awillis@pro-angmar.UUCP (Albert Willis) (04/09/91)
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.Willismcgurrin@MWUNIX.MITRE.ORG (04/10/91)
I don't know enough about this issue to have an opinion either way, but it should be pointed out that the spectrum would be taken from a section already allocated to other uses, and that in some cases existing users of this bandwidth would be kicked off to allow this use. I believe the existing use is limited distance microwave communications (point-to-point between buildings). Therefore the issue is not as clear-cut as the Apple request would make it appear. The real question is which use of a limited resource will provide the greater overall benefit to society? I don't know the answer.
GRAY@ADMIN.HumberC.ON.CA (Kelly Gray) (04/10/91)
Before I can support any sort of a radio based LAN, I'd like to take a
good close look at how this proposed system is supposed to work. Just
off the top of my head, I can come up with a number of MAJOR problems
that would need to be adressed. These include things like data security,
multiple installation interference, and interference with non-LAN radio
systems, or even non radio electronics!
Anyone within range of your office would at least be able to listen in
on your network traffic, and could even connect to the network without
your permission! The thing is, fifty metres is a long reach in a typical
office building. This would include not only the entire floor the network
is installed on, but at least five floors above and below the network too.
In a typical large office building, several companies would have offices
in the same building. Given that the radio signal from the LAN would
extend many floors above and below the network, how do you prevent
interference between two networks (belonging to different companies)
that happen to be located on different floors?
<o_o>
_________________________ ________________________________________
/ \ / \
| Kelly Gray | The opinions expressed in the preceding |
| | message are not guaranteed to represent |
| GRAY@ADMIN.HumberC.ON.CA | any form of rational thought whatsoever |
\_________________________/ \_________________________________________/2hnemarrow@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (04/11/91)
In article <689.apple.net@pro-angmar>, awillis@pro-angmar.UUCP (Albert Willis) writes: > > 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. <-------- Lots cut out here --------> > 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. And don't forget to follow up with a second letter to Apple explaining the kind of support you expect for your Apple II, what useful features you would like to see incorporated into the next II CPU, how you think these radio transmission technologies should fit in with the II line of computers, what kinds of projects you find the Apple II useful for, etc. A friendly reminder that what goes around, comes around. :)
jdeitch@umiami.ir.miami.edu (Jonathan Deitch) (04/11/91)
Does anyone know exactly what frequencies Apple wants to use ? If they want microwaves, wouldn't the waves be stopped by metal walls or thick stone walls ? Or, if they are low power waves, would a thick wall stop them ? What I'm getting at is : is Apple asking for a frequency that'll spread through the walls of a room/office like FM radio or are they asking foor a frequency that'll be confined by a building's walls like low power radio (example : the home transmission systems for TV to connect several TVs to one VCR. Check any hi-tek mail order catalog ...) or microwaves. If they are asking for a frequency that is confined to a particular office by its walls, then I don't see a problem with inter-office interference. Anyone have any particulars on the proposed system ? - Jonathan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Internet : jdeitch@umiami.miami.edu | "Good musicians execute ------------------------------------------------- | their music but bad ones "I'm a Time Lord. I walk in eternity !" - Dr Who | murder it !!! "
DWHITNEY@FORDMRH1.BITNET (04/11/91)
In response to: Kelly Gray <GRAY@ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA> >Before I can support any sort of a radio based LAN, I'd like to take a >good close look at how this proposed system is supposed to work. Just >off the top of my head, I can come up with a number of MAJOR problems >that would need to be adressed. These include things like data security, >multiple installation interference, and interference with non-LAN radio >systems, or even non radio electronics! Not only that ever time the next door neighbor uses his blender, there might be enough interference to cause a file to be corrupted if your downloading from a fileserver, or at least mess up whatever your doing. Although this might be aided, by some sort of error correction, if the interference is pretty bad, nothing might get through at all, forcing you to wait until it stops. >Anyone within range of your office would at least be able to listen in >on your network traffic, and could even connect to the network without >your permission! You would have to encrypt the data in some way, if it needs to be secure. >| Kelly Gray | The opinions expressed in the preceding | >| | message are not guaranteed to represent | >| GRAY@ADMIN.HumberC.ON.CA | any form of rational thought whatsoever | --- |David M. Whitney | Arthur looked up. | |BITNET:DWHITNEY@FORDMRH1| "Ford!" he said, "there's an infinite | |GEnie: D.WHITNEY6 | number of monkeys outside who want to | |************************| talk to us about this script for Hamlet | | DON'T PANIC | they've worked out." | |********************A*P*P*L*E*2* *F*O*R*E*V*E*R*********************|
knauer@cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Knauerhase) (04/11/91)
In <91Apr10.132244edt.23275@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca> GRAY@ADMIN.HumberC.ON.CA (Kelly Gray) writes: >... off the top of my head, I can come up with a number of MAJOR problems >that would need to be adressed. These include things like data security, >multiple installation interference, and interference with non-LAN radio >systems, or even non radio electronics! >Anyone within range of your office would at least be able to listen in >on your network traffic, and could even connect to the network without >your permission! The thing is, fifty metres is a long reach in a typical >office building. This would include not only the entire floor the network >is installed on, but at least five floors above and below the network too. >In a typical large office building, several companies would have offices >in the same building. Given that the radio signal from the LAN would >extend many floors above and below the network, how do you prevent >interference between two networks (belonging to different companies) >that happen to be located on different floors? While most of the technology problems have been solved (range, reliability, distinct nets on one frequency), most of the policy/risk concerns have been adriotly ignored by Apple and others. The newsgroup comp.risks had several articles about this very issue a couple months ago. If you're really interested, the RISKS-digest archives are on anonymous FTP at crvax.sri.com in the RISKS: directory. Rob -- Robert C. Knauerhase University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign "I get my exercise acting as Dept. of Computer Science, Gigabit Study Group pallbearer for my friends knauer@cs.uiuc.edu, rck@ces.cwru.edu who exercise..." knauer@scivax.lerc.nasa.gov
Gene.Humbert@p0.f551.n5000.z200.METRONET.ORG (Gene Humbert) (04/13/91)
Hello Albert! Answering a msg of <13 Apr 91>, from Albert Willis to All: Why should we help Apple with anything? I'm not in too generous a mood right now towards a company that deserts customers, and treats them as shabbily as Apple does. Gene --- ZMailQ 1.12 (QuickBBS) * Origin: The Phoenix's Egg (303)287-8267 MetroNet 200:5000/5(200:5000/551.0) -- ============================================================================= Gene Humbert - via MetroNet node 200:5000/301 The Bohemia BBS System, Boulder Colorado (303)449-8946 UUCP: Gene.Humbert@p0.f551.n5000.z200.METRONET.ORG or : ...!boulder!bohemia.METRONET.ORG!551.0!Gene.Humbert =============================================================================
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (04/16/91)
In article <1991Apr10.151747.8845@umiami.ir.miami.edu> jdeitch@umiami.ir.miami.edu (Jonathan Deitch) writes: >Does anyone know exactly what frequencies Apple wants to use ? What I wonder is why they don't just use 100mW FM clear channels, for which no licensing is required.