Thu Aug 30 11:37:54 PDT 2001
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Ben Woodard wrote:
> I've been watching both sides of the ultra wide band communication and
> I honestly don't think it is going to fly. There are too many deeply
Oh, it will. It will just take a while. The olive-clad ones are very
interested. Combination of comm, positioning and sensing, all stealthy at
that is hard to beat. People will be getting hooked. (I'm salivating
> entrenched parties who do not want the signal to noise ratio of their
> allocated bandwidth messed with.
That stuff is so easy, so efficient, and so hard to detect they will have
to live with spectrum slot investments slowly becoming worthless, and
their S/N going to the dogs. My heart it bleeding for them, truly.
> 802.11 is pretty nice. I use it every day. However, there is only so
> much you can do with 50 milliwatts. There is this very basic law
50 mW with a good directional aerial can come a great long way. Routed
mesh overlapping cells can come even farther, with full coverage.
> The key thing that I think you are missing is that with ultraband and
> ad-hoc 802.11 it is more of the same thing. I guess I've been involved
Ultrabroadband is intrinsically short-range, and has good ether
utilization. I don't see why you can't achieve ~GBps aggregate wireless
bandwidth within a small cell in 10-15 years.
> with the internet long enough (since 1989) and I've seen it change
> enough that I feel like it is polluted. I don't think that just adding
It is not polluted. Your filters are not coping. It's balcanized and
filtered, but polluted it is not.
> more bandwidth is going to fix many of the problems on the internet. I
It's not about the bandwidth. It's people owning the infrastructure, and
not having wires to trace. More, ephemeral networks created by moving
nodes being in an area.
> don't think that just adding more bandwidth is going to allow the
> internet to realize its full potential. I think we need to create a
> protected place with a different set of rules. That is why I think
> that making something distinctly different is needed.
You can alreay make a protected place, using the Internet as the virtual
physical transport layer.
> We can take all that we learned, we can take all that is good about
> the internet and carry it over but in the process we can get rid of
> some of the bad things. e.g. spam and silly people administering DNS.
You don't need DNS. Document hash collisions simply do not happen.
Flooding the search space is possible, though, but for that there are
agorics. Which also will take care of spam, and of course you can use
The transport layer is suboptimal, but it is hardly limiting.
More information about the linux-elitists