Operation Wired
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| ColonelPanik Feb 20, 2009 11:32 AM EDT |
Well done Ken! This is just a super idea. |
| bigg Feb 20, 2009 11:52 AM EDT |
The libertarians and Republicans around here will strongly disagree, but this is one of the main reasons I support free public broadband. My son will grow up with really good internet service. He watches youtube videos and plays pbskids.org games. That's not much, but as he gets older, his internet access will give him a significant advantage over some of the other kids and that just seems perverse to me. It's also my biggest (of many) problem with non-free software. I don't have much money but will be contributing what I can. And if someone designing a stimulus package is looking for a "shovel-ready" project, this is it. |
| dinotrac Feb 20, 2009 11:58 AM EDT |
Cool, cool beans. Ken, you continue to be amazing and, right now, without even knowing it, you are giving me a world of help. Out of work and facing a mountain of badness, it's easy to get into pity party mode. Utterly unhelpful. Knowing much of what you've been through and seeing how you keep punching through walls reminds me that even geezers can have enough gas left in the tank to climb hills and do amazing things. |
| NoDough Feb 20, 2009 12:21 PM EDT |
As usual, great work Ken. bigg: I'm all for a free Internet infrastructure, but not one run by the government. I believe that is what you inferred in your comment. Correct me if I am mistaken. FTA: Quoting:We will simply build a network around them...one they cannot control, seize or negate.The government will undoubtedly "control, seize, or negate" any communication channel they have opportunity to. The world's all-time biggest lie: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 20, 2009 12:29 PM EDT |
> The libertarians and Republicans around here will strongly disagree, but this is one of the main reasons I support free public broadband. Haven't the last 8 years of Republican socialism at least removed that illusion? But seriously, there is no such thing as "free public broadband". Everything has costs, someone has to pay for them. > I don't have much money but will be contributing what I can. Exactly. You, and me, and everyone else who thinks this is a good idea can/will contribute. Maybe just to put in a second Wifi hub and defining it for open ad-hoc networking. If I didn't live on a dead-end low-mid suburban street with 4 other wifi's in scanning range, I'd do it to. Just don't try to rationalize the means of robbing your neighbors at gun point, just because you think the ends of "public broadband" justifies it. |
| bigg Feb 20, 2009 1:02 PM EDT |
> I'm all for a free Internet infrastructure, but not one run by the government. I don't think I'd want the government to run it - that would probably be pretty inefficient - but was thinking more along the lines of the government paying for a minimal broadband service in an environment with competitive bidding. Along the lines of the distinction between universal health care and a government run health care system. It drives me crazy to see discussions about the lack of good projects for economic stimulus and then read about something like this. > Just don't try to rationalize the means of robbing your neighbors at gun point, just because you think the ends of "public broadband" justifies it. We have different priorities. For me, taxation for public funding of projects like Ken's is a good thing. I'm pretty sure that's not true for you. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 20, 2009 1:56 PM EDT |
> For me, taxation for public funding of projects like Ken's is a good thing. I'm pretty sure that's not true for you. Very true. I just want to make sure that you understand you're using the ends to justify the means. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 20, 2009 6:06 PM EDT |
This idea is an 'OK' idea, but I think there's a better way to bring "broadband" to the poor besides this idea using 1990s tech. Ken, you're absolutely right that it's not right to saddle these kids with 1980s connectivity in this, the 21st century. I think a better solution would be to take your "Wired" project and redirect the efforts to establish Mesh and Grid WiFi technology (the same that's used for the OLTPC project). In this age of ever-increasing choke-point ISP availability, it would be a true boon to your community to create a "Guerilla-net" with a number of nodes connected to the 'Net. http://tldp.org/HOWTO/AX25-HOWTO/index.html http://www.linux-wireless.org/Wireless/Antenna.DIY/ http://wiki.personaltelco.net/WirelessLinks There are a couple of references in those pages that point to http://www.guerilla.net which is no longer operational. Here is the "wayback" link to that site from February, 2003: http://web.archive.org/web/20030207094803/http://www.guerill... Here's an actual project that does what I'm talking about here for the entire neighborhood: http://www.bbwexchange.com/neighborhood/ And here's a forum on WISPs: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/wisp |
| techiem2 Feb 20, 2009 7:49 PM EDT |
