[CUWiN] Slate on community wireless networks
Paul Smith
paul at cnt.org
Wed Sep 15 11:14:19 CDT 2004
On Sep 14, 2004, at 4:45 PM, Illustrious niteshad 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).
>
> First, we must define "municipally supported." To my mind, municipal
> has a much more organized connotation associated with it than does
> "community." "Municipal" implies that the city government will be
> involved, as is the case in Philiadelphia. If the city is absorbing
> the cost of building and supporting the network, as well as the cost
> of providing bandwidth to the Internet from the network, then it is
> decidedly _not_ free; the citizens are paying for this service through
> the various municipal taxes they pay. In my experience, a concerned
> group of citizens is capable of acting far more quickly and
> efficiently than the government ever could. Therefore, I very much
> favor the community co-op model in terms of paying the costs
> associated with the network, since I believe that this will lead to a
> lower total cost to the end-users of the network. That said, I also
> have no problem with subsidizing the service for those who can't
> otherwise afford it.
>
> Paul Boutin's article oozes FUD (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt), which
> shouldn't surprise any of us, since it was published on MSN
> Slanted...I mean, Slate ;) What surprised and shocked me was that
> they are talking about power outputs (from sector or omnidirectional
> antennas) of 30 Watts for the licensed users. In the physics lab,
> I've personally (accidentally) had my head in the side-band of a 10
> Watt microwave beam (can't recall if it was 2.4 GHz or 10 GHz); a
> very brief exposure gave me a splitting headache that lasted all
> afternoon. This shouldn't be surprising, since my brain was basically
> being cooked. The microwave spectrum, long-wards of 2 GHz is
> semi-permeable; if the signal is powerful enough to permeate a wall,
> it's powerful enough to permeate a person. Some of that radiation
> will be absorbed by the person, and the effects of long-term, low
> doses of radiation are poorly understood at this time. I don't know
> much about WiMax, but I'm wondering if all of the proper
> health physics studies have been done regarding its deployment.
FWIW, this is how Paul B responded to my email to him:
> On Sep 14, 2004, at 1:02 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
>> I think the solution is to continue to lobby the FCC for more
>> unlicensed
>
> That's almost the party line over at Wired magazine. In an era of
> software-defined radio and ultra-wideband transceivers, what's the
> point of dividing up spectrum as if it were land? Especially when, as
> any techie knows, interference happens at the receiver.
>
> Thanks for the helpful and thoughtful email.
--
Paul Smith Center for Neighborhood Technology
http://www.cnt.org Chicago, IL
More information about the CU-Wireless
mailing list