klingspo@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Steve Klingsporn) (04/11/91)
From ccncsu!purdue!decwrl!ucbvax!pro-angmar.UUCP!awillis Wed Apr 10 13:29:13 MDT 1991
April 5, 1991
To all Users of Personal Computers:
Apple Computer recently asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
allocate frequencies so computer users will be able to transmit and receive
information among personal computers (particularly portable and notebook-style
computers), using radio (instead of cables) in a local radius of about 50
meters indoors. We need your help to make this possible.
We call this new technology "Data-PCS," for Data Personal Communications
Service. We want this capability to be usable the way computers communicate on
networks: at high speeds and sharing the network equitably. Apple has
specifically proposed to the FCC that this capability should be available to
ALL computer manufacturers and users, without requiring radio licenses or
having to pay for using the airwaves.
Radio spectrum is a scarce resource in high demand. Apple would like your help
in expressing to the FCC the potential value of Data-PCS for computer users
everywhere. The FCC has formally asked for comments from interested parties.
Apple would appreciate your giving the FCC your ideas about Data-PCS.
Specifically, we hope you will write them in support of our petition.
Data-PCS is a local capability suitable for offices, classrooms, homes. It can
also provide wireless access to wired networks, such as those which can connect
libraries and research centers.
When Data-PCS was introduced in January, Dr. David Nagel, vice president of
Apple's Advanced Technology Group and the signator of Apple's petition to the
FCC, was quoted in the press saying that "This convergence of wireless
communications and computers will dramatically change the nature of computing.
For example, students and teachers would no longer be confined to a rigid
classroom set-up. Instead, computing and communicationsQand therefore
learningQcould happen any place. Users in the workplace would enjoy similar
advantages. Employees would be liberated from the constraints of physical
networks, which would enhance creativity and personal productivity. "
Our petition concludes:
"Apple's chief executive officer, John Sculley, in a keynote speech at
Educom '87, stated:
'The key strength of twenty-first century organizations will be not their
size or structure, but their ability to simultaneously unleash and coordinate
the creative contributions of many individuals.'
Data-PCS is one of the tools that will enable individuals to realize
this vision. By taking the lead to create a Data-PCS, the FCC will be taking
an essential step to assure that organizations in the United States -- both
educational and commercial -- will be empowered to compete in the twenty first
century and that the United States computer industry will have the versatility
and strength to continue its contributions to our economy and to our society. "
Data-PCS is being received with enthusiastic attention. The New York Times,
the Wall Street Journal and numerous newspapers, magazines and professional
journals have hailed it; you may have encountered discussions of it there or on
PBS and other network and local stations.
Other computer makers and trade organizations have joined with Apple in
refining and expanding the concepts of Data-PCS, and are providing commentary
to the FCC about its value and how it should be implemented. Apple officials
are testifying to Congressional committees and addressing professional
organizations on Data-PCS.
But Data-PCS is now a vision, not yet a reality. It requires enactment of new
federal regulations. When those regulations are passed, Apple and other
companies can make the investments required to make it real.
To participate, you can write a letter using the reference number the FCC has
assigned our petition: "RM 7618." You should address and send your letter to:
Hon. Alfred C. Sikes, Chairman Federal Communications Commission 1919 M
Street, N.W., Room 814 Washington, D.C. 20554
Reference: Rulemaking Docket No. 7618
We can suggest opening wording to make sure the letter reaches the right
people, but from there on we hope you will use your own terms to explain to the
FCC, and to us, your own visions for collaborative, wireless communications
between and among computers. Your letter need not be lengthy, but I assure you
that it will be read and appreciated.
Here's a suggested opening to follow the heading above:
Date Dear Mr. Chairman:
We (I) understand that Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple") has asked the FCC to
allocate spectrum to establish a new radio service ("Data-PCS") for local area
high speed communications among personal computing devices. We are writing to
urge you to grant Apple's request (RM No. 7618).
(Please describe in the ongoing letter your views on how this function
could be important to you, and perhaps commentary on special projects you are
doing or would like to do that could be improved by the ability to communicate
without wires.)
