Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet

Project Rainbow - 802.11 Across the U.S. 217

Posted by michael from the pot-of-gold-optional dept.
rakerman writes "IBM, Intel and a number of wireless services operators are considering building a wireless data network across the U.S., according to the New York Times."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Project Rainbow - 802.11 Across the U.S. More

Project Rainbow - 802.11 Across the U.S.

Comments Filter:
  • The article doesn't say which standard they would propose to use - And I seriously doubt if they would cover rural areas.

  • Aptly named (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sllort ( 442574 )
    Because there's a big fat pot of gold at the end: freedom from the tyranny of the DSL/Cable monopolies.

    Questions to ponder:
    1) Will the punnily named Current Techonologies [currenttechnologies.com] succeed in bringing IP over AC to households everywhere, bringing yet another monopoly to bear in the war for household broadband... and
    2) How will the 802.11 spectrum deal with multiple, competing wireless carriers when/if the spectrum becomes clogged with them?
    I still can't get a cable modem OR DSL in my house, so bring it on.
    • You: I still can't get a cable modem OR DSL in my house, so bring it on.

      The article: The companies involved -- which also include AT&T Wireless Services, Verizon Communications, and Cingular Wireless -- would build access points in public places such as airports but would not try to supply access to people's homes, according to the report.

      It's a bummer.

  • wow so maybe now i can get internet access where fuckin qwest says i am "too far away" from their router. stupid blue-glowing, men-loving qwest.

    • Re:Finally! (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      [bzzzt] I'm sorry, your answer is incorrect. Please read the story and submit a new answer. this wireless network is not designed for home access.
      Quoth the story "...would build access points in public places such as airports but would not try to supply access to people's homes, according to the report."

  • Project rainbow? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ruiner13 ( 527499 )
    Does that make anyone else think of a gay pride parade slogan? I'm not homophobic, just stating what popped into my mind! I do think it is a pretty good idea, as long as MS doesn't force them to use their new 802.11b secuirty implementations they claim they are releasing later this year... Although I doubt this will succede. A lot of people have interference problems in their own home, let alone cross-country. Anyone care to come up with an estimate on how many base stations would be needed to cover all the US? I bet it's a lot!
    • Yes, that's what I thought too initially. It is a pity that gays took such a generic thing to use as a symbol for themselves and their propaganda.

      Related to this, I use to have an Apple "Think Different" sticker on my car (the shape of an apple, but in horizontal rainbow striped colors). I took it off because others told me it could be mistaken as a gay symbol, something I do not want in my car.

    • Re:Project rainbow? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rusty0101 ( 565565 )
      Anyone care to come up with an estimate on how many base stations would be needed to cover all the US? I bet it's a lot!

      US Surface Area 3,618,770 square miles
      1 square mile = 27878400 square feet
      802.11b radius 300 yards (outside) or 900 feet
      Area of circle = pi r^2
      Area of base station coverage = pi *(900^2) = 2544615
      base stations per square mile asuming perfect coverage = square mile in feet / area covered by base station = 27878400 / 2544615 10.955+, or for all practical purposes 11.

      That means we need 11 * 3,618,770 or 39,806,470 base stations for 802.11b coverage.

      If you assume that each base station, including required infrastructure to support it (minimum requirements solar cells, storage batteries, built in routing software/hardware) were $100 (in the volumes we are talking here I think we can get some discounts...) you are looking at the stray 3.9 billion that worldcom misplaced in it's accounting records.

      The perfect coverage assumption is based upon the assumption that there is neither overlap, nor dead space. With circular coverage patterns you can not get that kind of coverage. You will always have some of one or the other. However this calculation does provide an estimate for an average overlap and blind spots.

      Oh, source of surface area information was a 1991 copy of the World Almanac, and the area does include a lot of water surface that could be partially eliminated.

