Re: 700 Mhz Spectrum Auction
kenneth marken wrote: On Sunday 05 August 2007 20:21:57 Derek Pressnall wrote: On 8/2/07, Ian Stirling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote: However, the signals from distant stations still interfere, and increase the channel noise level, reducing range. With planned networks, this is all managed. With unplanned networks, it could in principle auto-configure, but only if everyone implements the same fairness protocol. I had an idea that may help reduce radio interference in point to point communications. Lets say if one end (the base) was set up to broadcast using multiple antennas aranged in some sort of pattern, Beamforming antennas are a big future topic. In principle, you can trade off number and arrangement of antennas so that you can, both reject noise in certain directions, and send less of your signal in different directions. sounds like a cross between mimo and direction finding to me. would be interesting to try it :) The limit of this is pretty much the size of the device. It can work _really_ well with devices not constrained too much in size. For example, at 700Mhz, the wavelength is some 40cm. With a cylindrical antenna a metre or so in diameter and a meter tall, you can get around a beam of 30 degrees or so. With 1/12th the actual power needed to talk to a mobile device. On the device itself, options are very limited. You can accurately point the antenna (electrically) at an interfering source, and have the device not be interfered with it by then - but actually positively pointing isn't really favoured by the physics. That only really happens when the size of the device gets over the wavelength. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: 700 Mhz Spectrum Auction
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote: Ian Stirling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Umm. The 700MHz spectrum would about cope with one 802.11g equivalent data-rate channel. The whole analog TV allocation that they are reallocating is a bit more than one 22Mhz WIFI channel. Each 4 adjacent TV channels could support 1 WIFI channel. And exactly what do you think would happen if this was free access, and the signals go for longer distances? Well for one we'd start seeing city-wide wifi that actually worked through current obstructions. You could then support quite a bit if VOIP traffic (or SMS) over that network. So you missed the earlier comment from someone who has problems with wifi working reliably due to overloading? Consider that if current wifi went through obstructions, and had a 4 fold range improvement that you get 16 times the interfering stations. You cannot expect performance similar to managed networks on unmanaged networks. In ethernet terms - what happens if you put 100 users all on a shared 10-base-2 segment, and connect the end to the internet? Yes, they all have 100kbits/second average bandwidth. Yes, if they only all download at some 50kbits/second, then it will all work. However, it only takes two users streaming files between themselves to kill connectivity for everyone else. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: 700 Mhz Spectrum Auction
Ian Stirling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So you missed the earlier comment from someone who has problems with wifi working reliably due to overloading? It would have been hard for me to miss it since I was the one that made it. ;-) Consider that if current wifi went through obstructions, and had a 4 fold range improvement that you get 16 times the interfering stations. Actually, I'm a greedy little b-stard. I want N-times increased coverage and well over N-times as much spectrum. The whole cellular pricing structure hinges on folks not having any alternatives. There is *lots* of spectrum and the public is shoehorned into a few small ~100Mhz bands. You cannot expect performance similar to managed networks on unmanaged networks. There is nothing magical about the cell-tower firmware that free/open access point code couldn't also do. You want power control, WIFI could do that if needed. You want hand-off to other frequencies, open sourced code could do that too. However, it only takes two users streaming files between themselves to kill connectivity for everyone else. There is nothing preventing fair-share routing/filtering. This is actually a common filter that both Linux and BSD kernels have available in their IP filtering subsystems. In fact, there is a lot of research on various different fairness algorithms. This is one of the things that open-source will almost certainly do better since there are tons of competing ideas and tons of research papers. -wolfgang -- Wolfgang S. Rupprechthttp://www.wsrcc.com/wolfgang/ IPv6 on Fedora 7 http://www.wsrcc.com/wolfgang/fedora/ipv6-tunnel.html ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
700 Mhz Spectrum Auction
The most important meeting probably globally regarding the future of wireless communications happened yesterday. http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/700-mhz-spectrum-auction.htm l Any thoughts in the OpenMoko community? Regards, Dean Collins Cognation Pty Ltd [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-212-203-4357 Ph +61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial). ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
