The whole of the answer is written in a different order to the original article, in the students own words and is written to answer the question set.
The answer does mention "iPhone and dongles" as does the article. However, it is difficult to write about data usage on mobile networks without using these words.
The student used the phrase " a flat rate fee that is only appropriate for relatively small usage", this is written in their own words and summarises the third paragraph of the article.
Student B
Student B has heavily plagiarised the article in their answer for the following reasons
No thought has gone into the answer as all the points mentioned are set out in the same order as the original article.
There are phrases in the answer which are identical or are very similar to those in the original, for example the first paragraph of the students answer is almost the same as the first four lines of the article.
Student -"what they thought they knew about how people would use mobile data connections"
Article - "operators though they knew about how people would use mobile data connections"
In other parts of the answer the student has used the original article and just changed the wording slightly to make it their own -
Student -"Cisco is forecasting that mobile data usage will go up by forty-fold by 2014"
Article -"Cisco forecasts that mobile data usage will rise forty-fold between now and 2014"
Student C
Student C has plagiarised the article although not to the extent of Student B, examples being
The student has presented their ideas in the same order as the original article and used the same ideas.
The wording of the answer is very similar to that of the article in many places
Student - "Cisco is forecasting a forty-fold rise in mobile data usage "
Article -"Cisco forecasts that mobile data usage will rise forty-fold between now and 2014"
The student has attempted to summarise their answer and the original article in the first sentence. This is written in their own words and bears no resemblance to the original article.
Question 2
Wi-Fi
What it is and what it does
Wi-Fi is a network technology that enables one or more computers to connect to each over a wireless local area network (WLAN). An Access Point (AP) and router connected to the internet enables the creation of a WLAN, these are fixed devices and wired directly to the network. Devices such as laptops, PDA's and game consoles that contain a wireless network adaptor can be connected to the network anywhere within range of the AP.
The term Wi-Fi is a brand name owned by the Wi-Fi Alliance, through this company devices are certified to meet a standard enabling them to communicate with each other. This standard, defined by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, is IEEE802.11 and is often used instead of the term Wi-Fi.
The IEEE802.11 standard currently has three versions in use in the UK 802.11 b/g/n, each setting out the frequency it works at and its maximum data rate. As the standard has developed the maximum data rate has increased and so has the range at what it is possible to connect to the wireless access point (see Table 1).
IEEE Standard
Radio Frequency
Theoretical maximum data rate
Typical range
802.11 b
2.4 GHz
11 Mbit/s
38 m
802.11 g
2.4 GHz
54 Mbit/s
38 m
802.11 n
2.4 GHz
288 Mbit/s
70 m
802.11 n
5 GHz
600 Mbit/s
70 m
Table 1: IEEE802.11 standards compared (Williams et al., 2010)
In the home or workplace this enables multiple devices to share an internet connection, printers or files, without the need for the devices being physically connected to each other. Users on a network do not need to work from fixed locations allowing greater freedom for the end user. Devices are not tied to one network as with a wired network, they have the ability to move from one location to another and join Wi-Fi networks at locations such as the airport, coffees shop or even the train.
How does it work?
Wi-Fi technology works on radio waves to carry the data between the AP and the connected device. The radio frequencies chosen for Wi-Fi are 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands, these bands are further sub divided into channels. The AP transmits and receives data on a particular channel and the device tunes into this channel to form a connection. Multiple devices can connect to the AP at the same time and share the internet connection.
Connection to a WLAN is normally controlled by a security code or network key to prevent the unauthorised use of a Wi-Fi site. However, some sites such as colleges and universities do offer open access to encourage connection to the internet.
Devices and AP's both convert the incoming data into a radio signal before transmission, and on receipt they are converted to a suitable data format for onward transmission or use (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Wi-Fi use of radio signal to transmit data
A limitation on the use of Wi-Fi is its range, this can be affected by the location of the node in relation to the AP, the further apart the poorer the connection. Connections can also be affected by obstructions and reflective surfaces between the AP and node, as this can absorb or reflect the signal.
[Word Count 504]
Question 3
(a)
My post from 31st January 2011 19.10
Hi Colin
In my research on this issue I have also failed to find any credible evidence that Wi-Fi poses a health risk to the general public.
The first site I visited, the BBC website about a Panorama study into Wi-Fi in schools from 2007. Whilst the study did show that levels were 3 times higher in a classroom than that of a mobile phone mast, it also stated
"The readings were well beneath the government's safety limits - as much as 600 times below" (BBC, 2007)
Other contributions from scientists in the programme argued that the increase in emissions could cause health risk and Wi-Fi should be removed. But without further investigation into the scientists I cannot say how objective their arguments are.
Here is the website for you to look at and make your own mind up
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6674675.stm
Also mentioned in the Panorama programme is a reference to a study from the World Health Organisation (WHO). I have looked at this and they quite clearly state
"From all evidence accumulated so far, no adverse short- or long-term health effects have been shown to occur from the RF signals produced by base stations. Since wireless networks produce generally lower RF signals than base stations, no adverse health effects are expected from exposure to them." (World Health Organisation, 2006)
The website of this study is
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/index.html
I feel that the WHO will meet almost all of the criteria mentioned in Part 3 Block 1, and is therefore a credible website to base my opinion on.
However, if anyone can find evidence to persuade me otherwise I am prepared to listen.
Regards
Stephen
(b)
A copy of the reply to my post from Dave Pearson on 31st January 2011 21.48
Hi Stephen
I have to agree that I have also been unable to find conclusive evidence Wi-Fi and the possible effects of exposure to it . I have come to the conclusion that this is because there isn't any.
The Panorama program that you have mentioned had numerous complaints upheld against it by the BBC's editorial complaints unit (ECU) , they said " The programme gave a misleading impression of the state of scientific opinion on the issue" (BBC News 2007). I think the complaints about the program were fair and as such it appeared to have a bunch of scientists that had views on Wi-Fi being harmful but without any conclusive evidence to back it up.
The WHO guidelines are based on the thermal effects of exposure and no biological effects are taken into to consideration when safe approval is given. I think this is potentially a flawed approach. The Stewart report (2000) was to look into the effects of microwave radiation and reported to take a "Precautionary approach [...] until much more detailed and scientifically robust inforation becomes available.
The Stewart report can be found at this address http://www.iegmp.org/documents/iegmp_1.pdf
In 2004 Sir William Stewart again claimed more concern after the findings of the Naila study in Germany. The Naila study found that newly developing cancer cases was significantly higher among patients who had lived during the past ten years at a distance up to 400 metres from a cellular transmitter site. It found that in the test area the risk of getting cancer trebled for residents within the proximity of the installation compared to the inhabitants outside the area.
The Naila report can be found at http://www.tetrawatch.net/papers/naila.pdf
Although that report is on cellular networks the EMF is very similar to Wi-Fi as reported in the Panorama program.
I think the whole problem is that we don't know , some countries have taken the precautionary approach , removing Wi-Fi from schools, acknowledging complaints as credible and in Sweden going as far as to recognise electro sensitivity as a disability. Then other countries such as the UK rolling Wi-Fi out and wait to see if there are any problems .
I'm not sure if we should be using our children as the test cases over the next 20 years but I can't help thinking that someone thought Asbestos was a great product at one time .
references:
BBC Panorama 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6674675.stm
BBC News 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7122230.stm
The Stewart report (2000) http://iegmp.org.uk/documents/iegmp_1.pdf
Naila study http://www.tetrawatch.net/papers/nalia.pdf
(c)
The strategy I have followed is "Show you have followed the discussion and taken it on board by acknowledging or identifying earlier points made"
I had read the earlier post from Colin Ricketts and his lack of evidence of harm and backed this up with my research that also found no evidence of harm from Wi-Fi.
Following on from my message, Dave Pearson posted a reply noting my findings and also mentioning the sites I used, the BBC and World Health Organisation (WHO). He did however make a reference to the shortcomings of the WHO research, the fact that it did not look at the biological effects of Wi-Fi.
He also noted that the BBC had received complaints about its program and the scientific evidence used, a point I had made in my post where I had mentioned the credibility of the scientists and the objectivity of their arguments.
