 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / February 2004new communication device for scuba divers
Hi folks, My name is mike wood, a second year product design student at the University of Dundee, Scotland. At the moment i am designing a short range, wireless, communication device for scuba divers that would replace the traditional hand signals. This device is targeted at amatuer enthusiasts and proffesionals alike. The technology platform for the device will be bluetooth. This will enable divers to send pre- written "texts" to each other with auxiliary light pads indicating when messages have been sent and recieved. An upgraded model also includes a bluetooth radar screen which uses a triangulation program to locate the position and depth of a dive buddy or object. In order for the design to effectively meet the needs of the target market some questions have to be asked of the design. I was hoping somebody could help me.... - what pressures would the device have to withstand for normal diving activity? - Where would you place the device (which is slightly bigger than a siemens t610) on the body so it would not interfere with your equipment and only provide minimal movement restrictions? (i preconcieved it would be the fore arm...is that a bad place to put it?) - Have you ever been in a situation where this device would have been very helpful? (ie trying to get your buddies attention unsuccessfuly in a dangerous situation) - what sort of features would you like to see on such a device? Thank you for any help that you can give me. It would be very much appriciated. Shotokan schrieb: > At the moment i am designing a short range, wireless, communication > device for scuba divers that would replace the traditional hand > signals. Why not start with a short range, wireless food transport device that would replace traditional eating habits ? > - what pressures would the device have to withstand for normal diving > activity? O.5 to 15 bar. > - Where would you place the device (which is slightly bigger than a > siemens t610) on the body so it would not interfere with your > equipment and only provide minimal movement restrictions? (i > preconcieved it would be the fore arm...is that a bad place to put > it?) The late Dr. Black would have provided a popular(?) answer. > - Have you ever been in a situation where this device would have been > very helpful? (ie trying to get your buddies attention unsuccessfuly > in a dangerous situation) Cave diving. You'd need a vibration code for siltouts as well. > - what sort of features would you like to see on such a device? Being edible. And a surface transgress mode for messages like "DM, tea to be served in 15 minutes" ( give them some headroom) Matthias > - what pressures would the device have to withstand for normal diving > activity? 15 bar > - Where would you place the device (which is slightly bigger than a > siemens t610) on the body so it would not interfere with your > equipment and only provide minimal movement restrictions? (i > preconcieved it would be the fore arm...is that a bad place to put > it?) fore arm isn't bad > - Have you ever been in a situation where this device would have been > very helpful? (ie trying to get your buddies attention unsuccessfuly > in a dangerous situation) no > - what sort of features would you like to see on such a device? surface communication self-destruct mode ;-) I don't think the average diver will be the market to focus on. Perhaps dive centers can use them when conducting OW tests/training?  SignatureMichael Wolf ----- Cthulhu For President. Why settle for the lesser evil? remove stopspam to reply >Hi folks, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >market some questions have to be asked of the design. I was hoping >somebody could help me.... <snip some stuff> define "short range" hint: research your freq and it's ability to xmit through water take a look at how desert star does it there are others but they do it semi-cost effectively - Ed got talc ? Drysuit talc & bags http://www.underwaterusa.com #Hi folks, # #My name is mike wood, a second year product design student at the #University of Dundee, Scotland. # #At the moment i am designing a short range, wireless, communication #device for scuba divers that would replace the traditional hand #signals. This device is targeted at amatuer enthusiasts and #proffesionals alike. The technology platform for the device will be #bluetooth. Before you invest too much effort into this platform, find out what the real world range is for Class 1 (+20dBM) in salt water. I suspect you're going to find it's limited to a couple of meters, which would be next to useless. Alan I think that if you do any testing, especially in salt water, you'll find that Bluetooth is not going to work. The real trick is to come up with a way for the transmitters to transmit effectively through water. Screw the communications idea. If you come up with something good, there are a lot of companies that will be very interested in just your transmitting mechanism. Jon > Hi folks, > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Thank you for any help that you