Posts
Catch the Net - NGPS and T-911...
“It has been my philosophy of life that difficulties vanish when faced boldly” - Isaac Asimov, as quoted on thinkexist.com
Did you know that there are multiple radios within the smartphone you're likely reading this on? It's true. It seems that each feature added brings another radio, because it's cheaper to put in another tiny set to do what needs to be done than to have a larger, more complex, yet tunable radio set. In other words, if you love your Bluetooth connections, and you love your text messaging, then you already are using two different radios, and you didn't even know it.
This is shorter than the normal post, but it contain two ideas that may well bear consideration, if for no other reason than to start some dialogs.
Idea #1: I"ll call this one NGPS, which I'll define below. You may have read about near-field communication, the low-powered radio signal that enables some interesting possibilities when devices are close to each other. You have undoubtedly heard of GPS, the technology that allows you to trace where you are on the globe with a reasonable degree of accuracy (know that we'll never get the precision the military has, which is why our GPS units go nuts every once in a while, but you definitely take the bad with the good of knowing our folks in uniform can do what they do as accurately as possible). Here's what happens, though. When we want to text message each other, even if we're 10 feet away, our signal will leave our phone, hit the cell tower, be transferred to the controllers at our service provider, then relayed to the intended recipient after they are located. It all happens fast, but there is a delay, and sometimes there is quite a substantial delay in the message delivery. How many times have you been sitting with someone, and one or the other of you received a message the other sent sometimes hours previously?
You might think that this is just a 'teens texting each other at the mall' issue, but it isn't. Personally, with four kids, if my wife and I didn't text each other occasionally there'd be days when we'd not hear from each other. Even if we're in the same room, she could be dealing with the toddler and I could be dealing with the homework for a couple of them and neither one of us would know if the other wrote the check for the yearbook.
Do you know what causes the delay? Take your pick... tower troubles, network troubles, weather, excessive messages to deliver, red button anomalies (where someone new wanders in, and instead of asking what the red button shuts down goes ahead and hits it first). Text messaging is not some sort of guarantee, and it runs into a lot of competition. Even with things operating at different frequencies, there is competition for resources, etc. As smartphones become even more prevalent, it is just going to get worse.
Enter NGPS (I searched on this one, and didn't find it used this way, so... DIBS!!!). This isn't Motorola's Next Generation Public Safety, it stands for Neighborhood GPS. Here's the scoop - we know that devices can locate each other using Bluetooth, and wireless networks, and, and, and, but the communication we depend on so much still has to be routed through the whole system. So, we can find each other, and we can know exactly where we are, but we still have to go through the switching equipment. Why?
Picture this... you want to text someone, and the NGPS knows you're both in the same area (there would be location-based settings, and privacy concerns, etc., but there are always those things going on), it sends the signal straight to the intended phone. If you're farther apart, but both going through the same tower, then that local cell is where it is broadcast. That is where the cell phone got the cell portion of its name - everything is divided into cells, and your phone coverage is delivered to the cell where you are, and when you are moving your call is transferred to the next cell, and so on. There are a million things that would have to happen to get this done, but the largest would be the total commoditization of text messaging and other things, which would remove the different costs for different plans and carriers. However, it could be done, as could the next idea...
Idea #2: This is called T-911. Lately there has been a real concern about public warnings and safety systems that can broadcast messages to large groups of people, and there are a lot of companies providing the service. Here's what is not well-known: there is no such thing as an instant text message. You see, the model being used relies on the transmission of the text messages to the carriers, then the distribution of those messages appropriately. That means they have to find the phones, then send the messages, and run into the same kind of delays that other text messages do.
I'll repeat. There is no such thing as an instant text message. There's just too much overhead, some of it coming from the necessity to send the messages through the carrier's equipment, some of it coming fro the necessity of maintaining the lists of people subscribing, their numbers, their carriers, etc.
Why? In my area, every Friday morning at 11:00 we hear something off in the distance - the Civil Defense siren. They run a test every week. I didn't sign up for that notification, I didn't unsubscribe, it was - stay with me here - decided that in the interest of safety of all involved, the alerts would be broadcast to everyone within earshot.
Here is where T-911 comes in. Going back to the way that cell phones work, there isn't a tower for AT&T, a tower for Verizon, a tower for Sprint, etc. There is a cell tower, and the signals go through it to get to the rest of the network. That's how you get coverage. The distribution of the charges and such is handled behind the scenes. All you know is that you have a signal.