700 Mhz Spectrum Auction
I am disappointed. I wanted the FCC to support open networks and open services as well. I really hope Google wins this thing...for the sake of projects like ours. In today's society, we are at the mercy of Verizon, ATT, Sprint, etc. in terms what we are required to pay for mobile phone and internet access. I am not a fan of regulation myself (the reason I support open source products) but by providing those 4 open requirements, I think it would really help to cut down on some of these monopolies. Honestly, I feel it's ridiculous that this utility is not better managed. So many great innovations would come from having an open mobile network (that does not have a primary objective of making money). -Kyle On 8/1/07, Dean Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The most important meeting probably globally regarding the future of wireless communications happened yesterday. http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/700-mhz-spectrum-auction.html Any thoughts in the OpenMoko community? Regards, Dean Collins Cognation Pty Ltd [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-212-203-4357 Ph +61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial). ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: 700 Mhz Spectrum Auction
I'll second the disappointed verdict. But, then again, were we really expecting Commissioners Tate, McDowell and Martin to see the light and pursue the public interest instead of incumbent telco/cableco interests? Really?? The compromise struck will likely, as most FCC orders tend to, be litigated beyond recognition and ultimately maintain the status quo; i.e. domination by a small group of incumbents as deregulation proponents assure us all the while that anti-trust will protect us. I must admit, I was looking for a potential alternative broadband possibility and not with openmoko as much in mind. You'd think this would be a real win for openmoko . . . ha ha ha, whoah, let me catch my breath . . . let's wait and see the specific language of the order and then see what people think. On 8/1/07, Kyle Bassett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am disappointed. I wanted the FCC to support open networks and open services as well. I really hope Google wins this thing...for the sake of projects like ours. In today's society, we are at the mercy of Verizon, ATT, Sprint, etc. in terms what we are required to pay for mobile phone and internet access. I am not a fan of regulation myself (the reason I support open source products) but by providing those 4 open requirements, I think it would really help to cut down on some of these monopolies. Honestly, I feel it's ridiculous that this utility is not better managed. So many great innovations would come from having an open mobile network (that does not have a primary objective of making money). -Kyle On 8/1/07, Dean Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The most important meeting probably globally regarding the future of wireless communications happened yesterday. http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/700-mhz-spectrum-auction.html Any thoughts in the OpenMoko community? Regards, Dean Collins Cognation Pty Ltd [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-212-203-4357 Ph +61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial). ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community -- Mischa Beitz http://mischa.beitz.org ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: 700 Mhz Spectrum Auction
I'm pretty indifferent the the entire thing, and here is why: 1. It's the FCC no surprises they like big business, and the ruling only makes any difference in one country. 2. Cell phones won't magically change to a 700Mhz band, it could all be bought up by crab people for all we know. 3. If all the rules were passed the frequencies would have less value. Radio towers are expensive and you cannot charge people for them. Consumer electronics are cheap(to make) and people will pay for them. If a company isn't guaranteed profits from CE, then they have less real incentive to put up towers. (they still have service charges). 4. Nobody really restricts devices anyway they just use retail power to push their phones. So point 3 because mostly irrelevant either way. In an ideal situation this would create many new services with innovative new devices, but in practice I wouldn't bet on it. But I'm not sure that it would actually work. The only real benefit is to content suppliers or advertisers for said content supplier. Imagine a cheap services with the latest devices and a Google add bar on every page (im pretty sure thats what Google wants). Time will tell if this really makes any difference at all. Just my opinion, but its pretty flame retardants. On 8/1/07, Mischa Beitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll second the disappointed verdict. But, then again, were we really expecting Commissioners Tate, McDowell and Martin to see the light and pursue the public interest instead of incumbent telco/cableco interests? Really?? The compromise struck will likely, as most FCC orders tend to, be litigated beyond recognition and ultimately maintain the status quo; i.e. domination