Open wireless
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| rsevenic Feb 24, 2009 1:47 PM EDT |
Interestingly, Bruce Schneier (the well known security guru) keeps his home wireless network open:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/my_open_wirele... Richard |
| techiem2 Feb 24, 2009 2:14 PM EDT |
Mine isn't open, but the WEP key could probably be cracked in about 5 min. lol. I've thought of having mine open as I doubt there's many in the neighborhood that would abuse it. But with the ISP bandwidth limit (and those liability issues) I don't feel like taking the risk. Not to mention the couple windows boxes in the house. lol. The only way I'd leave my wireless open would be if I had the WAP on a separate subnet into my router for easy logging and separation from the lan, but I'd want a dedicated AP just for that purpose since I often need to access the lan over wireless. Ideally, you could do like one person mentioned and have the shared AP protected but with an SSID containing your phone number to give people access. Or leave it open and use a captive portal system with your number or some such on the login page. |
| azerthoth Feb 24, 2009 2:20 PM EDT |
I notice that he also states there that he admits that this opens him up to many liabilities, both technological and legal. |
| techiem2 Feb 24, 2009 2:26 PM EDT |
Right. While the idea is great, the current state of our ISPs and our sue or confiscate first, ask questions later legal system....for many of us it's just not worth the risk. Oh well. |
| ColonelPanik Feb 24, 2009 2:46 PM EDT |
But... What if we don't open our wireless?
How else can we fight back? |
| azerthoth Feb 24, 2009 2:51 PM EDT |
CP fight back against what per-se? |
| ColonelPanik Feb 24, 2009 4:19 PM EDT |
Usually it is THEM or IT. High cost, low bandwidth. Usage caps blocking p2p Corporate policy that prevents low income families from obtaining service. Seems I am spending as much time on connectivity sites as on Linux sites. There seems to be more news about limiting our (internet users) experience than there is about providing more information, education, public service, etc. Freedom, I guess. |
| dyfet Feb 24, 2009 4:23 PM EDT |
I see no inconsistency in Richard's views on wireless with his past views on account passwords, for one example. There are people who were able to complete a thesis at Berkeley many years ago simply because of the famous password accessible "rms" account that became available from when he visited there. I think this very same philosophy is being expressed by Richard with respect to wireless. I think the problem is not tunnel vision on Richard's part, but rather tunnel vision on the basic question of human freedom by present society. |
| jdixon Feb 24, 2009 11:09 PM EDT |
> How else can we fight back? There are other options then a fully open wireless network. TC had a writeup some time ago on how to set up multiple option wireless networks which gave you full access but limited others to certain types of access. There's also the FON model: http://www.fon.com/en/ Which looks interesting. |
| ColonelPanik Feb 24, 2009 11:38 PM EDT |
jd.....Great link I am not saying we should be fools but there may be a day, very soon, when the intertubes is the same as TV. |
| jdixon Feb 25, 2009 12:21 AM EDT |
OK, some searching didn't turn up the article I was thinking of, but here are three from Carla which deal with the general subject of sharing wi-fi: http://articles.directorym.net/Public_Wi_Fi_Share_but_Wisely... http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/tutorials/6347/1/ http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/tutorials/6350/1/ The last two are really a single article, part1 and part 2. Entertaining and enlightening, as always with her articles. |
| azerthoth Feb 25, 2009 1:02 PM EDT |
@ dyfet, I fail to see how being internally consistent, and your right on that point, somehow indemnifies the man for his opinions. @CP, I'm sorry bud, your points 2 and 3 are not failings that need to be addressed in my opinion. I stated why in the article, and in another thread. To recap though, you lease your service, like everyone who wants internet access, ultimately from private owners of the equipment, who have contracted to allow access to their hardware. They have entered into many such obligations to supply that service, this would make it not only a right of the ISP to guarantee, but the responsibility of the ISP to ensure that it can meet these obligations equally to all. |
| ColonelPanik Feb 25, 2009 5:27 PM EDT |
az, yeah, that private owner stuff. Just like TV, private. Just like dictators. Evil dictators and benevolent dictators. So I see the municipal ownership as a good thing, we do have a vote there. Private IPs are beyond our reach. |
| NoDough Feb 25, 2009 5:53 PM EDT |
