Yeah, mad scientists have been
trying to get the public at large to pay attention to
visible light communications for years now, but the gurus over at the University of California, Riverside think that the project they're involved in holds a special kind of promise. The Center for Ubiquitous Communication by Light (UC-Light) will be funded with $3.5 million from the Multicampus Research Program and Initiatives (MRPI) competition within the University of California system, and at its core, it's hoping to unearth a magical method for linking up all sorts of electronics (HDTVs, PDAs, information kiosks, PCs, etc.) via light. You know, so your refrigerator can tell your smartphone what groceries are needed during the next supermarket stop, and that massive billboard on I-95 can beam more information that you don't want right onto your handset. If all goes to plan (and California's budget problem solves itself), the work will begin in early 2010 and last five years, after which we fully anticipate "very low-cost communication and navigation systems [to be built] on existing lighting infrastructure." And fowl in every pot. And unicorns in every garage.
[Thanks, Michael]
posted July 20th 2009 7:14AM
Obviously this relies on pulsing the light in some way. Can I opt out of any location using this tech in the future?
I fail to see why this is necessary...
Radio Waves? WiFi?
While the new article being linked may be recent, the image and this idea are about as old as WiFi's popularity. I remember seeing this exact image on an article very similar to this when I was in college some 8 years ago.
I'm dismissing it for the same reason I did then.. "So I have to make sure my phone has a clear line of sight of the transceiver at all times, way better than radio, huh?"
They already had this in millions of devices. Infrared, not visible spectrum, but same idea - pulsing light. WiFi killed it a long time ago. They don't even put IrDA transceivers in expensive notebooks anymore.
On the other hand, every device with a camera could potentially receive a stream of data through it. Pulsing light, OCR on a slideshow of images, 2D barcodes. Lots of ways to move data through anything that can process signals. Probably not the best way to get data rates higher than 54Mbps though.
Line of sight transmission != cool... I bought a pair of wireless headphones working on line of sight (IR) because they were cheap.. and the noise I got just moving from my chair to my bed made me want to chuck them out of the window.
Not to mention that this utopian mega network won't work in the dark. Who the hell want's to turn all the lights on at 3am to download some pr0n to their pda? Not I, sir. Not I.
I hope it can communicate and link up with the sun and tell it to turn down the brightness.
Is that guy thrusting in the direction of the problem??? WTEFF?
Is this project going to keep its funding? California's budget crisis is causing all sorts of problems for the UC system.
"very low-cost communication and navigation systems [to be built] on existing lighting infrastructure"
Not quite. Since it certainly won't happen with existing bulbs, it'll be existing light "fixtures".
So really, rather than dumping a mountain of UC money into a worthless idea, why not just build small wifi routers with light socket bases? I bet you could do it.
Or is the plan to also do away with light "switches", since if you're using "existing infrastructure" you'll turn off your network every time you flip a switch.
This seems like it would be awesome if we had a) no understanding of RF, and b) no MASSIVE investment in existing wireless technologies (which will perform better). You know, ones that work when your phone is in your pocket or some such crazy plan.
IRDA is dead. Long live Bluetooth.
Here's a NY Times article about Photolink from 1989. Let you get your AppleTalk network going over IR back in 1989...
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/20/business/the-executive-computer-networking-without-the-wires.html?pagewanted=all
"Imagine, then, the wonder of seeing an office full of computers sharing data and resources without any obtrusive wiring."
I'm not sure why the author (and many readers) is so skeptical of the article's concept. I'm actually one of those "mad scientists" working on a similar visual light communications project. What the article fails to mention is that VLC luminaries use LEDs, which are much more efficient than fluorescent or incandescent lighting. In just the next few years, green-thinking homes and businesses alike will switch to LED-based lighting. We "mad scientists" figure that since the system isn't set in stone, why not add the ability to send data?
Also, there is quickly growing interest in incorporating VLC into cars. E.g. if one car starts to skid, it can send a warning to the cars behind it to slow down and avoid collision.
@Kurian The line-of-sight issue works to certain clients' advantage because it makes wireless communication safer privacy-wise. A window-less room is basically secure from outsiders, unlike your neighbors' unprotected WiFi network if you have a Pringles can. VLC won't replace WiFi, but it will be the more viable option in certain situations.