5 ms·

> talk to each other through web-based applications using web for this seems a bit heavyweight

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
I would characterize this as a "when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail" thing. If you ask web companies how to have some devices communicate, it's pretty likely they're going to come up with a web platform.
- platz 9y ago
  There are loads more web enabled devs than protocol hackers. It's a way of doing this on the cheap.
  - eftychis 9y ago
    They are getting into an area of soft real time systems with a "donkey", in my opinion. Either they are not thinking ahead or are being too optimistic or they are going to use a bunch of hardware to make this work. My thoughts. What do you think?
    - londons_explore 9y ago
      The realtime-ness of airtraffic control is really very soft... We're comparing to humans on radios here... HTTP is waaaay faster... Also, web services are well understood in terms of scalability, uptime even in the face of replacing/failing hardware, ability to shift load to other datacenters, etc. By building on HTTP, you get authentication (OAuth) and encryption (HTTPS) for free. Build a JSON webservice and you get a nice extensible protocol too, so can add new features on an almost weekly basis without disrupting existing users. By building on TCP/IP, you can allow any form of transport - satellite, wifi, bluetooth, LTE, etc. without any extra testing or certification. Most existing airtraffic control systems wouldn't be able to handle a nuke... The internet is designed to resiliently route around such things...
- eftychis 9y ago
  Still too much. It's like taking a bus to a race. Are they going to provide their own hardware? If yes go and improve the existing indicator system and then sell it back to FAA/airports. If not, I am going to get popcorn and watch as they kill our cell phone coverage. I am not sure cell towers can take the extra load. I know I am rushing, but wait till instead of Fedex running around you see 1 drone per package, zipping through cells. P.S. I think all these companies only care to get the FAA to sign off and allow package delivery (or spying, I mean "data collection" -- who knows). I feel they will come up with a clunky system that people are going to hate for years. P.S.2: Didn't say anything about security or fairness considerations. I can easily see Amazon blocking a wide path for their drones and be like, we paid for it we get to use it bugger off.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    The extra load doesn't seem that much. It's a few more subscribers, but the data rates should be quite low. And if you have a swarm of drones, you could use a couple as hotspots for the others.
kozikow 9y ago
You need the connection anyway. If you start considering large-scale drone applications it's hard to do anything without the internet connection. If you are operating on a scale that allows for swapping sd cards, you don't really need programmatic air traffic control. What's more, connectivity around drones gets better - e.g. I recall even special "for drones" mobile plan by Verizon: https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/6/13193616/verizon-selling-drones-data-plans https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/6/13193616/verizon-selling-... .

I would characterize this as a "when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail" thing. If you ask web companies how to have some devices communicate, it's pretty likely they're going to come up with a web platform.

platz 9y ago
There are loads more web enabled devs than protocol hackers. It's a way of doing this on the cheap.
- eftychis 9y ago
  They are getting into an area of soft real time systems with a "donkey", in my opinion. Either they are not thinking ahead or are being too optimistic or they are going to use a bunch of hardware to make this work. My thoughts. What do you think?
  - londons_explore 9y ago
    The realtime-ness of airtraffic control is really very soft... We're comparing to humans on radios here... HTTP is waaaay faster... Also, web services are well understood in terms of scalability, uptime even in the face of replacing/failing hardware, ability to shift load to other datacenters, etc. By building on HTTP, you get authentication (OAuth) and encryption (HTTPS) for free. Build a JSON webservice and you get a nice extensible protocol too, so can add new features on an almost weekly basis without disrupting existing users. By building on TCP/IP, you can allow any form of transport - satellite, wifi, bluetooth, LTE, etc. without any extra testing or certification. Most existing airtraffic control systems wouldn't be able to handle a nuke... The internet is designed to resiliently route around such things...
eftychis 9y ago
Still too much. It's like taking a bus to a race. Are they going to provide their own hardware? If yes go and improve the existing indicator system and then sell it back to FAA/airports. If not, I am going to get popcorn and watch as they kill our cell phone coverage. I am not sure cell towers can take the extra load. I know I am rushing, but wait till instead of Fedex running around you see 1 drone per package, zipping through cells. P.S. I think all these companies only care to get the FAA to sign off and allow package delivery (or spying, I mean "data collection" -- who knows). I feel they will come up with a clunky system that people are going to hate for years. P.S.2: Didn't say anything about security or fairness considerations. I can easily see Amazon blocking a wide path for their drones and be like, we paid for it we get to use it bugger off.
- icebraining 9y ago
  The extra load doesn't seem that much. It's a few more subscribers, but the data rates should be quite low. And if you have a swarm of drones, you could use a couple as hotspots for the others.

kozikow 9y ago

You need the connection anyway. If you start considering large-scale drone applications it's hard to do anything without the internet connection. If you are operating on a scale that allows for swapping sd cards, you don't really need programmatic air traffic control. What's more, connectivity around drones gets better - e.g. I recall even special "for drones" mobile plan by Verizon: https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/6/13193616/verizon-selling-drones-data-plans https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/6/13193616/verizon-selling-... .