[CUWiN] Slate on community wireless networks

[Todd Boyle]

 >>CUWiN has multiple links that are way over 300 feet and can make solid 
links through trees of several hundred meters....

Sascha,

Just briefly, like one paragraph, could you update us on the
present cost of hardware/antenna etc. for one complete node?
Has it come down at all?   Also-- is the software proving
robust in operation i.e. once the thing is setup does it crash
from time to time (and if so, does it startup ok without a
"truck roll" when the node's owner repower it??)

Many thanks
Todd Boyle - Kirkland WA - 425-827-3107
AR/AP everywhere  http://www.ledgerism.net


At 12:27 PM 9/14/2004, Sascha Meinrath wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Paul Smith wrote:
>
>>http://slate.msn.com/id/2106657/
>>
>>I'm composing a response to Paul emphasizing emerging spectrum management 
>>methods that mitigate interference.
>
>This is a pretty shoddy piece of work.  I wonder how much of it was 
>written in consultation with Ron Resnick of the WiMax Forum and where 
>they're getting their information on Wi-Fi capabilities (since they are 
>clearly incorrect -- CUWiN has multiple links that are way over 300 feet 
>and can make solid links through trees of several hundred meters before 
>things become marginal).  I do agree that city-wide WiFi systems won't be 
>"free", but they'll be "free to the end-users" if they're municipally 
>supported (thus helping to eliminate the digital divide and allowing _all_ 
>users to get online, not just the priviledged few who can afford it).
>
>More importantly, the cost of municipally-funded networks are an order of 
>magnitude less than the profit-driven business models that Paul Boutin 
>supports.  In addition, drawing up a false dichotomy, "there will soon be 
>two options for wireless -- spotty coverage that's free or a strong signal 
>that could cost as much as your cell phone plan" completely ignores the 
>fact (which we've all seen or personally experienced) that cell phone 
>signals are themselves quite spotty -- the real breakdown is between 
>low-cost wireless networks and high-cost wireless networks, both of which 
>can be spotty or good depending on how well they're built.  Finally, Paul 
>Boutin completely ignores the possibility that parts of the Public 
>Airwaves should be made available by the FCC to provide a leve playing 
>field between major telecomm companies and Community Wireless Networks. 
>Given that the Public Airwaves exist to serve _the public_ -- it is 
>logical that municipally-supported networks have access to them in order 
>to build networks that serve the public.
>
>--Sascha
>
>--
>Sascha Meinrath
>Project Manager & Pres.  *  Project Coordinator  *  Project Manager
>Acorn Worker Collective *** CU Wireless Network *** Eggplant Active Media
>www.acorncollective.com  *  www.cuwireless.net   *  www.eggplantmedia.com
>_______________________________________________
>CU-Wireless mailing list
>CU-Wireless at lists.groogroo.com
>http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/cu-wireless
>Project Page: http://cuwireless.ucimc.org