|[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]||Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author|
Technologies for personal and peer to peer knowledge management
by Eric Tsui
< http://www2.csc.com/lef/programs/grants/etsui/personal_p2p_km_journal.htm >
"Realising that P2P is an immense and still an evolving area, the scope of this project is limited to critically examine the impact of the above to various knowledge processes (i.e. creation, organisation, modification, distribution, retirement) at the group and individual levels. In particular, the research will shed light on
On the business side, this research also explores the solutions and new opportunities in knowledge sharing brought about by P2P Computing and the latest breed of personal KM tools. These solutions and opportunities include, but not limited to,
... Internal reports by Grant Moss and Dennis Franklin on Evaluation and Comparisons of e-Collaboration systems (forthcoming)"
Check out his list of useful links and download his collection of
< http://www2.csc.com/lef/programs/grants/etsui/personal_p2p_km_v1-0.zip >
... "A Request
If you have an interest in the above topics and/or have something to share, please contact Eric Tsui (email@example.com) directly."
Also, ...... for those who may not be aware, ...... the future for wireless P2P Computing is at risk from cellular telco politics.
For instance, the following letters below are good examples concerning P2P Computing sent to the FCC regarding a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) in May 2000 for solicited feedback from the industry on specific rule changes that could allow UWB emitters under the Part 15 (license-exempt) rules. More than 500 comments have been filed since the first NOI, which shows significant industry interest in this rule-making process.
11/23/01 - Xtreme Spectrum, Inc.
1. A Peer-to-Peer Ban is Bad for Consumers and Unnecessary to Protect Other Users.
(a) A peer-to-peer ban would deprive consumers of valuable applications.
A peer-to-peer ban on ultra-wideband communications would needlessly deny consumers many of the most attractive applications of ultra-wideband technology.2 Eliminating peer-to-peer operations would rule out such everyday applications as synchronizing a Palm-type PDA with a laptop, downloading a digital camera to a laptop or PDA, or even exchanging business card information between PDAs. Consumers would find such restrictions arbitrary and frustrating, which in turn would make ultra-wideband less attractive to consumer-device manufacturers.
(b) A peer-to-peer ban is unnecessary.
XtremeSpectrum has submitted detailed technical analyses that show a properly designed ultra-wideband system does not cause any interference to other users even when operated outdoors, and even when elevated 30 meters above ground level.3 A peer-to-peer ban is wholly unnecessary to protect other users.
2. The Commission Should Permit Peer-to-Peer Operations Under Appropriate Constraints.
(a) No outdoor infrastructure.
In addition to the measures discussed below, XtremeSpectrum supports a total ban on outdoor ultra-wideband infrastructure. This will eliminate nearly all outdoor communication, and in practice will allow only brief, incidental exchanges at ground level (such as transmission of business card information at a sidewalk café).
(b) Reduced emissions limits.
If the Commission continues to believe outdoor peer-to-peer operation is a potential source of interference, it should at least give
manufacturers the option of providing peer-to-peer at reduced emissions levels. The reduced levels are intended only to protect against occasional, casual outdoor use, and therefore should be calculated to give approximately the same level of protection as indoor operation. We understand that NTIA is evaluating the following emissions mask for all ultra-wideband communications, including outdoor use:
XtremeSpectrum will not oppose these levels for peer-to-peer operation. We emphasize, however, that these numbers are more stringent than necessary, and urge the Commission to adopt the most flexible limits possible, consistent with fully protecting other users. We note particularly that the record does not justify limits tighter than Sec. 15.209(a) values in the 3100-4200 MHz band. Details appear in our ex parte filing of November 14, 2001.
A product complying with these rules will truly be flea-powered, with a maximum range of just a few meters. Its emissions ceiling will be far lower than for any other device anywhere in the Commission's Rules. XtremeSpectrum will welcome the opportunity to respond to other proposed masks the Commission may have under consideration.
(c) Indoor operation only.
As an alternative to a reduced emissions mask, manufacturers should have the option of limiting peer-to-peer operations to cases where the communicating devices are indoors. But the Rules should not require any particular mechanism to determine whether a device is indoors. Instead, the Rules should simply require the applicant to satisfy the Commission that its mechanism is adequate, as part of the certification process. We also welcome rule provisions that pre-approve certain mechanisms, so long as they are not exclusive.
(d) No automatic peer-to-peer operation.
As an added precaution, XtremeSpectrum will support a rule provision that prohibits automatic peer-to-peer operation by requiring the user to affirmatively initiate the communication, as by pressing a button.
Peer-to-peer operation is necessary to deliver the full promise of consumer ultra-wideband communications. XtremeSpectrum has shown in detail that peer-to-peer operations, even outdoors, will not interfere with other users. In the interests of a speedy resolution, however, XtremeSpectrum will support rules that either limit emissions for peer-to-peer operations or, at the manufacturer's option, ban peer-to-peer communications entirely between outdoor devices. In addition, XtremeSpectrum will not oppose a rule that requires affirmative user intervention to initiate peer-to-peer communications.
This proceeding does not set a workable precedent. The present rulemaking
has generated more than the usual degree of controversy and opposition.
The Commission may, for that reason, choose to set technical limits more
conservative than are strictly justified by the
record. In that spirit, XtremeSpectrum has said it does not oppose very stringent emissions limits in the GPS band and, if necessary, would accept limits in the 3100-4200 MHz band whose technical rationale has not been well established. But, in doing so, we ask both the Commission and the other parties to acknowledge the unusual character of the proceeding. Given the myriad participants and their sometimes conflicting concerns, the technical rules ultimately adopted here may result in part from compromise and negotiation, as well as from sound technical analysis. We hope the Commission will acknowledge as much, and make clear that numerical levels in these
rules do not necessarily have precedential value for technical decisions in other proceedings. If there are any questions about this filing, please call me at the number above.
