bannon@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Ron Bannon) (01/29/91)
Date: 1/28/91 9:17 PM To: all From: Ed Edell Subject: Apple, FCC... MOVED OVER BUSINESS WIRE AT 8:16 AM, EST, MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 1991. Contact: Cindy McCaffrey Apple Public Relations (408) 974-1578 or John Cook Apple Public Relations (408) 974-3145 Apple Petitions FCC for Use of Radio Waves For Data Transmission by All Computer Makers WASHINGTON, D.C.--January 28, 1991--Apple Computer, Inc. today filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that, if approved, would let computers transmit and receive information over radio waves instead of through a wired network. The petition asks the FCC to allocate a part of the radio spectrum so that all computer manufacturers be permitted use of radio waves for wireless computing. Apple believes that approval of the petition is an important step in the establishment of the nex t generation of personal computing. Apple's petition paves the way for the establishment of a new class of data communications, called Data Personal Communications Services (Data-PCS). If Apple's petition is approved, personal computer users in the future will be able to communicate with other users and with computer peripherals within a building or a campus over radio waves. This innovation would eliminate the need, in many cases, for local communications to travel on wired networks. "With the rapid advances in portable computing and wireless communications, we believe it is essential that computer users have access to this vital communications resource in the future," said John Sculley, Apple's chairman and chief executive officer. "Wireless networks will change the nature of information tools, making them as mobile and spontaneous as the individuals using them. "Apple's action, which will benefit all personal computer users, is motivated by a desire to ensure that the United States will have made the most forward-looking public decisions, allowing wireless networking to become a reality," Sculley added. Specifically, Apple petitioned the FCC to allow computer communications exclusively on 40 MHz of the radio frequency bandwidth between 1850-1990 MHz to transmit data at high speeds (for example, 10 megabits per second) over short distances (up to about 150 feet). "The convergence of wireless communications and computers will dramatically change the nature of computing," said David Nagel, vice president of Apple's Advanced Technology Group. "For example, students and teachers would no longer be confined to a rigid classroom set-up. Instead, computing and communications--and therefore learning--could happen any place. Users in the workplace would enjoy similar advantages. Employees would be liberated from the constraints of physical networks, which would enhance cr eativity and personal productivity," Nagel said. This type of "spontaneous" or "ad hoc" local area networking would supplement today's wired network configurations, which typically consist of telephone lines, coaxial cables, and fiber optics. The cost, particularly the capital cost, of hardwiring a building is high and then users are restricted as to when, how and where they can use their computers to move data. Apple recognizes that radio spectrum is scarce and in high demand. Considering this, along with the intense activity being focused on proposals for new voice communications services, Apple is requesting that the FCC move quickly in giving equitable consideration to data communication when determining future bandwidth allocations. "We're urging the public to support Apple's appeal that the allocation of radio spectrum go beyond voice communications to include an appropriate emphasis on data communications," Sculley said. "Our hope is that computer users will view the allocation of the radio spectrum for wireless computing as Apple does--as an important step in advancing the future of personal computing technology." -30- Apple and the Apple logo are registered trademarks of Apple Computer, Inc. END Apple Press Releases PR Express 1/28/91
yee@osf.org (Michael K. Yee) (01/30/91)
In article <Jan.28.22.54.22.1991.7707@galaxy.rutgers.edu> bannon@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Ron Bannon) writes: ... |> Apple Petitions FCC for Use of Radio Waves |> For Data Transmission by All Computer Makers |> |>Specifically, Apple petitioned the FCC to allow computer communications exclusively on 40 MHz of the radio frequency bandwidth between 1850-1990 MHz to transmit data at high speeds (for example, 10 megabits per second) over short distances (up to about 150 feet). |> Isn't there already a frequency range allocated for wireless ethernet? I think it's a bit slower than what Apple is proposing, but there already something in place right? I think Apple has the right idea in that anything slower than standard coxial ethernet speeds will have limited usefulness (i.e. too slow for networked graphics support ala X Windows :-)). Imagine a portable mac-like computer with distributed network graphics capability... Sounds like a good commercial. =Mike -- = Michael K. Yee -- yee@osf.org or uunet!osf.org!yee -- = OSF/Motif Development = "I can't give you brains, but I can give you a diploma." -- The Wizard of OZ
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) (01/31/91)
