Broadband Barrage Balloons 287
alnya writes "BBC Online are reporting a story of a York-based company called SkyLinc who are floating baloons connected to a fibre optic pole which, they say, can deliver broadband access at "more than double the speed of most broadband services currently available" - whatever that means. Only 18 balloons would be necessarily to blow BT out the water (according to the article). Is this on the horizon?"
Olde Idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Olde Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Problems such as bad weather conditions can be countered by an antenna stabilisation system which would make sure the antenna stays in place regardless of wind, rain or other conditions.
Re:Olde Idea (Score:2)
and
"Is this on the horizon?"
Can I hurt him now? Can I?
but I left the hot air comment for someone else! (Score:5, Funny)
Mike
Re:but I left the hot air comment for someone else (Score:2)
Newest DOS attack (Score:5, Funny)
RTFA! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:RTFA! (Score:5, Funny)
Heh heh.
graspee
Re:RTFA! (Score:5, Funny)
I am now looking into larger calibre rifles, like
graspee
Re:RTFA! (Score:5, Funny)
I just thought that a British rifle should be used- it's more appropriate; support local industry and all that.
Apologies for splattering this forum with my gun geekiness- you may now mod me into oblivion and beyond.
graspee
Re:RTFA! (Score:4, Interesting)
The Accuracy International AW50, which uses massive .50 cal has a max effective range of 2000m!
Does effective range account for shooting straight up, or just horizontally?
Surely there must be a British-made SAM that could eliminate all these uncertainties... :-)
Phil (fellow York-dweller)
Re:RTFA! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:RTFA! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:RTFA! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:RTFA! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:RTFA! (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt it! (Score:5, Insightful)
They may well compartmentalize the bag, but all that will mean is that it has to come down for repair when the bag is peirced, and they will be able to do that under some kind of graceful degradation control. Still a DoS. A mission kill doesn't necesarily mean destruction.
No, the communication gondola won't be shielded. Weight, weight, weight. There's a reason airplanes use so much expensive equipment and materials, they want to save weight, and as expensive as that is, it's cheaper than a bigger engine and wings, or bag in this case.
Re:RTFA! (Score:2)
In addition to the errors the other poster pointed out in your logic, I really must point out that you don't have to have a legally obtained hunting rifle to poke holes in a balloon like that. It wouldn't be all that difficult to assemble a weapon with the requisite capabilities from materials easily available in any little hamlet. A hunting rifle, actually, would be far from the best choice. Rockets that can reach that far with sufficient accuracy can be made cheaply and easily, and they could even be rigg
Re:yeah right (Score:2)
Re:yeah right (Score:2)
Oh please. I made rockets with nearly that range when I was 9. The range we're talking about here is not difficult at all. Accuracy is more of an issue, let's get to that. But do mark, we're not talking about a 'weather balloon' here but a blimb, a much larger target.
There a
Re:RTFA! (Score:2)
I'm curious. How did they measure this?
DoS attack at 0 feet and 0 range! (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, no need for high powered weapons when you apply the Black & Decker 4 1/2" Angle Grinder [blackanddecker.com] directly to the tether!!
Alright, alright, you do actually have to be inside the mooring compound to do it but if you are prepared to go running round the English countryside with large, high-powered rifles, this should be small-fry!
Re:RTFA! (Score:2)
You know, miss Signal 11. He was not one to suffer bullshit gladly.
But then, I also miss MEEPT!, so make of that what you will.
Meanwhile, on an airplane... (Score:2)
Hey... hey, my download speed's really getting quite good now... whoa, 5 MB/sec! Wow! This is unbelievable! This--hey, what's that? Hey, look out! Look--
Re:Newest DOS attack (Score:3, Insightful)
But, of course, people wouldn't do this, any more than they would do a hundred or a thousand other rather ineffective acts of terrorism. You could use the same high powered rifle and shoot down hi-tension electrical w
Re:Newest DOS attack (Score:2)
Hrm. You must have really shitty DSL providers. When I had DSL, I paid a moderate price for a home 512/256kbps service (£25/month I think), and never had ANY downtime, despite being connected nearly 24/7.