Respectfully submitted,
Name (and title or function , if appropriate)
This is an urgent request. For maximum impact, your comment should be sent to
arrive by the FCC's initial deadline for comments on APRIL 10. If received
later, they will be considered in a second round of comments, due MAY 10.
Thank you,
Bill Stevens Manager, Wireless Communications Advanced Technology Group Apple
Computer, Inc.
Albert Willis
INET: pro-angmar!awillis@alphalpha.com | America Online: BCS Al
UUCP:..!uunet!alphalpha!pro-angmar!awillis | GEnie: A.Willisurjlew@uncecs.edu (Rostyk Lewyckyj) (04/11/91)
On the surface this idea sounds very attractive.
However since the radio spectrum is a very scarce resource,
so scarce that many allocations are decided by a world wide
conference held every 8-10 years, and are signed by governments
as international treaties, the question arises.
Whose radio spectrum allocation is Apple proposing to take away
for this commercial product that it wants to sell?
Will it be the CB radio bands?
Will it be marine bands?
Will it be a piece of some current commercial band allocation?
Perhaps some frequencies now allocated to cellular telephones?
Perhaps some part of the TV radio spectrum? How about taking 2
or 3 UHF channels, which at 6MHZ apiece allows for 12-18MHZ.
This 18 MHZ could be divided into many many, (3600) 5KHZ channels.
And after all who would miss 3 TV channels.
-----------------------------------------------
Reply-To: Rostyslaw Jarema Lewyckyj
urjlew@ecsvax.UUCP , urjlew@unc.bitnet
or urjlew@uncmvs.acs.unc.edu (ARPA,SURA,NSF etc. internet)
tel. (919)-962-6501emmonsl@athena.ecs.csus.edu (L. Scott Emmons) (04/11/91)
In article <14131@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> klingspo@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Steve Klingsporn) writes: >From ccncsu!purdue!decwrl!ucbvax!pro-angmar.UUCP!awillis Wed Apr 10 13:29:13 MDT 1991 >Apple Computer recently asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to >allocate frequencies so computer users will be able to transmit and receive >information among personal computers (particularly portable and notebook-style >computers), using radio (instead of cables) in a local radius of about 50 >meters indoors. We need your help to make this possible. > > [ ... deleted ... ] Hmmm...This already exists...ever hear of Amateur Packet radio? The baud rates aren't fast, and use is stricly non-commercial, but at least there's no silly 50 meter limits. I won't support such a proposal as the one mentioned about. The FCC will simply, in all likelihood, steal more bandwidth from us Amateurs, as they have continually been doing for the past several years. Unfortunately there isn't much space left in the RF spectrum... Well, this doesn't really belong in this newsgroup, so... L. Scott Emmons --------------- emmons@csus.csus.edu <or> ...[ucbvax]!ucdavis!csus!emmons Packet: kc6nfp@kg6xx.#nocal.ca.usa.na
klingspo@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Steve Klingsporn) (04/11/91)
First of all, this technology exists. I can say this much.
Before I continue, I must make a disclaimer.
IN NO WAY DOES WHAT I SAY CONSTITUTE THE OPINIONS OF APPLE COMPUTER, INC.
AS A FORMER AND FUTURE EMPLOYEE OF APPLE COMPUTER, INC. I AM NOT ALLOWED
TO COMMENT ON UNANNOUNCED PRODUCTS AND TECHNOLOGIES, EXCEPT WHERE
PUBLICALLY RELEASED, AND CANNOT REPRESENT APPLE COMPUTER, INC. ON THESE
MATTERS.
Therefore, I cannot answer a lot of your questions.
It will be a free service.
It will not be a service that Apple will dominate, but if you read the
letter, you'll see it's an industry-wide technology. Whoever does
the hottest stuff with it will get the most sales FROM it, but the
point is not inherently greedy. Apple wants to change the world and
feed its employees. Believe it or not, money is not really the
factor in this proposal. All companies will have an equal chance
in this new arena. The fact that Apple has some of the brightest
minds in America might indicate that perhaps (again), Apple will come
up with the most seamless/integrated/intuitive use of this technology.
