2020 - A cyberspace commodity???

Please no flames if someone feels I have put this into the wrong forum - I felt that it would be just as appropriate here as it would be in the 'Cosmos' forum.

I'm sure that all of us (well ......... most of us) are, at least, vaguely aware of what nanotechnology is.

For those that don't, go and find out here

I have been thinking about this for a couple of days and have to get it out of my head.
Do we realize that the possible future ramifications that nanotech could have on the internet are explosive?!

Today we can download software, games, ebooks, movies, songs etc etc off of the internet - haha, no **** - that is something we all surely knew already but .........

In years to come is it even feasible to imagine that someday, when nanotech has been more thouroughly developed that it will be possible to actually download physical items from the internet?

Imagine this: its the year 2015 (or some other year in the not so far off future) and you order a car stereo off of Ebay, you already have a nanotechnological module sitting on your desktop.
You win your auction off of Ebay (or its 15 years in the future equivilent) and instead of waiting for it to be shipped you sit at your desk and watch it molecularly reproduce right there in front of you on your brand new, state of the art nano-module.

This may sound very whimsical and far-fetched now - but decades ago so did many things that are commonplace everyday items today (like the internet, haha).

A few years ago I was very much against nanotech and, honestly - scared of it because of the idea of the governments suppression of it to the public and all the possible evil that could be efficiently accomplished with it. This is still a very real possibility - but so were nuclear weapons NOT that very long ago. I guess I don't have alot of faith in the altruistic agenda of mankind; but this new concept of how it could be used is very intriguing.

I would love to hear (read) what others have to say on the potentials of nanotechnology, as I don't know much about it. I have been researching it more - to stay ahead of the game.
After all - who wants to still be learning DHTML or JavaScript when the rest of the internet world is busy programming 'nano-scripts' in their webpages?

OK.. imagination ... just watch any episode of Star Trek..

Warp drive, Sub-Space communications, Teleport, Replicators.. all listed as possable to develop .. it is only time and more imagination to see the reality..

Arthur C Clark wrote of a Water drive space craft in his third space odessy book.. Russian scientists had developed a lab protoype before the book was released..

Connected thought.. I look forward to improvements in telpathic communications.. but then we will have the true thought police.. .. oh well nice thought.. sorry officer didnt know it was illegal..

i'm still waiting for a bio-neural interface to my PC

now keyboard, no mouse - contorled completly with your thoughts :D

as for the whole nano-tech - if we can construct objects out of nothing at a molecular level using nano technology - why would u be buying anything? why not just instruct the nano-bots to make one ;)

v_Ln

when will 56k internet progress?

Never. The 56k limit is not a physical or technological barrier. It is a regulation of the FCA, which states that no data may be transmitted at rates beyond 53.3 kbps over voice frquencies on public telephone networks. Since most modems are developed and/or manufactured in the US and modems must obviously be compatible with US telphone networks, faster modems have never been developed. It is quite possible to do so, however.

But with the advent of cable Internet and DSL, now even citywide WiFi in some places, even satellite Internet, what's the point?

Quote:

---

Since most modems are developed and/or manufactured in the US and modems must obviously be compatible with US telphone networks, faster modems have never been developed. It is quite possible to do so, however.

---

Most of them come out of China these days, and please don't tell me that the Chinese cannot design and develop them.

I think that the bottom line is that they are made to comply with internationally accepted protocols (v.90, v.92 etc)

It is true that the FCA regulate the speed, but there must be a technical reason for that? and it seems to hold good for all other countries as well? so a lot of other authorities agree with it. I am not sure of what the technical reason is, but there must be one.

As for things having to be compatible with the US...............errrr no :D Russia has had 1024 line TV for years. Also many manufacturers who export to a variety of countries make stuff to those countries specifications, which are quite different from the US.

Over here, there was talk of providing a high speed internet connection over what I assume to be voice frequency, as it would use the redundant wiring in our telephone system, however, the rapid development of much faster technology that you mention killed off the idea. I think it was supposed to be between 90 and 120k. Apparently the wiring is used to make an initial connection, then sits there doing nothing? I am afraid I never did see any real technical stuff about it.

Hey, I even remember talk of providing internet connection down your electricity cable :zap:

So I agree with Striek that there will be no development of 56.6 dial-up because there are much better ways of connecting. I do not blame regulations or the FCA :D I think that there is some underlying technical reason for it, that has brought about the regulation.

EDIT: Oh! nanotechnology.............has anyone seen the movie "The Fly"?

Quote:

---

Most of them come out of China these days, and please don't tell me that the Chinese cannot design and develop them.

---

I stand corrected. Very true. I am unaware of the technical reasons for the 53.3k limit though. Search engines are my friend though. I'll look it up.

As far as I know, that limit is purely an American one (I could be wrong on that). So there must be some reason why the rest of the world follows an American standard.

The fly... that takes me back a ways. They actually played it on cable here last week. Talk about going off on a tangent though. How does nanotechnology factor in to a discussion on a 56k bandwidth limit :confused:

Good question Striek ....

My first guess would be that the 53.3k limit is something to do with national security - I have a fairly decent conceptual visualization of it though I can't really see how right yet.