I'm find it very amusing that some believe that a political vote is more powerful than a purchase decision (voting with your dollars.) Historically speaking, this is the equivalent of belief in bigfoot. It's popular, but there's no evidence to support it. |
| jdixon Feb 25, 2009 10:30 PM EDT |
> I'm find it very amusing that some believe that a political vote is more powerful than a purchase decision... It is when you have no available purchase options. :( If you have purchase options, then obviously government involvement is neither necessary or desirable. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 26, 2009 10:00 AM EDT |
> So I see the municipal ownership as a good thing, we do have
a vote there. Private IPs are beyond our reach. You've never tried to fight City Hall, have you? Unlike the government territorial monopoly, private businesses have to compete in order to make money. Of course, this is conditional since territorial monopolies sometimes grant monopolies to others, such as telephone and cableTV providers, in exchange for money. Competition means that if you don't like the service, you can take your business elsewhere. The lower the artificial barriers to entry are, such as licensing and fees to the territorial monopoly, the more the established providers have to work to keep your business by constantly innovating, driving efficiencies up and costs down, to give you better service. 230 years ago, Adam Smith pointed out this seeming "contradiction", that competition is more efficient than monopoly, in his case studies book "The Wealth of Nations". JD, the problem is not with whether or not there IS competition, but whether or not there CAN BE. "Monopoly" prices, that is, the extra money a single provider can charge, is a signal to entrepreneurs that there is money to be made under-cutting that single provider. The only issue becomes the "barrier to entry": Start up costs. To make the assumption that there is only one way to skin a cat has ruined lots of businesses that became complacent, expecting that they had their market sewn up. IBM nearly went down before finally realizing that the microcomputer had made their monolithic mainframe business model obsolete, for example. That's why "utilities" just LOVE their monopoly grants. It's not because there is some "natural monopoly" or "only room for one", it's because it removes innovation. Competition can come from any direction, if the single provider gets lazy. Only the monopoly grant lets the single provider off the hook entirely. The example of ISDN comes to mind. AT&T didn't bother to get the service tarriffed, that is "defined in their legal monopoly as a service", because they didn't imagine a use for it. Or, if you want to get into the signalling issue, they didn't want to go through all that effort. So the US never got nice, clean, ubiquitous 56/64Kbps digital service. Instead, the innovators discovered ways to fiddle the analog telephone service to provide ever faster modem speeds. But I can tell you, having had my first real computer job in 1981 as a mainframe operator, that even then ISDN would have been a fantastic boon, a gift from the gods of information. AT&Ts lack of vision where ISDN is concerned baffles me utterly. What an opportunity, utterly missed. I could also mention what happened to "the internet" once the National Science Foundation removed their control of the routing tables and threw routing open to competition, which prior to that decision had required dual dedicated RS6000s to maintain them on each exchange. Those tables exploded in size and complexity, but the RS6000s were completely superfluous within months. Commodity routers were suddenly capable of doing the job far better, cheaper, when the artificial barrier to entry, the requirement to use only the NSF provided tables, was removed. Once the artificial barriers to entry are removed, you're better off as a customer even if you have only one "choice" in provider. |
| jdixon Feb 26, 2009 10:22 AM EDT |
> JD, the problem is not with whether or not there IS competition, but whether or not there CAN BE Oh, I understand Bob. However, broadband to rural areas simply isn't happening, and there's no sign it will happen in the future. Even if you're willing to pay for it, it's not available. We've only had DSL as an option for the past 3 years, and I'm convinced that only happened because of political pressure (the home town of our governor is in my local calling area). And DSL will soon be considered the "poor man's broadband". I would rather have a private solution, but there doesn't seem to be one forthcoming. The broadband over power lines option looked good, but it's never made it into production. Cable isn't available in these areas, so broadband via cable isn't and option. The monopoly phone companies apparently have no interest in upgrading their equipment to provide DSL much less replacing their copper lines with fiber. Wireless sounds good, but again it doesn't seem to make it into production. Other than government directly installing the fiber, what other option is there? At least that minimizes government involvement and allows your choice of Internet provider. Like it or not, if we want broadband access for the last 30% of the population, it looks like the government will have to get involved. And the past and current "tax breaks/incentives to provide the service" have not and almost certainly will not work. An argument that it's not necessary because broadband simply isn't as essential as electricity or phone service can be made, but I'm not convinced that it's a good one now, and it almost certainly won't be in the future. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 26, 2009 10:59 AM EDT |