I cannot comment on what I have seen nor heard.
"Other computer makers and trade organizations have joined with Apple in
refining and expanding the concepts of Data-PCS, and are providing commentary
to the FCC about its value and how it should be implemented. Apple officials
are testifying to Congressional committees and addressing professional
organizations on Data-PCS."
[from the article]
As for error correction, security, and interference issues, these are
being tackled, and will be handled appropriately. Seeing as radio
waves are merely light, this shall not be a problem, for the speed of
the required error correction will not perceivably slow down transmission
times if such required methods were not implimented.
Asking questions like "Will it work if I'm in a lead room" are kinda
dumb, as I see it. :)
"Apple has
specifically proposed to the FCC that this capability should be available to
ALL computer manufacturers and users, without requiring radio licenses or
having to pay for using the airwaves."
This should answer some questions.
I will make a post on my opinion of personal computing and communication
if anyone so desires.
I'm sorry, but I can't comment on the actual status of the projects that
are under the premise of this technology, but can only state that neither
Apple nor the FCC would go to such lengths if the common questions
couldn't be easily answered.
I'd like you to note that Motorola & IBM are running the ARDIS radio
network nationwide as part of a project -- they use radio modems
("KDT," I believe) developed by Motorola, and all works quite well.
Hope this helps. I just can't answer some of the questions, as I've
worked for Apple in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.
I must protect Apple's rights and wishes here, for I believe that
secrecy is important.
Regards,
Steve Klingspornmreid@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Melissa Reid) (04/12/91)
I have a major reservation about Data-PCS that I have not seen discussed; if it results from a misunderstanding of the proposal, apologies. It sounds to me like you're talking about something like the equivalent of hooking computers together by cordless phone. (Yes, I know, but bear with me...) Have any of you heard if there has been an outcome in the debate about privacy issues related to cordless phones? Like, do you HAVE any legal right to privacy for interchanges carried out over cordless phone? The last I heard, the answer was NO! The rationale is that cordless phones BROADCAST. Listening in on a broadcast is, in the eyes of the legal system, different from tapping a wire. I have visions of people with scanners hooked up to computers, tracking everything sent over radio links between computers, the same way as people now listen in on other people's cordless phone calls. The thought leaves me less than enthused about the plan. Again, if there have been legal developments in this area that I've missed, or I've misunderstood the plan presented, I apologize for the wasted bandwidth. Melissa Reid mreid@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu "If I had something useful to say, I'd have a .sig" -me
dawg6844@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Race Bannon) (04/12/91)
mreid@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Melissa Reid) writes: >I have a major reservation about Data-PCS that I have not seen >discussed; if it results from a misunderstanding of the proposal, >apologies. >It sounds to me like you're talking about something like the >equivalent of hooking computers together by cordless phone. >(Yes, I know, but bear with me...) >Have any of you heard if there has been an outcome in the debate >about privacy issues related to cordless phones? Like, do you >HAVE any legal right to privacy for interchanges carried out >over cordless phone? The last I heard, the answer was NO! the idea, I'm sure, is that they would be extremely low-powered. People want to have cordless networks, ie: in an office, such that machines only need to broadcast 10's of yards, whereas cordless phones broadcast hundreds of yards. This would make listening in much more difficult. Incidentally, just because you run your network through a wire now doesn't mean its safe if someone really wants to know what you're doing. Equipment exists such that I can drive up outside your building in a van and tune in to the RF that your monitor is putting out and read what's on your screen. The only way to protect yourself completely is to turn off your machine and embed it in a block of cement and drop it in an especially deep ocean trench. <the fifth columnist> -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Dan Walkowski | To understand recursion, Univ. of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci. | you must first understand recursion. walkowsk@cs.uiuc.edu |
