WiMAX: 2008

World's Smallest ...

No we are not going to talk about this small camera as its not related to this blog :)

We are going to talk about the worlds smallest phone which has entered Guinness World Records.

The modular Modu phone system, created by Modu Mobile, the world's smallest mobile phone, which weighs just 40.1g and measures 72mm x 37mm x 7.8mm.

The modular Modu phone system, created by Modu Mobile, can be slotted into different cases or even into other specially developed consumer technology. "Modu starts with a tiny handset, which is the lightest phone in the world at 40.1g," said Zack Weisfeld, vice president of marketing at Modu Mobile.

Despite its small dimensions, Weisfeld claimed that the phone does " everything that a sophisticated cellphone does". "You can use it anywhere in the world, send and receive SMS, it has a speaker, Bluetooth, MP3 player with at least 1GB of storage and acts as a mass storage USB Flash drive," he said. "It is tiny, but it is the right size to make it functional, to make you able to dial numbers." Slotting the Modu into different "jackets" also allows users to change what the device can do.

On its own, the Modu phone might not have a standard keypad, but it will still make calls. Put it into a 'sleeve' or 'jacket' (which are essentially cases) and you can turn it into a multitude of different devices.

If, for example, you're going out clubbing, you can pop it into a fashion sleeve with a fancy design. If you're on a business trip and you need a phone with a Qwerty keypad and large screen, you just have to pop it into a 'jacket' with those features.

The idea is that when you buy the Modu phone, you'll get a range of two or three sleeves with it and therefore you're essentially getting three phones for the price of one. If you need extra sleeves you'll be able to buy them for €40-€60 (£30-£45) depending on functionality.

The Modu phone will be available from the 1 October in Israel, Italy and Russia to start with, and it'll cost €200 (£150) unsubsidised with two jackets. According to Modu, there'll be around ten jackets to choose from.

Turning the Modu phone into other phones isn't as far as this device can go. Have a look at the these to see what we're talking about.

LG Viewty is Beauty

Wow, LG Viewty (officially LG-KU990) allows you to record in DivX format (.avi extension) as compared to .3gp format. The trouble with .3gp format is that it can generally be seen on phones and not really watchable on PC or old PDA's. I am not sure of the resolution and quality though. With 5 MP camera, i assume it should be quite good.

I have a DivX compatible player at home, but i have not yet seen big brands supporting MPEG4. It would be fun in future we will have capability to record our favourite programs in DivX format as well as normal DVD format.

Any DivX fans around?

WiMAX or LTE or ... Both?

Everyday I am starting to get a bit more convinced that in future both WiMAX and LTE will work side by side and operators will be more willing to have an open mind about the rival technology.

This article from European Communications has put in words exactly how i have started to feel recently:

There is much expected of WiMAX and it's probably fair to say that some of this can be classified as ‘hype' yet there is much to be excited about, provided we set realistic expectations with early stage deployments. It's also important to remember that WiMAX comes in two distinctly different flavours - mobile WiMAX (referred to under standard 802.16e) and fixed (802.16d). There are significant differences between the two, not least the fact that it's technically much easier to deliver the high bandwidth speeds to a stationary external antenna associated with fixed WiMAX than it is to one on a mobile device in someone's pocket or handbag.

This means that whilst symmetrical speeds of 10 Mbps may be technically possible at a range of 10km today, in practice this is likely to be achieved only using fixed WiMAX and is reliant on other variables for its success, such as a high quality external antenna with line-of-sight to the base station. Given this situation is far from common and that buildings get in the way and degrade WiMAX signals, it will be more likely that mobile WiMAX users will only see half that data rate at much shorter distances from the base station - at least until techniques such as MIMO (multiple input multiple output) and beamforming are perfected to counter, and even take advantage of the multipath effects from physical obstructions.