      -Rusty

  • Does this mean... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Karl Cocknozzle ( 514413 ) <kcocknozzle@NOspAM.hotmail.com> on Tuesday July 16, 2002 @12:44PM (#3895158) Homepage
    ...I'll finally be able to surf for pr0n and read slashdot in traffic? Now all I need are tinted windows....

    • woo-hoo! mobile porn!

      better drive around till I get the fastest speeds

    • one of my crazy ideas "if i won the lottery" was to just drive around the country with my g/f or whoever, just surfin the internet, drivin around and having fun. how much would i pay for this? quite a bit if i use it that much
      • Sometimes Slashdotters just ASK for it.

        Your idea for if you won the lottery involves sitting next to your girlfriend WHILE SURFING THE INTERNET!

        Damn man, look up some porn and figure out what you SHOULD BE DOING.

    • Re:Does this mean... (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonvmous Coward ( 589068 ) on Tuesday July 16, 2002 @01:05PM (#3895350)
      Hmm people reading Slashdot in the car...

      Mark my words: One day Slashdot will be mentioned in the Darwin Awards.
      • Oh crap, new article. Must post!!! No need to drive, I can type and drive at the same .... (CRASH)..


    • Now all I need are tinted windows....

      Not to mention internal windshield wipers.

    • This is the honest truth!!! While on my way to OSU to see my girlfriend (ok, that probably sounds unbelievable on slashdot, but I swear I have one) I found myself driving behind some guys in a really old and beat up Buick watching porn on a small flat panel TV. I think the flat panel was worht more than the car actually. It seams that porn is already available in your car.

      Now, as for slashdot in the car... better be careful, you wouldn't want to get pulled over for some kind of public indecency law.

    • tinted windows....

      because of the pr0n or slashdot?

  • Warchalking... (Score:4, Funny)

    by alienmole ( 15522 ) on Tuesday July 16, 2002 @12:44PM (#3895160)
    Damn, I'm going to have to buy a whole assload of chalk now!!

  • If they do this, is there any point in building G3/G4 mobile phone networks?
    • If they do this, is there any point in building G3/G4 mobile phone networks?

      Absolutely! How else can we fuel the media's need for financing scandals and collapsing telecommunications firms?

  • celphones first! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by paradesign ( 561561 ) on Tuesday July 16, 2002 @12:45PM (#3895171) Homepage
    id like my phone to work everywhere first!
    if they cant do that how are they ever going to do this?
    • The reason the cell system doesn't work everywhere is that the systems aren't in place everywhere.

      Now, if you have to build a new system anyway, why not build a system with higher throughput, greater flexability of use, and longer lifespan? Given 802.11a speeds (or even 802.11b speeds), you can do voice, SMS, and other stuff....
      • You're highly unlikely to get WiFi anywhere except in densely populated areas. You get the maximum bitrates only over short distances. This requires a base station every 100 meters (or 60 yards) max.

        The cellular networks offer much better coverage, and something that people forget, higher mobility. WiFi doesn't function seamlessly over much more than walking speeds, if at all. A subscriber in a cellular network can do 120 kilometers (or 80 miles) an hour and maintain a connection.

    • Re:celphones first! (Score:2, Informative)

      by jared9900 ( 231352 )
      there intent is not to get wireless networking everywhere. just to specific locations such as airports. be patient, infrastructures take time to develop, they also require a clear need. unless companies think they'll make a good profit off of it they won't be quick in development.
    • cellphones dont work everywhere because of massive stupidity in the parts of the cell companies.. you have 5-10 times redundancy for cellular. Everyone having their "OWN" cell sites and \wasting time, money, energy.

      double redundancy is good enough, and force the cell companies to create infrastructure companies and have the consumer side ride on the backbones. this will eliminate the "no service" from AT&T wireless people when standing in view of a Nextel tower. (And vicea versa.... nextel has the WORST coverage next to cingular)

      but it aint gonna happen, wireless sucks and will keep sucking until someone in the cellular companies finally pull their heads out of their asses... or someone starts buying them up like with what is happening in cable TV.


