Two comments: First is a matter of principle... the 'upgrade' was done with public money, taxpayer money. We bought and paid for it. It should be freely available. Xtendwave is essentially taxing a public service.
If Xtendwave wants a monopoly on time, they should build their own transmitter, rather than sponging off the taxpayers. Second, I don't care about TOD. My interest is in a standard of time interval. YMMV, -John ======================== > > On 26 Sep, 2012, at 10:03 , J. Forster wrote: > >> You go after everything. Soup to nuts, including the contract >> agreements. >> >> IMO, this is potentially very, very big money, because Xtendwave may >> also >> have patent protection, and henceforth control all the precise digital >> clock market. This is tens of millions of units, at least. > > They claim to have applied for patents on something but I would be > surprised if they could patent anything that would prevent anyone > from designing their own receiver. > > What would annoy me is less-than-full disclosure of the transmitted > signal and its properties. For example, there's a claim in the paper > that the (31 26) Hamming code used can detect double-bit errors in the > encoded time. I think detecting double-bit errors would require an > additional parity bit, and that the assertion in the paper is just a > boo-boo, but I also keep wondering if the claim might in fact be true, > that there might be a really clever way to use that with something else > in the signal to detect double-bit errors, and the paper just isn't > pointing that out. That would be annoying. > > Dennis Ferguson > > _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.