One of the biggest obstacles to widespread WiMAX deployments is the lack of available high quality spectrum. In the US, Sprint benefits greatly from its 2.5 GHz spectrum holdings. This relatively low-frequency band allows greater coverage per base station since signals travel much further than at higher frequencies. This results in fewer base stations needed, making WiMAX cheaper to deploy in the US than in other markets that don't have access to the same spectrum. Even given the availability of 2.5 GHz spectrum, for Sprint's network to provide nationwide coverage it will require more than 60,000 base stations across the US.In Europe, bandwidth below 2.5GHz is scarce and mostly occupied by analogue TV and current GSM mobile signals. Therefore, until now most European WiMAX trials and licences have been limited to the 3.5 GHz or even 5 GHz bands with often disappointing results, which is why we haven't seen anywhere near as much WiMAX traction in Europe as the US. It may not be until after analogue broadcast signals are switched off across Europe (with the UK scheduled for 2012) that sub 2.5 GHz spectrum becomes available and we start to see large-scale European WiMAX deployments.

An alternative high speed mobile technology that could be used instead of, or to run alongside, WiMAX is LTE. The crucial difference is that, unlike WiMAX, which requires a new network to be built, LTE runs on an evolution of the existing UMTS infrastructure already used by over 80 per cent of mobile subscribers globally. This means that even though development and deployment of the LTE standard may lag Mobile WiMAX, it has a crucial incumbent advantage.

So which technology will ultimately prevail? It is arguable that LTE is more ‘risk-free' than WiMAX because it will run on an evolution of existing mobile infrastructure. Also, mobile operators will be able to use their experience from current 3G and HSDPA networks to carry out the incremental fine-tuning necessary to ensure that the rollout of LTE will deliver on user expectations. Also in Europe it has the advantage of being unaffected by the lack of available spectrum.

However, the recognition of WiMAX as an IMT-2000 technology by the ITU in October 2007 is a significant step, that in the future may help WiMAX to gain a foothold in today's UMTS spectrum and so close the spectrum availability gap, but the full impact of this move has yet to unfold.

Nevertheless, LTE is still perhaps three to four years from being ready whereas mobile WiMAX equipment is entering the final testing phase now. Some operators far from seeing LTE as being less of a risk may take the view that by missing an early mover advantage into ultra high speed mobile broadband and waiting for LTE would have an impact in terms of potential subscribers perhaps attainable by moving to WiMAX now.
Also LTE will start to come to the forefront at the same time as analogue TV signals are switched off in Europe, making the spectrum debate largely irrelevant to the WiMAX versus LTE argument. This is of course provided national governments release spectrum for WiMAX and it's available at a price that operators deem worth paying.

Interestingly many operators have already stated their interest in both camps. In August of this year, Vodafone, a key advocate of LTE, declared itself ‘technology neutral' and joined the WiMAX Forum. This pragmatic approach is perhaps a sign that for now many operators will adopt a ‘wait and see' approach and learn from the experiences of early pioneers such as Sprint Nextel before deciding whether to choose WiMAX or LTE.

Ultimately the decision may be to use both. As Spirent Nextel is showing in the US, the real estate occupied by an operator's current base stations can also be used to site new WiMAX base stations. Then the strategy could be that LTE is used to support mobile broadband users and WiMAX to support fixed or lower-mobility broadband users. Alternatively, they could well use LTE for macro cellular coverage and WiMAX for micro cell coverage.In all likelihood many devices of the future will ship with both LTE and WiMAX capability, meaning full compatibility across both technologies. Consumers will probably not even know which particular technology is delivering high speed data to them and they're hardly likely to care, so long as it works to their satisfaction, and the content provided is engaging and available at the right price

The Road to WIMAX TV

Despite the rise in popularity of user-generated videos and other "do-it-yourself" forms of content, when it comes to authentic revenue generation, broadcast television programming is still king. The revenue it generates, regardless of whether it is distributed via ad-supported, "free-to-air" broadcasting, pay television or any other model, dwarfs that of other content types. Telcos and other communications service providers looking to leverage their IP-based networks to offer video as part of subscriber packages recognize the necessity and huge appeal this type of content has in winning and maintaining an audience share.
Similarly, mobile operators are finding that broadcast programming is the key to thriving in an increasingly competitive landscape. As growth rates from pure voice traffic flatten, they are introducing data applications, not the least of which are videos of popular broadcast network programs. Hence "mobile TV" is already proving to be a promising ARPU generator for mobile operators, with several million subscribers to such services worldwide.