  • I have driven cross-country several times now, and nothing would've make the entire state of Kansas more cool than being able to surf the web while riding through it.

    sorry, but it's true.

    • This is what scares me. My friend just lost his father to a cell phone impaired driver. I can just imagine what this would do.

      I'm all for wireless (have 802.11b at home now), but I fear things like this would happen (yes I know the parent was intended to be humorous). I'm just not sure what could be done about it. I like personal freedom, dislike too much gov't regulation, but don't trust in the intelligence of my fellow road warriors. Any ideas?
      • Yeah. No more new laws concerning cell phones or wireless. Wireless equipment can be used safely and effectively for many things in a car.....GPS based way of delivering online maps (onboard computer pulls up new maps when traveling), it could also be used for regular web surfing too. But we ALREADY have laws on the books for distracted driving (what you are when your gabbing on the phone and driving at the same time). We should probably increase the fine butt loads for those who are multiple offenders of distracted driving and those who cause a death because of it. I am sorry to hear about your friends father, but making a new law making it unlawful to use cell phones and wireless internet in a car is not going to bring him back or save lives. People will continue to be assholes.
    • Yes, that would be nice. Cruising the information superhighway while cruising the great highway system of the US. Wind blowing in your hair, pr0n just a click away anywhere...

      we can dream, can't we?

  • Yawn... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bitmason ( 191759 ) on Tuesday July 16, 2002 @12:48PM (#3895199) Homepage
    Sure it would be cool to have the long promised everywhere, everywhen connectivity. But aside from the technical issues (e.g. what version of the standard), it's difficult to see us getting anywhere close to the point where enough people are willing to plop down the requisite amount of monthly $$'s to make this viable.

    Pick a number: $50/month, $100/month? How much are you willing to pony up for patchy wireless internet connectivity primarily in relatively heavily populated areas? Consider that even broadband penetration seems to have plateaued to a large degree in the areas where it is available. Not everyone's willing to pay $40-$50/month for better computer access.
    • Think about it this way. Would you pay to have broadband in your home... and EVERYWHERE else you are going? Remember you get to get rid of your current broad-band connection at home. I would easily pay a good $50-$70 for this (if it worked right).
      • Exactly...

        Three years ago I thought mobile phones were a plague, but for an extra $3/month I was able to replace my land line with no options and long distance charges with a mobile phone including voicemail, call waiting, call forwarding, and nationwide long distance. True, limited minutes, but still more than I need.

        The $$$ I save on the land line and cancelling my dialup ISP is enough to pay for broadband access.

        If someone offers me MOBILE broadband access for $10-$20 more than I'm paying now, I'll be the first to sign up.
    • Right. So, how much are you paying for your cellphone? More importantly, how many other folks are paying similar prices for cellphones everywhere?

      This won't be an immediate-profit action. It'll take at least a couple of years for the general public to catch on. And there will be nightmare consequences as well. But at $50-$100/month to have computer connectivity anywhere I go, it'd be a winner fairly soon. It'll break free when the public as a whole discovers nifty uses - such as email alerts (of weather, stock changes, and traffic patterns), which will be utterly terrifying when the user's driving a car.
      • There are analogies with cell phones. However, I think it's difficult to see people wanting to use computer communications instead of cell phone (voice) communications. Which implies that -- to succeed -- you're going to need an infrastructure that does double-duty for voice and data.

        On the other tentacle, there's little evidence for and quite a bit against a widespread desire to have internet-enabled handhelds. Stock quotes wherever you go? Puhleese! That's so 1999:-) Yes, I'd like to check directions every now and then or lookup restaurants, but how much is all that worth?

        And while I might like to pull out my laptop outdoors sometimes and check my mail, it's not a compelling need that I'd spend a lot of money for. If I could get it for free/cheap as part of my cellphone plan, then sure! But otherwise...

  • Can you h4X0r me now? (Score:5, Funny)

    by okie_rhce ( 224078 ) on Tuesday July 16, 2002 @12:48PM (#3895202)
    Good...
  • I can see this creating a stir in the FCC...

