On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 23:26 +0930, Tim wrote: > On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 07:59 -0500, Tom Poe wrote: > > So, I'm out in the middle of the corn fields. Our town is roughly 3 > > miles by 4 miles. There's a population of less than 8,000. Everyone > > can "see" the nanostation2 from their homes. The community wireless > > network is not connected to the Internet. So, let's assume everyone > > has a computer and webcam. Couldn't they use something like Ekiga, > > and participate in a videoconference across that network? I don't see > > where the telcos/cablecos thugs have anything to do with it. Do > > they? > > It's different people, but a similar situation. > > Who's going to put it together, work out the wrinkles, help people make > use of it? I doubt one transceiver is going to work, apart from > reception issues, there's the issue of how many can use one thing at > once. RF is a black art, and networking isn't far behind. > > And it's not just the hardware, the software's in the same boat. Ekiga > is far from simple to use, it still requires some technical nouse to > figure it out. Then you'll have to deal with Windows users wanting to > use something incompatible with anything but itself. Who's going to > help those people, or who's going to find or build something more > user-friendly? > > You're going to either need a band of willing volunteers, which will > probably tail off rather quickly once they've found out they're in over > their heads, had to deal with nitwits and late night bitching over the > telephone. Or pay people to do it. > > Ever worked with community TV people? I have. You end up with one or > two who know what they're doing, plenty who don't (some will admit it, > the others think they know what they're doing, some will cause you legal > problems with what they do - copyright, libel, defamation, etc.), quite > a few wierdoes, lots of in-fighting, a small proportion of outsiders > who're interested, some insiders and outsiders who'll sabotage or try > and take over (often entailing nasty legal wrangles), ISPs and telcos > which'll try and derail you, and a great majority of the public who > won't care about any of it. And that's without any of the technical > issues... > > It sounds like you're keen, so you're going to be the first one to > invest time, effort and money. If you're not willing, it's already dead > in the water. You'll have to convince your town to put in the > equipment, even if they don't have to pay for doing so. Then you'll > have to start generating interest. You'll get a few friends involved, > and some will go away after a little while. You'll get a few strangers > involved, and you'll wish you'd never met them. And somewhere along the > line you'll have to fight off someone who wants to take over and screw > it all up. > Well, Tim, My one point here is that RF is not a "Black art". It is simple physics that anyone with full attention to detail can understand and harness for a multiplicity of issues. You use it or benefit from it every day, from weather reports which rely on radar, satellite communications, navigation and GPS, to Television, Cable TV and even your lowly car radio, along with traffic alerts, and even some forms of it for certain therapies. You probably even cook food with it, and eat food cooked with it or at least defrosted with it when you eat out. If you buy shelf stored goods, it has most likely been treated to reduce bacterial content. When you purchase something it is a pretty good bet that some portion of the transaction occurred via and RF link. If you make a long distance phone call, you utilize RF. If instead of light, if NASA published an Earth at Night using the RF spectrum, it would look pretty much the same as the one with light. People act like RF is some demon in the night, but it is all around us. The galaxies and stars all generate it all over the place, that is how radio astronomy works. As you go up in frequency the physics become bounded by the ability we have to express the real physical environment accurately, and people who do not think detail matters always fail in understanding RF because it is a pervasively detail oriented science. And while I may not have an advanced degree in Electronics Engineering I have a deep understanding of RF (intensive exposure via the military and Ham radio let me learn a lot.) Trust me, we are just beginning to understand and harness RF. Regards, Les H