Beyond the ARPU increase, mobile distribution of broadcast programming offers such new business opportunities as targeted advertising models. It's not surprising that incumbent operators are investing in infrastructure to meet the consumer expectation for "content anywhere, any time on any device."

WiMAX is emerging as one of the most promising wireless networking technologies designed to meet this demand. However, broadcast-quality video is a bandwidth hog. As an IP-based network, WiMAX faces inherent scalability problems. Each new customer requires more bandwidth, connectivity sessions grow longer and applications such as video require ever more capacity. Serving thousands of such individual "unicast" streams becomes expensive, and there is a seemingly inevitable decline in quality of service at periods of peak demand.

One way to avoid these issues, and take full advantage of WiMAX to meet consumer demand and operator interests, is to implement hybrid broadcast/multicast architecture. This type of architecture is economically feasible because TV viewers tend to aggregate around "peak" viewing times: Despite the huge explosion in the amount of content now available on many networks and the inevitable fragmentation of audiences, in most markets, the bulk of TV audiences are largely served by five to ten major channels or networks.

This is true of fixed TV viewing and is likely to be the same with mobile, with the channels or networks meeting the demand for appropriately produced programming directed at commuting periods and other times in the day or week when mobile viewing is likely to be popular. A WiMAX TV broadcast/multicast solution enables operators to offer the most popular mobile programming at quality reception over predictable bandwidth and without any risk of congestion or contention during these peak-viewing periods.

In addition to nationwide or regional TV broadcasting, WiMAX TV also enables local content insertion and "micro-broadcasting" " the efficient delivery of content within restricted areas during popular sports events or concerts, or within airports, campuses or hospitals.

While viewing habits do tend to aggregate around certain predictable times, and audiences tend to gravitate en masse toward certain shows or programs, the portable nature of mobile TV means there will be a demand for individual streams and so-called niche or long-tailed content. Meeting this demand requires using a mix of broadcast, multicast and unicast technologies.
Typically, this is done by broadcasting the most popular TV channels on bandwidth that is set aside and efficiently managed through dynamic multiplexing. Other TV channels are multicast based on the demand in each particular cell, while interactive services and niche content are serviced over unicast links. How these various services are packaged and sold to the viewers will evolve over time as the market emerges.

Making this hybrid approach to mobile video delivery successful involves not just the use of a WiMAX network itself, but the implementation of an architecture specifically optimized for WiMAX-based mobile video delivery. It is this type of architecture that can transform a typical WiMAX network into a WiMAX TV network.

An optimized WiMAX TV architecture is based on the Multicast-Broadcast Services (MBS) specification, which is part of the Mobile WiMAX (802.16e) standard. MBS supported by Mobile WiMAX (802.16e) leverages the most successful features of such technologies as DVB-H, DVB-SH, MediaFLO and 3GPP E-UTRA. It offers high data rates and coverage using a Single Frequency Network (SFN); a flexible allocation of radio resources; low mobile-station power consumption; support for datacasting in addition to audio and video streams and fast channel-switching.

The Mobile WiMAX Release-1 profile defines a toolbox for initial MBS service delivery. The MBS service can be supported by either constructing a separate MBS zone in the DL frame along with unicast service (embedded MBS) or by dedicating the whole frame to MBS (DL only) for standalone broadcast service. MBS can be accessed when MS is in idle mode to allow low MS power consumption. The flexibility of Mobile WiMAX to support integrated MBS and unicast services enables a broader range of applications. [1]

As this architecture is fully IP-based, it enables operators to use standard network and headend components, as well as their existing terminal applications. A complete infrastructure overhaul or rebuild is not necessary. In addition, the architecture is scalable over a practically unlimited number of users, flexible in content trafficking, and centrally managed and monitored.

