> >From: "Emlyn O'Regan" <emlyn@one.net.au>
> >Subject: Re: Teleoperation
> >Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 18:44:47 +1000
> >
> >All this talk of "humbots"; horrible.
> Yeah, I thought it was an ugly term, myself, just couldn't come up with
> anything off the cuff that was less ambiguous. BTW, I didn't find
anything
> to disagree with in what you say, so I almost didn't respond. But, then, I
> thought, should I only reinforce disagreements?
>
Good effort! That's probably a first for this list. Thanks!
I think a lot of people post good things here, and are discouraged by being
ignored. I've come to the conclusion that it usually means people agree with
you. I think I'll try to actually tell people ths more often.
> >I'd lean toward the name "teleoperative> Not a bad idea, altho I'm not
> >sure that it isn't already in use for other things.
>
I wonder if those things that teleoperative is being used for, might in fact
fit the definitions I've already given? If not, I'm sure I can broaden them
to the point where they cover whatever is most likely to make me look like I
invented the idea.
> >To even achieve decent mid-range control factors, we are going to need
good
> >wireless comms; bandwidth! In Australia, I know I can only get 9600bps
over
> >a mobile-phone link; I'm not sure what other technologies are available
> >here. 9600bps is not enough. I think some newer, better data options are
> >coming online soon; I'm going to keep an eye on that. What's the
situation
> >in the US? What sort of data rates are available? What's on the way? I
> >think
> >we really need realtime video to make this plausible; probably a way off.
> >Although there are possibilities even without it; you've got relatively
> >decent, affordable audio if you can get to 56K, so the teleoperative has
to
> >be your eyes. Still, there's a dedicated person on-site, working on your
> >behalf; better than a conference call.
> >
> >I'm interested in the state of wireless comms in the US, mainly. What's
an
> >affordable data rate (say using cellular networks), and what are the
> >charges
> >like? How about if money was no object; what kind of bandwidth could we
put
> >between a teleoperator on one side of the world, and a teleoperative on
the
> >other?
> In the mid-80's, Vivid had Mandala running between the continents, with
> French executives batting a virtual birds who flew over into the New York
> execs screen - but they were using dedicated cable. However, the X-10
> people have a little RF battery-operated Video plus Audio camera available
> for $69, with a limited range, to-be-sure (about 100'). A couple such
> cameras - and there are many manufacturers of such with better range,
> resolution, etc. - would give you the main data feed from the
> "teleoperative."
>
> The signals could then feed into a pair of computers - X10 already
supplies
> the interface/software - and be sent out hi-end DSL. Using off-the-shelf
> hi-bandwidth local RF going to a landline/satellite instead of current
> cellphone tech, the bandwidth is virtually unlimited for our purposes.
> Trying to do it using just WAP would be fairly unsatisfactory at present,
I
> suspect.
>
This is a good alternative. It would require some serious infrastructure
costs, and is likely limited in the areas is can cover. Those costs might be
too high, unless you can tap into an existing RF network. The electricity
utility that I used to work for had its own networks for data and radio;
infrastructure companies like that would be a good choice. In my experience,
their internal comms network infrastructure is often overblown, and has
spare capacity.
For cellular, I don't think I'd be looking at WAP. More likely, you'd want
teleoperatives to have a full wearcomp rig, and to be using real equipment,
not WAP toys.
I got the impression somewhere (can't remember where, d'oh) that some of the
cities in the US have untimed wireless data call service providers; you pay
to connect, but don't pay per unit of time. Either that, or else there is
seriously cheap wireless. Here, if I stayed online for an hour using my
mobile+laptop, I'd end up paying at least A$30. If I were to use higher
bandwidth commercial solutions, I'd expect to pay a LOT more than that; it
starts to be an incredible limiting factor on teleoperation.
Still, if I were the kind of person who tended to fly on the concorde a lot,
just now I might consider a teleoperative to be a really good alternative,
even at a price like, say, US$40/hr for the operative, US$40/hr for the
comms, US$40/hr for good luck, so maybe US$120/hr. You could probably
provide a half-way decent service at that kind of rate.
Emlyn
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:12 MDT