WIN-T sees the light of day

,

After more than a decade of hit-and-miss and one-step-forward/two-steps-backward development, the CS-13 (Capability Set 13)  is finally being deployed with combat troops.

CS-13 includes:

  • Nett Warrior (squad leader networking)
  • Win-T (Warfighter Information Network-Tactical Increment 2)
  • BFT 2 (Blue Force Tracking 2)
  • Company Command Post
  • Tactical radios such as AN/PRC-117G and Rifleman Radio
  • Combat smart phones

Even allowing for the usual mess of confusing acronyms, these communication programs have been exceptionally difficult to track. In response to rapidly changing technology, end-user feedback, as well as new requirements, they have undergone constant transformation. Nett Warrior alone has gone through more changes than a nervous teenage girl preparing for a date.

Strategy page has a detailed look at this complex and multilayered communications initiative. Their article is reprinted in full below:

After two years of testing the U.S. Army is putting its new communications system; Win-T (Win-T Increment 2) into service with combat troops. This comes after lots of development and testing. Back in 2013 four combat brigades were equipped with CS-13 (Capability Set 13), which includes Win-T, for testing under realistic conditions. That resulted in several changes to the hardware and software and final approval of the system. Now units headed for combat are being equipped. The first two units to receive Win-T are Stryker brigades in Texas and Washington State.

CS-13 consists of several different technologies the army has been developing since the 1990s. Some of these items have already been in combat. CS-13 includes Nett Warrior (an effort to get networking down to the squad leader), Win-T (Warfighter Information Network-Tactical Increment 2, a battlefield Internet), BFT 2 (Blue Force Tracking 2 for tracking troop location in real time), Company Command Post (giving company commanders more data), and tactical radios like AN/PRC-117G, Rifleman Radio, and combat smart phones. CS 13 is the result of over a decade of effort to create better battlefield communications, including a combat version of the Internet. The final selection took between 2011 and 2013 as 115 systems were tested by troops and those found wanting (most of them) dropped.

WIN-T was designed to allow troops to simultaneously exchange text, data, video, and voice data using a new generation of radios. Personal computers and smart phones (including both off-the-shelf and “ruggedized” military models) can hook into WIN-T and use the future improved communications and networking. In effect it is wi-fi for a combat zone that provides Internet-like capabilities to troops who are under fire.

One of the new devices that have been in action the longest have gone through several generations of upgrades. Thus JBC-P (Joint-Battle Command Platform) is the latest version of BFT and has several improvements. The most welcome improvement was much faster (almost instantaneous) updates of information. The satellite signals are now encrypted and work no matter the weather, temperature of distance. While every vehicle is equipped with one of these devices, Individual troops on the ground now have a smartphone type BFT device that allows them to chat and quickly shows on the display the location of nearby JBC-P users and has a zoom capability similar to Google Earth. Troops can quickly update enemy locations, bombs or otherwise dangerous areas. These smartphones are typically worn on the forearm for easy use in combat. The purpose of all these improvements is to enable troops arriving (by land or air) in an area where contact with the enemy is expected to immediately go into action knowing where everyone (on foot or in vehicles) is and where they are moving to.

Company Command Post gives a company commander the ability to quickly send and receive (and sort out) text, voice, and data with his troops (three platoons consisting of nine squads and special teams of snipers and machine-guns). This provides company commanders, using a laptop and other gear that can be carried while on foot, the same kind of command post capabilities previously restricted to battalion, brigade, and larger headquarters.