> Like it or not, if we want broadband access for the last 30% of the population, it looks like the government will have to get involved. If it just doesn't happen, then there is a reason. Using government to force it to happen simply means that there will be greater waste of resources doing something that isn't efficient. Yes, some people won't get strawberries in January, yet. That's ok, people everywhere lived without strawberries in January, then some got them, then more, and it didn't take government to provide them. Just like the transcontinental railroad. It took James Hill ten years longer to build one, but his was done privately, at far less expense and far greater efficiency, and profitably. And it didn't suffer from the Rube Goldberg building problems (tracks laid on ice, for example) of the government funded lines. Innovation. Someone will eventually provide the service, because they want the business. Maybe it will be you. And in doing so, they will figure out an efficient way to do it, rather than depending on tax money to stretch inappropriate and inefficient technologies into where they were never a good solution to begin with. Have you seen those relatively inexpensive fiber-optic network boxes that use a single fiber to send bi-directional data? An answer looking for a problem to solve, maybe. Might this be the one? Bring in vested interests with expensive answers that require monopoly grants to make them worth while, and we'll never find out. |
| bigg Feb 26, 2009 11:13 AM EDT |
> And in doing so, they will figure out an efficient way to do it, rather than depending on tax money to stretch inappropriate and inefficient technologies into where they were never a good solution to begin with. I was trying to stay out of this, but I've got to hand it to you Bob, you REALLY put a lot of faith in large corporations. I'd prefer a world in which there's perfect competition and perfect information and no externalities and capital flows immediately to the most profitable projects. That's not the world I live in. Yeah, there are problems with the government, but hey, there are a lot of problems with the private sector as well. |
| jdixon Feb 26, 2009 11:22 AM EDT |
> That's ok, people everywhere lived without strawberries in January, A good analogy, but I think broadband could more accurately be compared to salt. It's more necessary than strawberries, and it's not a seasonal lack, it's a complete absence. I think maintaining an informed electorate is going to require broadband access for almost everyone. It can be argued that it already does. > Innovation. Someone will eventually provide the service, because they want the business. Easy to say, but no sign of it happening. :( I made it clear to Verizon for almost 10 years that I was willing to pay up to $100/month for DSL. They never offered it until the above mentioned political situation made it expedient for them to do so. > Have you seen those relatively inexpensive fiber-optic network boxes that use a single fiber to send bi-directional data? I know they exist, but I haven't looked at them. Of course, the problem then becomes getting right of way to pull the cable. Rights which the power companies, telephone companies, and local governments already have. I'm not arguing theory, Bob. I agree with you with that government is never the optimal solution. I'm trying to decide if this is one of those rare cases where a relatively essential need won't (not can't, I won't even try to argue that) be met by the marketplace, and if so what's the best solution. |
| jdixon Feb 26, 2009 11:26 AM EDT |
> Yeah, there are problems with the government, but hey, there are a lot of problems with the private sector as well. And there are even more problems when the two interact (things such as with right of ways and monopoly grants), which is the case here. Part of the problem here is that already granted monopoly rights make it unprofitable for someone else to enter the field. :( |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 26, 2009 12:41 PM EDT |
