[GRLUG] NOT LINUX - FCC to vote on net neutrality later today.
Bob Kline
bob.kline at gmail.com
Wed Dec 22 08:26:21 EST 2010
Just curious, is the fast to get license
a novice license, or a general license?
i.e., the one day marathon license.
I gather there are no use requirements
for keeping a license active.
Anyway, no encryption would kill the idea.
Any idea what the reason is?
A more testy question, what is the primary
motivation for becoming a ham today? In
days gone by, one learned a lot about radio
and electronics, because many people built
their own equipment. But that hasn't been
the case for decades, as good Japanese
radios became available for good prices.
Without that learning incentive, what is
the reason people become hams today?
Or is my assumption wrong?
-- Bob
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Matt Michielsen
<mattmichielsen at gmail.com>wrote:
> The biggest issue with the ham license is that you aren't allowed to use
> encryption. I'm KD8EVV but haven't had a radio turned on in years.
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Bob Kline <bob.kline at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, 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* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, 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/20101222/153d2b19/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the grlug
mailing list