can give me. It would be very much > appriciated. You're going to have a problem with the radio frequency... Subs use VLF receivers to be able to receive signals basically anywhere on the planet and at any depth, but they are limited to around 30 baud... Theoretically, that would be plenty for your use, but the antenna length would be rather prohibitive... <grin> There are some existing wireless communication devices that use a very high auditory frequency for data or voice transmission... As for the pressure requirements, figure 14.7 psi per ATM and 33 ft per ATM, thus 330 ft would be around 147 psi...Most divers probably never go deeper than 150 ft, so 150/33*14.7 = 66.8 psi... OTOH, saying that it will go to 1000 ft would look good in your ads... Saying that it will go to 1000 ft AND can still communicate with the surface will even look better... Before you start thinking about using a laser or light instead of radio frequencies, you need to understand that divers are not necessarily always within line of sight of each other and sometimes even if they are, the water visibility is so bad that they can't see each other... > Hi folks, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > each other with auxiliary light pads indicating when messages have > been sent and recieved. 2.4 GHz used by Bluetooth will not take you to great distances UW. I would suggest designing something else... D. >Hi folks, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >each other with auxiliary light pads indicating when messages have >been sent and recieved. Lesson # 1: You should not start the product design process before you have a problem statement. What problem are you trying to solve? We have hand signals. We have slates to write on. We have underwater voice communications available for those case where it is needed. Your device sounds like an underwater cell phone with only texting (no voice). >An upgraded model also includes a bluetooth radar screen which uses a >triangulation program to locate the position and depth of a dive buddy >or object. Well, nobody will fault you for thinking to small! >In order for the design to effectively meet the needs of the target >market some questions have to be asked of the design. ... Excuse me, but what "target market" is this? I don't see one. (Maybe because you haven't learned lesson # 1?) Lesson # 2: You need to understand the environment for which you are desiging. Perhaps some SCUBA diving training and experience would help you to understand this area a bit better. I appologize for being so negative, but this idea sounds extremely unrealistic to me -- well beyond any needs that recreational or even commercial diving has. (Military diving is an whole other world.) SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. > Lesson # 2: You need to understand the environment for which you are > desiging. > > Perhaps some SCUBA diving training and experience would help you > to understand this area a bit better. Dont' think that would help him any... He has a basic flaw in his design by expecting radio communications for any sort of distance while underwater... #"Charlie Hammond" wrote ... #> Lesson # 2: You need to understand the environment for which you are #> desiging. #> #> Perhaps some SCUBA diving training and experience would help you #> to understand this area a bit better. # #Dont' think that would help him any... He has a basic flaw in his design by #expecting radio communications for any sort of distance while underwater... # # Radio communications can work fine underwater. Just not at 2.4 GHz. > Radio communications can work fine underwater. Just not at 2.4 GHz. The key things here are distance and transmission power... With enough power, even 2.4 GHz would probably work, but it might boil the water in the process... <grin> Of course, there's alway the VLF frequency spectrum that he could go with... Not sure about the power requirements (although the Navy can communicate around the world with them), but having a mile long antenna might make it somewhat cumbersome... > > Radio communications can work fine underwater. Just not at 2.4 GHz. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > can communicate around the world with them), but having a mile long antenna > might make it somewhat cumbersome... If telemetric signals from wireless presure transmitters can be transfered, so should these messages. BTW, required antenna length is shorter in the water, and you can use loop antenna instead od simple dipol or even use conductivity properties of the sea water for inductive antenna. If designed properly, this device should work to distances of 20 m without major issues. D. > If designed properly, this device should work to > distances of 20 m without major issues. Assuming that is true, personally, I don't think that 20m would be that useful... #"Grumman-581" <grumman581-YYYY-MM@cox.net> wrote in message #news:<r%XYb.12103$Dc2.8771@lakeread01>... #> "Alan Street" wrote ... #> > Radio communications can work fine underwater. Just not at 2.4 GHz. #> #> The key things here are distance and transmission power... With enough #> power, even 