RE: AW: Moving Targets

From: Alex Tosheff ([email protected])
Date: Wed Oct 04 2000 - 19:44:34 EDT

  • Next message: Fei Long: "About Satellite Resource."

    Wouldn't a "leaky wire" solution magnify the multipath probs? Especially
    for a moving target?

    At 03:51 PM 10/4/00 -0500, Brooker, Ralph wrote:
    >It's not exactly using the tracks, but Andrew has provided many
    >communications systems for rail networks using Radiax (R) radiating coaxial
    >cable laid alongside the rails. The cable has slots tuned for specific
    >bands such as VHF, cellular, GSM, or PCS, and has a tapered radiation loss
    >characteristic to give even signal strength along the line. Every so often
    >you put a repeater or network access point. Most of these systems have been
    >in underground metro tunnels, such as in Hong Kong where commuters talk on
    >their GSM phones through this network. However, it does get rather
    >expensive for a network hundreds of miles long, and the unusual propagation
    >and fade charateristics can limit the bandwidth.
    >
    >Ralph
    >
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Charlie Younghusband [mailto:[email protected]]
    >Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 10:26 AM
    >To: Andreas Timm-Giel; [email protected]
    >Subject: Re: AW: Moving Targets
    >
    >
    >At $7 US/minute @ 64kbps, that's $420 /hr @ 64kbps or 6720 US $ / hr @
    >1Mbps.
    >Plus hw & ISP costs for down under. Yikes. Your research project could end
    >pretty quickly with an Inmarsat type solution.
    >
    >Want a real research project? Find a way to send the signal through the
    >train
    >tracks. ;) Only way to really fix the tunnel problem!
    >
    >Seriously though, I'd talk to some of the wireless providers in Australia.
    >Australia is quite advanced at digital wireless services, they might be all
    >over
    >an additional excuse to expand their east coast network where most Aussie
    >cities
    >are anyway.
    >
    >Charlie
    >
    >Also note that a 1Mbps downstream and a 56 upstream probably isn't a good
    >matchup (an offhand guess); even if you're doing 100% downloading of files,
    >your
    >upstream bandwidth could quickly become the bottleneck just with ACKs
    >assuming
    >normal windows TCP/IP. Something closer to a 10 to 1 ratio might be more
    >appropriate. Check some of the litterature regarding assymetry and TCP/IP.
    >
    >
    >
    >Andreas Timm-Giel wrote:
    >Second problem for L- and
    >
    > > S-band systems will be the prices for capacity on satellites (just as a
    > > reference: Inmarsat takes around US$ 7 / min for a 64 kbit/s link)
    >
    > > >
    > > > Hi,
    > > >
    > > > I'm doing a research project about providing Internet access to moving
    > > > targets on the eastern seabord of Australia. In this case, the moving
    > > > targets are trains.
    > > >
    > > > We really need to provide around 1MB or so downstream, maybe 56k or so
    > > > uplink. I've been doing a lot of searching but facts seem to be hard
    > > > to come by.
    > > >--
    >
    >Charlie Younghusband
    >Network Systems Engineering
    >Xiphos Technologies http://www.xiphos.ca/
    >514-848-9640 (f) 514-848-9644



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 04 2000 - 20:18:07 EDT