The key radios in CS 13 are the AN/PRC-117G, the AN/PRC-154, and the combat smart phone. AN/PRC-117G is a 5.45 kg (12 pound) radio that can be carried or installed in vehicles. About a third of its weight is the battery. It has a maximum output of 20 watts and handles FM, UHF, and VHF signals, including satellite based communications. On the ground max range is 20 kilometers (depending on hills and the antenna used). The U.S. has been using the AN/PRC-117 since the late 1990s, as an interim radio, and found it a solid piece of equipment. The AN/PRC-117 is based on a commercial design (the Falcon series) that several foreign armed forces and many civilian operations use. The AN/PRC-117 has been regularly upgraded in that time (going from version A to the current G). AN/PRC-154 (or RR for Rifleman Radio) are lightweight (1 kg/2.2 pound) voice/data radios for individual infantrymen. RR includes GPS and a battery good for over ten hours of use. The RR has been undergoing tests since 2010. For most of 2012, U.S. Army Rangers have been using them in Afghanistan. By itself, the two watt RR has a range of up to two kilometers. But it can also automatically form a mesh network, where all RRs within range of each other can pass on voice or data information. During the field tests this was done to a range of up to 50 kilometers. The RR can also make use of an aerostat, UAV, or aircraft overhead carrying a RR to act as a communications booster (to other RRs or other networks). The mesh network enables troops to sometimes eliminate carrying a longer range (and heavier) AN/PRC-117 for the platoon leader. The combat smart phone is a ruggedized Android smart phone, equipped to handle military communications via the mesh network.

CS-13 provides capabilities that, before September 11, 2001, where not expected until the 2020s. But because of all the American troops seeing combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were opportunities to try out new equipment under combat conditions, and this accelerated the development process.

 

/by

F-35 and Defense’s Biggest Problem

,

Nothing illustrates the problems of Defense procurement better than the troubled program of the F-35.  Every year the 5th generation combat plane seems to grow more expensive, less capable, and more delayed in schedule.

What both American critics and proponents of the F-35 often forget is that it’s a multinational project. The US strategy is to spread the cost of this advanced plane among its allies.

One ally invested in the F-35 is Israel. I was curious what its Defense establishment thought of this plane. While not immune to political shenanigans, Israel’s military likes to thinks of itself as ruthlessly practical. Could they cut through the agenda-driven arguments that dog the F-35 in America?

A Times of Israel article details the debate within Israel about the F-35.  Some of the criticism will sound familiar to American military analysts.

The F-35:

The expense criticism is somewhat ironic, since US aid will pay for most of the F-35s’ cost. Still, some Israelis think the aid money could be better spent.

One difference between American and Israeli commentators is that the latter do not worship at the altar of the new and more readily embrace the virtues of older, more established systems. As quoted in the Times of Israel, Yiftah Shapir, of the Middle East Military Balance Project, said:

“Take the army we had in 1985 – the F-15 and F-16 A and B; the Merkava Mark I and II, and all the rest – and ask yourself whether the IDF,” using those weapons, “could defend Israel today against its enemies,”

His answer is an unhesitating yes. Not every technological leap is one Israel is forced to take, he said.

While some in America have also argued that upgrading older fighters would be a better use of resources, it is hard to imagine any of our military analysts blithely dismissing the “latest and greatest.” For example, one of the F-35 strongest critics is Moshe Arens, former Defense minister and a trained aeronautical engineer. He boasted that Vietnam War-era armored personnel carriers were effective in the latest Gaza incursions. When was the last time you heard an American military leader argue that we do not need to invest in new technology?

The Israeli Air Force (IAF) point man for the F-35 is “Lt. Col. B” (Israeli military and intelligence leaders are often granted anonymity in the media). He counters Arens’ arguments with dire predictions of declining Israeli air superiority. Furthermore the comparisons of the early models of the F-35s with the latest versions of the F-16s and F-15s are inappropriate. Rather, “…the first model of the F-35 should be compared to the F-16’s first model and not the plane that has been steadily improved for the past 35 years.”

“Lt. Col. B” continued:

“The question,” he said, “is where to place the seam between the present and the future” – in other words, when does it no longer pay to continue to upgrade the existing platform…”

“Lt. Col. B” bolstered his arguments with a detailed historical perspective. Virtually, all new jet fighter purchases were opposed by the IAF at the time.

Some advocate abandoning the F-35 and waiting for unmanned fighters to become practical. While it is possible that the F-35 will be the last manned combat aircraft, waiting for unmanned fighters is not a practical strategy. Granted, the US Navy has done amazing things with Unmanned Combat Aircraft Vehicles (UCAV), such as carrier landings and aerial refueling. However, basic problems remain. UCAVs crash more often than their manned counterparts, and remote operators hate the poor visibility. In one famous incident an operator flew a UCAV upside down without realizing it.

