7:47 a.m.
www.ubnt.com offers Nanostation2 "radio" that creates wireless cloud up
to 15 kilometers. That sounds like the perfect way to broadcast live
interactive tv shows (think neighborhood videoconferencing). Anyone
doing this with Fedora operating system and whatever other software needed?
Tom
6:50 a.m.
Ric Moore wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 00:52 -0500, Tom Poe wrote:
> g wrote:
>
>> things just got interesting. part 15.247 does not really apply as i would have
>> expected it to be.
>>
>> from what i have found so far, i can see that there is more to find and read.
>>
>> from what i have found and read, i will say this, go for it.
>>
>> as long as what ever system you use is within guide lines of part 15, you
>> should be safe.
>>
>> i do recommend that you get full part 15 and read thru it to be familiar with
>> what you are dealing with.
>>
>> in using such low power, you will be limited to near 'line of sight'
coverage
>> and you may get some degrading due to terrain, buildings and such.
>>
>> over all, your intent of use may be satisfied with results you want. as was
>> said, $80 is not much to spend on such equipment.
>>
>>
>> - --
>>
>> tc,hago.
>>
>> g
>> .
>>
>>
> There's lots of activity when I type keywords, video conference distance
> learning, but nothing at the no budget level, yet. Seems like there's
> going to be a server/client network description someplace.
>
Tom, Check out Wonderland from Sun Microsystems. It runs under Java,
provides a 3D world builder and get this, it'll run X11 apps within. I'm
having problems getting the darn thing to connect as it uses inet6 but
others have done it. It might be worth looking into.
Ric: Good pointer. It definitely would be an excellent use of a
community wireless network (intranet). Might be even a critical one for
introducing our local teachers to computers and how they can be used in
the classroom for collaborative educational projects.
I saw Firefox boosting notes that called for disabling inet6 as one step
to speed up browsing. I wonder if you have to do something similar with
your system whenever you move to Wonderland.
Tom
2:09 p.m.
New subject: low power tv: your two cents ric take-two
On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 21:51 -0500, Tom Poe wrote:
Ric Moore wrote:
> I think this would be a heckuva thing to do to stream as
> a source of media to broadcast. My two-cents, Ric
>
A la carte cable just took on new meaning. Imagine when every community
has their own virtual world shows, and you can travel the world and join
in as if you were there. And, you don't need to pay some corporate thug
thousands of dollars. You made my day, Ric.
I'm still working on some gotchas in the Wonderland scheme. I'm somehow
missing permissions to run an X11 application within it. Les's
suggestion "Xhost +" did away with some of it's complaints. Java is
fairly new to me, although I've run plenty of Java apps in the past. But
this is getting into the bare-knuckles end of Java, and it has to find
and be able to utilize resources.
Spatial Sound wouldn't work for me when configured in test mode as
localhost (127.0.0.1) but works perfectly as
"iam" (iam.wayward4now.net), 192.168.1.101
It's a 150 meg dnload as a zip file, but I would suggest, if you have
the bandwidth, to use the cvs method so you can update it nightly, if
you chose. Goto: https://lg3d-wonderland.dev.java.net/
-then create an account, before dnloading or cranking up cvs. You'll
need the account for Wonderland to load additional stuff, like avatar
graphic data and such. After I get the X11 apps to work, if you want to
have collaborative World creation fests, it has to port to apache so
other users can use firefox to use as a client for such stuff. Nifty.
With F9 the new version of Java will get a heckuva test. I hope that it
works, which may clean up some of the security holes, especially if
SELinux emcompasses Java within it's rules. Then I'll have to learn
that! :) If I can help, feel free to email me. Ric
--
================================================
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar
http://www.wayward4now.net <---down4now too
================================================
1:02 a.m.
From: "max" <maximilianbianco(a)gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, 2008, April 17 20:31
g wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Tom Poe wrote:
>> www.ubnt.com offers Nanostation2 "radio" that creates wireless cloud
up
>> to 15 kilometers. That sounds like the perfect way to broadcast live
>> interactive tv shows (think neighborhood videoconferencing). Anyone
>> doing this with Fedora operating system and whatever other software
>> needed?