Uh...I thought that's exactly what he's doing? Getting some cheap DSL lines when/where they can and then wifi-ing out from there. |
| NoDough Feb 20, 2009 9:22 PM EDT |
bigg: >> I don't think I'd want the government to run it - that would probably be pretty inefficient - but was thinking more along the lines of the government paying for a minimal broadband service in an environment with competitive bidding. He who writes the checks calls the shots. Right or wrong, that's just the way it is. techiem2: >> Uh...I thought that's exactly what he's doing? Getting some cheap DSL lines when/where they can and then wifi-ing out from there. If by "wifi-ing out from there" you mean building a wireless mesh network, then that's what I thought too. |
| helios Feb 21, 2009 12:39 PM EDT |
Darren, those are some valuable links and I appreciate you taking the time to post them. And yes, we are doing exactly what you say. It may take a while but it will get done. Thanks for posting them...it also helps anyone looking for this info too. h |
| jdixon Feb 21, 2009 11:26 PM EDT |
> ...but this is one of the main reasons I support free public broadband. Government provided broadband will be government censored broadband. Oh, that's not what they'll call it (child friendly, more likely), but that's what it will be. As far as I can see, Broadband Internet access will eventually become a necessity equivalent to electricity. Yes, it'll be possible to get by without it, but it's not something most people will want to do. For that reason, I could possibly support a government project to bring fiber to homes, especially in rural areas. However, you should then be able to get your Internet service from anyone you want. The only role the government should play would be installing and maintaining the fiber. Ideally, this would be done at the town or county level, the way water and sewage lines are handled in most places now. |
| ColonelPanik Feb 22, 2009 1:09 AM EDT |
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-10158583-76.html One city, public owned utility, fiber optic to the home. The rates are in the article, example: 50/50 is $58 per month. We now pay $72 for 10/2 |
| tuxtom Feb 23, 2009 8:09 AM EDT |
If you have the government lay down the fiber, how can you expect to have your choice of service provider? You can 't choose who you buy your electricity, gas, water, sewage or many other services from. What you are talking about here is an Orwellian "Big Brother" infrastructure. It is grossly naive to think that this would lead to greater freedom of choice. It will only lead to greater repression and control of the individual. In that respect, we're all doomed. |
| jdixon Feb 23, 2009 12:49 PM EDT |
> You can 't choose who you buy your electricity, gas, water, sewage or many other services from. In some areas you can, at least with gas and electricity. That's also the way it currently works with DSL via your phone line. You don't have to get it from your phone provider. |
| azerthoth Feb 23, 2009 1:24 PM EDT |
jd, as long that is, if they are not the only game in town. in which case there is always satellite. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 23, 2009 2:56 PM EDT |
@Techiem,
I realize that's what Ken is doing and after re-reading my own post, I can see how I wasn't all that clear what I was getting at. What I was trying to say (when I referred to "choke-points" and "a number of nodes") is that it's important to create MULTIPLE connections to the 'Net, not just a single connection through DSL. That's why I was saying that Ken's approach with a single connection (via DSL, Cable, etc.) is an 'OK' idea. My suggestion for the "Wired" project is basically the same thing that many larger corporations do when they have vital network connections - they subscribe to more than one provider with more than one physical pathway (preferably on opposite sides of the building in case of digging mishaps.) Sorry for the confusion. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 23, 2009 3:01 PM EDT |
Those places with competitive local TV cable providers pay half of what other people with monopolies pay. Just like any other monopoly, a utility will charge more for lower service than they will if there is no monopoly. We keep hearing from the JustUs department how "bad" monopolies are, right? What, that doesn't apply to monopolies created by law? |
| DarrenR114 Feb 23, 2009 3:18 PM EDT |
@Bob, The Justice Department has never made any claim about monopolies being "bad". In fact, some monopolies are very necessary - such as public utilities. This became apparent with the advent of the telephone and the propagation of electricity in private residences. When you have competing providers of such "hardwired" utilities, it becomes overly cumbersome, and more costly to the consumer, to NOT have monopolies. Can you imagine the confusion (and expense) if you had several different cable providers all burying cable in a single neighborhood? Or if you had several different power companies? Gas companies with their own pipelines? This is why local utilities are mandated monopolies. |
| ColonelPanik Feb 23, 2009 3:40 PM EDT |
50 up and down for less than $60 per month?