As quoted from <YEE.91Jan29110641@genoa.osf.org> by yee@osf.org (Michael K. Yee): +--------------- | In article <Jan.28.22.54.22.1991.7707@galaxy.rutgers.edu> bannon@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Ron Bannon) writes: | |> Apple Petitions FCC for Use of Radio Waves | |> For Data Transmission by All Computer Makers | |> | |>Specifically, Apple petitioned the FCC to allow computer communications | |>exclusively on 40 MHz of the radio frequency bandwidth between 1850-1990 | |>MHz to transmit data at high speeds (for example, 10 megabits per second) | |>over short distances (up to about 150 feet). | | Isn't there already a frequency range allocated for wireless | ethernet? I think it's a bit slower than what Apple is proposing, | but there already something in place right? +--------------- Quite a bit, actually.... ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery VHF/UHF: KB8JRR on 220, 2m, 440 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG Packet: KB8JRR @ WA8BXN America OnLine: KB8JRR AMPR: KB8JRR.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery Delphi: ALLBERY
domo@tsa.co.uk (Dominic Dunlop) (01/31/91)
In article <Jan.28.22.54.22.1991.7707@galaxy.rutgers.edu> bannon@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Ron Bannon) relays some Apple press flackery: > Specifically, Apple petitioned the FCC to allow computer > communications exclusively on 40 MHz of the radio frequency bandwidth > between 1850-1990 MHz to transmit data at high speeds (for example, 10 > megabits per second) over short distances (up to about 150 feet). Hmmm. Playing spot-the-next-shakily-founded-health-scare, I note that this is pretty close to the frequency used by microwave ovens (2450 MHz). Boil-in-the-packet wireless networks, anybody? (Yes, this is a joke, but I fear we're going to hear more of it.) -- Dominic Dunlop
gillies@cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) (02/03/91)
Re: Apple proposes RF computer network. Pause for a moment and think how many items on your machine you would want to broadcast over such a network. My experience in a computer building is that if the signal is strong enough to go through interior cinder-block walls, it will certain go out the walls and down the street and maybe into your competitor's computer network, for him to see too.
ralph@cm.cf.ac.uk (02/04/91)
Apple may have petitioned the FCC for certain wavelengths in the US. Where does that leave them (and us) in the rest of the world, where my very limited understanding is that even the wavebands are allocated differently, let alone the frequencies within them? Ralph
bernard@boulder.colorado.edu (Bernie Bernstein) (02/05/91)
In article <1991Feb2.235110.17551@cs.uiuc.edu>, gillies@cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) writes: > > > Re: Apple proposes RF computer network. > > Pause for a moment and think how many items on your machine you would > want to broadcast over such a network. My experience in a computer > building is that if the signal is strong enough to go through interior > cinder-block walls, it will certain go out the walls and down the > street and maybe into your competitor's computer network, for him to > see too. > > OK, I'm thinking... As long as the data is encrypted, I don't care who sees it. Don't most companies who value their data encrypt their communications? If you have a secure data path, I don't think there would be anything to worry about. I read an article a while ago in MacUser by Douglas Adams where he suggested that by virtue of two computers being in the same room, they ought to be able to communicate. Wouldn't that be nice? No wires, just get them close to each other and you have a network. o, ,, , | Bernie Bernstein | , ,, L>O/ \,/ \ ,| University of Colorado at boulder |/ \,,/ \ O./ ' / . `, / | office: (303) 492-8136 | / ` \ ,. ,/ / , ' | email: bernard@boulder.colorado.edu | / '' \
gillies@cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) (02/05/91)
I not was ignorant of encryption. Encryption is not a panacea. No macs currently have encryption hardware. Decent encryption is very expensive to compute, especially on the whole text stream. The NBS DES standard (upon which most hardware encryption chips are based) was compromised because the CIA wanted to be able to break any code generated by the standard. That is why the keys are so small (56 bits, I believe). It is unlikely that a radio network with encryption will have acceptable performance. It is unlikely that a radio network without encryption will have acceptable security. Don Gillies | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign gillies@cs.uiuc.edu | Digital Computer Lab, 1304 W. Springfield, Urbana IL ---------------------+------------------------------------------------------ "UGH! WAR! ... What is it GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!" - 60's music lyrics --
macman@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chris Silverberg) (02/05/91)
In article <1991Feb4.233214.486@cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) writes: >It is unlikely that a radio network with encryption will have >acceptable performance. It is unlikely that a radio network without >encryption will have acceptable security. Fine then... some people will have to stick to their cables. That doesn't mean the rest of us have to... I'll be glad to ride the waves. :-) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Chris Silverberg INTERNET: macman@wpi.wpi.edu Worcester Polytechnic Institute Main Street USA 508-832-7725 (sysop) America Online: Silverberg WMUG BBS 508-832-5844 (sysop)
jackb@MDI.COM (Jack Brindle) (02/06/91)