Re:Newest DOS attack (Score:2)
But, it reminds me of the anti-aircraft weapons the British used in WWII...you know, the ones on tethers that the German Luftewaft (or "Luftwafte", or, "Lift what? I'm in the air force!") would fly into and trigger explosions... IOWs, this would be a real set back for private aviation; and the first time a jetliner hit one would really
Re:Newest DOS attack (Score:2)
baloony (Score:2, Funny)
balloon concept (Score:5, Funny)
No, it's overhead.
Re:balloon concept (Score:2, Funny)
Depends how far you are looking at it from, doesn't it?
Not worth it... (Score:5, Insightful)
In that "a while", I go off and do other things, perhaps (gasp!) even leaving the computer for a while. That that will take 5 mintues rather than 10, or 30 seconds rather than a minute delivers very little value to me, and I think "good enough" might really crowd out "best" here.
Re:Not worth it... (Score:3, Interesting)
just because you dont need it doesn't mean nobody does
Definitely worth it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Definitely worth it (Score:3, Interesting)
Tolerances will vary depending on content - but unless you're a hardcore MPEG/DivX downloader then higher than 512 is not particularly different *today* until multimedia content producers force higher bandwidth, and this is not worth it for most, until enough people have very high speed access and the infrastructure to handle it
Re:Definitely worth it (Score:2)
Yes, but DSL in most areas is on the order of twenty times faster than that old 56K modem. A further factor of two is going to be virtually unnoticed by most users. I suppose there may be a few power users who need the extra bandwidth. Of course, their total bandwidth usage--in GB per month--is probably way above average, so they'll have to pay for that, as well...
Re:Not worth it... (Score:2)
Re:Not worth it... (Score:5, Informative)
This is no small problem. I live in a residential area in a populous state capital (>1 million residents), yet I can't get DSL because my local phone infrastructure doesn't support it. An airborne solution gets around this limitation; I just need to put an antenna on my roof. I would give my right arm for this kind of solution where I live. As it is, I'm limited to a 56k dialup.
Russ %-)
The anywhere wireless is what sells me (Score:5, Insightful)
However I think the real killer here is the wireless aspect. Imagine paying for one broadband account that you can use anywhere sans wires. For me I'd plunk down the extra $10 without a second thought.
regards,
Nik
Re:Not worth it... (Score:2)
donald duck (Score:5, Funny)
Re:donald duck (Score:2)
It is only when the speaker is breathing helium (raising the speed of sound around the vocal cords) that there will be a higher pitch observed.
And yes, I know you were kidding. ;)
RFC 1149 (Score:5, Funny)
Will the air-ships be (Score:2)
Important Reward! (Score:3, Funny)
Remember: When you are download MP3, you are downloading COMMUNISM !!!
-- This message is brought to you by the RIAA/MPAA.
whats stopping it? (Score:3, Interesting)
The technology behind the idea has been around for years, with the US Government operating several such aerostats as communication systems on its borders and the US military employing similar technology for about 50 years.
so, it seems to be pretty workable, and according to the article its not to expensive. so whats the reason this isn't already wildly addapted? i didn't see any problems mentioned in the article
Re:whats stopping it? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:whats stopping it? (Score:2)
I doubt it keeps the balloon in place, just angles the balloon's antenna (or they have solid state aiming systems). I don't know how long it would take to re-aim after a gust though, is it 30ms worth of lost packets? A half second? Eight seconds? (if it is a second or tw
If protecting against the weather is possible.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok,just to stop silly pellet gun comments... it would take one that could shoot 1.5km accurately (according to article that is how high they are and for the metrically impaired that's just under a mile), so that would be one nifty pellet gun. But it wouldn't suprise me in one such toy weapon existed in the US....
The article only mentions the opportunity for UK coverage but what about countries where laying fiber/cable would be a huge undertaking. 3rd World contries could certainly benefit from this kind of technology, if it works as well as they say it does. Wiring countries without the usual western infrastructure might be much more cost effective with this approach. Though I am not holding my breath on this... though the article does mention that the US military uses things like these...
