Chuck Cole wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: tclug-list-bounces at mn-linux.org >> [mailto:tclug-list-bounces at mn-linux.org]On Behalf Of Justin Krejci >>> Since I live in Minneapolis, I'm watching the wireless rollout with >>> more than a little interest.... >>> > >> ... People now a days use PPP, Ethernet, or >> some other >> very standard protocol. If not, it is usually some CPE >> hardware that does >> all of the last mile talk then has an Ethernet handoff. > > Isn't municipal wireless using a secured protocol and/or spectrum > trick(s) that require the subscriber to have special "demod gear" to get > to an ethernet or 802.11g/b connection for any user(s)?? The subscriber > still must connect to their "modem" and do wired or wireless in the > home. Well, if you take your laptop over to the West Bank neighborhood you can access their pilot network using a normal wifi card. I think there's talk about secured protocols etc down the line, but the wireless modems are supposed to just help get the signal into buildings. At least that's what I heard in all the information sessions. >> The wireless is very exciting and hopefully more of the metro >> area will participate making a huge connected network. > > Does this mean anything more than having more people pay for > higher-priced, proprietary modems in order to have their home connected > to the internet? I doubt that there's any bandwidth ceiling advantage > over fiber-to-the-home It's not competing with fiber, it's competing with the cable/dsl duopoly. >> Couple that with mobile VPNs >> and I think it will make a pretty sweet network. > > Are you sure that mobile VPNs will be supported by municipal wireless > ISPs in the near term? I'd expect municipal service contracts to differ > from neighboring cities, and that may be a cause for a big delay > (decades?) in having mobile options for that new service. Cell carrier > services (plue 911 type service carriers) are already capable of > supporting municipal needs, so the justification to scrap equipment and > change to a new scheme may be hard to achieve. > > Does a universal municipal wireless system make any sense for bandwidth > utilization or municipal economy? Would such a system be rated to > operate during emergencies and handle overloads like homecoming weekends > or a big convention around neighborhood schools or whatever? True > emergency systems must be rated to be operational during major storms > and tornadoes. An entertainment-mostly wireless system won't be that > robust or it would be very expensive. > The first-responder network is supposed to run on a different set of channels. I don't know what they're doing to ensure it stays up under load, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the VPN issue. Personally I think the municipal-owned option should have been investigated further, but I'm eager to see how this turns out. And planning to subscribe when it gets to my neighborhood. -Steve