>
> not to put a damper on your 'find', but;
>
> in u.s.a. there is what is know as 'fcc', in england, i believe it is
> postal
> service, that have regulations regarding 'power output' and range.
>
> i would check further before getting hope up too high.
>
>
> - --
>
> tc,hago.
>
> g
> .
>
Now THAT is extreme gratuitous twittery worthy of a body slam. I wish I
had the time to do it properly. Your opinion is all too common. It is
absolutely wrong.
Without some regulation no communications happen at all. Nearly 50 years
of experience on various parts of the RF spectrum suggest that is an
understatement. RF spectrum is an excruciatingly limited commodity. It
must be used and reused carefully lest the resultant jamming levels drive
a power war. You and I cannot afford the kind of power that COULD be
deployed to render us incapable of communicating. Broadcast stations
would use megawatts and simply drown us little folks out unless we are
far enough over the horizon at VHF frequencies and higher. Areas like the
Los Angeles basin would become interesting proofs that pure ideological
Libertarianism does not work. (Nor, I add here as a disclaimer, does any
other named "ism" for that matter.)
If you insist that I am wrong be prepared to attack me with suitable
background and mathematics. Start with Shannon's channel capacity theory.
Then progress through various modulation techniques so that you can
adequately discuss anti-jamming technology and anti-anti-jamming
technology. (ECCM and ECCCM respectively, although the ECCCM acronym
is an unofficial jest because it simply becomes "ECM" and you loop
ECM->ECCM, ECCM->ECM, lather, rinse, repeat.)
That said, you are doubly a twit because you shoot your mouth off without
adequately understanding what you are shooting your mouth off about. These
people are FCC approved. They use LEGAL directive antennas. They do NOT get
a 15 mile radius omnidirectional coverage.
That said, if I was not a gentle-being, they are constrained to part 15.
I'm not. For some of the spectrum they are using I am licensed to use a
considerably higher level of signal. So I could put a power amplifier on
the output of the WiFi chip driving apparatus similar to theirs and start
networking to friends across large portions of the LA basin while drowning
out lower power efforts over a pretty wide range. But I fear the 1.5 kW
station, while legal, would be expensive to build. {^_-}
(Of course, when I saw the claim I was motivated to belly-ache. But long
experience suggested I pause and make sure I was complaining about
something legitimate. They are within the law. Therefore, to the extent
that I do not NEED to use high power on those frequencies it is polite of
me not to. I suspect a civilization of people with this sort of attitude
could live nicely by Libertarian ideals, a situation I really wish existed.
Alas, people are not inherently polite enough. Fuggheads exist and live for
no better reason than to jam other people who are trying to communicate.
Thus it is wise to have rules and regulations. And if some of that
regulation is bad it is still better than none at all. And, yes, the FCC
is royally messed up.)
{^_^}
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFICAIaQCGYa6nWX2MRAhzdAJ0evZ0RV6VzQNbYQgNe4lirt9IuFgCgjHJp
> WT4I/nxbhnYYDjo39d0NPUU=
> =ib1v
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
I thought some political genius or court decided that the air was public
domain. Anyway it ought to be!! Phuch the FCC.( I am trying to master
"Raining Blood" by Slayer on Guitar Hero 3, hence my anti social behavior!
; )
Max 
7:26 a.m.
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>> Tom Poe wrote:
>>> www.ubnt.com offers Nanostation2 "radio" that creates wireless
cloud up
>>> to 15 kilometers. That sounds like the perfect way to broadcast live
>>> interactive tv shows (think neighborhood videoconferencing). Anyone
>>> doing this with Fedora operating system and whatever other software
>>> needed?
>>
>> not to put a damper on your 'find', but;
>>
>> in u.s.a. there is what is know as 'fcc', in england, i believe it is
>> postal
>> service, that have regulations regarding 'power output' and range.
>>
>> i would check further before getting hope up too high.
>>
>>
>> - --
>>
>> tc,hago.
>>
>> g
>> .
>>
< snip marvelous dope-slap>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>
>> iD8DBQFICAIaQCGYa6nWX2MRAhzdAJ0evZ0RV6VzQNbYQgNe4lirt9IuFgCgjHJp
>> WT4I/nxbhnYYDjo39d0NPUU=
>> =ib1v
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
> I thought some political genius or court decided that the air was public
> domain. Anyway it ought to be!! Phuch the FCC.( I am trying to master
> "Raining Blood" by Slayer on Guitar Hero 3, hence my anti social behavior!