Re:If protecting against the weather is possible.. (Score:2)
One-word question:
Airplanes?
Re:If protecting against the weather is possible.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Airplanes?
That's what I was thinking as I read this article. Fortunately most commercial airplanes fly well above 1.5km, just make sure you don't put these balloons near an airport. General aviation planes (that is, small private planes, not commercial airliners) often fly much lower, and these balloons would be a serious safety threat for them. The balloons would need to be brightly marked and lighted, and there presence would need to be depicted on aeronautical charts. Assuming that's done, however, and assuming there are not so many of them that flying at 1.5km or below becomes an obstacle course, I think it would be okay. If they put VOR transmitters (something pilots use for navigation) in the balloons, they could actually benefit pilots.
Of course, the main benefit as far as internet access goes is to be able to reach rural areas. My guess is that the speed claims would not hold true in real usage, and concerns about privacy and security would be significant. For those in rural areas that have little other choice, this could be one of the few choices they have.
Re:If protecting against the weather is possible.. (Score:3, Insightful)
A Boeing 777 cruises at 35,000 feet.
A 1999 Cessna Skyhawk SP cruises at 14,000 feet
A Grumman AA5A (2 passenger) cruises at 8,500 feet.
These ballons would fly at under 5000 feet.
Now, look out your window. See any airplanes? It's not like the sky is thick with them. I live within 5 miles of a medium sized commercial airport (just a little too small for trans-atlantic/continental flights), and I barely ever hear an airccraft, let alone see one.
Now consider some
Re:If protecting against the weather is possible.. (Score:4, Informative)
IAAP and FWIW those altitudes are service ceilings. In other words it's the maximum altitude the airplane can effectively achieve. In practice general aviation aircraft almost never go that high (in fact, above 12,500 ft. FAA regulations require the use of supplemental oxygen). Normal cruising altitudes for light aircraft are typically between 2000-9000 ft, putting these balloons right in the airspace GA planes fly.
It doesn't really matter though, since their location will appear on charts so pilots can avoid them. The fact is, at least in the US, there are all sorts of towers, mountains, and whatnot that poke up high enough to be a potential hazard. But since they are stationary and their locations well known, they do not pose an undue threat. I am far more concerend about other airplanes than fixed obstacles. They are small and they move. But the sky is a very big place, and due diligence applied to what's going on outside of the cockpit will help ensure your safety.
Re:If protecting against the weather is possible.. (Score:2)
Imagine some redneck interrupted in the middle of a WWE download because the connection goes out. And imagine said redneck running outside in frustration and opening fire on the broadband balloon with his
Re:If protecting against the weather is possible.. (Score:4, Informative)
I've seen a study [www.mega.nu] looking at the maximum trajectory of
Another study [sprynet.com] has shown that rifle bullets tend to reach a maximum altitude of about 9000 feet.
Finally, here [cfis.org] there is a quote about an Army firing table for the Browning M2 with
So extrapolating, I think it is safe to say that
Nope, nope (Score:2)
Humor needs no basis in fact.
Re:If protecting against the weather is possible.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If protecting against the weather is possible.. (Score:2)
Or NYC, on 9/11; since cellphone base units need to be high up, a lot of them were mounted on top of one of the two towers, knocking out cellphone service. Add the power outage, damaged landline trunks, a load of Verizon telco switches and the huge surge
Re:If protecting against the weather is possible.. (Score:2)
Re:If protecting against the weather is possible.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, imagine being able to monitor water quality and sewage processing flow remotely, and sending scarce resources to solve problems before they become cholera epidemics rather than after. Imagine being able
Re:If protecting against the weather is possible.. (Score:2)
But alas... they max range atleast for the level 1 model kits is typicaly about 300meters. Perhaps 500meters for a two stage model, and about 800meters for 3 stage models.
But, this is using their rocket engines.