Since Russia’s announcement of the sale of S-300 Integrated Aircraft Defense Systems to Iran, F-35 advocates have become embolden. According to “Lt. Col. B,” the problem with operating in the depths of enemy territory is not lack of fuel, but inadequate intelligence. The pilot of an F-35 has vastly superior situational awareness than his counterpart in the F-16. This difference is literally a matter of life and death.

Those of you who have been following the sale of the S-300 to Iran may be a little confused by the last paragraph. Depending on who you listen to, the S-300 sale is game changing or a nuisance that can be overcome. Indeed, even without the F-35, Israel has already conducted training exercises against the S-300. Does the S-300 sale strengthen the case for F-35 acquisition or not? This last question depresses me, because I cannot get a good objective answer.

Defense procurement in Israel suffers the same limitations as its American counterpart. For example, Moshe Arens, who was mentioned earlier, is an informed expert on Israeli defense issues. However, he has been waging a decades’ long campaign to restore Israel’s ability to build its own homegrown jets. No matter how legitimate are his criticisms about the F-35, it is entirely possible that no non-Israeli jet would ever satisfy him.

This is the central problem in both American and Israeli Defense procurement. Competent people of good will are involved, but everybody is driven by their own personal agendas. It is impossible to get an unbiased neutral judgment.

The American solution is to ignore the difference of opinion, and try to satisfy everyone. Politicians can’t decide what areas of the world constitute core American interests? Fine, we need the capability to project power everywhere simultaneously. The Pentagon can’t figure out what kind of war we will fight? We will simply prepare for every kind of war. No one really knows what a 5th generational fighter should be? Great, we’ll simply build a plane that is all things to all people.

Obviously, such a policy is not sustainable, not mention ruinously expensive. I do not know what the solution is. I dread that 20 years from now, as commentators examine the latest over-budget weapon system, the F-35 program will look like a model of efficiency and economy.

/1 Comment/by

AMREL at MCB Camp Pendleton

, , , , , , ,

AMREL will be displaying its latest and greatest at MCB Camp Pendleton on Tactical & Tech Day, Wednesday,  April 22, 2015. We will be showcasing our line of super-slim, ultra-rugged laptops, handhelds, and tablets.

Special sneak peak! Come and get a look at some of our special products before they’re released to the market, including:

  • AT80 Rugged Android Tablet
  • DS11, a tablet so thin you won’t believe it’s fully rugged
  • Many others

Also, on hand will be the RS11 and the RV11, the world’s thinnest, rugged laptops with 13.3″ and 15.6″ displays, respectively. And you won’t want to miss our Android APEX AH53 handheld, so tough it has an IP67 rating.

Learn more about our rugged mobile computing solutions at: computers.amrel.com

/by

Disasters are good for unmanned systems [VIDEOS]

, , ,

Suppliers of military unmanned systems are constantly on look out for possible civilian applications. One promising civilian application is their use in disaster response. Unmanned Ground Vehicles crawl through the rubble of destroyed buildings looking for survivors. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Unmanned Underwater Vehicles inspect buildings, bridges, wharfs, and other structures for damage and structural integrity. Unmanned systems used in response to disasters are referred to as “Search-And Rescue” (SAR) or “Urban Search and Rescue” (USAR).

Essentially, USAR robots act as the eyes and ears in environments that that are too difficult or too dangerous for humans to go. Preserving the safety of human rescuers is not a trivial concern. According to Center for Robot-Assisted Search and Rescue (CRASAR), 135 rescuers died in rescue operations in response to a Mexico City earthquake.

Unmanned systems operating in irradiated areas of a nuclear accident is the classic example of a dangerous and hard-to-reach environment. Recently, the Japanese utility TEPCO sent a 2-foot long, snake-shaped robot into severely radioactive areas of the Fukushima reactor to collect temperature and radiation data. The video images created by this robot are the first we have seen of the damaged containment chamber. The information collected by this and other unmanned systems are expected to be critical in removing radioactive debris. For more information on the role of unmanned systems in the Fukushima disaster, see this blog’s post, Where are the Japanese robots?

