On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Gary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since the SkyGateway and > SkyExtender base stations already have their own 4.9-6.07 GHz backhaul > radios, why reinvent the wheel? (freqs are per Sam's blog post as their data > sheets only list 4.94-5.85 so it could be that their newer gear goes up to 6 > GHz)
My understanding is that the SkyPilots that are deployed in Portland have 5.8 GHz backhaul and 2.4 GHz local access and no other frequency support. > So yanking the WiFi radios seems to be a waste of time as well since you'd > be taking a $30-50 component out of a $400-500 base station. That's akin to > telling the city that that they should pull the valve stems from all city > vehicle tires before disposing of them. I agree. It would be labor intensive and doesn't really represent a positive repurposing of the gear. > Once all that's on the way to being resolved, you've only covered a small > portion of the issue -- now you've got some gear to work with but what to do > with it? If the city council and the general public are soured by MetroFi's > deployment of a metro-wide MWLAN, how does one present a proposal that's > going to get their attention? Are you going to concurrently deploy and > manage a public safety MWLAN on 4.9 GHz? How do the Schlumberger parking > meters backhaul to their payment center and if they operate on the available > freqs, what's the security model (WPA2, VLAN, aplication layer PKI, VPN, > some/all of the above, etc)? Does the WLAN really need to extend inside > everyone's home/apt/condo/office/treehouse/basement or are public spaces > sufficient? If end users want CPE to reach the public base stations, what's > a reasonable model for establishing distribution/price/vendor/support for > said CPE? Again, how does it all tie in to a budget for maintaining the base > station hardware/firmware/network, end users trying to connect to it with > city un/supported CPE, phone and/or email queue staff, specialized staff for > public safety users, etc? I doubt that the city is going to entertain any large scale proposals, particularly not if it requires city investment. The parking meters, as I understand it, are a no-go, regardless of the network one might build, due to an issue with the meters themselves. > Presenting one line/paragraph/page suggestions to the city council is not > recommended at this juncture. It's a lot to bite off so it's no wonder that > MetroFi barely got their toe into the base station and networking stages and > were questionably succesful at any portions of those. I disagree. I don't think the city is interested in hearing about projects they should undertake with MetroFi's gear. I think they probably would be open to suggestions that require little additional work and divert the gear from being randomly sold off or given to an electronics salvage company. Bonus points if the community derives a benefit. A bunch of citizens chiming in with "We think the gear could be used effectively if..." could inspire a worthwhile project. -- Michael Weinberg President Personal Telco Project, Inc. A 501(c)(3) Non-Profit --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ The Personal Telco Project - http://www.personaltelco.net/ Donate to PTP: http://www.personaltelco.net/donate Archives: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.wireless.portland.general/ Etiquette: http://www.personaltelco.net/index.cgi/MailingListEtiquette List information: http://lists.personaltelco.net To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