> you REALLY put a lot of faith in large corporations. Bigg, I have to ask, why do you restrict this to "large corporations"? Most "large corporations" now only get that way because they get all cuddly with government. Microsoft's huge growth coincided with the government purchase forms getting a single line-item "Windows computer", rather than the bureaucrats having to specify and justify what system they needed. (I was working at NASA at the time) Even WalMart, that perpetual target of those who hate free markets, has repeatedly bullied local governments to use eminent domain to get choice properties against the owners will. People are lazy. Using political power to get gain is easier than competition. I do have faith in people, to buy the cheapest thing that meets their wants. So a "large corporation" (incorporating is a government grant of limited liability, BTW, so the literal answer is not just no but hell no!) can only get large, and stay large, by serving more customers better than anyone else can. It's a package. By eliminating "incorporation", companies cannot become huge because owners are actually liable for the results of their company's actions. By eliminating regulation and other barriers to entry, the costs of innovation are reduced and competition increased. By not TAXING people to pay for inefficient uses of resources, people have more money to spend on things that actually meet their needs. Sure, government can do something you want. But for a moment, think about all the things that won't get done because this one thing does get done inefficiently. (or you can do a quick search for the phrase "that which is unseen") JD, > I think maintaining an informed electorate is going to require broadband access for almost everyone. It can be argued that it already does. I agree with you, except that it doesn't take "broadband". It requires access, and the greatest boost of access I've witnessed was when government got out of the way at the end of 1992. Dial-up works just fine. Maybe one can only watch one YouTube video in 20 minutes, but text come across beautifully and Ad Block Plus greatly reduces circuit-sucking graphics. |
| bigg Feb 26, 2009 1:22 PM EDT |
Bob: I don't have time to respond fully, but this is sufficient. If I were willing to accept all of your assumptions, I would come to the same conclusions. You are simply assuming things like, "So a "large corporation" (incorporating is a government grant of limited liability, BTW, so the literal answer is not just no but hell no!) can only get large, and stay large, by serving more customers better than anyone else can." You assume that is true. I assume that it is not. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 26, 2009 1:30 PM EDT |
> You assume that is true. I assume that it is not. I'm not assuming. It is a logical consequence of choice. |
| jdixon Feb 26, 2009 1:31 PM EDT |
> Dial-up works just fine. If you know how to use it, yes. Lynx and equivalents are your friend. :) Most people won't and honestly can't be expected to optimize their systems for dial-up. There's also the fact that keeping a Windows system updated over dial-up is becoming impossible. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 26, 2009 1:36 PM EDT |
> There's also the fact that keeping a Windows system updated over dial-up is becoming impossible. Did I mention that some of the reasons that firms are self-limiting without coercive support, are second-system-syndrome and feature-creep? |
| jdixon Feb 26, 2009 1:42 PM EDT |
OK, as with bigg, I'll attempt to summarize our points of disagreement. We agree that allowing the market to work is the best option. We agree that government interference in the market is bad, and that government uniformly does a lousy job at anything it attempts. We disagree that the market as it currently exists can solve the problem of broadband access for rural residents. You think it can, I say that we've been waiting for almost 20 years now, it hasn't, and there's no sign that it will. We probably agree that a substantial portion of the reason for this is entrenched monopolies and government regulations. However, the question remains. How do we get broadband access for rural residents without the government doing it? As I noted, both power line broadband and wireless are supposedly options, but neither has been rolled out to any degree. The only current option for most of these people is satellite, and that has such severe limitations that it's almost not a solution. |
| azerthoth Feb 26, 2009 1:47 PM EDT |
I'm sorry gentlemen but your premise that there has to be a physical ground based infrastructure in place for someone to have broadband is incorrect. There are multiple satellite based options that are viable, and in some cases cheaper than similarly supported hard line connections. In the satellite internet field there is plenty of competition, and if I can get and use it on the west coast of Alaska, getting a usable signal in cow flop Kansas is a no brainer. I would also like to point out that this is a global issue and you all are debating it from a wholly US perspective, while some of the talking points are applicable globally, some are not, and drawing a conclusion for a global solution using only locally applicable facts seems to me to have a touch of hubris. p.s. JD you manged to get in while I was writting, the limitations of satellite internet are not as severe as you would think. Take it from someone who uses it on a regular basis. |