> ; )
>
> Max
Now THAT is extreme gratuitous twittery worthy of a body slam. I wish I
had the time to do it properly. Your opinion is all too common. It is
absolutely wrong.
{^_^}
*applause*
I remember why I stand in awe.
Welcome back, SWMBO
Tony
2:32 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
jdow wrote:
If they want to be problems let THEM suffer the trek through fcc.gov
to
the real
copies of the rules and regulations. They might learn something that way. I
realize this is painful. But it's a necessary process to lead to
enlightenment.
most true. tho i did make it easy for them to find, i wonder how many will
be able to understand what they are reading.
fcc.gov has a lot of info that average computer user would have trouble
comprehending, much less understand or know what it means.
- --
tc,hago.
g
.
without fences, who needs gates.
- --.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFIFCwjQCGYa6nWX2MRAouHAKCB1PtLl6mPkciRwQoGwxRl3EFcyACfQgp5
oLimlD8L6imId2JO8AUWaDg=
=kMEf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2:07 a.m.
From: "Tim" <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au>
Sent: Saturday, 2008, April 26 23:47
On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 23:15 -0700, jdow wrote:
> Send then a formal interference complaint.
>
> If that does not work repeat it; and, copy it to the FCC.
>
> See the ants scramble around after their nest is disturbed.
"Here," where I wrote about, being Australia. So it wouldn't be the
FCC, but the Dept of Communications and Transport. Who're not overly
known for being particularly caring... Though they did decide that
they'd jam some illegal broadcasters, once (oil refineries, out at sea,
being their own radio stations), only to get in trouble for illegally
broadcasting, themselves. ;-)
Nor fast... It took them somewhere around ten years to revoke the
license of some broadcaster, for flagrant violations that had been going
on that entire time.
I suppose I should go through the motions, though. But I suspect that
the electricity co. would probably be more worried about power losses
than causing RFI. But they may not be losing enough to care.
The FCC isn't any better than your "people", although they do respond
to CONSUMER complaints fairly dramatically once they move. The copy to
the FCC (or in Oz the DCT) is simply a motivator. Over here penalties
are assessed "per day." So document the days of interference and toast
the power company appropriately.
I suspect this is pretty much the case in any "First World" nation.
Over in Mugabeland I'd not bother.
{^_-}
2:04 a.m.
From: "g" <geleem(a)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Saturday, 2008, April 26 23:42
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
jdow wrote:
> (And for everyone's reference, part 15 regulations ARE on line at
> fcc.gov.
> But be prepared for a moderately technical slog through them.)
actually, fcc.gov is only paging amendments, letters and such.
to find part 15 and it's subs, it is at u.s. government printing office,
specifically at;
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/47cfr15_07.html
also, please, ease yourself a little, few computer operators have ever
gotten
past 11 meters, and would make good 'lids'.
to truly enlighten them, let them do as they desire, including adding
external
amps so they can get coverage they want. then when kc cops knock on there
door
and walk away with their wireless gear _and_ computers, they just may wake
up
and realize just who 'uncle frank' is.
If they want to be problems let THEM suffer the trek through fcc.gov to the
real
copies of the rules and regulations. They might learn something that way. I
realize this is painful. But it's a necessary process to lead to
enlightenment.
{^_-}
1:47 a.m.
On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 23:15 -0700, jdow wrote:
Send then a formal interference complaint.
If that does not work repeat it; and, copy it to the FCC.
See the ants scramble around after their nest is disturbed.
"Here," where I wrote about, being Australia. So it wouldn't be the
FCC, but the Dept of Communications and Transport. Who're not overly
known for being particularly caring... Though they did decide that
they'd jam some illegal broadcasters, once (oil refineries, out at sea,
being their own radio stations), only to get in trouble for illegally
broadcasting, themselves. ;-)
Nor fast... It took them somewhere around ten years to revoke the
license of some broadcaster, for flagrant violations that had been going
on that entire time.
I suppose I should go through the motions, though. But I suspect that
the electricity co. would probably be more worried about power losses
than causing RFI. But they may not be losing enough to care.