The Single Frequency Network (SFN) architecture brings an additional gain of several dBs in the radio channel, thus improving reception quality. "Time-slicing" technology, successfully implemented in DVB-H and other broadcast standards, increases the lifetime of the terminal's battery by receiving the content in short bursts, rather then continuously. The Inter-bursts Forward Error Correction (iFEC) " developed by UDcast -- ensures perfect video quality under difficult propagation conditions, making short reception blackouts totally invisible to end-customers, such as when they are passing under a bridge or tree.

While developing WiMAX TV architecture may not involve a heavy infrastructure upgrade, it is necessary to integrate software to manage the network's operations. UDcast has recently developed three software modules designed to meet this need including a WiMax TV Manager, which ensures the management of the entire WiMAX TV network, as well as the integration of the broadcast/multicast system with content sources, service protection and interactive services. Other software modules include the WiMAX TV ASN/MBS (Mobile Base Station) Module and the WiMAX TV Base Station Module. The MBS module implements the core functions of our WiMAX Multicast-Broadcast Service Controller and ensures the correct level of synchronization of the base stations for SFN operation, plus Inter-bursts Forward Error Correction (iFEC), intra-BS handover and content time-slicing. The WiMAX TV Base Station Module enforces SFN broadcasting and time-slicing and executes procedures for local content adaptation or injection, enabling geographically addressable content distribution.

These modules demonstrate that it is feasible to use WiMAX to deliver broadcast-quality programming to mobile devices. Harnessing the power of WiMAX to enable such a service offers numerous benefits to players across all segments of the industry. IP and telecom infrastructure providers, for example, can use it as revenue-generating extension of their existing WiMAX solutions. Similarly, broadcast TV providers can use it as an innovative WiMAX extension to their existing broadcast operations, or as a direct television distribution channel to the fast-growing community of WiMAX users.

Even though new applications and models won't be discovered until operators and other users began to implement WiMAX as a mobile video delivery tool, there are emerging applications and business models for WiMAX TV today. Many operators already have the existing network infrastructure to do this " they just need to embrace the technology in order to leverage it to its maximum, revenue-generating potential.

Wednesday July 9, 2008

Tuesday July 8, 2008

Fixed wireless player plans more UK WiMax

Monday July 7, 2008

Sunday July 6, 2008:

Saturday July 5, 2008:

Friday July 4, 2008

Thursday July 3, 2008

Wednesday July 2, 2008:

Google: Now it’s Transpacific Fiber

Google may be planning an undersea Pacific cable, reports the NY Times. And it is getting ready to hire ships that will lay a data communications cable across the Pacific, according to a report from Communications Day, an Australian trade news service.

The project, called Unity, hopes to have a cable in service by 2009. Google would own a dedicated portion of the multi-terabit cable, giving it a significant cost advantage for trans-Pacific data transmission over rival Internet companies.

The Unity name was first revealed in public in early September when Level 3 executive Mike Saunders listed it as one of several new cables planned across the Pacific in a Singapore conference presentation. Saunders’ presentation warned of the potential for the new cables to create a new trans-Pacific capacity bubble, although he did not link Unity to Google.

According to DSLPrime, Asia Pacific will go from 104M broadband connections this year, with North America from 59M to 99M.

Barry Schnitt, a Google spokesman, didn’t confirm the plan, but did tell the publication the company is interested in the area, saying “Additional infrastructure for the Internet is good for users and there are a number of proposals to add a Pacific submarine cable. We’re not commenting on any of these plans.”
Dave Burstein, the editor of DSLPrime, who tipped me off to the CommDay report, explained even though there is a lot of unused fiber capacity across the Pacific, there are few players, and prices are seen as unusually high. He adds that there is a glut of cable laying ships, so the cost of building a new link to Asia has come down.
This new move puts Google in competition again with Verizon, which has fought Google’s approach to the new wireless spectrum auction in the United States. Verizon is part of a group of Asian Carriers that is building a $500 million cable between the United States and China.