by a small group of incumbents as deregulation proponents assure us all the while that anti-trust will protect us. I must admit, I was looking for a potential alternative broadband possibility and not with openmoko as much in mind. You'd think this would be a real win for openmoko . . . ha ha ha, whoah, let me catch my breath . . . let's wait and see the specific language of the order and then see what people think. On 8/1/07, Kyle Bassett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am disappointed. I wanted the FCC to support open networks and open services as well. I really hope Google wins this thing...for the sake of projects like ours. In today's society, we are at the mercy of Verizon, ATT, Sprint, etc. in terms what we are required to pay for mobile phone and internet access. I am not a fan of regulation myself (the reason I support open source products) but by providing those 4 open requirements, I think it would really help to cut down on some of these monopolies. Honestly, I feel it's ridiculous that this utility is not better managed. So many great innovations would come from having an open mobile network (that does not have a primary objective of making money). -Kyle On 8/1/07, Dean Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The most important meeting probably globally regarding the future of wireless communications happened yesterday. http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/700-mhz-spectrum-auction.html Any thoughts in the OpenMoko community? Regards, Dean Collins Cognation Pty Ltd [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-212-203-4357 Ph +61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial). ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community -- Mischa Beitz http://mischa.beitz.org ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: 700 Mhz Spectrum Auction
Allow me to clarify, Most of them allow unlocked phones direct from the manufacturer to be used on their network. It's actually your Sprint phone refusing to operation on Verizon's network. look up unlocking phones you call the old company, not the new company (assuming they are willing to do it). This is how things tend to go on the GSM side of things anyway On 8/1/07, Ben Burdette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 4. Nobody really restricts devices anyway they just use retail power to push their phones. So point 3 because mostly irrelevant either way. Not sure what you mean by this. When verizon won't allow you to use a sprint phone on their network, isn't that considered a restriction? Or not being able to activate an old phone that they don't want to support anymore? What about being locked out of features on your own phone? ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
700 Mhz Spectrum Auction
Yes I am disappointed as well. I hope everyone will voice their disappointment to the FCC. I just wrote letters to my sen/rep and the FCC (it felt great lol). I wonder how much the general public is interested in such an important issue because some of the people i've talked to just don't get it. I have friends who don't even understand open-source, they told me why if a computer can run the code you must be able to dissemble and decompile it (hes a type of person who thinks all mathematical/logical operations are reversible too). I told him try to look at a gcc -O3 binary with stripped symbols. But when I tried to explain why you can go back he didn't want to hear it. Anyway I wish there was a way I could tell people they are wrong without alienating them Harrison Metzger ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: 700 Mhz Spectrum Auction
Harrison Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I hope everyone will voice their disappointment to the FCC. I just wrote letters to my sen/rep and the FCC (it felt great lol). ... I wonder if any pressure can be put on the FCC to reserve some of the public airwaves for, you know, the public. The fact that the free WIFI spectrum is only large enough to hold 3 non-overlapping channels is disgusting. Here in this part of Fremont, California those channels are so overused it is hard to keep a connection for very long due to everyone stepping on each other's signals. Why can't the public have free access to a large percentage of the spectrum. It does belong to us right??? I would like to see the public get access to some prime frequencies that aren't attenuated by 10db for every tree that the signal goes through. The old TV 700Mhz spectrum would be ideal in this regard. Of course, this is a pipe dream. The FCC will sell our airwaves to the same folks they always sell our airwaves to -- some oligopoly that will make sure the public only gets to use them at 25 cents / minute if at all. -wolfgang ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: 700 Mhz Spectrum Auction
