[GRLUG] NOT LINUX - FCC to vote on net neutrality later today.
Bob Kline
bob.kline at gmail.com
Tue Dec 21 17:52:27 EST 2010
And there's a lot one can do with antennas.
c.g. Cyberguys, or Amazon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/802.11n
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/802.11n>Outdoor ranges of over 800 feet, with
much more to come.
-- Bob
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm looking more toward 802.11abgn techs for layer 2. The hardware's
> cheaper and better developed.
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Bob Kline <bob.kline at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 200 licensed hams. Become a ham in a day:
> > http://www.migunowners.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-38711.html
> > and
> > http://www.w8dc.org/
> > Ham nets have long used AX.25, an old
> > telephone company error handling approach:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FX.25_Forward_Error_Correction
> > and have been sending data around for
> > at least 20 years. Today that could be
> > Internet protocols.
> > I guess the real issue is performance and
> > cost. I predict that Comcast will start charging
> > more for what we're already getting. So, in a
> > band for the buck way, could a ham-like wireless
> > approach make sense. And does it exist now.
> > It looks to me like one needs a ham license
> > first, after which systems exist. Just a guess.
> > Being amateur, I take it a for profit ISP could
> > not spring up and offer access, or a hardware-software
> > package to enable a user. But for starters, the
> > GRARA does have towers.
> > - -Bob
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://shinobu.grlug.org/pipermail/grlug/attachments/20101221/c24141d3/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the grlug
mailing list