"7. SIZE. My model rocket will not weigh more than 53 ounces (1500 grams) at
So how do they plan to accomplish this?? (Score:3, Funny)
finally, infinite bandwidth...on another note... I'm off to go play with my perpetual motion machine...
Re:ADSL doesn't slow down (Score:2)
Look, the Broadband Blimp!!! (Score:2)
I don't believe he fell for that one.
What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, although the article does address the issue of weather, I'd assume that performance must decrease somewhat during an electrical storm as more errors are introduced into the bitstream.
Re:What? (Score:2)
At present not many users are contended here, but that is officially where your 50:1 takes place. You should, in theory, not be contended at all at your ISP (either at the Home Gateway or their actual internet peering connections) but the cheap bastards do it anyway.
Security (Score:3, Interesting)
I assume that eavesdropping would have to be done at their altitude? Or could you listen in on unencrypted communication from wherever you could stick an antenna?
Perhaps the existing ground level wiring will make a nice backup for customers that want this sort of security.
Re:Security (Score:2)
Or are you saying that all military communications travel through balloons?
My point, that you missed, was that it will not be as easily defended as ground cabling. If it "blows BT out of the water" and becomes a major part of the communications infrastructure, it will provide a very easy target. The balloons are physically vulnerable; the cable and tether to the ballon are physically vulnerable; the base station is physically vulnerable. All are easy to discove
"baloons" (Score:2)
Aaaaaarrrrrgggggghhhhh!
What was it supposed to be? (Score:2)
There now, that's better, isn't it...
security... (Score:2)
What will the CAA say? (Score:5, Informative)
Now, this is all very good and well until they decide to apply for licences in high aviation traffic areas say: West of the Pennines or anywhere within 75miles of Manchester Airport.
It seems unlikely that the licences would be granted as these things don't just require "Danger-Area" status but a complete DNF area status for serveral miles around. With the U.K. having very little airspace available below the 'airways', this could get to be a major hassle for G/A and Military aviation.
Note: For those of you not in the UK, airspace below the 'airways' is largely populated by Aerodrome Traffic Zones and MATZ due to the small land-mass and (relatively) high density of major airports.
Re:What will the CAA say? (Score:2)
For confused Canadian readers, the CAA is the British Civil Aviation Authority--it has nothing to do with the Canadian Automobile Association (see also AAA for U.S. readers).
On the other hand, if these balloons ever need roadside assistance, I don't know where they're going to get it.
Re:What will the CAA say? (Score:2)
Problems & Safety (Score:2)
Its worth noting the majority of G.A. traffic operates on average at 2,000ft and there is rather a lot of military traffic down to 150-200ft. Just this-afternoon, I watched 2 RAF Tucanos near my house skirting the local ATZ at about 300ft - thats only 5 1/4 miles from a major city centre. Now, I estimated them to be running at about 250kts and
99 Luft Ballons (Score:5, Funny)
Terrorist: "One more step and the red balloon becomes the dead balloon."
[Scared kid releases baloon]
Terrorist: "How did I not see that coming..."
Cell phone, (Score:3, Insightful)
Gives a new meaing to... (Score:3, Funny)
This is just fixed wireless (Score:4, Interesting)
There's really nothing new here except the idea of using balloons. Wireless Internet has been available for a while now. The biggest flops so far have been Metricom (the original incarnation of the Ricochet Internet service) and Sprint Broadband Direct.
I had Metricom/Ricochet while I was in college. The Metricom radios, about the size of shoeboxes (1/1000 of a VW Beetle), were mounted on utility poles every kilometer or so. It was a great technology that was mostly killed by incompetent management, high deployment cost, and irrelevance as the rest of the world went from dial-up to DSL/cable. The bandwidth was pretty good for its day, but its latency sucked (typically 400ms minimum).
My dad got Sprint Broadband Direct after ditching DSL. Our DSL was unreliable since our house was too far from Pac Bell's switch box. Also, there is no cable modem service available in our area. So we turned to Sprint, which serves the San Francisco Bay Area through a tower in the Fremont Hills, about 50 km away. A Sprint technician came and installed a small dish antenna on our roof, and permanently aimed it at the tower.
