[GRLUG] NOT LINUX - FCC to vote on net neutrality later today.
Michael Mol
mikemol at gmail.com
Tue Dec 21 16:51:27 EST 2010
I've got a callsign...KD8KLW.
I'm not unfamiliar with those, but I wasn't sure their model reflected
what I was interested in trying.
From what I've learned about IPv6, a meshy backbone seems very doable.
It's even plausible that it could get public IPv6 addresses allocated
to it, if it were likely to have enough users to successfully justify
the allocation. (I think the going requirement is 'must have at least
200 users', but I'm not sure.)
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Bob Kline <bob.kline at gmail.com> wrote:
> Another: http://www.echolink.org/
> You've got to have a ham license, but
> I don't think that is too big a hurdle.
> Otherwise, such networks seem to be
> well oiled operations today.
> Alas, one snag might be Linux - some
> of the operations seem to be windoz based.... :-(
> -- Bob
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I was the one bringing up the idea. I presented it in front of the LUG
>> at Casey's place around then. I recall one person being interested in
>> getting together to discuss it, but we never wound up making a
>> connection. I've been reading up a *lot* on IPv6 and network management
>> in general, and it might still be doable. I wouldn't be ready to leap on
>> it soon, though; I smell a lot more knowledge about networking tools
>> that I need to read through before I can really figure it out.
>>
>> One of the key problems, though, is setting up one or two large towers.
>> Mesh networking is useful, awesome and excellent, but there need to be a
>> couple supernodes that represent a fast(er) travel route to another part
>> of the network. A supernode like that Needs to have visibility to a
>> large geographical area, which means (as a WAP) that it has needs to
>> have the characteristics of a cell phone tower.
>>
>> A couple friends of mine have been trying to figure out how to set up a
>> simple three-node relay on the south-west side of town, but the physical
>> geography of the region gets in the way. (And there's an airport just
>> west of Wilson Ave. that limits the height of any towers placed in
>> convenient places on that hill.)
>>
>> On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 16:06 -0500, Bob Kline wrote:
>> > There was actually talk about this
>> > within the group - maybe a year ago.
>> > Something like using radio relay.
>> >
>> >
>> > It might come to that.
>> >
>> >
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LUSFiber
>> >
>> >
>> > Done by the city of Lafayette, LA, it is
>> > perhaps the best Internet system on the
>> > planet. Fiber to the home, full duplex
>> > 50 Mbps service for $58 a month.
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes, Verizon and AT&T sued to block
>> > its construction. But it was built, and
>> > can service as model to any properly
>> > managed city.
>> >
>> >
>> > Now lets see what Comcast does to us.
>> > Especially if it acquires NBC.
>> >
>> >
>> > -- Bob
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Clay Ashby <kingpoiuy at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > We could start our own internet! :p
>> >
>> > --Sent from my android.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > On Dec 21, 2010 2:13 PM, "Bob Kline" <bob.kline at gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > The FCC has spoken. On behalf of
>> > > monopoly provider interests that is:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9201918/FCC_approves_compromise_Net_neutrality_rules?taxonomyId=70
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > **
>> > > IDG News Service - The U.S. Federal Communications
>> > > Commission (FCC), in a historic vote Tuesday, approved
>> > > network neutrality rules prohibiting broadband providers
>> > > from blocking customer access to legal Web content, but many
>> > > consumer groups decried the new regulations as weak and full
>> > > of loopholes.
>> > >
>> > > The new rules provide fewer protections for mobile broadband
>> > > subscribers and may lead to a fractured Internet, critics
>> > > said. The new rules, a compromise championed by FCC Chairman
>> > > Julius Genachowski, would bar wireline-based broadband
>> > > providers -- but not mobile broadband providers -- from
>> > > "unreasonable discrimination" against Web traffic, prompting
>> > > some consumer groups to call the rules "fake" net
>> > > neutrality.
>> > >
>> > > Genachowski's plan, approved after more than seven years of
>> > > debate about whether net neutrality rules are needed, also
>> > > contains several loopholes for broadband providers, critics
>> > > said, including an exception for managed services separate
>> > > from the public Internet.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > **
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Standard hack politics. Clearly monopoly
>> > > corporate entities run the Internet now,
>> > > and I suspect the rubes will be
>> > > squeezed ever harder. Loopholes.
>> > > Exceptions.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > The day mostly official marks the end of
>> > > one Internet. Everyone will now
>> > > have to choose which Internet they
>> > > want to be on, and have to figure
>> > > out just what the monopoly players
>> > > are likely to let through. Comcast must
>> > > be licking its chops about now, as leader
>> > > of the forces tinkering with content and
>> > > uses. All hopefully without anyone noticing.
>> > > Going forward, it appears it will have a largely
>> > > free hand, not even try to hide its actions,
>> > > and simply say it's all legal, and of course fair.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -- Bob
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 2:04 PM, John-Thomas Richards
>> > > <jtr at jrichards.org> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > > On Tue, Dec 21...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> > > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>> > >
>> > > believ...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > grlug mailing list
>> > > grlug at grlug.org
>> > > http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>> > believed to be clean.
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > grlug mailing list
>> > grlug at grlug.org
>> > http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>> > believed to be clean.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > grlug mailing list
>> > grlug at grlug.org
>> > http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> grlug mailing list
>> grlug at grlug.org
>> http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> _______________________________________________
> grlug mailing list
> grlug at grlug.org
> http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
>
--
:wq
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
More information about the grlug
mailing list