2.4 GHz would probably work, but it might boil the water in the #> process... <grin> Of course, there's alway the VLF frequency spectrum that #> he could go with... Not sure about the power requirements (although the Navy #> can communicate around the world with them), but having a mile long antenna #> might make it somewhat cumbersome... # #If telemetric signals from wireless presure transmitters can be #transfered, so should these messages. BTW, required antenna length is #shorter in the water, and you can use loop antenna instead od simple #dipol or even use conductivity properties of the sea water for #inductive antenna. If designed properly, this device should work to #distances of 20 m without major issues. # #D. Wireless pressure transmitters use much lower frequencies, transmit much shorter distances, transmit much less data, and drop data more often than you probably realize. > #"Grumman-581" <grumman581-YYYY-MM@cox.net> wrote in message > #news:<r%XYb.12103$Dc2.8771@lakeread01>... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > #> he could go with... Not sure about the power requirements (although the Navy > #> can communicate around the world with them), but having a mile long antenna It's called "ELF". The two existing terrestrial antennas that I know of are strung on miles and miles (maybe 75 or more) of telephone poles over expanses of Northern states (The US Navy Clam Lake reservation in Forest/Oconto County Wisconsin is the one that comes to mind). Look in GOOGLE under the NSA operational name "sanguine". > #> might make it somewhat cumbersome... > # [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > #inductive antenna. If designed properly, this device should work to > #distances of 20 m without major issues. I think the subs trail huge amounts of wire aft to get these signals. I know that aircraft had to start deployment of the long (4000' ?) antenna and transmission at extreme altitude, and had to finish the transmission and cut the wire antenna dragging behind loose before being pulled into the ocean. > # > #D. > > Wireless pressure transmitters use much lower frequencies, transmit > much shorter distances, transmit much less data, and drop data more > often than you probably realize. As seen on that submarine move with Gene Hackman. The power needs are prohibitive. It has also been known to grow two headed cows in Wisconsin. It was blamed for the "hum" in Taos. (Not likely as theres not enough iron in the soil, it was probably the peote) doc. "Robert "Doc" Adelman, C.I.D." wrote ... > It's called "ELF". The two existing terrestrial antennas that I know of are > strung on miles and miles (maybe 75 or more) of telephone poles over > expanses of Northern states (The US Navy Clam Lake reservation in > Forest/Oconto County Wisconsin is the one that comes to mind). > > Look in GOOGLE under the NSA operational name "sanguine". When I was in the Navy (20+ years ago), it was VLF frequencies... I would not be surprised to find out that they have upgraded it somewhat over 20+ years... > Wireless pressure transmitters use much lower frequencies, transmit > much shorter distances, transmit much less data, and drop data more > often than you probably realize. Lower frequency then what? Data rate from the text messages is in the range of telemetric data. For data requirement refer to BllFs6's post. Even if we decide that we want to send full text messages, not just signals, it is still feasible. I do agree that the transmission range of the wireless pressure transmitter is shorter, which can be solved with higher power (you do not change batteries in you transmitter after every dive, do you?). Data drop is not an issue either, for various reasons (i.e two way, instead of one way communication, frequency of the messages, size and power of the device etc.) Anyway, if I had constructed such device, I would have used ultrasound instead of EM. D. #Alan Street <alan@nonono_irsi.com> wrote in message #news:<190220041950034826%alan@nonono_irsi.com>... #> #> Wireless pressure transmitters use much lower frequencies, transmit #> much shorter distances, transmit much less data, and drop data more #> often than you probably realize. # #Lower frequency then what? Data rate from the text messages is in the #range of telemetric data. # Lower frequency than the Bluetooth platform proposed by the OP. Cochran, as I recall, uses something in the 35Khz region, while I've heard that most others use something in the 200KHz region. #For data requirement refer to BllFs6's post. Even if we decide that we #want to send full text messages, not just signals, it is still #feasible. # Once you have a system that works, the need for transmitting greater and greater amounts of data will emerge. Those who don't acknowledge this are doomed to hear "640K is enough for anybody" forever. #I do agree that the transmission range of the wireless pressure #transmitter is shorter, which can be solved with higher power (you do #not change batteries in you transmitter after every dive, do you?). Increasing power is a limited solution because the power requirements increase exponentially while the range