jackb@MDI.COM (Jack Brindle) (04/12/91)
In article <5442@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> mreid@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Melissa Reid) writes: >I have a major reservation about Data-PCS that I have not seen >discussed; if it results from a misunderstanding of the proposal, >apologies. > >It sounds to me like you're talking about something like the >equivalent of hooking computers together by cordless phone. >(Yes, I know, but bear with me...) >Have any of you heard if there has been an outcome in the debate >about privacy issues related to cordless phones? Like, do you >HAVE any legal right to privacy for interchanges carried out >over cordless phone? The last I heard, the answer was NO! >The rationale is that cordless phones BROADCAST. Listening in >on a broadcast is, in the eyes of the legal system, different >from tapping a wire. I have visions of people with scanners >hooked up to computers, tracking everything sent over radio >links between computers, the same way as people now listen in >on other people's cordless phone calls. The thought leaves me >less than enthused about the plan. Come now. There is a very big difference between the ability to carry data over radio and the readability of that data. Yes, information that comes onto my property via radio waves is mine to hear/decode. This means I can listen in on your phone calls, right? But, it is also your right to encrypt that information to keep me from listening in! Why isn't this done on telephones? Quite simply because the folks producing the phones just haven't put it in! Instead, they argue that the laws should be changed to make it illegal to listen in to calls. Amazingly, it's not too difficult to add to the phones. It is just much easier to scream before congress... Now data is even easier to encrypt and decrypt. It is already in digital form, ready for processing. So, sure I could evesdrop on your encrypted data conversation, but by the time I figured out the contents of ONE packet, your entire file has been at its destination for many weeks/months. Right now, we don't even have the forum to attempt to push data across radio at decent speeds (above 56K bits per second). The Apple proposal is an attempt to gain that privilege. You also may not wish to use the service after (if) it is established. But is it right to preclude others from doing so? (Actually, this is a good philosophical question). Of course, those of us involved in ham radio have been moving data at 56 KB for four years. It is unencrypted (by law), and anyone who really wants to listen in is welcome to. It is also quite enjoyable (and useful) to be able to transfer data while you are completely detached from the phone company! - Jack B. ham radio: wa4fib/7
kent@sunfs3.Camex.COM (Kent Borg) (04/12/91)
In article <1991Apr11.070636.18158@csusac.csus.edu> emmonsl@athena.ecs.csus.edu (L. Scott Emmons) writes: >In article <14131@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> klingspo@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Steve Klingsporn) writes: >>From ccncsu!purdue!decwrl!ucbvax!pro-angmar.UUCP!awillis Wed Apr 10 13:29:13 MDT 1991 >>Apple Computer recently asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to >>allocate frequencies so computer users will be able to transmit and receive >>information among personal computers (particularly portable and notebook-style >>computers), using radio (instead of cables) in a local radius of about 50 >>meters indoors. We need your help to make this possible. ... > >Hmmm...This already exists...ever hear of Amateur Packet radio? The >baud rates aren't fast, and use is stricly non-commercial, but at least >there's no silly 50 meter limits. > >I won't support such a proposal as the one mentioned about. ... Before we all start cheering and booing, does anybody know what was in the proposal? From what I can gather, it sounds like a cross between the chaos of Ethernet and the order of cellular telephones. Unlike Ethernet (or LocalTalk), a mobile wireless medium cannot enforce "cable length" limits. One node cannot be sure that another node will see a packet transmission within a certain propagation time--nor that the other node will pick up the transmission at all, it might be too far away. A related difference between fixed cable and moving wireless is what you might call Pickle in the Middle: Node A might be within communication range of Node B, and Node B might be within range of Node C, but Node C and A are two far apart to hear each other. Node B is the Pickle in the Middle. A little like being on the interstate in the middle of nowhere and hearing two radio stations on the same spot on the dial. A way arount this would be for there to be multiple frequencies for sending data. Nodes A & B use one frequency to talk, Nodes B & C use another. Now the problem is how to decide upon those frequencies. I expect that one or two channels might be set aside specifically for hailing other nodes and arrange to meet on one of the data channels. (Nodes would have spend a lot of time listening on these channels to get their calls--er, packets.) Unlike cellular telephones, the arranging of a data channel is not handled by a central site, but dynamically negotiated between nodes. Those are some guesses that might get people talking, here are some things that I know are true about Apple's proposal: * It is peer-to-peer. If my radio laptop is sitting next to someone else's, we can trade data without paying nasty fees to some central "data company"--we don't even have to be within range of any other nodes. I really like this part. * It will be "turn it on"-simple. No knowlege of radio theory, no choosing of frequencies. This is essential. * It will be listen-mostly, transmit when you want to spend the battery power. * It will allow commercial services to use it (unlike ham radio where that is illegal, for a good time go over to the ham radio group and ask about the legality of using a ham radio to order a pizza--then stand back). Sitting in an airport waiting room and want to check your email? Go to Chooser and see what long-haul data services have set up radio portals in your terminal. An interesting thing I thought of. Say my computer is plugged in and can affort to transmit as much as it pleases, depending on how they design the system, I could likely tell it to be a router of sorts and offer to relay packets between nodes that are not otherwise in direct communication. Certainly I would want both my home and work computers to have radio links in them so that my laptop could communicate, so why not always leave those desktop radios running as routers? It might become possible to have city-wide internets moving and oozing about. After awhile the whole East Coast would become interneted, soon after a lot of the San Deigo - LA corridor, certainly all of Silicon Valley north to Marin and across the bay. You get the idea. (Would this mean that radio router software would have to get FCC certification before going on the air? One confused piece of well distributed radio router shareware could bring the whole thing crashing down.) Great security issues, how do I keep people driving by outside from printing stuff on our Laserwriter? Or checking into our our mail server? Passwords, you suggest? How do I keep people from simply listening for what I send as a password? Or listening in on the data I send? RISKS folks are going to have a *ball* with this one. Enough of my rambling, can anybody offer some concrete details? -- Kent Borg internet: kent@camex.com AOL: kent borg H:(617) 776-6899 W:(617) 426-3577 "We foolishly did not realize that he was stupid." - April Glasbie 3-20-91
jerry@truevision.com (Jerry Thompson) (04/16/91)
In article <1991Apr11.034720.26091@uncecs.edu> urjlew@uncecs.edu (Rostyk Lewyckyj) writes: > > >On the surface this idea sounds very attractive. >However since the radio spectrum is a very scarce resource, >so scarce that many allocations are decided by a world wide >conference held every 8-10 years, and are signed by governments >as international treaties, the question arises. >Whose radio spectrum allocation is Apple proposing to take away >for this commercial product that it wants to sell? >Will it be the CB radio bands? >Will it be marine bands? >Will it be a piece of some current commercial band allocation? >Perhaps some frequencies now allocated to cellular telephones? >Perhaps some part of the TV radio spectrum? How about taking 2 >or 3 UHF channels, which at 6MHZ apiece allows for 12-18MHZ. >This 18 MHZ could be divided into many many, (3600) 5KHZ channels. >And after all who would miss 3 TV channels. >----------------------------------------------- > Reply-To: Rostyslaw Jarema Lewyckyj > urjlew@ecsvax.UUCP , urjlew@unc.bitnet > or urjlew@uncmvs.acs.unc.edu (ARPA,SURA,NSF etc. internet) > tel. (919)-962-6501 Sounds to me like Apple has a product they want to make so they can dominate an important flow of information and put a choke hold on it so we will all have to pay them a lot of money to use it and then the Japenese will come in with improvements on it because Apple was charging outrageous prices for some lame-o hardware and then the Japenese will control the radio computer network and start broadcasting advertisements into our computers for cars and TV's and we will all be brainwashed and submit to their control. But I like the idea. -- Jerry Thompson | // checks ___________ | "I'm into S&M, I loved the peace and solitude | \\ // and | | | | Sarcasm and so much, I invited my friends. | \X/ balances /_\ | /_\ | Mass Sarcasm."