    How many new field agents will they need to track down mobile IP's of hackers/spammers etc. etc.

  • A real 3G cell network would be better. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Delta-9 ( 19355 ) <delta9.gmail@com> on Tuesday July 16, 2002 @12:50PM (#3895222)
    They should be worried about getting a real 3G cell network off the ground first.

    Then we can do all those things with more flexibility than what is mentioned in that very short "article."
  • There's nowhere to put the golden spike!

  • How about Boingo (Score:2, Informative)

    by msichiti ( 590678 )
    Boingo [boingo.com] already started something similar quite a while ago. It's not clear from the story if they will be partners with Boingo or competitors. Any ideas, anybody?
  • I normally play civ2/3 in the back seat of the car on long trips, but hey- as if I'm not wired enough I need wireless internet access too.

    Hopefully pricing would be decent (if this does actually come) or at least you could buy it in a timeblock (let's see- I've got a road trip the 3rd week of August, and then book that time).

  • So what coverage exactly? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Matey-O ( 518004 ) <michaeljohnmiller@mSPAMsSPAMnSPAM.com> on Tuesday July 16, 2002 @12:54PM (#3895244) Homepage Journal
    Across the WHOLE US? Or across major metro areas?

    I've got some users that could really USE true border to border access (petroleum tank inspectors) but since live access= digital cellphone coverage, there's a BUNCH of the state that's unreachable via cellphone.

    Meaning we've got to add a LOT of logic to the custom apps to handle dead zones.

    Now, if coverage were limited to cities with more than 60 people (and could be, at $100 per basestation) that'd be a Very Good Thing.

  • I'm sorry, I really am (Score:3, Funny)

    by Mr Guy ( 547690 ) on Tuesday July 16, 2002 @12:56PM (#3895268) Journal
    The companies will take several months to decide whether there is a workable business model for the plan
    But it has to be done:
    1. ) Large Wireless network with money going out for security, bandwith, and support.
    2. ) ???
    3. ) Profit!
    • Dear Sir,

      I think for step two, maybe we should steal underpants and warehouse them. That might help build a profit, but I am not sure. As soon as I get my MBA I should be able to figure it out.

      I will let you know. If not, maybe we could at least make it look like it.

      Thanks,

      United CEOs of Enron, Worldcom, Merck, & Tyco

  • Rainbow Connection (Score:5, Funny)

    by pridkett ( 2666 ) on Tuesday July 16, 2002 @01:03PM (#3895331) Homepage Journal
    Can anyone else picture themselves wandering about aimlessly singing this age old tune whenever they can't find a network connection?
    Why are there so many songs about rainbows

    And what's on the other side?
    Rainbows are visions, but only illusions,
    And rainbows have nothing to hide.
    So we've been told and some choose to believe it
    I know they're wrong, wait and see.
    Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection,
    The lovers, the dreamers and me.

  • Not what it seems (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jack William Bell ( 84469 ) on Tuesday July 16, 2002 @01:05PM (#3895349) Homepage Journal
    Most of the posts here seem to assume this means wireless connectivety everywhere. Such is *not* the case. The article states that the players in this network will put access points in airports and other public spaces and will not try to provide access to peoples homes.

    In fact this doesn't seem to be so much a 'Wireless Network' as a bunch of access points connected to the Internet. Not what I was hoping for when I saw the subject line.

    What I want is a nationwide variant of the Ricochet network. Anyone remember them? They used light-pole mounted units that acted as wireless routers, letting them provide access anywhere by routing the packets through the air to the closest wired router. It worked pretty damn well (if slow). I used it here in Seattle for a couple of years and being able to check my email while stuck in traffic alone made it worth the cost. The fact that I had Internet connectivety pretty much everywhere else was just gravy.

    A similar scheme can work with 802.11 devices, given cheap hardware and proper software. Many groups are already working on this. Here in Seattle there is even a group trying to set up a non-profit community network this way -- http://www.seattlewireless.org

    If such home-brewed networks were to spread across the country we could tie them together via the Internet, or even via leased lines between cities. Now that sounds like the kind of thing I would like to see! No way anyone could ever control that...