--
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
1:42 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
jdow wrote:
(And for everyone's reference, part 15 regulations ARE on line at
fcc.gov.
But be prepared for a moderately technical slog through them.)
actually, fcc.gov is only paging amendments, letters and such.
to find part 15 and it's subs, it is at u.s. government printing office,
specifically at;
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/47cfr15_07.html
also, please, ease yourself a little, few computer operators have ever gotten
past 11 meters, and would make good 'lids'.
to truly enlighten them, let them do as they desire, including adding external
amps so they can get coverage they want. then when kc cops knock on there door
and walk away with their wireless gear _and_ computers, they just may wake up
and realize just who 'uncle frank' is.
- --
tc,hago.
g
.
without fences, who needs gates.
- --.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFIFCBZQCGYa6nWX2MRAlmbAJ9AOOAVFaObHQo6BVdX6OuS9/uO2wCdFJQB
sLcDYnwy26+z5iSRnSMnqs4=
=PkUt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
1:15 a.m.
From: "Tim" <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au>
Sent: Tuesday, 2008, April 22 03:51
Tim:
>> Here, we have rotten AM radio reception. There's a terrible hum all
>> over the band. It only went away when the district power failed. My
>> guess is the nearby high tension power lines are radiating the crap that
>> disrupts it. You can even hear them audibly, if you go near them. And
>> they sizzle evilly in wet or damp weather. ;-)
Antti J. Huhtala:
> Tim, have you thoght about letting the power company know about leaky
> insulators ie. sparking over? They should be pleased because their
> product is being spilled this way...
I've thought about that before. But, somehow, I just cannot see ETSA
bothering with the expense of shutting off power, and bringing in all
the equipment needed to get up the huge pole, and replacing or cleaning
the insulators, just for my benefit. ;-)
In the thirty-odd years that I've lived here, I've never seen them do
any maintenance to them. So I can't imagine a bit of extra work being
scheduled into regular maintenance to improve them, either.
Send then a formal interference complaint.
If that does not work repeat it; and, copy it to the FCC.
See the ants scramble around after their nest is disturbed.
To be REALLY effective check out FCC regulations on unintentional
emitters.
{^_^}
1:12 a.m.
From: "Ed Greshko" <Ed.Greshko(a)greshko.com>
Sent: Monday, 2008, April 21 15:33
g wrote:
> also, you should have a look at part 15.??? that it refers to.
I am not sure what your obsession is with FCC part 15 is. If you look at
almost any manual for a Wifi Access Point you'll find a reference to the
device being tested and in compliance with the FCC part 15 regulations.
My DLink even goes so far as to explain "These limits are designed to
provide reasonable protection against harmful interference in a
residential installation......".
Heh, they do not define to whom it might be "harmful interference." part 15
users are at the bottom of the ladder with stuff flowing down hill. All the
other
official users of the spectrum space are free to tromp on the part 15
stations
to their heart's content and the part 15 uses must adapt or accept the
situation.
(And for everyone's reference, part 15 regulations ARE on line at fcc.gov.
But be prepared for a moderately technical slog through them.)
{^_-}
1:03 a.m.
From: "g" <geleem(a)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Thursday, 2008, April 17 21:01
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Tom Poe wrote:
> G. You're determined to mislead the list members. How come?
i am not misleading any one. i just believe that people should be aware of
is regulated before they get fined for illegal broadcasting.
- --
tc,hago.
It IS regulated. And the equipment mentioned is legal according to those
regulations. Check the situation out before becoming a public duncel.
{^_^}
6:56 a.m.
I've thought about that before. But, somehow, I just cannot see
ETSA
bothering with the expense of shutting off power, and bringing in all
the equipment needed to get up the huge pole, and replacing or cleaning
the insulators, just for my benefit. ;-)
If the insulators are arcing over on a high voltage line they may well do
(and in most countries have legal obligations to fix emissions problems).
After all the lost power costs money and its a lot cheaper to act on a
report than play "guess the cause" ;)
Alan
3:20 p.m.
Ed Greshko wrote:
g wrote:
> also, you should have a look at part 15.??? that it refers to.