Sergey and Larry explain the Google machine (above).

The $500 million Trans-Pacific Express project, is the newest transpacific cable. Trans-Pacific Express is being built by Verizon business and Chinese investors. The cable will link several Asian and Pacific locations with the United States and will be more than 11,000 miles long when competed next year.

It will jump off from the United States in Nedonna Beach, Ore., and extend more than 18,000 kilometers (11,000-miles) to China. Construction is now underway, with completion slated for the third quarter of 2008. It will provide capacity of up to 1.28 terabits per second (Tbps), but will have design capacity of up to 5.12 Tbps.

Existing cable networks between the United States and China and other Asian nations are reaching capacity, making the planned new network a necessity, Verizon said last year

Indian telecom company Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. acquired for $130 million the Tyco Global Network from Tyco in 2005. The Tyco Global Network-Pacific (TGN-P) cable, owned by VSNL, was recently upgraded from a lit capacity of 640 Gbit/s to 1 Tbit/s, but it has a total capacity of 7 Tbit/s.

Other U.S.-Asia Transpacific cable includes:

Pacific Crossing-1 (map): The PC-1 Cable system is comprised of four segments, two of which traverse the Pacific Ocean each containing four fiber pairs. The system currently has lit 180 Gbps with design capacity for 640 Gbps. It runs from Japan to Harbor Pointe, Washington.
Japan-U.S. Cable Network (map): The 640 gigabits/se (4,096 STM-1s), uses 10 GigE technology. The Japan-U.S. cable has its northern landing point at Manchester, Calif., and its southern landing at Morrow Bay, Calif.
China-U.S. Cable Network (map): The $1.4 billion China-U.S transpacific fiber represents half of China’s international Internet capacity. The China-U.S. cable has its northern landing point at Bandon, Ore. and its southern landing point at San Luis Obispo, Calif.
Southern Cross Cable Network (map): Southern Cross has a total protected network capacity to 480 Gbps, connecting through Hawaii and terminating in the U.S. at Hillsboro, Oregon. They interconnect with the Pacific Lambda Rail in Seattle for connections to Internet2’s Abilene, with National Lambda Rail and CANARIE’s CANet4 (both of which use switched optical lightpaths).
C2Ccn (map): A fully redundant and diversified network with a design capacity of 7.68 Tbps (equivalent to 90 million simultaneous conversations). It’s apparently the new name for the Tyco Transpacific Cable (below), that connects China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Philippines, Singapore and Taiwan, with onward connectivity with the United States in Hillsboro.
Tyco Transpacific (map): Indian national operator Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (VSNL) bought the Tyco Global Network, one of the world’s highest-capacity international submarine cable systems, for $130M in 2004. The ring system has capacity of 5.12 Tb/s, with segment 1 going from Japan to Nedonna Beach, Oregon. VSNL is the third biggest global player in the international voice market with interests in submarine cable systems FLAG, SEA-ME-WE-2 and SEA-ME-WE-3.
TPC 5 (map): Links Japan, Guam, Hawaii and mainland USA (in Bandon, Oregon) with Tyco Transpacific.
Fiber-Optic Link Around the Globe (map): India’s Reliance Group of companies bought FLAG in 2004. FLAG was the first oceanic cable to circle the earth.

The CIA describes America’s First Encrypted Cable. The Pacific Telecommunications Council, with an annual conference held in January, and SubOptic, held each May, are major industry events. Wikipedia has a list of international submarine communications cables, the International Cable Protection Committee and the Oregon Fisherman’s Cable Committee have additional information.

