> -----Original Message----- > From: tclug-list-bounces at mn-linux.org > [mailto:tclug-list-bounces at mn-linux.org]On Behalf Of Scott Raun > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 7:17 AM > > On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 11:32:05PM -0500, Chuck Cole wrote: > > > [mailto:tclug-list-bounces at mn-linux.org]On Behalf Of Steve Cayford > > > 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. > > <snip> > > > 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. > > The contract that the City of Minneapolis issued to US Internet calls > for the city to be paying US Internet some amount of money in return > for a network that the city can run all their emergency services on. > If the network US Internet provides cannot meet that spec reliably, > SOMEONE is going to be big trouble. > > -- > Scott Raun > sraun at fireopal.org Is that very same network and each of its antennas supposed to provide free or subscriber public access? Is this an 802.11g (unlikely)? Existence of this contract may be true and irrelevant. Sorry if I missed the clarification of this here recently. Chuck