We have been dissatisfied with Sprint Broadband Direct because:
- The latency sucks (400ms average)
- Lots of dropped packets, which I believe are due to the wireless link (10% typical, and worse when foggy)
The combination of those two factors make SSH use unbearable. We were stuck with it because Sprint requires a 1-year committment to offset the cost of installation.The Sprint service isn't for everyone, since it requires a clear line of sight to the tower on the hill, and the right to mount an antenna on the roof. Combined with the high cost of deployment, these drawbacks have forced Sprint to deprecate the service [sprintbroadband.com].
The SkyLinc system seems to be most like Sprint's. The elevation of the balloons will be an advantage (probably negated by the fact that the antennas are not exactly stationary), but they'll have to overcome the same difficulties that have plagued previous systems.
Stormy Weather... (Score:2)
Re:Stormy Weather... (Score:3, Interesting)
Air traffic biggest concern (Score:5, Informative)
That said, the US has several tethered aerostats along its southern border [noaa.gov], used to monitor weather, to check for low-flying smugglers and to broadcast propaganda to Cuba. [lockheedmartin.com] The internation border is, of course, an area with strict flying restrictions already, so it isn't too much of a burden.
Unfortunately, these balloons in England are planned (perhaps that's too strong a word. Shilled?) to be in the middle of fairly populated and high-traffic areas. Cordoning off all of these areas would be a problem, and unlikely to be 100% successful. Right now, people violate airspace accidentally all the time -- but it's usually not that big a deal -- it's just air. Running into one of these tethers would likely be a big deal -- you'd probably lose both the plane and the balloon.
Perhaps the balloons could be flown far higher somewhat offshore? The US flies its aerostats at 50,000 ft (about 16 km). From that altitude, the amount of ground area seen by the balloon would be almost 100x as great. Private planes typically don't fly very far offshore, so the risk of hitting the tether would be lower -- and in the case that there is a collision the wreakage would fall into the sea instead of a city.
Perhaps GPS will solve this problem. If all private planes had perfect GPS systems with all airspaces clearly marked and rigged to alarms, then this might work smoothly with the current plan. You'd probably have to legislate that all planes have certificated (or whatever the term is in England) GPS's -- but they would be broadly useful devices in any case.
Anyway, in the end, the idea of flying relays has been promoted innumerable times -- and it never happens. Cable is, in the end, cheaper, faster, more reliable, and safer. It's not as sexy as this system [angeltechnologies.com] (although sexiness is in the eye of the beholder -- or should I say stockholder) but it gets the job done.
thad
Re:Air traffic biggest concern (Score:2)
Any decent navigational maps would have this all marked off. When I was a pilot, I used them before every flight. No biggie.
More details? (Score:2)
1) The article mentions putting the ballon up 1.5k, and tethering it, yet it apparently remains static in strong breeze. The photo didn't seem to show any thrusters or reaction control devices, so how do they plan on keeping the thing steady? Are there lots of tethers in all directions? Or is "steady" a relative term, and the balloon can float around on the end of one tether without affecting service?
2) They say they only need 18 to cover the whole of B
The balloon/weather is the only issue (Score:3, Informative)
Broadband is supplied via microwave from about 20 miles away and it works pretty good. I have a pizza box sized antenna on my roof and a cable extending to a cable modem like box. From there it is purely regular TCP/IP.
On the other end my understanding is that they have an array of transmitters on one big pole at the top of a mountain. Each transmitter broadcasts to a certain swath of the coverage area.
Now substitute the mountain with a balloon and you have essentially the same system.
But, as has been mentioned before, what about the weather and aviation issues (I could just see these balloons becoming prime targets for lunatic suicidal pilots).
If the signal could be transmitted from already existing cell phone towers without line-of-sight issues it seems that that would be a far preferable way to approach the problem.
My broadband setup proves that laying cable is just lame.
