government goons. They get away with it because the public has been taught to overlay the simple and familiar concept of property on much more complicated issues. Treat rights as what they are -- temporary conditions set by the government -- and various rights and DRM issues suddenly require a lot more thought, which they should.