Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: fred g who wrote (35690)	9/15/2010 1:40:25 AM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Respond to of 46821

The solution is clearly to have people attending the place with the microphone agree to not use any electronic device operating on the microphone's frequency. There could be detectors set up at the side of the stage and if they detect a signal from somewhere other than the microphone, they use a direction finder to pinpoint the source which is then fired at with an automated high-powered paint-ball gun. The security guards then go and remove the things that are painted red. In more serious situations where immediate radio silence is required, depleted uranium ammunition could be used. After a few people have tested the system and found that being on the receiving end is undesirable, there would be common knowledge that firing up such wireless devices would not be a good idea. To prevent outside radio getting in, the building could be made impenetrable to the frequency used for the microphone. If people in airliners do things like smoke a cigarette in the dunny or use their cellphones without permission, the air force sends up fighter aircraft and the airliner is escorted to the nearest airport and the passenger taken into Guantanamo Bay to be tried later in the century as a terrorist. Not many people smoke in dunnies these days. We all know airline crew are mad, deranged and have no sense of humour, so not many people take the risk of doing anything at all. Just the other day, an ex prime minister of Cook Islands was taken into custody for making a comment that some security people thought he was a terrorist. stuff.co.nz The pilot couldn't fly the aircraft after that, coming over all faint with fear or something. There are so few microphones and their use so concentrated that it should be simple to give them some frequency security while they are running. Mqurice

To: fred g who wrote (35690)	9/15/2010 2:18:21 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

Fred, Contrary to your characterization of WLD's questions, I don't think that they are dumb at all. And while I have no skin in whatever decision is reached with respect to stage mics, I think the question asked deserves more respect and consideration than you've allowed. That said, I hardly think that the types of delays that you alluded to, which are commonplace in traditional VoIP applications over wide area networks today, would apply in a wireless mic situation. I make this point NOT because of the propagation times imposed by the WAN, but because many of the signal processing stages that are usually required for VoIP (when used over the Internet or WAN) would be obviated in local settings where hop counts were minimal to non-existent, and distances never exceeded a few tens of meters. For example, if mics were to be properly designed and adapted with IP, there would be no pipe-lining to speak of, nor would there be very much variability in propagation times across randomly picked routes, such as occurs today over the Internet. There would be, in other words, no appreciable path delay or jitter, hence there would be little or no need for queuing or buffering on the send side, nor would there be a delay penalty incurred due to packet re-ordering and de-jitter buffers on the receive side. In total, a couple hundred milliseconds could be shaved directly off the top of typical VoIP delays, which ordinarily would reach into the hundreds of milliseconds. We would instead expect to see something on the order of 20 to 50 milliseconds, depending on the type algorithm employed by the coder-decoder (codec) that is used. Your point concerning the need to maintain performance that is consistent with the needs of real-time communications has merit, IMO, witness the thought you've inspired about it already. And in the end, that's all this is. A thought experiment. Isn't it? However, your reply evaded the fundamental question that was asked related to the class of device that is represented by a wireless mic, or a walkie talkie, for that matter, in respect to their relevance in matters related to network neutrality, despite such issues as delay and the like. Network Neutrality may or may not make any sense, but it is nevertheless something that is with us today, and it looks like it's going to be around for a while longer, at least. So I suspect it is something we'll have to deal with it for as long as it remains an issue. I also suspect that, with the proliferation of wireless-enabled consumer products, the question that was asked about wireless mics may become commonplace over time for other devices as well. FAC ------