[layerslider id=”31″]

The first known use of USAR robots was in response to the 9/11 bombing of the World Trade Center. Personnel from Foster-Miller, iRobot, University of South Florida, NAVSEA SPAWAR, DARPA, CRASAR operated or contributed upwards to 17 unmanned systems. This disaster highlighted the potential of USAR unmanned systems as well as the need for further development. Read more about the use of robots at the World Trade Center here.

Since then, USAR robots have been used over dozens of times, as indicated by the following table.

CRASAR Table

Source CRASAR

All USAR unmanned systems (ground, aerial, and marine) are remotely operated. Autonomous systems are not used due to real-time needs. Operators had expected that mobility and hardware capabilities would present the biggest challenges. Instead, Human-Robot Interactions and sensor limitations have been the leading problems.

This short video gives an excellent introduction to USAR robots as well as the CRASAR’s role in deploying them.

The voice you hear in the above video is Professor Dr. Robin Murphy, Director of CRASAR. She has been indefatigable in promoting USAR. Below is an interview with her discussing USAR unmanned systems and their role following 9/11.

Probably, the biggest single limitation to widespread deployment of USAR robots is money. Institutions are willing to invest in machines that replace expensive workers. They are more reluctant to expend resources on costly hardened systems that may be used rarely or never at all. In the above referenced blog post on the Fukushima disaster, I concluded that financial concerns were the major factors in the lack of an unmanned system response.

USAR robots save lives and hold the promise to limit the monetary consequences of disasters. Governments and other institutions should be heavily investing in them. It remains to be seen if the deadly combination of short-sighted economic concerns and wishful thinking can be overcome, so the full potential of USAR robots can be realized.

[layerslider id=”31″]

/by

Ground Combat Vehicle [VIDEO]

, , , ,

The United States relies on its technological edge for military superiority. The problem with that strategy is that eventually everyone gets their hands on the latest technological advance.

The Shi’ite militias in Iraq do not have their hands on the latest, but they did get a hold of a UGV.  Obviously not fans of science fiction (otherwise they would know that armed robots always turn on their human masters), they went ahead and put a gun on this lumbering, exposed platform. War on the Rocks is less than impressed with this device, citing deficiencies in optics, wheels, and armor (the latter being nonexistent).

The Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) doesn’t look particularly fearsome. It’s slow, clumsy, vulnerable, and looks like it’s dependent on line-of-sight for control. The Operator Control Unit (OCU) is a fragile looking commercial tablet, not the usual AMREL-made rugged OCU, which was a common sight in the Iraqi theater.

[layerslider id=”31″]

The militia does have the good sense to use a UGV for its intended purpose, i.e. IED detection. You can check the whole thing out in the video below. I recommend fast forwarding to the 2 minute mark, and turning the sound off, unless you understand Arabic (Farsi?) and are a fan of cheesy jihadist music

/by

Unmanned Ant Vehicles [VIDEO]

, ,

Unmanned system designers are exploring bio-mimicry and hive intelligence. The video of “BionicANTs” below illustrates both trends.

Each individual mechanized ant uses control algorithms to cooperatively solve complex problems. Although they collectively perform a task, each individual ant engages in actions at a local level that are determined by autonomous decision making. Thus, they mimic real ants.

The ants have piezo-ceramic bending transducers in their legs’ actuators, which enables precise control and minimize the energy needed. Stereo cameras and floor sensors allow them to navigate their surroundings as well as identify objects that are to be manipulated. They communicate with a radio module that is located in their abdomen (the next time you are tempted to grouse about fitting a radio component into a small space, remember the challenges facing the designers of these ants).

[layerslider id=”31″]

To build the bodies, the manufacturers used 3D printed plastic powder, which was melted layer by layer with a laser. 3D printing was also used to create the electric circuits.

The ants are also cute, in their own way. I especially like how they use their antennas to charge their batteries.

/by

Lincoln, War, and Good Friday

,

On April 15, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated.

The news hit the country liked a punch in the stomach. The pro-Union forces were still celebrating the end of the war. For weeks, Northerners gathered in the streets to drink, parade, and sing songs glorifying their victory.

What a victory it was! Not only had the Union had been preserved, but an entire race had been liberated. Americans could now proclaim themselves the “land of the free” without hypocrisy.