And the money goes to the city I live in?
Whats the problem! Oh, wait, I must be talking to very rich people that can afford gold plated IP's. |
| jdixon Feb 23, 2009 4:52 PM EDT |
> Can you imagine the confusion (and expense) if you had several different cable providers all burying cable in a single neighborhood? Or if you had several different power companies? Gas companies with their own pipelines? OK. I'm not sold on the idea that this is true, but assuming it is for the sake of the argument: Have the government provide the cable, power line, and gas line. Have a set standard for connecting your service to those lines. Then allow anyone who meets that standard to connect and allow the customer to buy their service from whichever provider they want. If you're going to have a monopoly, it might as well be one you can control via the ballot box. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 23, 2009 5:01 PM EDT |
> some monopolies are very necessary - such as public utilities. We'll have to differ in that opinion. I see no such need, only usurpation at gun point. > it becomes overly cumbersome, and more costly to the consumer, to NOT have monopolies. Not borne out by evidence. Or rather, I have seen no evidence of this. Instead, I have seen instance after instance of established firms calling upon government regulation to freeze-out competition, in order to prevent innovation. "Overly combersome" sounds like the "wasteful competition" used by Mussolini to justify his fascism. > Can you imagine the confusion (and expense)... Yes. Have you read "The Voluntary City" by Beito, Gordon and Tabarrok, which is a history and analysis of large-scale private, voluntary, services and infrastructure? I'd also suggest "How Capitalism Saved America" by Tom DiLorenzo, for descriptions of how vested interests use regulation and government monopoly grants in order to avoid competition. Yes, I can imagine competing power companies, gas companies and cable TV providers. Each of those exists (with the possible exception of power) somewhere, and they work just fine. The competition between cable IP and DSL in my town drove down prices (and up speeds) dramatically. Just like what happened when having more than one dial-up provider, or more than one long distance telephone company, or more than one cell phone company, or more than one package delivery company..... |
| tuxchick Feb 23, 2009 5:13 PM EDT |
As long as we're wandering off-topic....Quoting: some monopolies are very necessary - such as public utilities. Something I've been following on and off for several years is DIY power generation. Solar and wind have advanced very slowly, and it still costs way too dang much to retrofit, and a lot of the technology is snake oil. You really have to watch your back when you're thinking of purchasing solar or wind generation; the industry is infested with con and ripoff artists. It only makes economic sense on new construction because electric utilities like to charge a bamillion dollars to hook you into the grid. Such a big deal it is, you dig the trench and prepare everything, and then a lineman comes out and lays the cable and thirty minutes later you're thousands of dollars poorer. Oh I know, some permatemp back at the office has to click a few checkboxes on the computer. Nothing but hard labor for the utility workers. But I digress. It is becoming closer to feasible, and it's something I think is long overdue. There are some cool new products starting to appear that are stylish instead of giant ugly things, and easy to retrofit. One thing I saw at a hotel rehab project were these slatted blinds that look like ordinary 2" Venetian blinds, but they're actually little solar panels. Make it perty, make it affordable, and it's a winner. Why depend on public electric utilities anyway? They have a habit of not keeping the power on when you really need it, like during heat waves and winter storms. Sheesh, in 2009 you'd think they'd have wised up to the concept of "seasons". |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 23, 2009 5:36 PM EDT |
