gnu@hoptoad.UUCP (02/14/87)
I had an interesting idea the other day.
I've been thinking for a few months about good ways to design a
portable "dynabook" style computer (see Alan Kay's stuff from Xerox
PARC years ago). Basically something the size of a book that's as
useful as a book (or a library) or notebook, and not nearly as much
pain as MSDOS or vi. But unlike a book it's dynamic -- sort of like
rec.ham-radio versus the ham magazines. N-way interaction, editing,
searching, and all that.
One problem is that due to power constraints there is not much info you
can keep in a portable box the size of a book. For example, hard disks
take too much power and space, even if they could stand being dropped in a
mudpuddle a few times a year.
One way to alleviate this problem is by providing good portable
communications. Keep most of the information in a base machine (and/or
in a citywide library) and just stash the stuff you are currently working on
inside the portable. Unfortunately, there is this problem.
We could only let you move stuff in or out of the portable when you
were cabled up to your base station, but that severely limits how
useful this thing is (can't make appointments, or receive and respond
to messages during the working day, or call up references while in a
meeting, or look up something in a "book" that you didn't load into the
portable this morning).
We could build in a cellular phone but that adds $2000 (if handheld) and
the per-minute charges would eat you alive. And the bandwidth is bad since
it's designed for voice.
We could use infrared links but they are low speed and low reliability
and carrying your 'book' outside on the lawn wouldn't work on sunny days,
nor would it work when you weren't in line-of-sight.
We could use ham packet radio links but the *&^$%#@ hams are too stuck on
keeping the spectrum free for yammering at each other. How many people
would learn morse code and radio regs so they could buy a 'dynabook'?
Damn few, and with good reason. Also, you couldn't do business over it.
And the bandwidth is bad because it takes Special Government Permission
to run at a reasonable speed.
We could use commercial radio frequencies but then you'd have to pay
somebody rental to use it, even when just talking between your 'book
and your home computer. Plus a major hassle for the manufacturer in
getting the FCC to give out some frequencies everyplace somebody wanted
to use a 'book.
Now if the PDRS proposal had a chance in hell of passing, I might even
feel comfortable about building and selling a dynabook using PDRS as a
communications method. When in your own home, it would automatically
use very low power to talk to your base system (that IBM PC you'd never
use again once you had the 'book). When out in the world, you'd still
be connected, via other peoples' base stations and public repeaters.
BUT NOOOOOO!!!
This is not an attempt to start another morse code flame war. I probably
won't even get around to reading the ham groups for another six months.
I am just hoping to slide the idea into a few of your ossified heads
that you are giving up possibilities that you are incapable of imagining
by shooting down every proposal to give the public some free access digital
spectrum space.
--
John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@ingres.berkeley.edu
Love your country but never trust its government.
-- from a hand-painted road sign in central Pennsylvaniadbb@aicchi.UUCP (02/15/87)
You can *already* get such a two-way digital communications device. The IBM CE's around here use them for communications with their office. They also have a built in 300 bps acoustic modem for a fallback. -- -David B. (Ben) Burch Analysts International Corp. Chicago Branch (ihnp4!aicchi!dbb) "Argue for your limitations, and they are yours." - R. Bach
hays@apollo.UUCP (02/16/87)
The amateur radio community is not opposed to the use of Packet Radio
technology in other services. They have been very involved in putting
it into service for Public Service organizations such as FIRE, POLICE,
Civil Defense, 3rd World Telecommunications Projects, etc. MOSTLY on
volunteered time.
The hams are also not opposed to a Public Digital Radio Service (PDRS),
in principle. The opposed the STONER PDRS at 50 MHZ. for some very
definate reasons:
1. The proximity to channel 2 on your TV.
2. It was to reallocate a portion of Amateur Radio
Spectrum WHICH IS IN USE to a commercial enterprize.
There are frequencies in the commercial spectrum
which could and are used for Digital Communications.
3. Amateurs are doing a lot of research in this area
and have recently worked with the FCC to make the
entry into the Digital Side of the hobby much easier.
[It would be very difficult not to get a license if
a person just studied for a couple of weeks]. However
Amateur Radio is a PUBLIC SERVICE, FRATERNAL, AND
EXPERIMENTATION SERVICE not to be used for BUSINESS.
We welcome anyone who is interested enough to work a little for the license
and will help those who would like to apply this technology in another
service.
John Hays
KD7UW
--
=============================================================================
= MINE! THESE OPINIONS ARE MINE! YOU UNDERSTAND? MINE! =
=============================================================================
John D. Hays UUCP: ...!decvax!wanginst!apollo!hays
Consultant ...!uw-beaver!apollo!hays
Corporate Systems Engineering
Apollo Computer Inc. CIS: 72725,424 {weekly}
Chelmsford, MA GEnie: KD7UW {monthly}
=============================================================================
= MINE! THESE OPINIONS ARE MINE! YOU UNDERSTAND? MINE! =
=============================================================================hardie@sask.UUCP (02/19/87)
In article <1805@hoptoad.uucp>, gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > We could build in a cellular phone but that adds $2000 (if handheld) and > the per-minute charges would eat you alive. And the bandwidth is bad since > it's designed for voice. Whaddya think packet radio is using??? On HF, bandwidth restrictions limit the rate to about 300 Baud. > > We could use ham packet radio links but the *&^$%#@ hams are too stuck on > keeping the spectrum free for yammering at each other. Why not take away some cellular phone spectrum. It's only used by people who yammer at each other. Better yet, there's roughly 1 Mhz of spectrum at about 27Mhz that is only used by people who yammer at each other and a fair chunk of that is ILLEGAL so why not clean it up and make better use of it? > We could use commercial radio frequencies but then you'd have to pay > somebody rental to use it, even when just talking between your 'book > and your home computer. The REAL point to the whole thing. What John wants is FREE access to a chunk of spectrum. The problem is he hasn't really figured out how much spectrum is really required for what he is proposing. In metropolitan areas the ham VHF/UHF bands are very crowded even though hams constitute considerably less than one percent of the U.S. population. If this book idea were to get off the ground then John wants to use wide bandwidth so that he can use a high data rate and also presumably wants to make the book accessible to everyone. Even though packet radio is an efficient use of spectrum it is still going to be very difficult to cram the number of users into any reasonable chunk of spectrum. Certainly there is no room for it in the VHF bands, whether or not you take the ham spectrum away. The only way I can see it fitting at all is to get way up into the Ghz range so that not only can wide bandwidths be accomodated with lots of channels but also the antenna that is required is very small. > I am just hoping to slide the idea into a few of your ossified heads > that you are giving up possibilities that you are incapable of imagining > by shooting down every proposal to give the public some free access digital > spectrum space. Our heads ain't ossified. It's your ossified head that hasn't thought this through properly. (I'd wholeheartedly support giving the public free access to the CB band for digital communications!) Pete VE5VA ihnp4!sask!hardie