    Jack William Bell
    • Hmm, that makes an interesting points. Light poles are everywhere, and they obviously provide a source of electricity. Maybe if somebody came up with a really cheap 802.11a & b access point/router they could start strapping them on to light poles or even building them into new ones. Light poles are just the right height to provide access to people on the ground and in their homes.

      Maybe they could have a dual band solution where routing is done mesh style; cell to cell on 802.11a and access is provided on 802.11b. 802.11a works best with line of sight since it uses a 5Ghz frequency,and most light poles, in cities at least, are in line of sight with an adjacent pole. The higher frequency could also cut down on interference by devices that down play well. A crappy microwave might interrupt service in a cell, but it wouldn't affect the routing of the rest of the network. The extra bandwith of 802.11a would also help in routing by reducing bandwidth saturation.
  • well it's still only working in very select areas but EarthLink rolled out [boingo.com] its own nationwide 802.11b service. The plans are pretty good.

  • So we can all enjoy what would become a 200 baud wireless connection?

    Yes, its wrong, but in many ways the technological divide is what enables technology in the first place.

    Myren
  • Perhaps if this is implemeneted you'll be able to look at all the crap on the web AND all the crap on route 66 at the same time!

  • Error: Cannot establish connection with service, fat man is in the way.
  • Boingo (http://www.boingo.com/), if they have not already started service, will be starting service soon.

    And unlike IBM and Intel, who are "thinking of a business model/plan", Boingo already has a plan in effect - They're either buying or partnering with smaller wireless ISPs, and also setting up franchise systems. "You set up the hardware, we'll get you the users and handle billing, we share the profits." It's basically the same technique used to build Earthlink into the national ISP it is now. Not surprising, considering that Boingo's founder Sky Dayton is the man who built Earthlink.

    Toshiba is also entering the market soon with a turnkey $200 POP system - Same basic deal. A customer installs the system, Toshiba handles the billing. I'm not sure if it's designed to be nationalized easily, though. I got the impression it's more of the type of thing that your local coffee shop would install, and you'd only purchase access for that shop.

    In addition, Boingo is allowing those who operate open APs (such as those in NYCWireless, etc.) to submit their APs into Boingo's AP database.

    They're even taking it one step further: Supposedly their software can sniff APs. Wardriving goes corporate...
    • Boingo is the ONLY company I've seen with 802.11b coverage in Central Jersey.

      Like the IBM/Intel effort, the target is hotels and airports...

      But even a few hotels (not just one) have APs in Bridgewater, NJ. Impressive. Very impressive.
  • How is this different from Ricochet's service? Sure, it's going to be 802.11, and not a proprietary protocol, but it'll still have to be a subscription-based service (unlike the free WiFi service in Aspen Colorado being sponsored by some generous guy with deep pockets). Any idea of cost? Chip H.

  • summary of the article (Score:3, Funny)

    by wompser ( 165008 ) on Tuesday July 16, 2002 @01:14PM (#3895422)
    For any Tinfoil hat types out there worried about the NYT registration I will gladly summarise the "article" for you

    From the New York Times:

    Earlier this month a bunch of really important advertisers in our newspaper had a meeting. According to several people close to the talks, these companies have now invented a new wireless standard called "802.11" The big companies are very proud of their invention, calling it "the next really really big thing (tm)"

    While they realize there are many compatitibility issues that need to be worked out, executives from all the major advertisers agree that by Q4 of 2009 they will be rolling out preliminary test programs in Bumfark, South Dakota and the 'Pendelton Hills' Starbucks in Pendelton Oregon. This test program will only allow for compatibility with 3 brands of cell phones and one PDA, but all of the companies suspect that they will be able to offer service to their propriatary hardware within several years of a sucessful test program.