alex@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Alex Pournelle) (04/17/91)
Followup should probably be to one of the other existing groups, like comp.dcom.lans or maybe one of the radio conferences. Some background on wireless LANs: Motorola's Altair wireless Ethernet replacement is available NOW, and runs at full Ethernet speed. The product is meant to replace horizontal wiring in buildings, with one Control Module feeding up to six User Modules. It's just a "piece of wire" to Ethernet, not requiring any special drivers or software. Altair runs at 18 Ghz--well above almost any existing bands. It's cellular microwave, with encryption. Since 18Ghz has really high propagation losses, they only claim 40-80 feet radius (although tests have shown that you can use it in open-plan offices of 130 foot radius). Due to the very low signal strength, subharmonic interference with other products is extremely unlikely. The ecrypted signal means it's also unlikely you're going to get attacked. Probably more likely that wire will be attacked via induction pickups. Since Motorola allocates the channels (they have ten), there is little chance of interference. They also allocate reuse carefully, so you probably won't have ANY chance unless they sell bazillions of them. Someone claimed that we can't get reliable radio data over 56 KBPS. That may be true in amateur, but voice calls have been carried digitally over microwave for over thirty years: microwave T-1. And the Altair product is true Ethernet speed. NCR's WaveLAN is a secondary user (along with amateur) of a small band just above cellular. There may be a problem with signal strength and interference next to a commercial cell site. Since it's spread-spectrum, the likelihood of signal attacks isn't very high. This is a more point-to-point product, with a card per station. You can also get distance extender directional antennas in addition to the omnidirectional it comes with. jerry@truevision.com (Jerry Thompson) writes: >In article <1991Apr11.034720.26091@uncecs.edu> urjlew@uncecs.edu (Rostyk Lewyckyj) writes: >>[What band will be used?] They want to reallocate some military spectrum. Getting FCC approcal for reallocation is, as Motorola will attest, difficult. Since Motorola owns this spectrum, they don't have to worry about competing or incompatible products. >>Will it be the CB radio bands? Unlikely--way too much signal out there. >>Will it be marine bands? >>Will it be a piece of some current commercial band allocation? Most likely. >>[Will it be cellular?] Very unlikely. Way too many objections, most with huge money. >>[Why would anyone miss a few TV channels?] If they're already in use, plenty of people would. FCC has already reallocated a couple of UHF channels as public-safety. >Sounds to me like Apple has a product they want to make so they can dominate >an important flow of information and put a choke hold on it so we will all >have to pay them a lot of money to use it and then the Japenese will come in >with improvements on it because Apple was charging outrageous prices for some >lame-o hardware and then the Japenese will control the radio computer network >and start broadcasting advertisements into our computers for cars and TV's and >we will all be brainwashed and submit to their control. But I like the idea. Other than the tongue-in-someone's-cheek tone, this isn't a very valid criticism, since Apple has several partners in the venture, who are to also provide products. Alex P.S. I sell the Motorola Altair product. -- Alex Pournelle, freelance thinker Also: Workman & Associates, Data recovery for PCs, Macs, others ...elroy!grian!alex; BIX: alex; voice: (818) 791-7979 fax: (818) 794-2297 bbs: 791-1013; 8N1 24/12/3 BIX: alex
ge@dbf.kun.nl (Ge' Weijers) (04/17/91)
alex@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Alex Pournelle) writes: >>In article <1991Apr11.034720.26091@uncecs.edu> urjlew@uncecs.edu (Rostyk Lewyckyj) writes: >>>[What band will be used?] >They want to reallocate some military spectrum. Getting FCC approcal >for reallocation is, as Motorola will attest, difficult. Since Motorola >owns this spectrum, they don't have to worry about competing or >incompatible products. It will be even harder to get WARC or CEPT approval, as they are not likely to look favourably upon allocating bandwidth for proprietary protocols. Motorola owns this spectrum as long as they don't export the equipment. Overhere Altair is not available as far as I know. >>>Will it be the CB radio bands? >Unlikely--way too much signal out there. CB users are voters too. VERY unlikely, as # CB-users >> # AppleXXXNet users. Only bands with predictable propagation can be used. Intercontinental CB happens sometimes on a sunspot maximum. Same for other HF and VHF bands. (((News flash: on monday our LAN went WAN))) This is definitely an application for the > 1 GHz range. Perhaps it would be a good idea to get Apple c.s. to negotiate a world-wide frequency band or set of bands, and get a IEEE 802.x standard for it. At least different types of equipment should use the same collision control protocol so it all can operate on the same bands. Ge' -- Ge' Weijers Internet/UUCP: ge@cs.kun.nl Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, (uunet.uu.net!cs.kun.nl!ge) University of Nijmegen, Toernooiveld 1 6525 ED Nijmegen, the Netherlands tel. +3180652483 (UTC-2)
kovar@eclectic.COM (David C. Kovar) (04/17/91)
In article <1938@camex.COM> kent@sunfs3.Camex.COM (Kent Borg) writes: >Great security issues, how do I keep people driving by outside from >printing stuff on our Laserwriter? Or checking into our our mail >server? Passwords, you suggest? How do I keep people from simply >listening for what I send as a password? Or listening in on the data >I send? The password problem is fairly simple: Use a security token and two factor authentication. (We are applying this technology commercially, so I am biased.) In this case, the security token we use generates a pseudo-random number every 30 or 60 seconds. The user has also memorized a PIN code, similar to ATM codes. To log into a system, or access some other service, the user inputs a string that looks like XXXYYYYYY where the X's are the PIN and the Y's are the cardcode. Using the cardcode, the system determines if there is any card that it knows about that can be generating that specific number at that point in time. If so, it then checks to see if the PIN for that card matches the PIN entered. Old cardcode values are useless and you can't predict the new ones, so stealing someone's cardcode from the wire isn't terribly useful. You can use this authentication scheme to protect your LaserWriter, mail server, and just about anything else. You could modify your LaserWriter driver and LaserPrep code to support some sort of challenge/response to filter out unauthorized people as well. Lots of neat possibilities. -David -- -David C. Kovar Consultant ARPA: kovar@eclectic.com Eclectic Associates AppleLink: ECLECTIC Ma Bell: 617-643-3373 MacNET: DKovar "It is easier to get forgiveness than permission."
rwa@cs.athabascau.ca (Ross Alexander) (04/19/91)
ge@dbf.kun.nl (Ge' Weijers) writes: [pardon the botched attribs, foax - Ross] >>>>Will it be the CB radio bands? >>Unlikely--way too much signal out there. >CB users are voters too. VERY unlikely, as # CB-users >> # AppleXXXNet users. They may be voters, but many, many of them are political idiots... I will resist the urge to gibe at the Mac _users_. >Only bands with predictable propagation can be used. Intercontinental CB >happens sometimes on a sunspot maximum. Same for other HF and VHF bands. Intercontinental propagation is *quite common* on the 11 meter band, only the fact that all the idiots sit there and drown each other in interference prevents them from making contacts (consider this the human equivalent of a 1-persistent CSMA-CD lan in congestive collapse). Intercontinental DX on 6 meters is *sometimes* mediated by sunspot activity, but not often. Above 6 meters (2 meters, 70 cm, and so on) tropospheric ducting, sporadic-E, auroral scatter, and meteor bounce all become more common DX modes. >This is definitely an application for the > 1 GHz range. Right, absolutely right. I might add that the CB band is only about 220 or 240 KHz wide, and that is way too narrow for the kind of data rates and modulation techniques (spread spectrum means just that :-) You just can't get around Shannon & Nyquist no matter how hard you try! -- Ross Alexander rwa@cs.athabascau.ca (403) 675 6311 ve6pdq "I'd like MY data-base JULIENNED and stir-fried!" -- Zippy
francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu (04/19/91)
In article <2962@wn1.sci.kun.nl> ge@dbf.kun.nl (Ge' Weijers) writes: Only bands with predictable propagation can be used. Intercontinental CB happens sometimes on a sunspot maximum. Same for other HF and VHF bands. What? Neither the Apple proposal nor the Motorola product is intended for anything except short distances. -- /============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Earth: Love it or leave it. | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | | \============================================================================/