On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 21:08, wchast@utilpart.com wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ian C. Blenke [mailto:icblenke@nks.net]
> > Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 03:43 PM
> > To: slug@nks.net
> > Subject: RE: [SLUG] Here's a crazy idea...
> >
> >
> > There are many ISP COOPs out there that were founded by geeks in a
> > community in just this way. This sounds like the beginnings of a
> > tpawireless project to me :) I have a few online buddies that started
> > the pdxwireless effort way back before they managed to get messed up
> > with the personaltelco fiasco. It really wouldn't be hard to
> > do some of
> > this.
>
> There is also interest in the Amateur radio community in doing
> some sort of combined network, you see the 802.11 stuff on 2.4
> Ghz is in a ISM band which goes from 2.417 Ghz to 2.48,5 Ghz.
> The Amateur band runs from 2.390 to 2.450 Ghz, so the bands
> overlap, and those of us with amateur licenses have found out
> how to get the 803.11 radios to run down in the lower part of
> the amateur band, some of the radios provide for programming
> in other countries which includes those frequencies outside
> of our part 15 band.
>
> Part of the idea has been to field a network of access points
> which would serve both the part 15 user and the amateur user.
> There are some legal issues which have to be handled but by
> combining forces there are some very interesting possibilities
> out there, and of course by using the amateur end with it's
> higher power those who have the license would be able to access
> the higher power ports from greater distance. Also the limitations
> on coax, connectors, antennas etc change when you move from
> Part 15 to Part 97 (the rules under which Amateur Radio operators
> must operate)
>
> For those interested here is a page to start out on, it is a bit
> dated in some ways but there is a load of web pages out there
> dedicated to using Part 15 devices under Part 97.
>
> http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.html
NEAT! The only immediate downside to this is the need for an amateur
wireless license. Sounds like a lot of fun though.
Anything in the 5Ghz spectrum yet? (802.11a?)
> Some of us also are playing around with LASER type links
> which of course would be relatively short haul but with
> a stable support on each end you could go a reasonable
> distance, (as it turns out the swaying of the support
> structures is more of a annoyance than the things that
> people usually think about such as precip and fog, there
> is one more annoyance that most people do not think about
> and that is the varying temperature of the air parcels
> that the beam is going through, with no sway on either
> end the beam will still "walk around a point" due to
> changes in refractivity of the air it is going through)
> and the bw on the pipe is like nothing on ANY
> RF path. In fact it is probably much better than the
> source/sink bw that the laser link is talking too unless
> that is fibre...
Interesting. I can see laset links between buildings in a MAN
(metropolitan area network), particularly to share bandwidth in a
shared-tenant service model.
> There are a lot of ways of getting data into your
> neighbors home, it just demands some ingenuity and I
> think a bit of thinking out of the usual container,
> but as one person pointed out the real thing that will
> make/break this is "collecting and administering the
> money"
And, in the end, it is the money that really gets you. Now, should a
public bandwidth source be nailed down, you could leave the burden of
purchasing gear up to the "subscriber" neighbor that wants wireless
service. Who can't justify purchasing a bit of gear to eliminate a
reoccurring bill? Now, granted, lightning may take out that gear
periodically, and weathering of outside gear means a fairly constant
replacement cost as well - but otherwise, it is avoiding some of the
nastiness that are the other forms of broadband access.
Now, there's nothing stopping us from using RoadRunner or other unwary
providers for uplink feeds, but should they find you they may prosecute.
The primary method they seem to be using is merely checking the IPV4
address that you appear as when they connect out using your AP. What is
stopping a wireless effort from using IPV6 with the Freenet6 project
(www.freenet6.net) to tunnel that traffic via 6to4 - effectively hiding
the traffic from the upstream ISP? (ok, they *can* filter 6to4 traffic,
but will they?) There are methods of tunnelling that address some of
these concerns.
If you haven't played with IPv6 much yet, I highly recommend visiting
freenet6 and giving it a try :)
- Ian C. Blenke <icblenke@nks.net> <ian@blenke.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 16:39:46 EDT