For you to receive and send, you have to be known to that cell. That means your phone is constantly transmitting its ID and location to the cell tower. The cell tower has switching equipment on it to make sure to handshake with the next cell tower in your path, and then pass you on so you don't miss anything. So you may change cells, but the cell tower will know about you. My solution to the issue of public warning systems is not to have an opt-in list, but to enable the broadcast of such warnings from the tower switch to the phones within that cell. All of them. The Civil Defense, or the local police, or EMA - whomever - would issue the alerts via a special link. Each phone that was turned on in the cell would receive the message, should it be sent out. Here are a couple of obvious questions, and possible answers:
1) What about someone who has their phone turned off when it's broadcast on the cell. How would they receive the warning? Not really a valid issue for two reasons. The first is that, if someone has their phone turned off, there is a good likelihood that they wouldn't receive the opt-in message until after the danger has already been dealt with, or occurred to them anyway. Just opting in to receive a message does not turn your phone on to receive a message. The second reason is that it is possible for the text message to be opted into, sent, and still not received in a timely manner. The delivery method is not guaranteed, therefore you can't make assumptions about its safety, or lack thereof, you can only try to improve its efficacy. I can tell you for sure that a text message sent to all phone in a cell via the tower will be much more rapidly and thoroughly received than will the same message routed through five carriers.
2) But I have to pay for text messages, and this would force me to pay for a message I really don't want. Not really. If you text customer support, are you charged? If you have a pay for use phone, you don't have to pay to call them to refill minutes. These are administrative billing issues, not technical limitations. You don't really think it costs your bank a whole dollar to do the electronic wizardry it takes to allow you to use another bank's ATM, do you? In the same vein, thinking it actually costs your company anything to send a text message to you is a false assumption. Besides all that, if the text message is blanket sent via the tower, it won't go through the carrier's equipment ANYWAY, so they wouldn't be able to bill you for it, even if they wanted to.
3) This is America! If I don't want a text message, I shouldn't have to get one! Hold your jets, then give me the procedure to opt out of hearing the fire alarm in your house, or your place of business (other than taking out the battery, which is illegal). We live in a republic, not a democracy (check my facts - in a democracy, a true one, there'd be some sort of voting going on as to whether or not to roll the fire trucks to fight the fire, and then you could opt in if you wanted to, or decline), and there are certain things that are done for the greater good of the masses, even though they are a pain sometimes. The public safety is paramount, and for that reason we have instituted systems that annoy you with sound (the emergency public broadcasting system that interrupts your TV watching every once in a while for one - it's the same thing, since we mostly all pay for TV, whether via cable, satellite or fiber).
I don't know if either of these systems will ever see the light of day, but they do present some interesting possibilities for sure.
“It has been my philosophy of life that difficulties vanish when faced boldly” - Isaac Asimov, as quoted on thinkexist.com
Did you know that there are multiple radios within the smartphone you're likely reading this on? It's true. It seems that each feature added brings another radio, because it's cheaper to put in another tiny set to do what needs to be done than to have a larger, more complex, yet tunable radio set. In other words, if you love your Bluetooth connections, and you love your text messaging, then you already are using two different radios, and you didn't even know it.
This is shorter than the normal post, but it contain two ideas that may well bear consideration, if for no other reason than to start some dialogs.
Idea #1: I"ll call this one NGPS, which I'll define below. You may have read about near-field communication, the low-powered radio signal that enables some interesting possibilities when devices are close to each other. You have undoubtedly heard of GPS, the technology that allows you to trace where you are on the globe with a reasonable degree of accuracy (know that we'll never get the precision the military has, which is why our GPS units go nuts every once in a while, but you definitely take the bad with the good of knowing our folks in uniform can do what they do as accurately as possible). Here's what happens, though. When we want to text message each other, even if we're 10 feet away, our signal will leave our phone, hit the cell tower, be transferred to the controllers at our service provider, then relayed to the intended recipient after they are located. It all happens fast, but there is a delay, and sometimes there is quite a substantial delay in the message delivery. How many times have you been sitting with someone, and one or the other of you received a message the other sent sometimes hours previously?
You might think that this is just a 'teens texting each other at the mall' issue, but it isn't. Personally, with four kids, if my wife and I didn't text each other occasionally there'd be days when we'd not hear from each other. Even if we're in the same room, she could be dealing with the toddler and I could be dealing with the homework for a couple of them and neither one of us would know if the other wrote the check for the yearbook.
Do you know what causes the delay? Take your pick... tower troubles, network troubles, weather, excessive messages to deliver, red button anomalies (where someone new wanders in, and instead of asking what the red button shuts down goes ahead and hits it first). Text messaging is not some sort of guarantee, and it runs into a lot of competition. Even with things operating at different frequencies, there is competition for resources, etc. As smartphones become even more prevalent, it is just going to get worse.
Enter NGPS (I searched on this one, and didn't find it used this way, so... DIBS!!!). This isn't Motorola's Next Generation Public Safety, it stands for Neighborhood GPS. Here's the scoop - we know that devices can locate each other using Bluetooth, and wireless networks, and, and, and, but the communication we depend on so much still has to be routed through the whole system. So, we can find each other, and we can know exactly where we are, but we still have to go through the switching equipment. Why?