Counsel for XtremeSpectrum, Inc.
cc: Service list (by email and hand delivery)
9/26/01 - Xtreme Sprectrum, Inc. suggests: PROMPT COMMISSION ACTION
"UWB will bring needed products to the consumer, and will add value to the U.S. economy. UWB delivers high data rate, low cost, and low battery drain, at low range. This makes it ideal for such tasks as same-room wireless interconnection of images, data, or music among digital cameras, MP3 players, Palm-type devices, and personal computers. UWB is equally well suited to streaming audio and video among satellite-video and cable set-top boxes, VCRs and DVD players, TVs, and stereos in wirelessly networked homes. The technology will contribute to theprojected $300 billion market for handheld devices by 2005. Although U.S. companies are developing UWB technology, start-ups in other countries have already received funding."
< https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6512766356 >
1/3/02 - Xtreme Sprectrum, Inc.
< https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6512977487 >
11/14/01 - Xtreme Sprectrum, Inc. (a point-by-point critique
of all analysis reports resulting in misleading conclusions about potential
< https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6512774807 >
The Honorable Michael Powell
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20554
Re: ET Docket No. 98-153 -- Revision of Part 15 of the Commission's
Rules Regarding Ultra-Wideband Transmission Systems
Ex Parte Communication
Dear Chairman Powell:
As technology companies that share an interest in using ultra-wideband (UWB) technology in our products, we are writing you regarding the Commission's removal of the ultra-wideband (UWB) item from its December 12, 2001, open meeting agenda. We appreciate your commitment to resolve the process in February. We are concerned that a short delay could be extended, which in turn would be a substantial setback to the timely development and deployment of UWB services. This could have a negative impact on current industry momentum focused on building UWB technology and products.
This proceeding is more than three years old with almost 800 comments, notices, and technical studies on the docket. UWB proponents have filed detailed technical analyses showing that operation of their devices will not cause harmful interference to other users of the spectrum, both government and non-government. These analyses also explain why studies that purport to show harmful interference gave incorrect results. It is time to issue a decision.
The prompt adoption of rules is necessary not only to bring the benefits of this technology to consumers, but also to respond constructively to increasing interest from the military in UWB technology as reflected by the recent DARPA NETEX BAA. We urge you to issue the UWB report and order at the earliest possible date, and no later than the date indicated at your open meeting.
Kevin C. Kahn, Intel Fellow, Director, Communications & Interconnect
Technology Lab, Intel Corp.
Steven W. Stewart, Director, Public Affairs, IBM Corporation
John K. Boidock, Vice President, Government Relations, Texas Instruments
Dr. Ken Gray, Director, Multimedia Communications Dept., Sharp Labs of America
Gregg Ward, Vice President, Government Relations, Siemens Corporation
cc: Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy
Commissioner Michael J. Copps
Commissioner Kevin J. Martin
< https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6512975933 >
Sony Electronics, Inc.'s Support for Regulatory Approval of Ultra-Wide
Band (UWB) Radio Commercial Deployment
Ex Parte Presentation Regarding ET Docket No. 98-153
December 13, 2001
As a leader in the field of consumer and professional electronic devices,
Sony Electronics has been studying the advantages offered by UWB. We have
determined that UWB technology has the potential for creating innovative
and beneficial new applications involving wireless communications which
could greatly enhance the flexibility and satisfaction enjoyed by consumers
and professionals when using multimedia devices in business, home, and
personal networks. We are enthusiastic about exploring UWB for use in our
products. We are
particularly interested in wireless data technologies with these features:
The FCC can make a reasonable decision with the currently available data. We believe there is sufficient information in the record to make an immediate decision permitting commercial deployment under rules that provide for both protection of incumbents and a valuable opportunity for new technology deployment. The potential value for data communications is much higher if peer-to-peer and outdoor uses are permitted.
Permitting deployment of UWB is good public policy.
Deployment could enable a new, entrepreneurial U.S. industry to form and grow. Moreover, it could stimulate the electronics sector in general as new applications are enabled. Finally, it could enable more efficient use of spectrum, a long-standing goal of U.S. policy-makers.
< https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6512975597 >
12/4/01 - Florian Wireless, Inc. (a technology company located
in Pennsylvania that is bringing new wireless technology to bear, to improve
firefighting capabilities and to better protect firefighters. The company
name is derived from St. Florian, the patron
saint of firefighters)
Company founder, Brian Valania, developed the technology combining his
experience as a firefighter with the Painted Post Fire Company in Painted
Post, NY with his technical background working at Corning Incorporated
as a Senior Infrastucture Technologist. Through
a multidisciplinary approach that relies heavily on the real life experience of firefighters themselves, the company spearheaded a re-examination of existing firefighter technology and an exploration of how new technologies can increase the effectiveness of firefighters as well as better ensure their safety in a variety of different situations. They found that UWB™s precise tracking and positioning features, combined with its data transmission capabilities, support a dramatic advance in firefighting technology. This led to Florian™s focus on UWB as a technology to support their firefighting applications.
Jack Park wrote:
The story behind JXTA, the new Java P2P system.
"Back in the summer of 2000, when Napster was still the rage, the term
"peer-to-peer computing" became cocktail party fodder at every gathering in
Silicon Valley. People started talking about the potential of so-called
distributed forms of computing, such as the direct sharing of music files
between Napster users. But there was a problem: no standards, no agreed-on
ways to create these distributed applications. So Bill Joy, chief scientist
and co-founder of Sun Microsystems, hatched a plan at his Aspen research
lab to create a software operating platform upon which such distributed
applications could be built. "