Furthermore, democracy itself had been vindicated. The principle of self-rule was still controversial and regarded as impractical by many. The persistence of the American republic was a stunning rebuke to those who mocked the government of the people. A Union defeat would have set back the cause of liberty for the entire world.

Union victory was also, it can be argued, the beginning of the American era. The Union army had been the largest in the world. The Confederate army had been the second largest.

[layerslider id=”31″]

The American armies were the most technologically advanced of their time. Telegraphs, iron-clad, railroads, and even hot-air balloons were used extensively in the Civil War.

The old, aristocratic, empires might sneer at the provincial Americans, but they could no longer dismiss them as insignificant.  We were clearly a force to be reckoned with, and we knew it.

All these feelings – moral righteousness, martial pride, soaring patriotism, and triumphalism – were quashed with an assassin’s bullet. Everyone was shocked that the horrors of war were not over.

Lincoln was killed on Good Friday. Christians went to Easter services the following Sunday and meditated on themes of martyrdom and sacrifice. Jews observed Passover that Friday night and hailed Lincoln as the new Moses who had freed an entire people.

This month marks the 150th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln assassination. As we observe the spring religious holidays, it would be wise to remember what our ancestors and so many of our veterans have painfully learned.  We do not decide what war’s ultimate price will be or when we will stop paying it. The sacrifices of war do not end with the last battle.

 Remember our veterans

Contribute to Wounded Warriors

wounded warrior

/by

The Lies of Net Neutrality: An Opinion Piece

, , ,

Even by contemporary political standards, the debate about Net Neutrality has been clouded by an extraordinary amount of dishonesty. While legitimate arguments can be made in both sides, some common assertions are simply untrue. Furthermore, the people who are saying these deceitful things are often high-level bureaucrats or CEOs of internet companies who presumably should know better.

What is Net Neutrality?

The “default setting” of the internet is “neutral.” In theory, an end-user’s ability to download a PDF of his child’s school cafeteria menu is similar to that of downloading an ebook from Amazon. The end-user’s access is the same, in theory, no matter what the size of the website.

Internet Service Providers (ISP) sell internet access (bandwidth) to end-users, as well as to website owners. ISPs don’t like Net Neutrality and want to charge large content producers (such as Netflix) premium rates for higher-speed access to the their customers. This would create a “Fast Lane” model, in which the end user would experience slower downloads from smaller, less prosperous websites.

[layerslider id=”31″]

It is no surprise that ISPs hate Net Neutrality, while content producers are in favor of it.

net neutrality table

As you might imagine, when billionaires fight, lawyers get rich. After attempts to enforce Net Neutrality were overturned by court cases, the FCC adopted several historic regulations governing ISP behavior, including:

  • No blocking of legal content
  • No throttling of Internet traffic on the basis of content
  • No paid prioritization of content

The FCC clarified that these rules prevent ISPs from “unreasonably interfering with or unreasonably disadvantaging” the ability of end-users and content providers to connect with each other. Furthermore the rationalization of “reasonable network management” must “primarily be used for and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management–and not commercial–purpose.” In other words, ISPs can’t use corporate doublespeak to justify arbitrary bills on end-users, or throttling access to websites.

Although previous court rulings had overturned Net Neutrality policies, these new FCC regulations essentially maintain the status quo. Historically, the internet has grown and thrived in “neutral” conditions.

In the wake of the FCC rulings, the media has been deluged with a torrent of fraudulent information. Take the quiz below and see if you can spot which quotes or talking points are false.

1. “We are for net neutrality, but some services should be prioritized over others.” Deutsche Telekom CEO Timotheus Hoettges, New York Times

I thought I start off with an easy one. Hint: the above statement is like saying “I am for equal pay for equal work, but no woman should be paid as much as a man.”

2. “The Internet is not broken. There is no problem for the government to solve….The evidence of these continuing threats? There is none; it’s all anecdote, hypothesis, and hysteria.”– Commissioner Ajit Pai, FCC Commissioner, fcc.gov

“Net Neutrality is unnecessary. It’s designed to solve problems that haven’t happened.” Talking Point.

