Text 11278, 76 rader
Skriven 2010-10-13 15:44:03 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Björn Felten (2:203/2)
Ärende: Beta testers, please?
=============================
Hello Björn,

On Wednesday October 13 2010 14:35, you wrote to me:

 MvdV>> And just like with modems, there are physical limits.

 BF> Yes. Some 20 odd years ago it was estimated that we couldn't cream out
 BF> more than 9600 from our copper wires. We all know how fast that
 BF> changed.

And we all know that it ended at 56K.

Sure the end of RF technology has not been reached yet and nobody knows how how
much more can be milked out of it by new technology. But there are limits
simply because of the laws of physics.

 MvdV>> spectrum, but demand will always exceed supply, so there will be
 MvdV>> scarcity.

 BF>    Sweden has 98% of its area covered by the GSM net.

Probably even better. Only in the very early days were there black spots
outside.

 BF> I doubt that e.g. NL is any worse. And 3G over GSM works fairly well,
 BF> I know, I used it up at Harads. :)

There is no such thing as 3G over GSM. GSM is 2G. Data over GSM is limited to
14K4. For more bandwidth you need a 3G network like UMTS.

 MvdV>> If the bandwidth of a fiber is no longer sufficient, you can
 MvdV>> lay a second or a third, but there is only one aether.

 BF>    Yes, but it's a continuous spectrum that can house almost an
 BF> indefinite number of channels. The higher the frequency the more
 BF> channels you get.

No, you get the same number of channels per Hz. It just looks like there is
more when you plot it on a logarithmic scale.

The higher the frequency, the more difficult it becomes. The limit is when you
drown in the thermal and solar radiation. The extreme high frequencies are only
usable for very short range or point to point.

 BF> Today's limitations will look like yesterdays 9600 limitation in a not
 BF> so distant future.

Sure. But the same goes for data over "wire". Wireless will ALWAYS stay behind
wire. That was my point.

 MvdV>> Frankly, I do not WANT my car to be connected to the internet.
 MvdV>> Because when it has a permanent connection to the internet, the
 MvdV>> next step is, that I will be continuesly monitored and the next
 MvdV>> step after that is that I will lose full control over it. No
 MvdV>> thanks.

 BF>    I guess you do not bring your cell phone either, then? It's a
 BF> perfect tracker. And you already have traffic cameras with number
 BF> plate recognition, haven't you? We have thousands of them in Sweden...

That is the old bogus argument of "you have already lost some of your privacy,
so you should not object to losing some more".

1) I can switch off my cell phone if I so choose. I can not switch of my car
when I want to drive.

2) Yes we have those camera with number plate recognition stuff. I don't like
that either. But as they are (yet) only on the motorways, I can still avoid
them by taking the small roads.

And you have not commented on the next step: control of the vehicle.

Cheers, Michiel

--- Changed tearline
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)