At 12:02 PM 2/26/2001, you wrote:
>We're a small city more concerned with banning Christmas trees than building a
>first rate Internet communications infrastructure?
Because we let left-wing liberal feminists dictate touchy-feely policy
rather than concentrating our resources on REAL issues. This is the
same government that spends $14M to replace bricks at Willamette
& 6th in the crosswalk but can't afford science books for middle
schools.
>Ok, fog? Brief outages on East West oriented links during sunrise and sunset?
Ummm, no. Unless they're operating on 5-30GHz, absorption & refraction
due to water vapor would be nil. Why aren't north/south links similarly
affected?? Haven't I cleared the air yet on the frequency/water/attenuation
issue? Hello?
>The Seattle Wireless site's hardware page
>(http://seattlewireless.net/index.cgi/WirelessHardwareLinks) has a lot of
>links
>for RF wireless. It also has a link to a site that shows you how to use a
>cheap
>laser pointer to build an experimental optical link It's only 9600
>baud, but, hey, it's a start. It might be interesting to get a project going
>coupling a better hardware design (more sophisticated modulation) with a more
>sophisticated software driver.
Wireless is cool, but for lowly end-users the cost is so far prohibitive unless
local government, industry and philanthropy kicks in. Hardware and T1+
bandwidth just isn't cheap enough yet.
For my money, why aren't we demanding EWEB drop fiber to OUR homes
and business and providing us with taxpayer & rate payer subsidized
bandwidth? Hmmmm?
jk
-----------------------------
James S. Kaplan KG7FU
Eugene Oregon USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.rio.com/~kg7fu
ICQ # 1227639
Have YOU tried Linux today?
-----------------------------