MetroFi SideGuide: Always On Intrusion

“Telecommunications Security and Privacy Act. Invasion of privacy is more like it”.
– Enemy of the State

Portland’s ad-sponsored Wi-Fi provider MetroFi announced today that it’s changing its online ad format, moving from 1-inch banner ads across the screen to Microsoft’s MSN SideGuide, which displays ads, a search box and news on the side of the screen, according to the Oregonian’s Mike Rogoway.

I haven’t seen it (yet). I’m uploading this story using MetroFi’s free service.

Microsoft says MetroFi users can disable their MSN SideGuide when using other networks, but now must first start and run the application as a requirement before using MetroFi’s free service.

Russell Senior, a volunteer at the free community WiFi organization, Personal Telco, has reservations about MetroFi. He says MSN’s new Sideguide software is going to be far more intrusive than MetroFi’s banner at the top of a page.

Codenamed Shadow, the main purpose of MSN Sideguide is to fund the free wifi networks that Microsoft is currently testing in Oakland and Portland with its ISP partner, MetroFi - the wifi connection will be dropped if Sideguide is not running. It stays on your screen.

Users must download Microsoft’s SideGuide to continue accessing the free WiFi service. If you’ve got a PC.

MetroFi says they’re committed to protecting your privacy while you’re using MSN SideGuide and will not be sharing your registration or email.

But you can’t help but wonder if Microsoft will record your surfing audit trail (probably) — even run it through the NSA’s “secret room” in the Westin Building if required to do so by law.

Narus believes all Muni-WiFi networks must have the ability to provide lawful intercept, which isn’t much of a surprise, given that the Narus Intercept Suite can capture packet-level, flow-level, and application-level usage information along with complete session packets for forensic analysis and intercept.

MetroFi has stopped expanding its Portland footprint, says the Oregonian, although it continues filling in areas where it had been testing equipment. MetroFi now serves about 29 percent of Portland, according to Haas, up from about 25 percent in October. MetroFi said more than 17,000 people signed on in November, the same tally it reported for October.

Microsoft’s Stefan Weitz, director of planning for MSN (above, left), spoke at a Muniwireless conference (pdf) on the viability of the ad-supported model (below).

The amount of time users spend online continues growing — 323,000 hours in aggregate in November, about 19 hours per user, reports MetroFi.

C/Net points out that widget ads aren’t commonplace yet, but they are cropping up more and more.

Many people are already using desktop widgets, which are small applications that update dynamically and offer a limited function for things like calendar, clock, weather, and news or RSS feeds. Yahoo offers them, as do Microsoft and Google, who call them “gadgets.”
Then there are the thousands of widgets on Facebook, things like Slide for photo slide shows and iLike for music recommendations, which have boosted the popularity of the social-networking site.

Still, widgets are (mostly) an option. SideGuide will be a requirement for free MetroFi service. Will it work on a Mac or Firefox? There’s disagreement on that point — but it seems inevitable.

Underwater MIMO

MIMO is going underwater, says PhysOrg. As the United States and Canada take their first step toward establishing a cabled ocean observatory, a University of Missouri-Rolla researcher is trying to improve the speed of wireless underwater communication using using Multiple Input - Multiple Output (wikipedia) acoustic hydrophones.

The same acoustic waves that dolphins and whales use to communicate when they are thousands of miles apart can be used by humans to transmit information, says Dr. Rosa Zheng, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at UMR. Her research focuses on shallow water communications, a tool needed for environmental monitoring and other efforts. Shallow water communication is faced with additional challenges because signals are affected by waves and reflections off the ocean’s top and bottom surfaces.

“The amazing thing about acoustic signals is that the lower the frequency, the farther away it can travel,” Zheng explains. “The challenge is that acoustic waves have a very limited bandwidth. Our goal is to achieve very high reliability and a high data rate.” Zheng plans to use multi-input, multi-output (MIMO) technology to increase the data transfer rate to hundreds of kilobits per second.

“MIMO technology provides some challenges because you’re sending signals at the same time, using the same frequency band,” Zheng says. “Theory proves that it’s feasible, but we’re still trying to figure out how you separate those signals at the receiver.”

