1Gbps to your home

Posted by Andrew | Uncategorized | Wednesday 10 February 2010 7:40 am

Google, the world’s biggest online search engine, wants to turbocharge your Internet connection.

The company said Wednesday it is getting into the broadband service business with trials for fiber networks that will deliver Internet access speeds that are 100 times faster than what most Americans are getting today.

With its announcement, the Internet juggernaut added to a fast-growing list of industries it has barreled its way through. Tuesday, it announced a social networking feature directly aimed at Facebook. Late last year, it got into the cellphone business with a smartphone to rival Apple’s iPhone and Research in Motion’s BlackBerry. The list goes on: The book, music, video, newspaper and map businesses have all been shaken by Google’s steady march to place its marker on those industries for the Web.

“Our goal is to experiment with new ways to help make Internet access better and faster for everyone,” wrote Google product managers Minnie Ingersoll and James Kelly in the blog titled, “Think big with a gig: our experimental fiber network.”

The company said it will build fiber-to-the-home connections to a small number of locations across the country that will deliver Internet access speeds of 1 gigabit per second. It will take bids from municipalities beginning through late March to determine what areas would be part of its experiment. Google said access prices for consumers would competitive and that its network would reach at least 50,000 and potentially up to 500,000 people. A source who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the company doesn’t currently have plans to expand beyond the initial tests but will evaluate as the tests progress.

Why are they doing it? To experiment with applications ultra-fast broadband access could support. The firm also wants to try out new ways to build fiber networks and share those lessons to other network operators. Google, a proponent of open-access policies, said its network would give consumers a choice of multiple service providers.

The company emphasized it would adhere to network neutrality rules it has pushed for with federal regulators. Such rules would prevent a carrier from treating content differently. That could include favoring Google’s applications on the network over others.

“We hope this will serve as an example to other network operators that the open model should not be feared, but should be emulated,” said Markham Erickson, executive director of the Open Internet Coalition. “Profit and openness and mistakenly seen to be in conflict; in fact we believe they are synergistic and amplifying.”

Some of the fastest connections through cable, DSL and fiber access cap off around 20 to 50 megabits a second. Google chief executive Eric Schmidt told The Washington Post during a visit late last year that ultra-high-speed Internet connections were imperative for a next generation of applications to take off for the Web. Currently, he said, most network services fall short.

At such speeds, a rural health center could receive streaming three-dimensional medial imaging over the Web and discuss health issues with a physician in a Los Angeles, for example. Downloading high-definition, full-length feature films would take about five minutes, Google said.

Google has been experimenting with broadband service for years. It has been running a WiFi network in its headquarters city of Mountain View, Calif. It is also advocating at the Federal Communications Commission to use unlicensed spectrum, called White Spaces, for broadband services.

  • Share/Bookmark

Explore the scientific, medical and policy aspects of chemical, biological, and radiological (CBR) warfare and terrorism

Posted by Andrew | Uncategorized | Friday 15 January 2010 5:54 am

In 16 years of meetings, the direction, goals, model and objectives for the CBMTS, although now much broader and more comprehensive, have remained the same. In CBR and anti-terrorism matters, this series remains at the forefront in science, medicine and technology and its “firsts” are legendary.

The CBMTS provided the world community: the first in-depth analysis of industry and chemical warfare without chemical weapons, now known in part as TICs and TIMs, the very first comprehensive analysis of casualties and casualty care, and the short, mid and long term effects of massive CW use against the Iranian populace by Iraq, the first look at terrorism and its impact on CBW and the international community, both military and civilian; the first forum for pharmaceutical and medical stockpile issues at the international levels, and above all, the CBMTS was the very first to provide and still continues to provide a forum for communications, a venue for professionals in critical CBR disciplines from East, West, North and South.

BMTS VIII will explore the scientific, medical and policy aspects of chemical, biological, and radiological (CBR) warfare and terrorism. It will consider the effects of CBR agents wrongly used or abused, intentional or accidental, on the community and individuals, military and civilian, and on the infrastructure of government. CBMTS VIII will further build on the base of knowledge established in the CBMTS Industry series, i.e., an area still not fully addressed by convention, agreement or treaty: the terrorist or combat threat to the chemical, petrochemical, oil, pharmaceutical, biochemical, and other industries

  • Share/Bookmark

Do we need an Emergency Alert System ?

Posted by Andrew | Uncategorized | Thursday 14 January 2010 7:15 pm

The FCC today announced a notice of proposed rulemaking on the EAS system.

Background: The EAS is a national alert and warning system that exists primarily to enable the President of the United States to issue warnings to the American public during emergencies.

To date, however, neither the EAS nor its predecessor national alerting systems have EVER been used to deliver a national Presidential alert.

Moreover to this date there has NEVER been systematic national test of the EAS to determine whether the system would in fact function as required should the President issue a national alert.

This and prior systems have been in place since 1951 and have incurred expense to the American Tax Payer for the last 60 Years. Is it time that we question whether this is still the most effective way to communicate an emergency situation ? Or is this just more government waste for a system that has NEVER been used and that we don’t know that actually works?

  • Share/Bookmark
atriumax wordpress theme