 Let’s look at some “nonexistent” problems that have been reported by CNN:

  • Verizon blocked Google Wallet and PayPal phone applications. Presumably, it won’t block its own tap-to-pay product, Softcard.
  •  AT&T, Sprint,T-Mobile, and Verizon blocked or charged extra for tethering apps that make your mobile device a hotspot. Using Net neutrality reasoning, the FCC blocked these blocks.
  •  AT&T blocked FaceTime on Apple devices and Google Hangouts on Android devices.
  • Comcast throttled BitTorrent, legal as well as illegal content.

As FCC Commissioner Clyburn said, “This is more than a theoretical exercise. Providers here in the United States have, in fact, blocked applications on mobile devices, which not only hampers free expression, it also restricts…innovation by allowing companies, not the consumer to pick winners and losers.”

Bizarrely, anti-Net Neutrality FCC Commissioner Pai cites some of the above examples as “proof” that problems didn’t happened. He dismisses them as examples that are “picayune and stale.” I suspect that if he personally had been charged $20 a month for tethering a device, he would discover that one man’s “picayune” is another man’s “crime against humanity.”

 3. “The Obama Administration needs to get beyond its 1930s rotary-telephone mindset and embrace the future,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, NPR.

“The FCC’s pro-Net Neutrality decision is based on 1934 law that was designed for outmoded technology.” Talking point pushed by ISPs.

In the first place, laws written for one technology are constantly being applied to newer ones. For example, the President couldn’t kick Rush Limbaugh off the air on the basis that “Freedom of the press” doesn’t apply to radio and television. Personally, I would love for Mitch McConnell to declare before the National Rifle Association that the Second Amendment was written for muskets and front-loading rifles, so it couldn’t possibly apply to modern weapons. Heck, I would pay money to see that speech.

[layerslider id=”31″]

However, the main problem with this talking point is that it is has a false premise.  The FCC Net Neutrally rulings weren’t just based on the 1934 law, but also the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and a 2010 court ruling, both of which specifically permit the recent FCC actions.

So, the people pushing this particular talking point are either lying or just plain stupid.  Hint: they’re not stupid.

 4) “Net neutrality has not been necessary to date. I don’t see any reason why it’s suddenly become important, when the Internet has functioned quite well for the past 15 years without it…Government attempts to regulate technology have been extraordinarily counterproductive in the past.” Peter Thiel, PayPal founder and Facebook  Wikipedia

“The Internet is not broken, and it got here without government regulation and probably in part because of lack of government regulation.” Max Levchin, PayPal co-founder. Wikipedia

“The Internet has thrived in the absence of net neutrality rules, thank you very much.”  Robert M. McDowell, a former FCC commissioner turned telecom lawyer in Washington, D.C. Wikipedia

The government created the Internet (Thank you DARPA). The Internet has always been regulated. If not for the early government oversight, we would have a byzantine patchwork of private internets that would be unable to communicate with each other. Furthermore, the FCC Net Neutrality rulings are not an attempt to impose new conditions, but are measures design to preserve the environment under which the Internet has prospered.

I’m not sure if the above quotes count as actual lies. People have very emotional beliefs about government regulations that cause them to say all sorts of strange things. Sort of like those folks who are fearful that the “Government is trying to take over Social Security!”

 5.“Net neutrality does not eliminate the Fast Lane. Lack of competition among the ISPs is the real problem.” Talking point.

Although this statement has been made to criticize the recent FCC rulings, it is actually true.

Fast Lanes currently exist. High end content and hosting providers add “nodes” to the “Backbone” of the Internet, i.e. they build hardware solutions to deliver their large volume of content. These types of Fast Lanes benefit everybody, because they increase the overall carrying capacity of the Internet. Net Neutrality bans the type of Fast Lane solutions in which the flow of content is artificially restricted.

Lack of competitions among ISPs is a real problem. For a more complete explanation of Fast Lanes and ISPs, see the excellent article by Robert McMillan in Wired.

6. “Net Neutrality advocates do not understand the Internet.” Talking point.

Among the people who testified in front of the FCC in favor of the Net Neutrality was Sir Tim Berners-Lee. Are we to assume that the man who designed the World Wide Web doesn’t understand the Internet? Another high profile supporter of Net Neutrality is Google.  They also do not understand the Internet?

What is especially annoying about this talking point (aside from the fact that it usually delivered in an arrogant, condescending manner) is that the more you know about the Internet, the more likely you are to be in favor of Net Neutrality.