Zheng and her University of Missouri-Columbia collaborator have received a three-year, $270,000 award from the Office of Naval Research to fund their research.

Previously ocean scientists undertook boat expeditions to collect data. To study processes over time, they were limited to simple, self-powered scientific instruments that collected data without human supervision.

The Neptune Project will change all that, unwiring the West Coast, from Canada to California. Real-time data transmission, in concert with EarthScope, a nation-wide matrix of sensors, will allow early investigation of seismicity, magmatism and deformation at a scale never before possible.

Canada’s NEPTUNE project will provide a continuous data stream to allow scientists to study the ocean in unprecedented detail and help tackle questions surrounding earthquakes and climate change when it becomes operational late next year. VENUS delivers real time information from the seafloor to the University of Victoria, BC, where they are archived.

MBARI has built a short undersea cable called MARS to function as a test bed for the instruments to be deployed on NEPTUNE Canada.

“This is a fundamental revolution giving us a direct connection to the seafloor… the ocean will no longer control our ability to study it,” Marcia McNutt, president of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI).

Meanwhile, a federal appeals court in San Francisco has given the U.S. Navy a temporary go-ahead to use high-powered sonar during nearly a dozen upcoming training exercises in Southern California waters.

Friday’s ruling puts a temporary stay on an injunction ordered last month by a Los Angeles federal judge to stop the powerful bursts of sonar, because they could “cause irreparable harm to the environment.” Scientists have linked sonar use to mass whale die-offs.

“The safety of our whales must be weighed, and so must the safety of our warriors. And of our country,” wrote Judge Andrew Kleinfeld of the U.S 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

BTW, Seattle blogger Dan Twohig, was browsing in Microsoft’s Virtual Earth when he accidentally came across a photo of a nuclear sub in dry-dock with it’s exotic propeller clearly visible (above). Twohig was evaluating real estate properties around Bremerton via Virtual Earth when he stumbled across the image. The designs of such stealth propellers have been secret for decades.

In other watery news, Fujitsu scored a $1.5 billion subsea network deal from FLAG Telecom, this week. Fujitsu also won an upgrade contract from Pacific Crossing for their PC-1 transpacific cable. PC-1 will be lit to at least 390 Gbps of capacity on each segment of its protected network by the first quarter of 2008 and could increase to at least 490 Gbps by the second quarter of 2008.

Finavera Renewables wants to harness wind and wave power, and has successfully deployed a prototype two and a half miles off the coast of Oregon.

Waves push the AquaBuoy 2.0 up and down in the water. The motion puts pressure on a hydraulic fluid. The pressurized fluid then turns a turbine, which creates electricity.

The Open Source Lab at Oregon State University, providies development and distribution of Open Source Software (such as FireFox), worldwide.

Sounds bring Google Earth to Life. Wild Sanctuary has created software that can layer relevant recorded sounds over locations in Google Earth, with over 3,500 hours of soundscapes from all over the world. Their blog explains.

Virtual historical tours might be created with students gathering local content on field trips. Teamed up with the local Audubon Society, your park system might be mapped for multi-media virtual tours, complete with live birdcams like OwlCams and available over cellphones or muni hotspots.

I hear bird songs, whales and insects.

Some of the 37 Oregon Web 2.0 Companies might be collaborative candidates.

The Philadelphia Story: Controversial

The firm Philadelphia has retained to build a citywide wireless Internet network has spent millions more than its anticipated costs and cannot say when it will complete the project, City Council members were told yesterday. EarthLink representatives were a no show for a committee hearing on Wireless Philadelphia, yesterday, reports Philly.com. Greg Goldman, CEO of the city-created nonprofit Wireless Philadelphia, said EarthLink’s network had “several thousand” subscribers so far (pdf).

MuniWireless has details on a New American Foundation report that is critical of Wireless Philadelphia. The Foundation asserts that Philadelphia’s pioneering, city-wide wireless network would be better organized as a nonprofit organization that owns and operates the network.