| jdixon Feb 26, 2009 1:58 PM EDT |
> There are multiple satellite based options that are viable, and in some cases cheaper than similarly supported hard line connections. Not in my experience. At least here, the available options are uniformly extremely bandwith limited, have high latency (eliminating VPN as an option), and are more expensive than the land based options. Believe me, I've looked. Any links to options you consider superior would be appreciated (while I don't need it, you never know what the future may hold and I know several who do), > ...this is a global issue and you all are debating it from a wholly US perspective... Yes, but I don't know enough to debate it from a global perspective. Do you? > ...and drawing a conclusion for a global solution using only locally applicable facts seems to me to have a touch of hubris. I'm not trying for a global solution. Time enough for that once the local problem is solved. You have to have enough to eat yourself before you can reasonably be expected to worry about feeding others. Or, to use an old adage: Charity begins at home. |
| bigg Feb 26, 2009 2:10 PM EDT |
> I'm not assuming. It is a logical consequence of choice. You're assuming that there are choices available in a perfectly competitive market with perfect information. If those assumptions are true, there is no question, it follows logically. Does Microsoft sell so many copies of Windows today because they offer the best value in the operating system business? Possibly, but there is no way we could tell by looking only at the data on market share. It is not unreasonable to say that Microsoft sells so many copies of Windows today because they used to be a monopolist, and now there are costs to moving, even if you are aware of the alternatives. |
| azerthoth Feb 26, 2009 2:10 PM EDT |
jd, good points, and the latency issue is undefeatable, as the 12.36 microsecond per round trip mile is the physical limitation of the speed of light. 6.18 ms for light to travel one mile one way. Short of that you can reach speeds in excess of 1Mb a second. I'll grab you a couple links after work tonight. |
| jdixon Feb 26, 2009 2:34 PM EDT |
> Short of that you can reach speeds in excess of 1Mb a second. Agreed. I've seen that or slightly better. Since it's shared bandwidth, YMMV, of course. > I'll grab you a couple links after work tonight. Thanks. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 26, 2009 6:04 PM EDT |
JD, > How do we get broadband access for rural residents without the government doing it? By doing it. I didn't say "the present market". I said that by raising artificial barriers and/or subsidizing inefficient answers, innovation is crowded out and the answer will not be found. Forcing the present answers will not magically create efficiency. No, I agree, "the present market" isn't filling this need. I can't say when it will be filled, but what I can for certain say is that the need is not matched for present technologies/models. If we don't do something else, we're just creating a white elephant that we might never get rid of. Much like the French Mintel system. > (satellites) have high latency (eliminating VPN as an option) Yes, but just what "need" are you trying to have broadband fill? Watching YouTube? Posting videos? Large file email? Then latency is nearly irrelevant. If the specific need is minimum latency, then a 56K modem might just be as good as it gets for a while. But tell someone with a 300baud modem that they would be "restricted" to 56K, they'd look at you like you were nuts. That's no restriction at all, in comparison. Maybe someone living in the boonies will have a few restrictions. So be it. They are also restricted as to how far they have to go to find a grocery store, compared to someone who lives in an urban area. It's just another part of country living. You have a laudable goal, but I'm not sure your "need" is someone else's "need". And that is, also, one of my objections to using government to force that answer on others. |
| NoDough Feb 26, 2009 6:06 PM EDT |
>> > How do we get broadband access for rural residents without the government doing it? WiMax |
| gus3 Feb 26, 2009 7:48 PM EDT |
@Bob: When a satellite gets thrown into the route, latency becomes unacceptable for pretty much all TCP traffic. 2 seconds ping time is unacceptable for just about anything except IRC. Even dial-up can do better than that. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 26, 2009 8:13 PM EDT |
