At 09:11 AM 9/25/2007, Charles N Wyble wrote: >Eweek ran an article in last issue about a few projects. Including one >in Riverside: > >http://www.eweek.com/print_article2/0,1217,a=214867,00.asp
The San Jose WUG has done a ton of experiments with all levels of neighborhood wifi. They've been in the fore front, leading the pack, from day one. They have web pages pointing to all sorts of resources about community wifi, at least they did last year. >> Wifi can do 54. It still beats fiber? Huh, go figure. > >Well yes. But wifi can only go so far. It still needs to connect in to >the backbone... if a few people (power users) have fiber and can easily >recoup the cost of it by charging to tie in the nearest MESH node to >there backbone.... it greatly lowers the cost. Of course it would >require some pretty major changes to the EULA of the telco... If you are talking to them about using a residential account, sure. But I doubt they would permit that, plus the bandwidth is too low as gateway to the cloud. A telco business account would be more likely, and the EULA, AUP, TOS, for those accounts, at the bandwidth we are referring to, are likely inadequate as well. So, we move to the backbone to backbone accounts, and those EULAs, which are not on their public web site, and negotiate at that level. Of course, there are ways around the need for backbone account, and go with a possibly lower cost business account (typically business accounts are more expensive than residential - and I am unsure how they compare to backbone). There are federal rules I know of that allow a business model of the wifi firm to be set up such that the telco will do business with the firm to provide a business account (symmetric 12mb/s DSL), which still is not enough for wifi's 54mb/s, so DSL is not a good solution for connecting a MESH to a telco, even if you have dozens of such (does not permit for user base growth). So, the way to go is to connect your MESH to a colo computer via wireless and get onto the colo facilities gig backbone in one hop. I know several colo facilities that have said they will let me put an antenna or two up in a window connected to my computer. They all seemed to like the idea. So, bypass the telco's entirely. >> I was hoping someone would have read more of the city wifi site >> and realized most of the posting here has not reflected the >> reality of the direction the city is moving. And that some >> discussion of other possibilities for the city to go would >> be mentioned on this list. > >I have read the site quite extensively, and am currently reviewing the >various city council documents and directives. Well, Charles, I think then we should take our thread off line? I've been involved in defining a lot of the infrastructure for neighborhood wireless, and dumping the best ideas on this public list... I would do it if I perceived benefit in doing so was there, but this thread is way quiet in feedback, for the most part, so it has me thinking the proper forum is to be found else wheres. There is a tremendous amount of money to be made, sitting on the table, for city wifi systems. Spending my time where it can be leveraged is what I am after. >> Instead of piggybacking on the cities' street lighting for copper >> connectivity, perhaps fiber should be run in all new city construction? >> But is that needed? Why not an entire wifi network with even the >> backbone carried on wifi to a few NOCS where it means fiber? >> This means an antenna farm on top of street lights. >> Is the city's feasibility firm even considering this? > >If they aren't we will certainly show them the light (heh heh. light. >fiber. ok i'll stop). There is the issue of city liability of traffic inception and harm done to the wireless user, which means the city wants all equipment located on city property, under city control, which pretty much ignores the fact that wireless is easy to intercept, and the system operators being third party employees, have intercept capability as well. And then there is the insurance company to deal with and how they dictate what their rates are for various configurations. Thus, the private individual consultant running one or more nodes is likely not going to get insurance company approval, but I still think the proposal has merit, as third party employees are identical in nature, at least to me. >Again this is hopefully why the meeting is being held. I'm not that not cynical. I believe the feasibility firm is just gathering community input, going to ignore it all, and select their own 'related' company to implement the wifi for the city, as a single source supplier, locking everyone else out. >> Who is going to the meetings in a few days? >> Please post back here what directions this group, or just little >> old me, might be able to contribute. > >I will be going to both meetings. Follow my blog at >http://jackshck.livejournal.com for updates and action items. Great Charles! >We MUST NOT miss out on this opportunity to create an incredibly >powerful resource that can be used to vastly increase the overall >knowledge base of our neighbors. There is a vast amount of untapped >brain power that is going to waste. Getting everyone online and >connected will lead to amazing things. I agree. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SOCALWUG" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SOCALWUG SOCALWUG website: http://www.socalwug.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