The Philadelphia Story (pdf), puts Wireless Philadelphia under a microscope and is one of the most readable and illuminating reviews of municipal wireless developments to date. It promotes a liberal point of view, in the Bob McChesney style, and may not be as academically rigorous as, for example, a MITRE report. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

The report recommends:

City officials and decision-makers:

Involve all stakeholders.
Sustain open participation.
Promote horizontal relationships among stakeholders.
Be open with information.
Go offline.
Leverage existing assets.
Seriously consider the benefits of public/nonprofit ownership and open access business models.
Treat connectivity and digital inclusion as basic public rights.

Community members and local organizers:

Organize a coalition.
Get to know the key players and decision-makers.
Be the media and report on the process.
Do your own research and disseminate it within your community.
Start a community wireless project.
Remain actively involved in all steps of the process.

For the full report, see the the pdf.

Wireless Philadelphia responds with their own press release (pdf):

“This is a great day for Wireless Philadelphia,” said CEO Greg Goldman. “On the same day,
in the same place, this ambitious public-private Initiative to extend internet access to all
neighborhoods will be attacked for being too much government by some and for not being public
enough by others. We must be doing something right!”
In just over one year of operations, and with network construction still underway, Wireless
Philadelphia has raised over $1M in new funds from 30 different sources and forged partnerships
with over 30 community-based organizations that already serve the Digital Inclusion population,
with many more to come.
The publication’s principal author, Josh Brietbart, argues from the perspective that public
ownership is the only effective “business model” for municipal broadband projects, and the
publication is crafted to support this view. Thus the publication’s conclusions cannot be labeled
“outcomes” but must be considered as assertions based on a specific point of view.
The publication argues that WP yielded to political pressure when it accepted EarthLink’s bid
to own and operate the network. This falsely assumes that City funds were available to build and
operate a citywide wireless network. The project would likely never have been approved under a
public ownership model.
In stark contrast to the assertions of the Ethos Group publication, substantial public input
has been included in the process of developing the Wireless Philadelphia initiative at every step…

The Ethos Group says it follows three core principles: accessibility, accountability, and affordability. But Ethos’ Philadelphia report does not mention the nearly universal retrenchment of city-wide WiFi services, the downside of municipal ownership, shared connections using Meraki repeaters, practical cost and operational comparisons between WiFi and WiMAX clouds, the impact of 700 MHz, unlicensed white spaces, or MetroFi’s “free” ad-supported municipal wireless approach.

DailyWireless follows developments in wireless advertising closely. Nobody likes to be assaulted by adverting, but that economic model deserves more scrutiny — especially if hand-held devices like the iPhone become ubiquitous.

We’d like to know what role adverting can — or should — play in municipal wireless. That study has yet to be written.

UTRAN Network Sharing

This is a new feature that the network operators are getting more interested in. The problem is that the Network side is more prepared than the handset side which still has some way to go.

The possibility of sharing part or all of the network by two or more separated commercial entities was not considered in the initial specification work of 3GPP. However, as e.g. a result of partnerships, the need for two or more operators to share common network infrastructure has become an economically desirable goal. Meanwhile, changes to public network operating licence conditions make such sharing possible from a regulatory point of view.

Some work has already been carried out in this area with the definition of the equivalent PLMN concept and partly with the introduction of Iu-Flex, but there is still the need to consolidate these activities under a coherent work plan.

Network sharing is in a way similar to what is done by MVNO's who use the host network to offer services. In network sharing case the other operator would not generally be a MVNO and probably the equipment would belong to both of the operators along with the cost and revenue earned. This is easily possible if the network is not overloaded (as in case of 3 UK) but if its a long time existing operator (like Vodafone) than they may not have enough spare capacity to allow someone else to share their infrastructure.

3GPP Specs for further reference:
3GPP TS 23.251 - Network Sharing; Architecture and functional description
3GPP TR 22.951 - Service aspects and requirements for network sharing

WiMAX