> 2 seconds ping time is unacceptable for just about anything... Unacceptable to whom? To you? Then I suggest you don't live where acceptable service is not available. People have to make choices about where to live every day. In 2002 I could have had 5MBS service over fiber to my apartment in Tokyo, but I didn't want to continue living in Tokyo, so I had to forgo the fiber connection. Maybe being so steeped in this 'Net thing so deeply has made it difficult to realize that some people have other priorities. |
| tracyanne Feb 26, 2009 8:31 PM EDT |
Satellite is ok, provided you don't require hight availability, pretty much any weather conditions will affect it's availability and performance. That said, if it's the only other game in town it beats dialup by a big margin. |
| jdixon Feb 26, 2009 10:32 PM EDT |
> Yes, but just what "need" are you trying to have broadband fill? Whatever the customer needs. But the specific need for VPN is to be able to access work networks from home. > It's just another part of country living. You have a laudable goal, but I'm not sure your "need" is someone else's "need". It's not my need. I have broadband. I think it is or will be a necessity for participating as a citizen in our society. Too many government (and non-government but required by government) interactions will come to depend on it. > And that is, also, one of my objections to using government to force that answer on others. That's why it should be down at the county/town level. > WiMax I've been hearing that for a couple of years now, but haven't heard of any successful rollouts. I also haven't heard how it handles terrain problems. > That said, if it's the only other game in town it beats dialup by a big margin. Agreed. It's far better than dialup, unless the latency us unacceptable. The options I've seen are much more costly than equivalent DSL service however. Roughly twice as much per month, plus much higher upfront and installation costs. |
| jdixon Feb 26, 2009 10:34 PM EDT |
> Unacceptable to whom? To you? Then I suggest you don't live where acceptable service is not available. Believe me Bob, if comes to a choice between living in a developed area or giving up the Internet, the Internet will go, and quickly. |
| tracyanne Feb 26, 2009 10:38 PM EDT |
I think we can get free installation in rural areas. Government subsidy, that is. |
| ColonelPanik Feb 26, 2009 10:40 PM EDT |
What should this country (usOFa) have for Broadband?
Whats needed for industry/commerce? Homes?
Other countries are doing much better in terms of
speed, many don't have caps, price is better too. |
| jacog Feb 27, 2009 3:50 AM EDT |
Open wireless, I wish. Here, most ISPs give you for roughly the equivalent of $40 a month, a 512Kb line with a 3GB data cap. The one I am with, I pay about $110 for 512KB with a 10GB data cap. Public wi-fi usually is not free, except for a 10 minute window in which you can maybe send off a mail or two. |
| tuxtom Feb 27, 2009 7:28 AM EDT |
I'm looking to move out of the big city to a rural area, but I need a Fry's, a Trader Joe's, a Starbucks, a Mercedes Benz dealer, an international airport with daily jet service by several major carriers, a Nordstroms, a major University w/ a Medical School, a well-staffed hospital with state-of-the-art medical care, major league professional sports teams, access to high-paying employment in biotech/wireless/aerospace without a long commute, oh yeah...and quality, affordable broadband. Is this realistic? Any recommendations? |
| jdixon Feb 27, 2009 7:54 AM EDT |
Tuxtom: You forgot your sarcasm tags. Believe it or not, most college towns offer many of the things you listed, or at least reasonable substitutes, within driving distance. Check out Blacksburg, Va, or Morgantown, WV for examples. I believe Clemson, SC is also equivalent. These aren't large cities, but the universities bring many of the features you listed with them. |
| NoDough Feb 27, 2009 9:57 AM EDT |
>> > WiMax >>I've been hearing that for a couple of years now, but haven't heard of any successful rollouts. I also haven't heard how it handles terrain problems. I've got no hands-on experience, but have studied up on it in the past and, judging from what I've read, the technology works. Everyone seems to be waiting for some monolithic giant to roll it out. I personally don't believe that a giant (or the government) can do it in an efficient, workable manner because they first have to add in all of their proprietary crap, monitoring, and control. Sprint is working on it but, from what I gather, not having much success. They are targeting large cities that really don't need it (smart move.) Regarding terrain problems, no it won't work through a mountain. However, it has far better range (measured in miles) and bandwidth than any other wireless out there. It is (supposed to be) unaffected by weather conditions. It would make a great wireless mesh network for rural areas. In the U.S. it can be setup without FCC approval as one of its frequency ranges is the 2.5Ghz public range. Alternatively, you can run in a