Comments on: Gas pipe broadband?
Small San Diego start-up is developing technology that lets carriers deliver broadband services through natural-gas pipes.
Small San Diego start-up is developing technology that lets carriers deliver broadband services through natural-gas pipes.
January 5, 2010 6:00 PM PST
January 5, 2010 5:27 PM PST
January 5, 2010 5:24 PM PST
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Related quotes
I wonder how safe it would be. Gas leak = bad
And yes, if they can get it to work with Natural gas, they should be able to make something like this work with burried water lines.
There are a few problems:
1. You can only go to people who have gas service. We were looking at rural broadband, so that was a showstopper for my application.
2. Ultrawideband will have big problems with frequency dispersion and resonances. Single carrier broadband will probably work better.
3. Everybody is sharing the same bandwidth, so its like a cable modem. Even if you use 5 GHz as the carrier, there will be problems if some teenager sets up a BitTorrent server.
Finally, there will be the usual regulatory hassles. I would suggest going to co-op and municipal gas networks first, and then approach corporations in reverse order of size. (i.e. call PG&E last.)
1. The footprint for gas services (residential and business) are substantial.
2. UWB actually works out well because of its constructive use of multipath and the fact that the pipes don't move.
3. OFDM helps out here.
1. Gas is explosive. You don't want to be messing with gas pipes. Putting high power RF into them is probably not a good idea, either.
2. They're plastic here in the Northeast, because steel rusts and becomes weak, allowing the gas to leak out. See #1, above. Plastic waveguides don't work very well.
3. Multipath and reflections if the pipes are steel. Gas pipes look like trees, with trunks and leaves. RF doesn't like that. You get reflections and it's harder to sort out the information you want, never mind tring to send information the other way, from your house to the network.
3. What percentage of homes have gas? Bet more of them have cable and phone lines. The ones that don't have cable, probably don't have mainline gas, either. Going to be a lot cheaper to get DSL or fiber or cable broadband.
4. Wireless
I'm left wondering why this company got two pages of coverage.
2. Plastic pipelines are in fact becoming the standard replacement for faulty, old metal pipelines. Fortunately, without power limitations, we characterize for intermittment plastic sections, and dynamically increase the power.
3. We refer to it as either a star or mesh configuration - UWB propagates effectively with either. We use signal processing to handle all reflections and echos we create.
Keep in mind the build out cost of wireless verses fiber - full HDTV, video, voice and data for starters for the end user cost of DSL not to mention 100Mbps++ per end user
__________________________________
R.K.
http://www.Remove-All-Spyware.com/
You don't need every person in the world to have your product/service...but it does help.
whenever needed, I get the impression that ANY accidental gas leak
is guaranteed to ignite if not detonate. With a leak, we do have the
full combination of gas, oxygen, and the high power ignition
source.
That makes a very loud KaBOOM.........
I wonder what the reaction of the cable/dsl companies would be considering they have spent a bomb laying fibre.
would they try to shutdown this new method of internet distribution that undercuts them totally?
2) Will a pig running in a given section of pipe break a signal? I assume the packets would take another route...
3) For areas lacking "last mile" gas service, couldn't you pull the signal out of the pipe and route through a WiMax tower?
1. This is a terminal distribution system within a city. No pumps
involved
2. Pigs run only in liquid product pipelines, not in local natural
gas lines. So, no problem.
3. For areas beyond the gas lines, any other solution could work.
But, considering the limited number of customers per square
mile, WiMax might not be economically feasible.
But why? We already have fiber optics and Ethernet. They're all we really need to connect homes and small businesses to the Internet at rates far beyond existing "broadband" technologies like DSL or cable. They have not yet been widely deployed only because, until now, Internet penetration has been relatively low.
Cable and DSL were designed back when the Internet was in its infancy, to ride piggyback on existing cable TV and telephone networks. They made sense -- then.
But now, every other home, on average, is on the Internet. The Internet has grown up, and it's time to deploy a new infrastructure designed specifically to support it. We shouldn't waste any more time on "magic bullet" technologies that kludge IP onto some infrastructure originally designed to do something totally different.
than 100 megabits/sec if movie and TV downloads are going to
be time feasible. And I have a hunch that the 100 Megabit speed
quoted for the gas pipe is max under optimal conditions.
Fibre optics is the way to go for households and businesses
operating from fixed sites. And since the telcoms are going to
be installing it just to modernize their own plant, there's no
sense playing any other half way games. Those aren't even
'magic bullets'.
- by WBru November 20, 2009 4:58 PM PST
- Perfect if you have a gas stove with a gigahertz processor. Start baking before you leave the office!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(34 Comments)