Imagine accessing the Internet over the same pipe that provides you with natural gas for cooking.
It may sound nuts today, but a San Diego company called Nethercomm is developing a way to use ultra wideband wireless signals to transmit data at broadband speeds through natural-gas pipes. The company claims its technology will be able to offer 100 megabits per second to every home, which is more than enough to provide voice, video and high-speed Internet access.
Needless to say, there's a big caveat here: These claims have yet to be tested. Nethercomm has no working products and has not tried the technology in the field.
News.context
What's new:
A San Diego start-up is developing a way to use ultra wideband wireless signals to transmit data at broadband speeds through natural-gas pipes.
Bottom line: Some skeptics may scoff at the idea of a natural-gas pipe for broadband, but analysts say it could be much cheaper than technology available today.
"When I first heard about it, it seemed pretty outrageous," said Joe Posewick, president of EN Engineering, an engineering firm that helps natural gas companies build distribution facilities. "But the more we talked to Nethercomm and other experts in the industry, the more we realized that it could be a viable technology that could revolutionize the natural-gas industry.
"Of course, we have to see if it really works," Posewick added. "There's been no proof of concept yet."
So how does broadband in gas pipes work? Nethercomm is adapting ultra wideband radio transmitters and receivers to send wireless signals through the natural-gas pipe at the same time the pipe is delivering gas fuel. Ultra wideband, or UWB, is a developing communication technology that delivers very high-speed network data rates, but at higher power levels it can interfere with other wireless signals.
That's not usually a problem when ultra wideband signals are transmitted in pipes buried underground. As a result, tremendous amounts of data could be transmitted through a gas line without causing problems.
At least, that's the idea. Nethercomm and the technology it's developing is still in the early days. The company hasn't yet announced any licensing deals with ultra wideband equipment makers. The 12-person company, which has no venture backing at the moment, is also trying to raise money to start a pilot program with broadband providers and gas companies by next summer.
Some skeptics may scoff at the idea of using a natural-gas pipe for broadband, but it's not so easy to dismiss the man behind the technology.
"It doesn't have the ubiquity of power line technology, but natural gas goes into a great number of homes. It's interesting."
--Kevin Brand, vice president of product management, EarthLink
Patrick Nunally, founder and CEO of Nethercomm and one of the inventors of gas line broadband, has a hefty track record. Until May 2005, he worked as chief technology officer for Patriot Scientific, a company that designs microprocessor technology for the U.S. Department of Defense. Prior to that, he was president and CEO of Intertech, a company he founded in 1998 that specialized in intellectual-property development for embedded processor and communications systems. He has also served as chief executive and chief technology officer for several other technology development companies.
Nunally holds more than 134 patents worldwide, predominantly in wireless and signal processing. He's been honored with awards from the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) and was named an IEEE/IAE (Institute for the Advancement of Engineers) fellow in 1994. He has even received a formal citation from former President Bill Clinton for his efforts in furthering technology development in the United States.
If transmitting broadband through natural-gas pipes works as Nethercomm's execs think it can, it could have a major impact on the broadband access market. A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and changes in the Federal Communications Commission classification of DSL has made it more difficult for independent service providers to use existing cable or phone infrastructure to reach broadband customers.
What's more, the old copper infrastructure that is currently used to deliver DSL service doesn't have enough capacity to support new applications like high-definition television service. While phone companies like SBC Communications and Verizon Communications have already begun spending billions of dollars to upgrade their networks to provide more capacity, technology that uses existing pipes into people's homes could augment these new networks.
Water is not an option - Natural Gas pipelines is a very viable option. There are no safety issues associated with UWB transmitting through the natural gas due to the fact that in order to cause a hazardous condition commands 3 elements -oxygen,fuel, and an ignition source. Natural gas pipelines are secure and contain no oxygen - furthermore, the components of BiG can be sealed from the gas flow, but again, without oxygen, there is no issue
You missed the point of the power lines issue. What was used there was the data lines that went along with power lines. These data lines were put in place by power companies to communicate between power relay stations and collect meter data. They were simply under-utilized data lines being re-utilized for home users.
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.
Broadband-in-Gas transmits effectively through both plastic and metal pipes. Although metal is ideal, plastic requires additional power which is not a limitation due to the oxygen-free environment we are transmitting within. Having the flexibility with our transmission power makes plastic a non-issue.
