*BSD News Article 42894


Return to BSD News archive

Xref: sserve comp.unix.bsd:16266 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:8216 comp.unix.sys5.r4:9353 comp.unix.misc:16207 comp.os.linux.development:23677 comp.os.linux.misc:35820 comp.os.386bsd.development:3256 comp.os.386bsd.misc:5517
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.misc,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.os.386bsd.misc
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!gmi!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!sun4nl!rnzll3!sys3.pe1chl!rob
From: rob@pe1chl.ampr.org (Rob Janssen)
Subject: Re: flat rates for Internet/phone (Re: X on dial-in)
Reply-To: pe1chl@wab-tis.rabobank.nl
Organization: PE1CHL
Message-ID: <D4Lpwv.MFK@pe1chl.ampr.org>
References: <D3s19v.4M7@pe1chl.ampr.org> <D4DH09.BAo@pe1chl.ampr.org> <3ig1dn$6l5@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <1995Feb22.220136.7837@kf8nh.wariat.org> <3iik8n$q8@zeus.achilles.net> <jameslD4H36p.J7E@netcom.com> <3ilkcf$r4g@park.uvsc.edu> <jameslD4J4D3.5q7@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 09:48:29 GMT
Lines: 46

In <jameslD4J4D3.5q7@netcom.com> jamesl@netcom.com (James Logajan) writes:

>I did not intend to include so-called interactive TV or even mobile
>cellular radio franchises, though the later includes some of what I had
>in mind.

>1) Low power UHF/VHF intelligent transceivers that act a lot like network
>routers and installed over the landscape is closer to what I had in
>mind. With intelligent/adaptive routing, low-power transceivers could
>handle a very large number of virtual channels for a large customer
>base without excessive bandwidth being used. Obviously, to hinder tapping
>radio transmissions will require encryption. Admittedly there is no
>way to build a perfect scheme that couldn't be tapped somehow.
>I do not remember where I first read about this, but it was quite some
>time ago. If anyone recoginizes the original attribution for my admittedly
>poor recollection of it, please let me know what it is.

>2) Satellites acting as transceivers, similar to the scheme above. There
>were some changes/enhancements that made the scheme workable. The satellites
>weren't geostationary; that would be too far away. There would be enough
>in low-earth orbit (like GPS) to allow continuous global coverage.
>Again, I can't recall the orginal attribution for this idea [or all of
>the orginal idea ;-) ], so please don't hold me to any details.

Such systems are possible, and are used in practice.  The first is a lot
like the amateur packet radio network, which (over here) also routes
TCP/IP.  I have seen some announcements of the second type of system to
be designed and built.

However, these systems are only suitable for small scale use.  The datarate
they can provide within the bandwidth allocated to them (from the finite
resource of bandwidth available to all radio systems) is not enough for
use in everybodies home.

I think that given the scarce supply of radio bandwidth there is, no
attempts should be made at using it for large scale fixed-fixed data
communications.  Radio is nice for mobile use, but there is a limited
capacity.  Fixed applications should use cable or fiber, which can be
extended at will.

Rob
-- 
+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Rob Janssen         rob@knoware.nl | AMPRnet:   rob@pe1chl.ampr.org       |
| e-mail: pe1chl@wab-tis.rabobank.nl | AX.25 BBS: PE1CHL@PI8UTR.#UTR.NLD.EU |
+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+