On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 05:00:55PM -0800, James S. Kaplan wrote:
> Ditto, 'cept I am a conservative Democrat. I would have been a
> Republican if I were born 100 years or more ago. lol.
>
> Certainly some of us tend to get a bit wired over a little
> humour.......
Just remember, what's humorous to some is possibly personal and
offensive to others. Humour also depends on delivery; things
like tone of voice, context, etc. Those things get lost
pretty quick in email.
>
> If the City of Eugene wants wireless, they'll need to pony up
> some antenna and tower friendly building codes, 180 degrees
> from the overly restrictive ones now in place, help us by
> providing low cost big bandwidth and ask US what kind of
> equipment & standards, etc.
At least /part/ of Eugene wants wireless. I think it's that
part's (ie our) duty to convince the rest that wireless is good
for all. We'll also need to convince them that "we know what we're
doing" before they'll ask us for advice.
>
> Here's some thinking fodder:
>
> a) Who will pay for service and how much will they (we) pay?
>
> b) Who will provide ip blocks, dns & routing? (without a packet
> forwarding protocol like ax.25 we would NEED some centralised
> hubs, routers, etc.)
>
> c) Who will pay for the bulk bandwidth, equipment locating, siting
> fees/rent, licenses, permits and accounting costs?
Of course, these depend on "How much will it cost?", which in turn
depends on "What do we want/need?", which depends on "How large of an
area will be covered?", "How much bandwidth will users be allowed?",
and "How many users can be connected at once?"
>
> d) who will locate, maintain and install equipment?
>
> Here's an idea......how about making agreements with local isp's to
> locate equipment and provide bandwidth to luggers in exchange for
> our expertise in getting THEM wireless savvy?
Excellent idea. I think it would be a good idea to get EWEB involved,
since (if?) they are planning to lay down fiber. Maybe wireless
could be more cost effective, more scalable?
>
> I have many years experience in RF networking, have some nifty
> tools for designing & locating sites (does anyone want a PCS
> network?). I'd be happy to lend what I can, but I want some
> cheap gear and cheap bandwidth out of the deal. Some folks
> have PC's to spare and maybe a few $$ for wireless gear and
> I wouldn't suppose they would necessarily want to give those
> up for naught either.
True, everyone likes to GET something for nothing, few people
like to GIVE something for nothing. :)
>
> I would rather not see those 2.4GHz wireless nic's all over the
> place...they're unreliable over distance and are designed for
> occasional notebook use, not bandwidth hogging desktops.
> Better would be point to point or point to multipoint distribution
> and even better are full-duplex hard links.
Again that goes to proving that "we know what we're doing".
It may also be beneficial to get 4J and LCC involved. It's
hard to argue with people who want to teach. Then the
students could maintain the transmitters. (With help of course.)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