private frequency with all the FCC approvals. Edit: Oops, wrong freq. 5.8Ghz is the license-free range. For 2.5Ghz you need a license. If you can trust 'em, wiki lists rollouts here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deployed_WiMAX_networks >> I'm looking to move out of the big city to a rural area, but I need a Fry's, a Trader Joe's, a Starbucks, a Mercedes Benz dealer, an international airport with daily jet service by several major carriers, a Nordstroms, a major University w/ a Medical School, a well-staffed hospital with state-of-the-art medical care, major league professional sports teams, access to high-paying employment in biotech/wireless/aerospace without a long commute, oh yeah...and quality, affordable broadband. Is this realistic? Any recommendations? Sure. Just find a nice little spot in the country with a huge city surrounding it. |
| ColonelPanik Feb 27, 2009 11:08 AM EDT |
News: Maybe it will get better in the usOFa? http://www.multichannel.com/article/179823-Copps_Time_To_Inc... |
| NoDough Feb 27, 2009 11:33 AM EDT |
From the link: While acknowledging the importance of open-access issues, strong consideration must also be given to "how to ensure that as the Internet becomes our primary vehicle for communicating with one another, it protects the public interest and informs the civic dialogue that America depends on." If you see that as things getting better, then you live in a different USofA than do I. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 27, 2009 3:17 PM EDT |
I think we would have long since had a wireless mesh-based system, if there was no FCC. The Hams have been messing around with packet radio for decades. I remember a guy who had a 100watt transmition booster for his CB radio...in his car. And here we are worried about the RF from cell phones? But seriously, I really do think that the artificial restrictions on transmitters created by the whole idea of the FCC has retarded innovation in this field. > it protects the public interest and informs the civic dialogue that America depends on. Oh, puke! Being held to some bureaucrat's idea of "public interest" is not at all in MY interest! |
| Scott_Ruecker Feb 27, 2009 3:24 PM EDT |
In the U.S. "public interest" translates into how can we regulate it so that some big companies can fleece the American consumers for the most amount of money possible while keeping innovation and safety to an absolute minimum.. |
| ColonelPanik Feb 27, 2009 4:00 PM EDT |
Thanks Scott, thats what I wanted to say. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 27, 2009 4:02 PM EDT |
Scott, CP, I couldn't agree more! The only thing I would change would be to clarify that "we" to be "regulators". That "we" certainly does not include members of the unorganized public. |
| NoDough Feb 27, 2009 5:29 PM EDT |
CP, I'm confused. Your last two posts seem to contradict one another. Did I miss the implied sarcasm in the first of the two? |
| ColonelPanik Feb 27, 2009 9:40 PM EDT |
No Dough, No Sarcasm. "Time To Include Internet In Public Interest Dialogue" YES! Scott's post talked about the corporate world and what it does. Yes, thats how it is but not how it has to be. The first was a gov. thing and I support talking with the people that the gov serves. The second was a great, concise summation of the corp. way of life and how it bites. Two halves of the same argument. |
| helios Feb 27, 2009 11:06 PM EDT |
I think we would have long since had a wireless mesh-based system, if there was no FCC. We seem to be working with a bit of a Renegade at Georgia Tech and after we read the possible sanctions and actual enforcements of the FCC, we are going to uh....push those ridiculous limits and see how far we can get away with it. Yeah, civil disobedience and the whole thing...again it all comes back to how hard they might spank us and if it can cause our cause any real damage. These folks on the "wrong side of the tracks" are going to get their internet. Wait until you see what these GT guys have planned...genius far past my meager limitations. Then again...we could just go the fon route but that's not going to give us the power we need. h |
| jdixon Feb 28, 2009 1:44 AM EDT |
> If you can trust 'em, wiki lists rollouts here... Thanks. I'll try to do some research when I get home. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 28, 2009 12:32 PM EDT |
Helios, I'm really looking forward to it. The fact that efficient Wifi antenna's are still hand made is bad enough. Are manufacturers worried about the FCC if they made really good antennas on their access points? I can't even get a signal upstairs in my own house. |
| helios Mar 01, 2009 3:42 AM EDT |