TC, I'm not convinced this is actually off-topic. IP is a service, just like phone and electricity, which many people take very seriously. So seriously, that providing it as a "utility" has become a viable argument. To counter this argument requires exactly the same effort that countering any "utility" requires, because exactly the same argument is being made on both sides. If competition in one field is good, why not in all? I believe the reason is that the arguer hasn't seen competition in that particular field (since they grew up with it being provided by a single monopoly) so they cannot imagine it working any other way. Their minds create hobgoblins of disaster, gloom and chaos if actual de-regulation were to occur, hobgoblins only kept at bay by the existence of the legal monopoly grants, because they are afraid of change. In reverse, why not provide IP as as a utility? All the same arguments apply: General availability without wasteful competition; liability through elected officials and appointed oversight boards rather than fly-by-night operators; known standards for service (just disregard those brown-outs and black-outs, who doesn't have problems from time to time?); "real" community service with only a few people freezing in their homes from having their service cut off, rather than the danger of.... So really, not off topic at all. I prefer voluntary interaction over coercion in everything, because I honestly see that introducing coercion into a situation that is really just people figuring out how to help each other doesn't do anyone any good. |
| gus3 Feb 23, 2009 6:55 PM EDT |
@Bob: In Ohio, the delivery channels are maintained by a local monopoly, but the power is provided from several sources. Our electric bills even quote figures on them stating "another company must charge less than $X.XX/kWh in order to be a better deal for you." And, AFAIK, there is no limit on how often you are allowed to switch providers. |
| ColonelPanik Feb 23, 2009 9:07 PM EDT |
TC: The initial cost of solar elec for the home is steep.
But a reasonable system will pay for its self in 5 Years.
Then you are living fine. This summer there will be a solar energy expo in Albuquerque, NM. 2 days and you will know enough to make smart choices. I have been looking at this for 25 years and lived with solar for one year. The expo last year changed every thing I thought I knew! |
| jdixon Feb 23, 2009 11:22 PM EDT |
> In Ohio, the delivery channels are maintained by a local monopoly, but the power is provided from several sources. Exactly. A government controlled monopoly on the distribution system, with free choice of the provider. Especially in a situation where there is no existing provider, and/or little hope of there being one, it can be argued that this is the best system. As noted above, I'm not convinced it is, but I'm willing to concede that it is an internally consistent argument with valid points. And in situations where there actually is not existing provider and no real hope of there being one, it may be the only alternative. |
| tuxtom Feb 24, 2009 5:43 AM EDT |
tc: Some interesting points. I have some recent first-hand experience with DIY off-grid power generation in of all places unincorporated San Diego county in Southern California. First of all, let me say that it is a lot easier to talk about this in an armchair way than it is to viably live a life by modern standards off-the-grid. Regardless of what is available or technically feasible it takes some pretty major lifestyle changes to make it work without taking extraordinary measures: 1) It is a LOT of work. You need to continuously engineer the system, build solar arrays, install and maintain and replace equipment, religiously maintain your battery bank, ad infinitum. 2) Of course we need heat, and off-the-grid, wood is a common heating fuel. Wood means work. You need to acquire it, store it, bring it in to your heat source, stoke your heat source, clean your heat source (wood is dirty start to finish), ad infinitum. 3) It is VERY expensive. You have to write checks out of your bank account...you have to pay cash for components from various sources. This never ends...it is NOT a one-time investment. You can sit around running spreadsheets all day testifying to the economic viability and break-even points but that doesn't hold a light to the real-world effect of the cash outlays to keep something like this working for you in daily life. Panels...panels that actually pump out some REAL juice...cost BIG money. They break...and you always need more than the spreadsheet says you do. Batteries cost money...and if you don't maintain them meticulously you need to replace them. My friends are less than 5 years old and he needs to replace them to the tune of $3,000 already. When's the last time you got a $3000 electric bill less than 5 years after you moved into your house? Sure, they may have not been maintained as well as they could have been and they saw some abuse during the construction of the new house (the old one was destroyed in the 2003 fires), but that's how the Real World works as opposed to a spreadsheet. 