So here’s an interesting angle on the FM side of this discussion. I was
thinking about the classic argument that FM is available in more places than
the Internet.
I don’t think that’s true. I’ve been doing comparisons in my mind and I think
the Internet believe it or not is now more readily available than traditional
broadcasting. (we’ll leave exotic radio, hams and other esoteric stuff out of
this discussion as I’m thinking more mainstream user here). I can get the
internet deep with in the glass and brick monstrosities and in many cases over
a fast network with good handoff. No dice at all on AM and FM only if there’s
no digital electronics around with clocks (not likely).
More than 100 miles off shore, Cell signals do propagate out that far,
I have tested this personally. Even T-Mobile has the waters off the east and
west coast covered and Verizon is unbelievably good off shore. FM can carry
well over water when conditions are good but when they get weird with ice
crystals and such reflecting signals it can be difficult. Out past a couple
hundred miles all terrestrial signals that are VHF or higher thin out but you
have some satellite options that are pretty affordable now. Cruze ships also
have WiFi, all modern Navy ships have Internet, large transports, motor yachts
and so forth. I spend a lot of time out on the water and Internet is plentiful.
I can get Internet in space, the space station has Internet including
Skype, pandora and some other services. I’m not sure about video and some
googling would probably yield how much bandwidth they have up there, I bet it’s
pretty good.
Aircraft are all Internet enabled at least commercial grade and higher
end personal. I think I could grab an internet station and listen to the same
station anywhere in the world (political network disruptions aside).
So I’m with you, the converged network is the best. The emergency problem is a
real problem. I’m a ham so I get it. I have to honestly say I am concerned
that amateur radio will not go that much further in our present path and I do
not think this is necessarily a good thing. Just as I do not support sending
IP over power lines that are uninsulated and completely obliterates the HF
bands to the point of being unusable. But how do we get services to people
reliably when all hell breaks loose. Wireless mesh has to be where it is. I
do not want some corporate owned mesh though that I have to go to a carrier to
deal with exclusively. I don’t mind big blocks of spectrum used for commercial
grade services but If we really are going to make this full digital transition,
away from everything analog I want a damn decent sized block of that spectrum
reserved for individuals. Some sort of open source mesh that we all can
participate in and our act of participation enhances the mesh by adding higher
density. Even space for the experimenter, keep the same ham type
classification but make everything digital / IPV6 / what ever that
interoperates cleanly. The beautiful thing with traditional radio is that
anybody can stick a coat hanger in a cheap box and pick up some content. See
if anyone ever did this experiment with there kids but if you take a tube, wind
a coil of wire around it and attach a small germanium diode to it with a pair
of alligator clips and small speaker or headset attached something cool
happens. You start picking up your local AM radio stations. Everybody should
build a crystal radio with their kids. We need a digital equivalent. How can
we deliver these services wirelessly in a way that’s so cheap even someone
living on a few pennies per day can pull together the parts.
Android fits in here nicely obviously. Chrome OS and Linux are fine, anything
open source. I think you bring up points here but if the hardware vendor is
colluding with the carrier like you argue:) and I do see your point what’s the
alternative? Being able to switch between t-mobile and Sprint isn’ it. If
you’re really going to extend your arguments out and I’m not saying I disagree
but how do we build our digital equivalent of rabbit ears to serve everyone?
:)
> On Jan 2, 2016, at 9:39 AM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu <listse...@me.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Scott.
>
> Thanks for the info, and the compliment. It does sound like my info on the
> US is outdated, which makes me wonder why on earth Apple continue to foist
> carrier restrictions on customers and insist on deals for sales. If Apple
> wants all the control, they can easily go all-out retail, and take it. So
> why don’t they? I can assure you that on this dank little island, as well as
> other major players in Europe, the margins on carrier-supplied gear is as low
> as it can possibly get, and there are no subsidies either. For consumers,
> Apple is just the very expensive, but very attractive option, and not much
> else. We could do without the absurd fawning over the health of carrier
> relationships. I have put this down in a couple of bug reports to Apple, and
> they only ever get fixed when the carrier agrees to sales targets for Apple.
> It’s ridiculous.
>
> As for FM radio, I’m really with you. Convergence is a good and healthy
> thing. And indeed, between demand, hardware design, aerial design, and
> chipset limitations, it probably just doesn’t make any sense. Still, I do
> hear those arguing on the basis of emergency communications, and nostalgia.
> Certainly the one thing FM can do that the Internet can’t, at least now, is
> work anywhere there is reception of the broadcaster. We need to get the
> Internet to a place where radio mesh networking can take up the slack in
> times of crisis, or resilient community networks are built and sustained. I
> don’t think that’s too much to ask, and I’m fairly sure it will happen, one
> day. Then the Internet will always be available, cheap, and reliable, and
> people won’t think twice before turning on the “Radio”.
>
> Cheers,
> Sabahattin
>
> --
> The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries
> list.
>
> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if
> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or
> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
>
> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara
> Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
>
> The archives for this list can be searched at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "MacVisionaries" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries
list.
If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