I' ve bought a cantenna and I've made one from a 5lb coffee can...From 300 yards, including several walls, I can get 24% tops with the store-bought one. With the homemade one, I stay at a steady 84%. The only time I get a noticeable drop in signal is when there is a drop in barometric pressure preceding a cold front. The only difference...? The store-bought one maintains the fcc restrictions, mine does not. Width of the can mouth is actually restricted as is the reception bar within. I actually make them for our clients when they are in the boonies and have neighbors who do not mind a frequent leech. I've picked up 50% signals from 3/4 miles away with my rig. h |
| tuxtom Mar 02, 2009 8:50 AM EDT |
Thanks jdixon. I went to college in Bellingham, WA, which is where I actually emerged on the 'Net at 2400 baud. It's a college and border town probably a lot like the ones you mentioned. Problem is you gotta bring your own money you 'cause there ain't no jobs...and the sun don't shine much there. I forgot to add my list, and with all sarcasm aside, "West of the Continental Divide". Not sure why, but having spent the first half of my life in Cincinnati, New York, Memphis, Tulsa and Dallas/Ft. Worth, I really have no inclination to live on the East Side anymore. I like my peaks jagged, my deserts dry, my ocean blue...not to mention I've been getting 20,000K download speeds on my home cable modem recently...which costs me $18.12 a month in the package deal. I don't really need it that fast, and I would gladly trade it for a slower, rural lifestyle in the mountains...if I could find work there. Heck, I'd be happy with dial-up if I could viably get out of the rat race. |
| jdixon Mar 02, 2009 9:46 AM EDT |
> Problem is you gotta bring your own money you 'cause there ain't no jobs... There are a lot of places like that. :( > ...and the sun don't shine much there. Well, that's a problem anywhere in that area, but not at the southern college towns. > I forgot to add my list, and with all sarcasm aside, "West of the Continental Divide" Having visited the west, I find that understandable. I think I could live in either. We get 1.5Mbps on our DSL, which is fast enough, and it's from a good provider, not one of the national companies. And we're only about 30 miles as the crow flies from Morgantown, so most of the amenities are within driving distance. Pittsburgh is only another 60 miles past that, if we need a big city for anything. Job opportunities are limited, and the winter weather is terrible, but otherwise it's not a bad place to live. |
| tuxtom Mar 03, 2009 7:04 AM EDT |
Weather's had me pinned down in San Diego for the past 12 years and it's pull is overwhelming despite the boredom, expense and urban stress that comes with it. Yes, consistent weather is monotonous, even if it's nice. But it's a nice boredom. There's LOTS of technology here, which is good for geeks. I take it for granted. I still long for a simpler life, though. |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 03, 2009 10:38 AM EDT |
Here's a fascinating article germane to this discussion, which I'm going to submit as an article: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/yourmoney/orl-bizdia... >With his work hours cut and an investment portfolio in the tank, Arnold >Zimmerman is considering the unthinkable: ditching his blazing-fast >cable Internet service and going back to dial-up. > >"I didn't think I would ever go back," said Zimmerman, 66, of Davenport. >"I had to wait to get online. It was terrible. But with this economy, >you got to look to cut wherever you can." |
| NoDough Mar 03, 2009 1:31 PM EDT |
Arnold Zimmerman! Wasn't he the pig on Green Acres? |
| hkwint Mar 03, 2009 1:38 PM EDT |
Isn't ditching your telephone line in favour of VOIP cheaper? |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 03, 2009 2:46 PM EDT |
That cost/benefit analysis would depend upon usage. My wife has very good reasons to call internationally. We have VoIP service with some fly-by-night that does all their business in a language I can't even read, with unlimited calling to more than 2/3 of the world and a local number inside the country she has friends in, so they can call us without their paying international rates. $20 on top of $40 for mid-tier cablemodem speed. I think it's well worth the price. |
| gus3 Mar 03, 2009 3:06 PM EDT |
Concur on the usage patterns. My parents don't have the option of going back to dial-up. They live at the edge of the exchange, and there are enough loop extenders in the line to mess up anything above 2400 baud. DSL is right out, naturally. So they've gone with the lowest package from Road Runner, but they'll keep their land line "just in case" (of bad weather or some other catastrophe). |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 03, 2009 3:18 PM EDT |
> but they'll keep their land line "just in case" (of bad weather or some other catastrophe). I have my cell phone through Virgin, $20/90days. I rarely make it up to the 90 days for $20 of usage, meaning I have to pre-pay some more, but I certainly pay less than $10/month. That's my backup when the cable IP goes down. :^) |
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!