I am not sure what your obsession is with FCC part 15 is. If you look
at almost any manual for a Wifi Access Point you'll find a reference to
the device being tested and in compliance with the FCC part 15
regulations. My DLink even goes so far as to explain "These limits are
designed to provide reasonable protection against harmful interference
in a residential installation......".
However, you probably should be less glib in your assertion that no town
approval are required.
I'm pretty comfortable in the "operation" end not needing town approval,
clearly whoever the owner of the tower is must permit installation, and
I read the location as being in open country, where you have your own
water tower so you don't have to pump the well to flush the john, so I
may have overlooked that requirement.
I seem to recall the OP saying the intention is
to mount it on a water tower. Also, the device being mounted is going
to be supplying a service and the town may have regulations in this
area...sometimes call an ordinance. Many towns have tons of ordinances
that include things like how your sidewalk must be maintained, how your
tree branches can extend over another's property, how high your flag
pole is and if your kids can set up a lemon aide stand.
IANAL but I have a hard time believing that a town would try to block
otherwise lawful low power radio, or would be able to write a law which
didn't include WiFi and garage door openers. If the service is a
"business" which charges for a service it provides, business laws come
in (again you point out a possible problem), but if everyone buys their
own and just agrees on use... it would be like all getting CB radios and
agreeing to talk on a channel, or all connect to a chat room. A really
bad law could cover mailing lists as well, and there are more bad
lawyers than house flies in some places.
IMHO, checking the local ordinances is much more important that trying
to look up what FCC part 15 is all about
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
3:06 p.m.
New subject: Linphone - was:low power tv
Tim wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 11:21 -0500, Tom Poe wrote:
> You're way too real world for me. Looks like you were at the
> Planning Committee meeting on Monday night. You should have let me
> know. :)
>
> So, rather than move the discussion forward, the next thing I know,
> they had decided to form yet another committee to draft a report on
> their findings about FTTH, and its feasibility to complete by 2020.
I had thought about including committees in the list, too. ;-) You
give them a list of all the possible options, they ignore them and
decide that they want to do something impossible or incredibly stupid...
> Ekiga is still a geeky thing for me. What about Skype? Would that be
> possible without Internet access? Maybe xten's lite softphone might
> work?
Skype's proprietary. As far as I'm aware, only Skype devices can talk
to each other. Tough luck if you have another VOIP thingo that you
prefer to use, tough luck if you want to call someone using a different
protocol. They've not learnt anything from the umpteen year long
debacle of separate IM protocols. i.e. If you're on MSN and your friend
uses Yahoo, one of you has to switch protocols. Then when it comes to
chatting with another friend, the same applies, or one of you has to use
both protocols.
I have gotten calls from people using one of the SIP clients, I think
linphone. My impression is that you can use that and get an account with
Skype or other InetPhone vendor to call other users. Perhaps someone
will provide additional info, it's on my to-do list, but under "when
needed" where it may sit until HFO.
I've tried XTen's thing, it's wierd to set up and use.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
9:51 p.m.
New subject: low power tv: your two cents ric take-two
Ric Moore wrote:
I think this would be a heckuva thing to do to stream as
a source of media to broadcast. My two-cents, Ric
A la carte cable just took on new meaning. Imagine when every community
has their own virtual world shows, and you can travel the world and join
in as if you were there. And, you don't need to pay some corporate thug
thousands of dollars. You made my day, Ric.
Tom
9:45 p.m.
Ric Moore wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 06:50 -0500, Tom Poe wrote:
> Ric Moore wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 00:52 -0500, Tom Poe wrote:
>>
>>
>>> g wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> things just got interesting. part 15.247 does not really apply as i would
have
>>>> expected it to be.
>>>>
>>>> from what i have found so far, i can see that there is more to find and
read.
>>>>
>>>> from what i have found and read, i will say this, go for it.
>>>>
>>>> as long as what ever system you use is within guide lines of part 15,
you
>>>> should be safe.
>>>>
>>>> i do recommend that you get full part 15 and read thru it to be familiar
with
>>>> what you are dealing with.
>>>>
>>>> in using such low power, you will be limited to near 'line of
sight' coverage
>>>> and you may get some degrading due to terrain, buildings and such.