Has anybody ever looked at the manual for a police scanner? Did you notice how much spectrum is provided to railways, forestry service, etc. etc.? And did you try to listen in on a railway conversation? I programmed my scanner to pick up the railroads and I heard nothing from them for about a month. I want some of that spectrum!
obligatory pun (Score:2, Funny)
No, it's overhead.
Another attack on GA (Score:2)
Soon there'll be nowhere left to fly
Better solutions. (Score:2, Insightful)
What problem is this supposed to address ?
Remember, we already have 100% coverage for UHF television, from a large number of extremely tall towers. If it was simply a matter of getting internet transceivers up high, the infrastructure already exists to do it.
But it isn't.
Old Idea: Proposed in the US in 1997... (Score:3, Informative)
This Ideas been Floated Around Befor (Score:2)
IMHO ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems like a great idea, a neat way of overcoming the last-mile and bringing broadband to a lot more people in the UK.
IMHO, major obstacles stand in its way:
1) Cost. Each balloon may take millions [newswireless.net] (of UK pounds [sciencecityyork.org.uk]) to put up so any cost savings assume a sufficient subscriber base; and don't forget the satellite-TV style transceiver dish required [skylinc.co.uk] for each customer site. Once the first one goes up, what's to stop existing providers dropping their prices to compensate?
2) Available bandwidth. Isn't unlikely that the system will "not slow down as more and more people use the service" [bbc.co.uk], especially as SkyLinc themselves state that the system is scaleable [skylinc.co.uk] (i.e. why would it need to be scalable if performance never degraded with load?)
3) Weather. As every English-person knows, the weather in the UK can be erratic and extreme (for example, more tornadoes per unit area than anywhere in the world [bbc.co.uk]). Relying on an "antenna stabilisation system" may sound like a good idea, and it may even work, but who would believe it enough to spend the installation fee on it?
4) Coverage. Despite the article's optimistic "18 base stations" providing "total UK coverage, from densely populated towns to the remotest cottage in the Scottish Highlands" the SkyLinc website claims only "87% of UK SME business locations" [skylinc.co.uk] for the same number of base stations - which I suspect counts out most remote locations.
5) CAA approval - SkyLinc might expect to make most money out of densely populated areas, but as these are often near airports what's the chance of CAA approval in all but a couple of test sites?
Of course, it serves the UK govt. to support this scheme and make encouraging sounds about it. At the very least it will stop most people from wondering why the govt. pushes 'broadband Britain' but allows a practical monopoly, paid for by the taxpayer, to slow the spread of broadband (hey, even remote cottages in the Scottish Highlands have BT phone lines).
Personally, I'm all for the idea, but I don't think it will ever get off the ground but if Guy Kewney says/implies/suggests it's a good idea [newswireless.net] then who am I to disagree! Hey, I even like the idea of having my own balloon to tow 'behind' my car [skylinc.co.uk] in case of emergencies and traffic jams.
Why is will and will not happen (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, I'll bet BT is disinclined to allow the competition. I know for sure it would never (no pun intended) get off the ground in the USA. You can bet as soon as it reared it's beautiful head over here in the States, the big money telecoms will be beating two paths: one to Congree to dump FUD on the proposal, and another to Tom Ridge's office, warning of some fantastic and fictional security threat posed by balloons.
There's too much money invested in bad/old technology to allow this idea an easy birth, as much as I regret to acknowledge that reality. I pray to be proven wrong someday soon, though!
HAPS "myth" (Score:3, Informative)
Their current FAQ [skystation.com] boasts, "When will the Sky Station system be available?
With flight testing commencing later this year, Stratospheric Telecommunications Service will commence with the first Sky Station platform deployment in 2005. Sky Station platforms will be implemented in accordance with user demand as expressed by responsible organizations in each country."
Enter the Wayback Machine for this same FAQ page:
1998 [archive.org] claims of launch in 2000
1999 [archive.org] claims of launch in 2002
2001 [archive.org] claims of launch in 2004
Stating that a test launch will occur "later this year" (hey, that makes it easier to update the page), and they're planning deployment in 2005. How the hell can they even know when they'll be deploying if after 7 years they still haven't done a test launch.
