Chuck Cole wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: tclug-list-bounces at mn-linux.org > > [mailto:tclug-list-bounces at mn-linux.org]On Behalf Of Steve Cayford > > > > 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. > > Sounds like big catastrophe (cat ass trophy) for free wireless sites > that visitors to the city or neighborhood could use. Example: if I went > to a TCLUG meeting at the U, I could not connect to the post-pilot > municipal wireless there since I'm an out-of-town resident. Why would a > coffee shop offer wireless if their locals used the municipal system? > The whole idea of mobility goes down the tubes real fast as I see it. > > Open "g connect" is not how I heard the Chaska system and ones like it > described. I heard that actual operational systems will not connect to > 802.11g or b at all due to major incompatibilities. I don't believe the > Chaska system and others like it do "g connects", and that is apparently > also due to their subscriber validation and spam suppression topography. > > > > > >> 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. > > They are not different: both use already use some fiber media, and plan > to get fiber to the house. > > > > >> 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. > > Channels being different is only a small part of the installation issue: > physical distribution and physical antennas are what really count. The > entertainment wireless probably cannot do the emergency job during > sustained storm conditions, etc, unless it is built to do that job and > loaf on "nice days". Point is that municipalities are unlikely to see > an entertainment ISP as any help or amortization for critical > communications assets. > > > > 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. > > Simple: can the entertainment wireless do municipal duties like cops, > hospitals, ambulances, and fire fighters that need mobility? Probably > not at all, so the municipal wireless is essentially limited to clear > day entertainment purposes, and that justification basis. > > > > 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. > > I'll compare the options. I can only get Frontier DSL or Charter cable > now... maybe a satellite ISP also. Frontier doesn't allow alternate DSL > ISPs (might now, but I doubt it). > > Sounds like the present descriptions are mostly marketing BS to sell > initial installations. If the economics of free hotspots are impacted > adversely as I think they are, I'm against the municipal systems. > > > Chuck And if you think fiber isn't proprietary you ought to take a look at what companies like Verizon are doing with FIOS...including their company policy of pulling out the copper to your house after installing FIOS, of not allowing you to roll back service to copper, and oh fiber isn't covered by the same laws as copper, they are under no compulsion to allow anyone else to provide you service. There are no panaceas. -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel