Another: <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><a href="http://www.echolink.org/">http://www.echolink.org/</a><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.echolink.org/"></a>You've got to have a ham license, but</div>
<div>I don't think that is too big a hurdle.</div><div><br></div><div>Otherwise, such networks seem to be</div><div>well oiled operations today.</div><div><br></div><div>Alas, one snag might be Linux - some</div><div>
of the operations seem to be windoz based.... :-(</div><div><br></div><div> -- Bob</div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Michael Mol <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mikemol@gmail.com">mikemol@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">I was the one bringing up the idea. I presented it in front of the LUG<br>
at Casey's place around then. I recall one person being interested in<br>
getting together to discuss it, but we never wound up making a<br>
connection. I've been reading up a *lot* on IPv6 and network management<br>
in general, and it might still be doable. I wouldn't be ready to leap on<br>
it soon, though; I smell a lot more knowledge about networking tools<br>
that I need to read through before I can really figure it out.<br>
<br>
One of the key problems, though, is setting up one or two large towers.<br>
Mesh networking is useful, awesome and excellent, but there need to be a<br>
couple supernodes that represent a fast(er) travel route to another part<br>
of the network. A supernode like that Needs to have visibility to a<br>
large geographical area, which means (as a WAP) that it has needs to<br>
have the characteristics of a cell phone tower.<br>
<br>
A couple friends of mine have been trying to figure out how to set up a<br>
simple three-node relay on the south-west side of town, but the physical<br>
geography of the region gets in the way. (And there's an airport just<br>
west of Wilson Ave. that limits the height of any towers placed in<br>
convenient places on that hill.)<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 16:06 -0500, Bob Kline wrote:<br>
> There was actually talk about this<br>
> within the group - maybe a year ago.<br>
> Something like using radio relay.<br>
><br>
><br>
> It might come to that.<br>
><br>
><br>
> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LUSFiber" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LUSFiber</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> Done by the city of Lafayette, LA, it is<br>
> perhaps the best Internet system on the<br>
> planet. Fiber to the home, full duplex<br>
> 50 Mbps service for $58 a month.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Yes, Verizon and AT&T sued to block<br>
> its construction. But it was built, and<br>
> can service as model to any properly<br>
> managed city.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Now lets see what Comcast does to us.<br>
> Especially if it acquires NBC.<br>
><br>
><br>
> -- Bob<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Clay Ashby <<a href="mailto:kingpoiuy@gmail.com">kingpoiuy@gmail.com</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
> We could start our own internet! :p<br>
><br>
> --Sent from my android.<br>
><br>
> ><br>
> > On Dec 21, 2010 2:13 PM, "Bob Kline" <<a href="mailto:bob.kline@gmail.com">bob.kline@gmail.com</a>><br>
> > wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > The FCC has spoken. On behalf of<br>
> > monopoly provider interests that is:<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9201918/FCC_approves_compromise_Net_neutrality_rules?taxonomyId=70" target="_blank">http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9201918/FCC_approves_compromise_Net_neutrality_rules?taxonomyId=70</a><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > **<br>
> > IDG News Service - The U.S. Federal Communications<br>
> > Commission (FCC), in a historic vote Tuesday, approved<br>
> > network neutrality rules prohibiting broadband providers<br>
> > from blocking customer access to legal Web content, but many<br>
> > consumer groups decried the new regulations as weak and full<br>
> > of loopholes.<br>
> ><br>
> > The new rules provide fewer protections for mobile broadband<br>
> > subscribers and may lead to a fractured Internet, critics<br>
> > said. The new rules, a compromise championed by FCC Chairman<br>
> > Julius Genachowski, would bar wireline-based broadband<br>
> > providers -- but not mobile broadband providers -- from<br>
> > "unreasonable discrimination" against Web traffic, prompting<br>
> > some consumer groups to call the rules "fake" net<br>
> > neutrality.<br>
> ><br>
> > Genachowski's plan, approved after more than seven years of<br>
> > debate about whether net neutrality rules are needed, also<br>
> > contains several loopholes for broadband providers, critics<br>
> > said, including an exception for managed services separate<br>
> > from the public Internet.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > **<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Standard hack politics. Clearly monopoly<br>
> > corporate entities run the Internet now,<br>
> > and I suspect the rubes will be<br>
> > squeezed ever harder. Loopholes.<br>
> > Exceptions.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > The day mostly official marks the end of<br>
> > one Internet. Everyone will now<br>
> > have to choose which Internet they<br>
> > want to be on, and have to figure<br>
> > out just what the monopoly players<br>
> > are likely to let through. Comcast must<br>
> > be licking its chops about now, as leader<br>
> > of the forces tinkering with content and<br>
> > uses. All hopefully without anyone noticing.<br>
> > Going forward, it appears it will have a largely<br>
> > free hand, not even try to hide its actions,<br>
> > and simply say it's all legal, and of course fair.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > -- Bob<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 2:04 PM, John-Thomas Richards<br>
> > <<a href="mailto:jtr@jrichards.org">jtr@jrichards.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> > ><br>
> ><br>
> > > On Tue, Dec 21...<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > --<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>
> > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is<br>
> ><br>
> > believ...<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > grlug mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:grlug@grlug.org">grlug@grlug.org</a><br>
> > <a href="http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug" target="_blank">http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug</a><br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
><br>
> This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is<br>
> believed to be clean.<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> grlug mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:grlug@grlug.org">grlug@grlug.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug" target="_blank">http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is<br>
> believed to be clean.<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> grlug mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:grlug@grlug.org">grlug@grlug.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug" target="_blank">http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is<br>
believed to be clean.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
grlug mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:grlug@grlug.org">grlug@grlug.org</a><br>
<a href="http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug" target="_blank">http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.