4) When you have a household of 5 people and 2000 Sq Feet of living area and you live a modern life (i.e. you like electric lighting instead of candles...and I mean lights, not flashlight-quality lighting)...your system is gonna be strained. Solar and batteries only carry you so far in modern life. You will need to supplement it with a generator to charge at night. That is noisy...and it takes fuel...propane or diesel. Diesel is a PITA. Propane is expensive, but since you need propane to cook with and heat water for washing and for the radiant floor heating system you installed to keep from having to use wood as your primary heat source, it seems natural to buy a propane genset. Gensets are expensive. Propane is expensive...and you run out if you are not careful, especially running a genset. 5) You get tired of spending all that money on propane, and you also get tired of hearing that genset run all night (and they're never as quiet as advertised and you can't put them a mile away...might as well run a public utility that mile, right?). So, you buy a wind generator to supplement the system. A 1 KW wind generator is expensive...and it can be loud (despite the advertising). You also have to install it. It's like 25 feet tall and heavily rigged... and the braking hub burns out and things break on them and they end up costing a lot of money and need work to own. 6) You constantly want to adjust this whole setup and end up buying new technologies (i.e. panels, regulators, etc.), trying to make it work better for you. Mo Cash, Mo Time, Mo Worry. 7) It sucks a lot of time and effort from your life and leads to a lot of uncertainty and worry. It's much, much easier to worry about paying a monthly utility bill. So, unless you just have a little vacation cabin and want to live like a hippie, don't be naive about what it really takes to live this way. The reality is a far cry from the concept. After seeing in actual practice I can honestly say that I would rather pay the big money to have a public utility run and pay that monthly bill and just come home from work, turn on the light and sit down in my nice, warm home and enjoy my evening with my family knowing that the lights will come on when I go to the bathroom in the middle of the night. P.S. - Sorry that was so long but it needed to be said. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 24, 2009 2:58 PM EDT |
Here's a good read on "Public Utility Monopolies":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility The first paragraph touches on why "government-owned" utilities are not such a good idea - historically speaking. Is regulation of Public Utilities still necessary? I'll let you decide: the Enron Scandal happened because of de-regulation. |
| NoDough Feb 24, 2009 4:25 PM EDT |
>> ...the Enron Scandal happened because of de-regulation. ??? The Enron scandal happened because of accounting fraud. |
| bigg Feb 24, 2009 4:55 PM EDT |
We're off topic for sure, but I think Darren is arguing that Enron was able to manipulate the energy market due to deregulation, which is different from what is usually called "the Enron scandal". And now I shall exit the discussion as to not be a TOS-breaker. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 24, 2009 5:18 PM EDT |
Then I'll be the TOS breaker. What was Enron's business model, Darren? Trading government pollution credits, a-la Kyoto. But Kyoto didn't get ratified fast enough, and the "well, gee, we don't actually have a business" accounting fraud fell through. It was no more "deregulation" than splitting AT&T into 8 regional legal monopolies was "deregulation", or California regulating the sale price of electricity while abolishing long-term power contracts was somehow "deregulating" their power market. If you're actually interested, please, just ask. I realize that I tend to fall back on http://www.Mises.org in lots of these kinds of discussions, but seriously they have been publishing continually on economic matters through Enron, the California power "crisis", the oil bubble, the stock market bubble, the realestate bubble, etc. To try talking on these matters without at least SEEING what they have to say is to argue from ignorance. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!