You make such a good point. Why does a company get to own our airwaves? It doesn't make much sense. Who says it's the government's right to auction off our airwaves? Because the companies know how to utilize them better? Oh yeah, Verizon is great at it... There is no reason we should have to pay a company to use a cell phone. Possibly for extraneous services such as faster connections, etc. I'm just fed up with it. I understand paying rent for using their towers, but that's not what's going on here-we are paying to use the frequencies as well. (Can you tell my Neo arrived today? heh.) -Kyle On 8/1/07, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harrison Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I hope everyone will voice their disappointment to the FCC. I just wrote letters to my sen/rep and the FCC (it felt great lol). ... I wonder if any pressure can be put on the FCC to reserve some of the public airwaves for, you know, the public. The fact that the free WIFI spectrum is only large enough to hold 3 non-overlapping channels is disgusting. Here in this part of Fremont, California those channels are so overused it is hard to keep a connection for very long due to everyone stepping on each other's signals. Why can't the public have free access to a large percentage of the spectrum. It does belong to us right??? I would like to see the public get access to some prime frequencies that aren't attenuated by 10db for every tree that the signal goes through. The old TV 700Mhz spectrum would be ideal in this regard. Of course, this is a pipe dream. The FCC will sell our airwaves to the same folks they always sell our airwaves to -- some oligopoly that will make sure the public only gets to use them at 25 cents / minute if at all. -wolfgang ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: 700 Mhz Spectrum Auction
On 8/2/07, Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. If all the rules were passed the frequencies would have less value. Radio towers are expensive and you cannot charge people for them. Consumer electronics are cheap(to make) and people will pay for them. If a company isn't guaranteed profits from CE, then they have less real incentive to put up towers. (they still have service charges). That's already been raised and pretty much torpedoed by Google's offer to meet the reserve under those conditions. Even setting that aside, why would they have less value? The openness conditions suggested don't preclude charging for service; they merely ensured that the environment would be competitive, with many different parties able to resell the bandwidth or resulting network on that frequency band. 4. Nobody really restricts devices anyway they just use retail power to push their phones. So point 3 because mostly irrelevant either way. See above: With open, competitive networks on the same frequency, and anyone able to buy and resell chunks of it, and devices that are _required_ to be open, this would be a lot less of an issue. If your provider of choice doesn't offer your favorite device, simply buy one from another provider, or a third-party. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: 700 Mhz Spectrum Auction
On 1 Aug 2007, at 22:16, Kyle Bassett wrote: You make such a good point. Why does a company get to own our airwaves? It doesn't make much sense. Who says it's the government's right to auction off our airwaves? Because the companies know how to utilize them better? Oh yeah, Verizon is great at it... There is no reason we should have to pay a company to use a cell phone. There's a hell of a lot of technology involved that's why. It's not like CB or HAM radio, there's a massive transmitter in most town and cities, there's repeater stations. It's all electronics that costs money to run, electricity, repairs etc. I don't pay rental costs, I just pay for calls and texts. It costs me more but then I don't use it much as I'm near a computer or landline a lot of the time. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: 700 Mhz Spectrum Auction
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote: Harrison Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I hope everyone will voice their disappointment to the FCC. I just wrote letters to my sen/rep and the FCC (it felt great lol). ... I wonder if any pressure can be put on the FCC to reserve some of the public airwaves for, you know, the public. The fact that the free WIFI spectrum is only large enough to hold 3 non-overlapping channels is disgusting. Here in this part of Fremont, California those channels are so overused it is hard to keep a connection for very long due to everyone stepping on each other's signals. Why can't the public have free access to a large percentage of the spectrum. It does belong to us right??? I would like to see the public get access to some prime frequencies that aren't attenuated by 10db for every tree that the signal goes through. The old TV 700Mhz spectrum would be ideal in this regard. Umm. The 700MHz spectrum would about cope with one 802.11g equivalent data-rate channel. And exactly what do you think would happen if this was free access, and the signals go for longer distances? ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: 700 Mhz Spectrum Auction
On 2 Aug 2007, at 01:48, Ian Stirling wrote: And research and network planning. The cellphone is about a quarter of an invention. Three quarters or more of it are in the tower. I'd say we're also all been taken for a ride due to the costs of the licences. In the UK the operators paid many billions for licences, this is why SMS messages (which could be free) are still 12-10p each even though it's 160 characters a piece. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