>>>>
>>>> over all, your intent of use may be satisfied with results you want. as
was
>>>> said, $80 is not much to spend on such equipment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - --
>>>>
>>>> tc,hago.
>>>>
>>>> g
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> There's lots of activity when I type keywords, video conference distance
>>> learning, but nothing at the no budget level, yet. Seems like there's
>>> going to be a server/client network description someplace.
>>>
>>>
>> Tom, Check out Wonderland from Sun Microsystems. It runs under Java,
>> provides a 3D world builder and get this, it'll run X11 apps within. I'm
>> having problems getting the darn thing to connect as it uses inet6 but
>> others have done it. It might be worth looking into.
>>
>>
>>
> Ric: Good pointer. It definitely would be an excellent use of a
> community wireless network (intranet). Might be even a critical one for
> introducing our local teachers to computers and how they can be used in
> the classroom for collaborative educational projects.
>
> I saw Firefox boosting notes that called for disabling inet6 as one step
> to speed up browsing. I wonder if you have to do something similar with
> your system whenever you move to Wonderland.
>
I'm still beating my brains out with inet6 but I've almost got it
licked. Wonderland has two features the OP might wish to consider.
First, telephony is neccessary in the middle of it. Second, it uses
graphic avatars to put a body to the voice, plus X11 apps all streaming
to the clients in virtual conference rooms. So, you could be sitting in
a virtual boardroom, with everyone else present in their avatars (like
SecondLife) then you can open an Xterm on a wall of the room and
everyone can manipulate it in real time, although only one user using it
at one time. You can pull up Open Office or Spanish Lessons, or Firefox.
All of this while people are talking. No doubt, for it to really be
effective, you would probably have to have Fiber Channel to a community
fiber-based cable company service.
What excites me is that Wonderland is Linux-centric first, Windows last.
I say screw Gates of the future and apparently so does Sun. This is
GOOD! Only problem Im having is getting permission for Wonderland to
launch the apps... still looking for the glitch, others are already
doing it with great success. Now, here's the grabber for the OP,
Wonderland will save a session movie. Couldn't that be streamed to his
low-cost transmitter? I would think so. Using Webcams is already under
alpha testing. I think this would be a heckuva thing to do to stream as
a source of media to broadcast. My two-cents, Ric
Ric: Those are the magic words, "Using Webcams is already under alpha
testing". That moves us into the future, where the garage sale tour
becomes a television studio, and a host moves the audience from one
garage sale to another, buyers and sellers move out to the popcorn
machine and barter the price of an item, etc.
Backing up, then. Today, I pre-ordered a nanostation2 "radio". That
can be set up on the local water tower and create a cloud over the
entire community. Everyone is in line of sight. Cost is $80. That
establishes a local broadband infrastructure. No Internet access needed.
For the garage tour project, speeds will be between 10Mbps and 54Mbps.
Is that enough?
Tom
9:36 p.m.
On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 20:21 +0930, Tim wrote:
Tim:
>> Here, we have rotten AM radio reception. There's a terrible hum all
>> over the band. It only went away when the district power failed. My
>> guess is the nearby high tension power lines are radiating the crap that
>> disrupts it. You can even hear them audibly, if you go near them. And
>> they sizzle evilly in wet or damp weather. ;-)
Antti J. Huhtala:
> Tim, have you thoght about letting the power company know about leaky
> insulators ie. sparking over? They should be pleased because their
> product is being spilled this way...
I've thought about that before. But, somehow, I just cannot see ETSA
bothering with the expense of shutting off power, and bringing in all
the equipment needed to get up the huge pole, and replacing or cleaning
the insulators, just for my benefit. ;-)
In the thirty-odd years that I've lived here, I've never seen them do
any maintenance to them. So I can't imagine a bit of extra work being
scheduled into regular maintenance to improve them, either.