I am also on good terms with search engines, and Im curious enough to look into it - I'll meet you somewhere on google :p

Apparently the 53.3k limithas nothing to do with data transmission rates. It is actually designed to limit the amount of power travelling through phone lines.

Older wiring may overheat if too much power were sent through it.

This also explains why DSL can operate at speeds hundreds of times faster than dailup but not violate this restriction. Since it uses the entire frequency spectrum (except for the small part needed for voice), the power requirements are far lower. A voice modem transmitting at those rates would need to ramp the power to the point where lines and junction boxes would melt. It also explains why other countries are following the same guidelines.

Hey, I learned something today :D

(not-so-reliable source)

So does that mean that it is exclusive to the US?

And if so is that because, the US being pioneers of phone tech, there are older lines there that overheat easier - as opposed to countries where phone and telecommunications technology is a newer phenomenon, so they have more modern technology? :what:

Standard telephone wire is 24 gauge. It does carry quite a voltage on it. If you've ever been splicing wires and had the phone ring you'd remember. It gives quite a tingling sensation in your fingers. I had one poke me in the eyeball when the phone was ringing once when I was rewiring the house. Not fun. The wires already get pretty warm when you're on the phone for a while. As far as I know, telephone rings are in the 50 volt range. That's half the voltage of 12 or 14 gauge electrical wire on wires 1/10th the diameter. I don't know exactly how data rates translate into voltage, but I imagine junction boxes would heat up pretty good if we used faster rates.

Telephone wires can't really get much bigger than what we have now for the simple reason that if they did, they'd be near impossible to splice. Junction boxes have hardware in them specifically designed for 24 gauge wire. Thicker wire would mean upgrading every junction box in existence. In a lot of cases the telco doesn't even know where these are. The one for my house is in a forest in the back (it wasn't a forest when the box was placed; it grew around the box). I have to tell the Bell techs were to find it every time they come around here.

The wires are thin specifically to make them easy to splice and connect to existing hardware. I don't think it really has anything to do with older technology.

And Alexander Bell was Canadian. That would make Canadians the pioneers of phone tech, although he did most of his work in the US.

Damn traitor.

So that still leaves out the answer to the question: Is this regulation exclusive to the US?

I haven't found anything that confirms or contradicts it without doubt either way, yet.

This is interesting:

http://www.adsl4u.net/en/

It seems that there is a technological limit to analogue modems using the twisted pair copper phone lines, and this is around 57K

The 53K FCC regulation is actually a power limit, that happens to translate into 53K with certain modem tecnologies. The K56flex modem does not have this restriction and still complies with the regulation, so it can in theory, go a little faster.

There has been talk of lifting (raising) the regulation, presumably because there is only a very small difference between it and the technological barrier. This has been going on since 1998 AFAIK although the regulation goes back to 1976 (yes...........remember it is a power limit :) )

I have not found anything on other countries actually legislating, but I have been looking at modem retrictions not power ones.

The actual limit is imposed by the ISP/Telco not the modem per se. I think that the modem manufacturers have not bothered to try to squeeze the last few K out of the system, because redundancy, poor quality lines and connections and other factors make this unattainable anyway.

An example is my friend who lives about 500 yards away...........he gets around 44kbps on a good day, whilst I get 49.3

I am pretty sure that even where there is no specific legislation, the Telcos will limit the power to protect their equipment.

This thread is starting to resemble the game of 'chinese whispers', if we keep it open long enough it will be really interesting to see where it goes.

Who knows - it may eventually circle back around to the original topic lol


Nihil - your flag is the Union Jack, so is it safe to assume that that restriction is in place in the UK as well???

memyshukis

I am not certain, but I suspect not. There is a reason for this :)

Up until relatively recently, our telephone service (apart from Kingston-upon-Hull) was in "public ownership" that means it was "nationalised" or owned by the people and run by the government.

There was legislation on accountability etc, but no need for any on technical matters. Although the ownwership has since passed into the private sector, the basic management and structure are the same. Also, we have a lot of old kit here, so the company (BT) will have an incentive to protect it. What I am saying is that the restriction is effective, just not legislated............remember we do not even have a written constitution, it has just sort of "evolved".

They were badly hit by the "dot com" collapse and lost a lot of venture capital. This slowed up the spread of broadband, and they started to lose business to cable................who also provide telco services. That is why they were looking at that "redundant cable" solution that I mentioned.

It has now transpired that they have had a successful launch of broadband, and that this is supporting their traditional core telco business. They now promise to get broadband to 98% of the country by the end of this year.

Actually we are not at a tangent to the original thread, just running parallel? after all the OP's subject would require an infrastructure would it not. When you undertake a business transformation project you look at existing processes and procedures, then at where you want to be, and then at how to get there.

We are actually following a structured methodology :)

I actually lived in the UK and went to school there years ago - I did not know alot of what you just said ........ interesting - its so easy to assimilate everyplace with your own place ;)

Quote:

---

Actually we are not at a tangent to the original thread, just running parallel? after all the OP's subject would require an infrastructure would it not. When you undertake a business transformation project you look at existing processes and procedures, then at where you want to be, and then at how to get there.

We are actually following a structured methodology

---

I am convinced that if you got out of the securities and IT field you would make a great attorney (or barrister as you would say :p )