Re: Activity?

Todd Boyle wrote:
> At 11:26 AM 8/5/2008, Bob Keyes wrote:
>
>>> Re. the CUWIN wireless mesh apparatus, isn't it completely obsoleted 
>>> by products like Meraki that do the same thing for $50 without 
>>> requiring technical expertise?   This is just the march of time, the 
>>> march of history.
>>
>> Meraki is junk, and no longer $50. There's some replacement routers 
>> from the open-mesh people, but I am concerned about their quality. 
>> Some boards from places such as Gateworks seem to have a better build 
>> quality. Though I cannot claim to be so widely experienced with the 
>> Meraki and open-mesh devices. 
>
> In the suburbs of Seattle where I live, and
> given the range of previous WiFi based routers, and
> given the thruput that we might expect under heavy use,
>
> the number of people per square mile desiring that kind of
> neighborhood mesh has not reached the necessary density.
>
> In my opinion, the router would need to have greater range
> than current or previous generations of routers.   I don't think
> it would be sufficient if improvements in other dimensions
> emerged -- such as greater thruput or lower cost or greater privacy.
> Because, the level of awareness (and teh cost of building awareness)
> is a critical factor that can not be overcome as easily as the
> other factors, so, we are talking about a low penetration, so, we
> will need greater range.  it's as simple as that.
>
> Todd
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> CU-Wireless mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/cu-wireless
> Project Page: http://cuwireless.ucimc.org
>   
With the Internet came the web.  With WiFi, comes the virtual world.  
Suppose a level of community wifi intranet configuration was 
established.  No internet capability, but local community virtual world 
was available.  The community would have a community-wide broadband 
infrastructure for free broadband for all residents.  If the hospital 
wanted to gain access to this infrastructure, they would have to 
negotiate a contract and offer something in return for the privilege of 
distributing their telemedicine programs out to the community.  Same 
thing for the grocery store that wants to gain access to offer the 
upcoming IPv6 services.  Same thing for the ISP and telco/cableco 
providers.  Now, what we have is a community owned broadband 
infrastructure that truly generates revenues, eh?  In the meantime, the 
community has their local tv, radio shows, their local town hall 
meetings, and their local government becomes transparent, as they no 
longer can operate in secret.
Just dreaming, Tom Poe, Charles City, Iowa
_______________________________________________
CU-Wireless mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/cu-wireless
Project Page: http://cuwireless.ucimc.org