I looked into this technology (briefly) about 6 years ago. The bottom line is that metal gas pipe acts as a waveguide, so that you get good coupling and an excellent signal/noise ratio.
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.)
By item - 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.
Wait a minute...I seem to recall an April Fool's day story just like this...maybe six or seven years ago...in Wired or Business 2.0...about an ISP company in the Netherlands that was going to send internet service through sewer lines and was developing a toilet modem. There was even a bogus corporate website. Is this a gag?
Nethercomm and our Broadband-in-Gas technology is 8 months old. The Natural gas pipeline infrastructure is in fact an incredible pathway to providing video, voice, and data (using wireless radar-type signals from the neighboorhood node) to each end user. This path beneath the ground is not regulated by the FCC and furthermore does not have the bandwidth limitations or interferance issues which plague the industry today. The level of content and speed, for the cost of DSL today, is in many ways too good to be true - BUT IT IS the up and coming means of Broadband delivery.
This gentleman's going to have an uphill fight ahead of him. We'll overlook for the moment that he has no prototype unit, but "thinks it should work". Anyone who invests in this scheme should have their head examined.
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.
1. In order for gas to be explosive, 3 components must exist - gas, oxygen, ignition source. Natural Gas Pipelines DO NOT contain oxygen therefore, absent 1 of 3 criterias, an explosion is not possible - the is technology has been evaluated by the gas industry as "intrinsically safe" per DOE. Therefore, power is not a limitation within this pathway. 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
A found "Van Gough" in the attic so to speak. Wireless Broadband delivery through the natural gas pipeline infrastructure where power is unlimited due to the lack of oxygen to cause a safety condition, an environment not controlled by the FCC, full-spectrum without interferance beneath the ground, delivery of 100Mbps++ to each end user - with "no gas lines" the only VALID limitation to date.
Whoa, 100mbps internet of gas pipes... Sounds crazy, but if it works, and if the pricing is right, its going to become very popular because I know some people still don't have cable lines at their place. And this gas pipe connection seems to be much faster then dsl is capabale of going at. Let's hope it works. __________________________________ R.K. <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.Remove-All-Spyware.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.Remove-All-Spyware.com/</a>
So what if everybody doesn't have natural gas service?
Not everybody has cable, not everybody has a clear view of the southern sky, not everybody has home phone service, but cable modems, satellite tv, and dsl all seem to be very popular ;)
You don't need every person in the world to have your product/service...but it does help.
From Ann Nunnally's comments about 'just using high power' 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.
The gas that would leak out of the pipe leaves the high power environment. You then have fuel and oxygen without an ignition source... until someone lights a cigarette. :)
Assuming you can couple sufficient RF energy into a gaspipe without blowing yourself up, I wonder how efficient one can make network distribution? Every home is a different distance from the injection point, likely with different pipe sizes and couplings, bend radius's etc. Thus every 'RF path' is unique for each home, i.e. impedence mismatch out the wazzoo. So, assuming we haven't exploded ourselves yet, the deployment tech's can spend hours of valuable time at the customer premises finding and matching to an elusive carrier signal? Note these would be the same morons who can't get an F connector on a big fat cable without screwing things up. Another great idea doomed at the outset by 'human factors...'
I would think that treating broadband like cell phones could bring this idea to the market faster. Use gas lines to do the major distribution, and towers to the individual user. New subscribers could get a sticker to put on their laptops that says something like "Powered by gas", or "Ask me about my gas." :D
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.
Technology writers are always enamored by every clever new proposal that promises to provide residential broadband connectivity on the cheap, without new infrastructure.
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.
The momentum in broadband is heading towards much faster 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'.
Web giant is spending $120 million to beef up its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, according to filings with the city reviewed by the San Jose Mercury News.
Tor's "obfsproxy" technology would make encrypted data look innocuous and let it dodge government censors. That could help citizens in Iran reach blocked sites as antigovernment protests reportedly loom.
MIT creates a simulation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Spacewar. A relic of the early days of minicomputers, it was one of the first computer video games and set the stage for many others, including Asteroids.
Some skeptics may scoff at the idea of a natural-gas pipe for broadband, but analysts say it could be much cheaper than technology available today.
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.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.Remove-All-Spyware.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.Remove-All-Spyware.com/</a>
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'.