increases linearily. I don't want to carry another cannister light battery just to power a communication device, nor do I really want to be in such close proximity to a high power RF transmitter. #Data drop is not an issue either, for various reasons (i.e two way, #instead of one way communication, frequency of the messages, size and #power of the device etc.) # Data drop absolutely is an issue. There are ways to deal with the problem such as redundant data streams, Hamming or other error correcting codes, parity check and re-send, etc. But all of these take up overhead and significantly decrease the data throughput of the system. #Anyway, if I had constructed such device, I would have used ultrasound #instead of EM. # Nice idea in theory. Have you actually worked with ultrasound and know something about its transmission, reflection, scattering and absorbtion properties? What frequency were you thinking of using? #D. > Lower frequency than the Bluetooth platform proposed by the OP. > Cochran, as I recall, uses something in the 35Khz region, while I've > heard that most others use something in the 200KHz region. 35 kHz has roughly 5 dB/m attenuation in sea water, and much much lower in fresh water. Not ideal, and I would never design a device using RF, but technically possible in the ranges I was writing about, give or take. There are other ways to communicate to greater distances, but let's not confuse it further. > Once you have a system that works, the need for transmitting greater > and greater amounts of data will emerge. Those who don't acknowledge > this are doomed to hear "640K is enough for anybody" forever. I agree and never disputed this anywhere. Why are you bringing it up? > Data drop absolutely is an issue. There are ways to deal with the > problem such as redundant data streams, Hamming or other error > correcting codes, parity check and re-send, etc. But all of these take > up overhead and significantly decrease the data throughput of the > system. Calculate maximum data throughput on 30 kHz with say 4 kHz bandwidth and then compare it to the original throughput requirements. Regarding data drop, fundamental difference is that data from wireless pressure transmitters is connectionless, real time and one-way as opposed to message oriented two way connection. > Nice idea in theory. In practice too, these guys are a step further from messaging. http://www.sea-sea.com/oceanreef/communications1.htm >Have you actually worked with ultrasound and know > something about its transmission, reflection, scattering and absorbtion > properties? Yes and I hope I know something about it, at least my degree says I knew it some time back. And you? >What frequency were you thinking of using? I am not thinking of making such device, just saying that I would rather choose ultrasound instead of RF if I had to, ~ 30 kHz would be preferred. I guess we at least agree there are better ways divers can communicate UW. D. >> Lower frequency than the Bluetooth platform proposed by the OP. >> Cochran, as I recall, uses something in the 35Khz region, while I've [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >I agree and never disputed this anywhere. Why are you bringing it up? You commented that low bandwidths would be sufficient for text messaging and very low volume data transmissions. >> Data drop absolutely is an issue. There are ways to deal with the >> problem such as redundant data streams, Hamming or other error [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Calculate maximum data throughput on 30 kHz with say 4 kHz bandwidth >and then compare it to the original throughput requirements. Depending on how you encode the data, you're limited to maximum of ~3.5KHz, and more typically 1~2 KHz. >Regarding data drop, fundamental difference is that data from wireless >pressure transmitters is connectionless, real time and one-way as [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Yes and I hope I know something about it, at least my degree says I >knew it some time back. And you? 10 years of applications engineering in acoustic imaging (I also presently have a scanning acoustic microscope sitting in my living room. Know anyone who's in the market for a gently used Sonix LHF-100 with 15, 25 and 75 MHz transducers?). >>What frequency were you thinking of using? > >I am not thinking of making such device, just saying that I would >rather choose ultrasound instead of RF if I had to, ~ 30 kHz would be >preferred. OK. I was thinking of much higher frequencies, which have significant problems with attenuation over the typical distances we're looking for in this application. >I guess we at least agree there are better ways divers can communicate >UW. Most certainly. >> Lesson # 2: You need to understand the environment for which you are >> desiging. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Dont' think that would help him any... He has a basic flaw in his design by >expecting radio communications for any sort of distance while underwater... I disagree. His basic flaw is the apparent bellief that the device he describes would actually be usefull. I don't think it would be. At least not worth the cost and boher of using it. The technical issues of getting it to work can be solved. But if I were going to that cost and bother, I'd opt for voice comm, which is already available. SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. > I disagree. His basic flaw is the apparent bellief that the device he > describes would actually be usefull. I don't think it would be. At least [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But if I were going to that cost and bother, I'd opt for voice comm, > which is already available. Oh, it doesn't have to be useful for the serious drivers, it just has to have a "gee-whiz" aspect to it to entice the newbie divers... And good marketing to convince them of this, of course... A personal locator transmitter might be a neat idea if it has any sort of decent range -- 1000 ft at least underwater, a mile or more on the surface... I can see a possible use for this for DMs leading a dive in that he could easily see the distance and bearing of everyone in his group at a single glance wherever they might be... There would probably be an issue with transmission through rocks and coral outcroppings though... I doubt that it could be made cheap enough that dive boats would automatically supply everyone with one before a dive... It would make it easier for the dive boat to keep up with the divers who surfaced too far from the boat to swim back... Integrate a depth gauge in it so that it could also broadcast the person's depth to the central display on the boat or with the divemaster and an emergency button for OOA and such situation and you might have something useful (if you can keep the price down)... > > I disagree. His basic flaw is the apparent bellief that the device he > > describes would actually be usefull. I don't think it would be. At least [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > and such situation and you might have something useful (if you can keep the > price down)... If the locator part is just a small beacon for the diver to wear with a much more powerful reciever mounted on the boat hull like a fishfinder, which then sends a more powerful signal down to the divers thingee, then it can look on both sides of an outcrop, and would be less limited by range and thru-rock issues since the hull system could have much better sensitivity and reception apparatus. rhys Thank you for the advice that you sent yesterday. I feel that i should have been more specific with my design brief and if its not to much to ask maybe you can help me more. You are correct in stating that my design is basically a mobile phone without audio communication.......That was the point. Problems: Hand signals: (1) Can only be used in close proximity to other divers (2) Hands have to be in front of the body for clear signaling (3) Wearing sea mittens/gloves makes signalling difficult (4) Divers are not always in the direct line of vision Slates: (1) Can only be used in close proximity to other divers (2) Text is sometimes unclear due to poor hand writing (3) Restricted to writing in primary or secondary languages Radio voice communication (1) Not affordable by the amateur enthusiast So after learning lesson #1 i have shortened and refined the spec for this project: The device is an underwater communication device for scuba divers. It will use wireless technology of a kind ( i am aware that the technology platform i originally highlighted is unsuitable). It will send messages which are more clear than using a slate. The device will also allow divers from different countries to communicate easily - quickly translating messages from one language to another. The advantages over current hand signals are that the device can be used a distance of twenty metres from another diver. Poor light quality does not effect the reading of a message as the LCD will light up (like a phone). Target market: amatuer enthusiasts, diving schools, novelty holiday dive groups. This device will fulfil the following needs: (1) No need to be three metres from your buddy to see a signal (2) No need to stop all other activity to signal a buddy (3) No need to actively try getting your buddies attention before signaling (4) No need to worry about not being able to communicate with a foriegn diver (5) Be affordable for the average enthusiast (because there is no voice comm) I would be particulary grateful for any more advice on this project. - Any bright ideas on how to use radio frequencies underwater? (max distance 20m) or more to the point, what frequencies to use that will not boil the diver into a lovely rubber skinned sausage! - How would you get the device to work? Feel free to send e-mails to m.z.wood@dundee.ac.uk Shotokan schrieb: > - How would you get the device to work? How would you attach messages to specific divers? What if, say, your buddy was signaling OOA, being round the corner, when a diver from a different group was signaling you, have you seen this monster lobster? Some sort of priority "voiceover" would be advised, as well as a recocnition/matching mode. Plenty of sidebands... Matthias I disagree that there is no market for the product, since