Let's not forget StratSat [airship.com] or the Japanese Airships [slashdot.org] for cell phone use. Comon', someone show me a non-artist rendored picture or active deployment with one of these. Until I see that, it's all vaporware left over from the dot-com sucker era. I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm just wondering about it being economically feasible and the unreliable in the atmosphere from ever-changing winds and weather conditions.
Here is that promised document from China talking about all these other blimp-type platforms (a sucker is born every minute):
http://www.bakom.ch/imperia/md/content/english/fu
Re:Memorial Day (Score:2)
Re:The English are so charmingly eccentric (Score:5, Interesting)
While most Americans consider blimps only suitable for promotional purposes and overhead golf shots, the merry olde English are trying to find some use for the obsolete gasbags.
Yes, we all know what a crime it is to be innovative and thoughtful in America, unless you have the funding of a large company behind you and you#ve been garanteed by market research that your project will have a large return.
It's really no surprise, the country loves it's eccentrics, from Sinclair's little electric scooter to the Osborne luggable to the Robin Reliant to their steam powered subway trains.
I'd love to see one of these steam powered subway trains you speak of, by my recollection they were put out of service quite some time ago. Of course when it opened on the 10th of January in 1863 steam was the norm, but that was phased out by 1961. You see, our underground train system is half the age of your whole damn country, and has inspired systems like it the world over and still it carrys more people than any other.
Their standard of living would improve if they ever upgrade their technology to at least 1970's level, but then their little country wouldn't have the Disneyesque appeal.
Have you ever actually been to the UK for more than tourism? The school I went to is older than the united states, by almost twice as much. Our country has great herritage and we like to preserve that herritage, and we do so while modernising our services. The touristy areas make these modernisations less apparent because they're less attractive to tourists. I suggest you come live here for a few years and make your mind up on the "Disneyesqe Appeal".
I think you'll find the US has far more luddite encampments dotted around the place, who embrace guns and spurn any sort of government or technology that there are over here, maybe they should be dealt with?
Re:The English are so charmingly eccentric (Score:2, Funny)
Since Japanese are generally smaller than British, I wonder how they compare on mass carried?
Re:The English are so charmingly eccentric (Score:2, Insightful)
Sinclair C5, I give you the Segway.
Osborne Luggable, I give you the C64-SX, not to mention a luggable that Compaq made for a while. (Still got one, somewhere...)
Robin Reliant, I give you the (Kaboom!) Pinto. Oh, and the Plymouth Reliant.
As for the steam powered subways, the then Metropolitan Railway was running in London in 1863, well before electric trains had been invented, and in 1890, the London Underground was the first to convert to electric power. Somebody tell this to the good folks
Re:Problem Solved (Score:2)
Re:Latency? (Score:2)
All our traffic is routed via BT's ATM network as encapsulated packets from home to my ISP then back again.
Up a mile then down again shouldn't be that bad.
Re:Latency? (Score:4, Informative)
Consider this - your request for a webpage originates on your desk. Goes up to the bird - there's 23,000 miles. Goes from the bird to wherever your sat ISP's switchgear is, there's another 23,000 miles (more, actually, depending on relative locations on the ground, a bunch of trig, and more math than this point warrants). Great, now your request is back on a land-based connection to the internet. You'll have the normal routing from there, to the host system.
At this point, the HTML you requested will get sent back to your ISP's gear, sent up to the bird (a third 23,000 mile trip), and down to your system (a fourth trip). We're at 92,000 miles, and all you have is the HTML, which tells your browser which objects to go fetch (graphics, style sheets, and so on). So, a single packet takes roughly 1/2 second just in space, speed of light transit time; let alone the rest of the ground and server-based waits.
Contrast this to the balloon, where it's about a mile up. Delay there will be 1/186,000ths of a second each trip.
So, yes, they both have a delay, we're talking many orders of magnitude in difference. Measureable, maybe. Noticable? Nope.