The web designers, software engineers, IT guys, and all rest of the intellectual workers who support the Internet are a politically diverse bunch. However, they are united in their support of Net Neutrality.  It’s easy to see why.  Many have dreams of sitting in their garage or a dorm room, and building the next Facebook or Google. Without Net Neutrality, those dreams are ash.

7. “The recent FCC rulings open the door to taxing the Internet.” Talking Point.

This talking point is true. The FCC swears it won’t use this ruling to implement taxes, but more than a few people are suspicious of this promise.

This is a legitimate criticism of the ruling (unless you are in favor of taxing the Internet, but that’s another issue). Unlike most of the criticisms presented in this article, it actually informs the listener, rather than confuse them.

This is why I have deliberately chosen to use the inflammatory description of the other anti-Net Neutrality arguments as “lies.” These talking points are designed to deceive.

As has been pointed out by observers, ISPs often use very different arguments when addressing stockholders than the FCC. While they loudly complain of the economic hardship posed by these regulations, their stockholder letters are full of cheery optimism.

Even though I am in favor of Net Neutrality, I do think there are legitimate arguments to be made against it. Unfortunately, its opponents have chosen the route of propaganda, rather than education.

 8) Finally one last example:

“US Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) this week filed legislation she calls the ‘Internet Freedom Act’ to overturn the Federal Communications Commission’s new network neutrality rules.” Arstechnica.

Is the “Internet Freedom Act” an accurate name? What do you think?

 This post is the opinion solely of the author and does not reflect the positions of AMREL or its other employees. Comments can be mailed to editor@amrel.com (comments may be used in future postings).

[layerslider id=”31″]

/by

Future Soldier Technology [VIDEO]

,

Recently, we took a gander at “Recon,” a TV show on ArmedForcesUpdate. Their episode on “Future Soldier” is a step above most Defense videos. In a relatively brief time, they cover exoskeletons, invisibility cloaks, small arms, sensor systems, brain-machine interaction, power sources, helmet technology, and body armor. The role of end-user feedback as well as cost, requirements, and basic challenges are also mentioned. Intelligent research scientists are prominently featured talking intelligently. Best of all, the hard-driving rock music, which is the bane of so many Defense videos, is only minimally present.

[layerslider id=”31″]

/by

Rugged Android Tablet Previewed at PLRB 2015 Claims & Insurance Conference

, , ,

AMREL will preview its new, rugged Android Tablet at PLRB 2015 Claims & Insurance Conference.

“AMREL is developing mobile computer solutions specifically for the insurance industry,” explained Linda Talcott, Director of Product Marketing. “We thought the conference would be a good place to showcase our new Android tablet, and get feedback about the industry’s requirements.”

AMREL poured 30 years of rugged experience into the new tablet. Its revolutionary design utilizes a unique, patented channeling system that adds an extra level of durability to the tablet.

“This is not the traditional clunky rugged device,” declared Ms. Talcott. “We applied lessons learned from aviation manufacturing. Like rugged computers, airplanes have to work in hostile environments and withstand shock, vibration, as well as extreme temperatures. However, airplanes are also sensitive to issues of weight. Using aviation manufacturing methods, we created a lightweight, mobile device that can withstand pounding.”

Ms. Talcott is quick to point out that rugged computers are not just for outdoor use, such disaster areas.

[layerslider id=”31″]

“People who purchase cheap, standard, commercial computers for the office are actually costing their enterprises money,” she said. “A rugged computer is more reliable, so it saves money on repairs, replacement, lost data, and worker downtime. A well-known study proved that the Total Cost of Ownership for rugged computers is less than for commercial ones. Rugged reduces risk.”

Like most AMREL products, the new tablet is designed for fast and easy customization. AMREL is well known for quickly delivering customized devices at low NRE, even for low volume orders.

In addition to the new Android tablet, AMREL offers a wide choice of handhelds and laptops. In addition to Android, AMREL’s offerings run on full Windows and Windows CE operating systems.

Ms. Talcott will be in AMREL’s booth # 376.

To learn more about AMREL complete line of rugged mobile computing solutions, visit: http://computers.amrel.com

/by