I've see all kinds of dubious gadgets sell and be used on dive trips. The difficult part about this is that you need to sell two of them to be any good for individuals. couples and buddies might by them, but single divers likely wouldn't hand one to a boat assigned buddy and expect them to know how to use it. The do seem useful to the classroom environment. An audible alarm would have to sound on message receipt like a phone ring to get the divers attention if on the wrist. Entering messages underwater may be difficult with gloves on in cold water, or if you have the other hand busy with a camera or other equipment. An alphabetized or scrollable word list might work but would limit vocabulary to about the same as a coded slate. Palm-like graffiti might work with a stylus, but would be as slow as writing on a slate, except with more room and distant from the other diver. As for communications, sound travels very well underwater at great distances (i.e. Whale & dolphin communications) I would think ultrasonic might be a viable alternative, which is what I believe simple sub $100 fish finders and depths sounders use accurately to hundreds of feet. Homing or geo-location has been tried by many, usually with limited success (both to buddy and back to boat or entry point). 3-dimensional location would be easier in water with a depth sensor and directional signal than in air where it takes many satellites for accurate GPS altitude. Transmit distance and cost seem to be the barriers. Ultimately, I'd think differential GPS from a boat or fixed surface mounted transducer to an underwater receiver would be the way to go for true location and boat homing. This could be very accurate for cave or reef mapping in 3 dimensions. Viable products, maybe. Would I buy a pair, probably not. A product I WOULD be interested in would be a fully submersible PDA (maybe with the communications or GPS upgrade option). Photographers and videographers could record f-stops and camera settings, and photo locations. Underwater naturalists could record fish counts, archeologists measurements and coordinates. Cave divers measurements and depths for mapping. Training classes for checklists and class notes. Recreational divers for dive logs, visual and software based fish id photos, the calculator function for calculations of dive tables or gas mix calculations and recordings, etc. Software would be the only limit on usefulness of the device. Tech divers could play solitaire or do extensive gas calculations to pass time those long deco stops. Get the versatile processing ability underwater with waterproof connectors to ad depth sensors for dive logging and backup dive computer, photo module for digital snaps, etc. This product I'd probably buy and would find plenty of software writers for every type of diver. Mark > I disagree that there is no market for the product... Oops, meant to say "a limited market", not no market. Accidentally hit send button before proofreading. Mark > Hi folks, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > - what pressures would the device have to withstand for normal diving > activity? Up to 15 bar, but I would design it for 500 feet to appeal to tech divers. > - Where would you place the device (which is slightly bigger than a > siemens t610) on the body so it would not interfere with your > equipment and only provide minimal movement restrictions? (i > preconcieved it would be the fore arm...is that a bad place to put > it?) Perfect > - Have you ever been in a situation where this device would have been > very helpful? (ie trying to get your buddies attention unsuccessfuly > in a dangerous situation) Not personally, although I can see the appeal to cave/wreck divers where viz and the ability to turn around and communicate is somewhat limited. - what sort of features would you like to see on such a device? deco/safety stop games, vibration, audiable alarms for low viz. > Thank you for any help that you can give me. It would be very much > appriciated. when you market this, mkae it for the tech divers as opposed to rec divers. I can really see no need (even as an engineer) for a recreational diver to use this. [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]] > - what pressures would the device have to withstand for normal diving > activity? One atmosphere. > - Where would you place the device (which is slightly bigger than a > siemens t610) on the body so it would not interfere with your > equipment and only provide minimal movement restrictions? (i > preconcieved it would be the fore arm...is that a bad place to put > it?) Next to my snorkle. > - Have you ever been in a situation where this device would have been > very helpful? (ie trying to get your buddies attention unsuccessfuly > in a dangerous situation) No. It has no place in emergencies. > - what sort of features would you like to see on such a device? A small hole, just slightly larger than the diameter of the shank of an eight penny nail. Signature"We're going to rush the hijackers." -Jeremy Glick, aboard United Airlines flight 93, September 11, 2001 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.