In article <1991Feb4.233214.486@cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) writes: >I not was ignorant of encryption. Encryption is not a panacea. No >macs currently have encryption hardware. Decent encryption is very >expensive to compute, especially on the whole text stream. The NBS The question is more of what degree of encryption is needed. DES, or better, may not really be necessary. It is a pretty large task to decrypt the massive amounts of data on a network without some knowledge of the data being sent. Perhaps some "lower-powered" techniques could be used which are less costly in terms of processing power, but would be just as effective given the specific environment. >DES standard (upon which most hardware encryption chips are based) was >compromised because the CIA wanted to be able to break any code >generated by the standard. That is why the keys are so small (56 >bits, I believe). > >It is unlikely that a radio network with encryption will have >acceptable performance. It is unlikely that a radio network without >encryption will have acceptable security. I disagree completely with this point. There are many techniques widely available that are completely effective. Encryption, as we are used to it, is not the only means. It is next to impossible to decode Spread- Spectrum transmissions without knowledge of the spread algorithm AND the synchronization methods used for each transmission. This means that SS transmissions need not be encrypted (and usually are not). In the frequencies the Apple filing discusses, this is a very valid technique. There are other things that can be done, however. If you are really concerned about the security of your data, countermeasures can be taken, such as dummy packets to throw off whoever might be trying to steal the data. The other thing to remember is that even Ethernet is not fully secure. If someone really wants at your data, they could throw enough resources at decoding the electromagnetic field given off by the ethernet cable that they could get anything that you send across your network. And that data is almost never encrypted. > >Don Gillies | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - Jack Brindle.
derek@coco2.albany.edu (Cinderella Man) (02/06/91)
In article <1991Feb5.182303.11214@MDI.COM> jackb@MDI.COM (Jack Brindle) writes: >In article <1991Feb4.233214.486@cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) writes: >>It is unlikely that a radio network with encryption will have >>acceptable performance. It is unlikely that a radio network without >>encryption will have acceptable security. >I disagree completely with this point. There are many techniques widely... [some text deleted] >The other thing to remember is that even Ethernet is not fully secure. If >someone really wants at your data, they could throw enough resources at >decoding the electromagnetic field given off by the ethernet cable that >they could get anything that you send across your network. And that data is >almost never encrypted. I agree completely. It's the simplest thing in the world just to lock a vampire tap onto an existing Ethernet cable; one doesn't even have to interrupt service to do it. If no one's watching, you'll never know it happened. It's the complexity of the packet and timing algorithms themselves that keeps the average spook from reading your mail; if someone from the government wanted to, there's nothing to stop them, just as there isn't any way to stop someone from opening your mail or tapping your phone lines. The same will apply to radio frequency transmissions, which are going to have to have some really well-written data software to deal with reflections in the signal, overlap, blah blah blah... > - Jack Brindle. Derek L. -- I WANT FIBRE OPTICS!
mike@pyrite.SOM.CWRU.Edu (Michael Kerner) (02/06/91)
In article <1991Feb5.182303.11214@MDI.COM> jackb@MDI.COM (Jack Brindle) writes: >The other thing to remember is that even Ethernet is not fully secure. If >someone really wants at your data, they could throw enough resources at >decoding the electromagnetic field given off by the ethernet cable that >they could get anything that you send across your network. And that data is >almost never encrypted Uuuugh, I hope none of you have illusions about Ethernet being secure, because if you do, you are kidding yourself. Between our hardware specialist and our network specialist, we have a net worm we've been playing with that can take on any identity the user chooses and then do all kinds of packet nasties - and I would say that we're pretty tight on the EM. However, even the MIT standard encrypted packets only work until the bad guys run enough keys through DECRYPT via all the unique text sources they can find. It's sort of a standard UNIX practice to UNIQUE all the text you can get your hands on, run them through DES, and start comparing the results until you get a match. We figured somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple of hours tops in the worst case (using a SPARC). Why do we need radio waves? Why not go infra-red or something on that end with a long enough wavelength that it won't be going anywhere? Granted you are limited to line-of-sight, but a re-transmitter station can be small and cheap and you don't pollute your environment with additional EM's. One last thing: Those wanting to capture your data can just monitor the EM from your keyboard and such - seems easier than packet sniffing. Mikey. Body by Nautilus...Brain by (I'm gonna get sued for this) Macintosh.