[GRLUG] NOT LINUX - FCC to vote on net neutrality later today.
Michael Mol
mikemol at gmail.com
Wed Dec 22 08:36:02 EST 2010
I dunno. I did "Ham in a day" through KCRACES to get my technician's
license. If I wanted a higher license, I'd probably study enough to
take a stab at getting all the way to General in one test day.
The big reason I got my technician's license was because it's been on
my 'bucket list' since I was a kid.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Bob Kline <bob.kline at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>> 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.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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