    When asked if the meeting attendees had ever heard of a grassroots open source movement around 802.11, the spokesperson said: "huh?"

    Thank you, I'll be here all week....

  • Wow (Score:1)

    by L600R ( 583738 )
    Downloading porn anywhere. Sweet!
  • There are no plans for residential coverage.

    So before you all start dancing like retards because you'll finally be able to get rid of evil Time Warner Cable, or whatever, let that sink in.

    You're still fucked. (Please read next time, though.)

    Thanks!

    - A.P.
  • Just think, put a web site in the trunk of a Porsche and whenever the MPAA or RIAA come to shut you down, take off down the road.

    Then you can watch yourself live on Worlds Wildest Police Chases via your wireless connection while serving up countless bootleg MP3s & DVDs :)
  • That's what I'm afraid of, soon manufacturers will start producing pager, cell phones, and laptops with no way to turn them off.

    Personally, I like, no I revel in being disconnected on weekends and after hours. I turn off my cell. I turn of my pager. I work on my laptop as it was meant to be used, on my lap in a lounge chair on the back deck with a big ol' glass of lemonade.

    At this point, I can still tell my boss "no, I didn't get your email, I didn't have internet access at the cafe." After Project Rainbow, I'll have to resort to "No, my laptop was off/ran out of battery". When they start making laptops with 24hr batteries and no power button, I'll have to tell my boss the truth- I DON'T WANT TO CHECK EMAIL ON WEEKENDS. IT'S MY TIME, LEAVE ME ALONE!

    • soon manufacturers will start producing pager, cell phones, and laptops with no way to turn them off

      If someone does, be sure to let us know. In my cell phone the batteries have an infuriating habit of running dry in a couple of days. :-)
    • ... I'll have to tell my boss the truth- I DON'T WANT TO CHECK EMAIL ON WEEKENDS. IT'S MY TIME, LEAVE ME ALONE!
      The sooner you say that to your boss, the happier you will be. Either she'll respect you for drawing the line and you'll get along swimmingly thereafter, or she'll fire you on the spot, and you'll be done working for a slave-driver. Either way, you win.

  • They should start with these two corridors :)
    Lots of Mountain Tops to blast signals from and would cover the good part of the states =)

    --Huck

  • This is good? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Catbeller ( 118204 ) on Tuesday July 16, 2002 @01:25PM (#3895526) Homepage
    802.11 networks are springing up for free, from Maine to Seattle. Well, free as a few hundred bucks per node.

    So, inevitably, someone's figuring out how to make us pay 50-100 bucks a month for something we could have for free.

    Q: will this wonderful pay network interfere with the free radio nets?

    It makes me rather sad. I was hoping an alternative internet would be born in the airwaves without busybodies charging for it and guvmint trying to control it.

    Can't we have anything that big business players and government will keep their damned hands off?

    • Re:This is good? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by interstellar_donkey ( 200782 ) <pathighgateNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Tuesday July 16, 2002 @02:40PM (#3896244) Homepage Journal
      What will scare me is when big companies start taking up all the wireless 'channels'.

      I live on the edge of a pretty heavy commerical district. Company decides to set up a wireless lan on the channel I use for mine. There is really nothing I can do about it; either switch channels (despite the fact that I was there first) or keep using my channel and cause the potential for both our networks to interfere with each other. However, if my laptop happens to see some of thier network traffic as I walked from one end of the house to the other, somehow I'm a criminal.

      What I see in the future is, companys sets up nation-wide lan. Decide amoung themselves how to divy up the channels, get their lobbyists to go to congress and tell them 'We are running a business, there are private individuals who are broadcasting that interfere with our business'.

      Suddenly, my WAP is illegal. It interfers with a company, I get fined by the FCC.
  • I didn't notice anything in the article indicating which standard they were planning on using. It would sure seem short-sighted to deploy 802.11b right now with 802.11a starting to spin up. Anyone know the details here?

  • (Guy out in a field with a laptop, surfing /.)

    Can you see me trolling now? Good!