Picture this... you want to text someone, and the NGPS knows you're both in the same area (there would be location-based settings, and privacy concerns, etc., but there are always those things going on), it sends the signal straight to the intended phone. If you're farther apart, but both going through the same tower, then that local cell is where it is broadcast. That is where the cell phone got the cell portion of its name - everything is divided into cells, and your phone coverage is delivered to the cell where you are, and when you are moving your call is transferred to the next cell, and so on. There are a million things that would have to happen to get this done, but the largest would be the total commoditization of text messaging and other things, which would remove the different costs for different plans and carriers. However, it could be done, as could the next idea...
Idea #2: This is called T-911. Lately there has been a real concern about public warnings and safety systems that can broadcast messages to large groups of people, and there are a lot of companies providing the service. Here's what is not well-known: there is no such thing as an instant text message. You see, the model being used relies on the transmission of the text messages to the carriers, then the distribution of those messages appropriately. That means they have to find the phones, then send the messages, and run into the same kind of delays that other text messages do.
I'll repeat. There is no such thing as an instant text message. There's just too much overhead, some of it coming from the necessity to send the messages through the carrier's equipment, some of it coming fro the necessity of maintaining the lists of people subscribing, their numbers, their carriers, etc.
Why? In my area, every Friday morning at 11:00 we hear something off in the distance - the Civil Defense siren. They run a test every week. I didn't sign up for that notification, I didn't unsubscribe, it was - stay with me here - decided that in the interest of safety of all involved, the alerts would be broadcast to everyone within earshot.
Here is where T-911 comes in. Going back to the way that cell phones work, there isn't a tower for AT&T, a tower for Verizon, a tower for Sprint, etc. There is a cell tower, and the signals go through it to get to the rest of the network. That's how you get coverage. The distribution of the charges and such is handled behind the scenes. All you know is that you have a signal.
For you to receive and send, you have to be known to that cell. That means your phone is constantly transmitting its ID and location to the cell tower. The cell tower has switching equipment on it to make sure to handshake with the next cell tower in your path, and then pass you on so you don't miss anything. So you may change cells, but the cell tower will know about you. My solution to the issue of public warning systems is not to have an opt-in list, but to enable the broadcast of such warnings from the tower switch to the phones within that cell. All of them. The Civil Defense, or the local police, or EMA - whomever - would issue the alerts via a special link. Each phone that was turned on in the cell would receive the message, should it be sent out. Here are a couple of obvious questions, and possible answers:
1) What about someone who has their phone turned off when it's broadcast on the cell. How would they receive the warning? Not really a valid issue for two reasons. The first is that, if someone has their phone turned off, there is a good likelihood that they wouldn't receive the opt-in message until after the danger has already been dealt with, or occurred to them anyway. Just opting in to receive a message does not turn your phone on to receive a message. The second reason is that it is possible for the text message to be opted into, sent, and still not received in a timely manner. The delivery method is not guaranteed, therefore you can't make assumptions about its safety, or lack thereof, you can only try to improve its efficacy. I can tell you for sure that a text message sent to all phone in a cell via the tower will be much more rapidly and thoroughly received than will the same message routed through five carriers.
2) But I have to pay for text messages, and this would force me to pay for a message I really don't want. Not really. If you text customer support, are you charged? If you have a pay for use phone, you don't have to pay to call them to refill minutes. These are administrative billing issues, not technical limitations. You don't really think it costs your bank a whole dollar to do the electronic wizardry it takes to allow you to use another bank's ATM, do you? In the same vein, thinking it actually costs your company anything to send a text message to you is a false assumption. Besides all that, if the text message is blanket sent via the tower, it won't go through the carrier's equipment ANYWAY, so they wouldn't be able to bill you for it, even if they wanted to.
3) This is America! If I don't want a text message, I shouldn't have to get one! Hold your jets, then give me the procedure to opt out of hearing the fire alarm in your house, or your place of business (other than taking out the battery, which is illegal). We live in a republic, not a democracy (check my facts - in a democracy, a true one, there'd be some sort of voting going on as to whether or not to roll the fire trucks to fight the fire, and then you could opt in if you wanted to, or decline), and there are certain things that are done for the greater good of the masses, even though they are a pain sometimes. The public safety is paramount, and for that reason we have instituted systems that annoy you with sound (the emergency public broadcasting system that interrupts your TV watching every once in a while for one - it's the same thing, since we mostly all pay for TV, whether via cable, satellite or fiber).
I don't know if either of these systems will ever see the light of day, but they do present some interesting possibilities for sure.
No comments:
Post a Comment