    (same guy on the subway in NY)

    Can you see me trolling now? Good!

    (same guy at the beach in CA)

    Can you see me trolling now? Good!

    Yeah, you get the picture...

  • And in other news. . . . (Score:3, Funny)

    by Com2Kid ( 142006 ) <com2kidSPAMLESS@gmail.com> on Tuesday July 16, 2002 @01:38PM (#3895645) Homepage Journal
    Pringles is experiancing a sudden upsurge in orders.
    • From all reports I've seen so far, waveguide "cantennas" perform better and are a lot easier to build...

      In Australia, the general conclusion is that wafer cans are the best, as well as having the tastiest byproducts :)

  • Corporate Scum (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Sounds to me like the big monopolistic corporations such as AT&T, Verizon, Cingular, etc are watching the explosive popularity of 802.11 wireless networks through homegrown efforts and non-profits like Seattle Wireless http://www.seattlewireless.org , and now they are shaking with fear that this will loosen some of their strangling grip over telecom. They figure they can co-opt the 802.11 movement by promising a "nationwide network" to attract all the bandwidth-starved users, who don't stop to think that a big benefit of 802.11 is that its NOT CONTROLLED by these corporations!
    SAY NO to corporatization of the wonderful, open, free, enabling, and cooperative world of 802.11 wireless networking!
  • Hm.

    Weirdly enough, I JUST ran across this item. [biomedcentral.com]

    I know that story is about ELF radiation, HOWEVER, there have been conclusive studies which demonstrate that it's not high frequency which affects the body so much as it is low frequency, and pulse and amplitude modulation of high frequency carriers which cause the negative effects biochemists and behavioralists complain of.

    In non-iodizing power levels and at the right frequencies, cancer cells speed up their rate of division by as much as 100 times. Sorry. No links, but if I'm around in the next hour or so and people are interested, I'll key in some quotes from Robert O. Becker's book, "Cross Currents." [amazon.com]

    The reason engineers and physicists have such a problem accepting that EM is dangerous is that they can't find any mechanical way for EM to cause any kind of effect on cells other than heating and ionization, neither of which are the causative agents.

    Well. . .

    Guess what? There IS a simple and accepted system by which cells are easily affected by EM. I recommend that book I linked to. It's only $20 and it's very well written by a respected non-quack. Give it a look if you think of yourself as well-informed.

    Anybody who still does as they're told by the big corporate media manipulation, (i.e., believes there is no danger in EM radiation), should also probably take up smoking, because as you have surely heard from similar big-money interests, there's no danger in that, either.

    -Fantastic Lad

    • My mistake. The book is only $14.95 on Amazon. (And they have about 20 used copies for between $6.95 and $10) There's no excuse.

      I've been researching EM radiation on my own for about two years now, and I've got files upon files of great information. Becker, however, was in the thick of it since the sixties, conducting his own epidemiological studies with access to proper medical research resources. SO much is known, but a study, no matter how well done it is, is worth very little if you can't market it.

      Robert O. Becker's book IS 10 years old now, but the information within is an excellent presentation of what I've been trying to figure out how best to share with people. Here's an MD's review:

      Reviewer: Dr Peter J McKenzie from Oxford, "Others have summarised this astonishing book. It is most unfortunate that the title and cover imply a sensationalist book. It is sensational - but in the sense of new knowledge unknown to most of the Medical fraternity and I write as aa senior MD! This is the most important medical book I have read and I nearly ignored it because of its lurid presentation."

      -Fantastic Lad

  • The interesting part of the story in the NYT was that these jokers specifically said that they wouldn't be delivering services to neighborhoods. That's because they have their terrible, overpriced, underserviced cable services there already and wouldn't want to compete with themselves. The jerks.
  • I just a picture of the steel mill in Springfield:

    "We work hard, and we play hard!"
    • Everybody dance now!!!

Slashdot Top Deals

Never ask two questions in a business letter. The reply will discuss the one you are least interested, and say nothing about the other.

Close