Meter bases!! It used to be the practice that every ten years the meter
base was checked, cleaned and the wiring greased with that conductivity
paste. Not no mo'. Opening up the box can be VERY revealing. If you're
blowing electric bulbs, or the living room lights dim when Mom fires up
the Electric Iron, you know it's time to clean that base before real
problems erupt. Nowadays, if the base is really nasty, you have to
spring for the expense of a new one. But, it'll save $$$ many times over
in the long run. We had a rental property that had two inch balls of
crusty corrosion on the L1 and L2 lines where they were secured to the
top of the meter base. We had the util company shut us down, replaced
the box and had to install a shut-off to be up to new codes. I rammed in
a new ground rod as well. Worked like a charm. Ric
--
================================================
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar
http://www.wayward4now.net <---down4now too
================================================
6:53 a.m.
ti, 2008-04-22 kello 20:21 +0930, Tim kirjoitti:
Tim:
>> Here, we have rotten AM radio reception. There's a terrible hum all
>> over the band. It only went away when the district power failed. My
>> guess is the nearby high tension power lines are radiating the crap that
>> disrupts it. You can even hear them audibly, if you go near them. And
>> they sizzle evilly in wet or damp weather. ;-)
Antti J. Huhtala:
> Tim, have you thoght about letting the power company know about leaky
> insulators ie. sparking over? They should be pleased because their
> product is being spilled this way...
I've thought about that before. But, somehow, I just cannot see ETSA
bothering with the expense of shutting off power, and bringing in all
the equipment needed to get up the huge pole, and replacing or cleaning
the insulators, just for my benefit. ;-)
There's that, yes. I know nothing of Australian legislation but it ought
to be against the law to radiate radio interference. The only similar
cases here in Finland that I know of have been relatively low-voltage (2
kV) power lines that the local power company was only too pleased to
fix. Both insulators were in the urban area, though.
In the thirty-odd years that I've lived here, I've never seen
them do
any maintenance to them. So I can't imagine a bit of extra work being
scheduled into regular maintenance to improve them, either.
It doesn't sound promising, I'll admit. Any chance of raising public
uproar about it? You don't live in the outback, do you?
Antti
P.S. Sorry, got to go to see my sister about her TV...
5:51 a.m.
Tim:
> Here, we have rotten AM radio reception. There's a terrible
hum all
> over the band. It only went away when the district power failed. My
> guess is the nearby high tension power lines are radiating the crap that
> disrupts it. You can even hear them audibly, if you go near them. And
> they sizzle evilly in wet or damp weather. ;-)
Antti J. Huhtala:
Tim, have you thoght about letting the power company know about
leaky
insulators ie. sparking over? They should be pleased because their
product is being spilled this way...
I've thought about that before. But, somehow, I just cannot see ETSA
bothering with the expense of shutting off power, and bringing in all
the equipment needed to get up the huge pole, and replacing or cleaning
the insulators, just for my benefit. ;-)
In the thirty-odd years that I've lived here, I've never seen them do
any maintenance to them. So I can't imagine a bit of extra work being
scheduled into regular maintenance to improve them, either.
--
(This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's
important to the thread.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
5:32 a.m.
ti, 2008-04-22 kello 13:19 +0930, Tim kirjoitti:
Here, we have rotten AM radio reception. There's a terrible hum
all
over the band. It only went away when the district power failed. My
guess is the nearby high tension power lines are radiating the crap that
disrupts it. You can even hear them audibly, if you go near them. And
they sizzle evilly in wet or damp weather. ;-)
Tim, have you thoght about letting the power company know about leaky
insulators ie. sparking over? They should be pleased because their
product is being spilled this way...
Antti
2:36 a.m.
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 23:00 -0500, Tom Poe wrote:
Luckily, digital switch next February will curtail those issues.
To be replaced by new issues. :-\
You'll have good pictures, no pictures, or reception that jams for a
second every fifteen seconds. I regularly experience the last one,
despite near perfect analog reception, and around 95% reception and
signal quality on one of the digital set top box meters. It reminds me
of issues some experience when a ship comes into port and its radar
scans interfere with a few things.
The... William... Shatner... effect....
--
(This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's
important to the thread.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
2:15 a.m.
New subject: low power tv: your two cents ric
On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 21:47 -0500, Tom Poe wrote:
Ric Moore wrote:
> I think this would be a heckuva thing to do to stream as
> a source of media to broadcast. My two-cents, Ric
>
Ric: There's no question you've seen what the big boys fear absolutely
the most! Atta boy!
The Telco's will go ape over this one:
http://research.sun.com/projects/mc/video/WonderlandPhone.mov
You'll get a chortle from this!! Ric
--
================================================
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar
http://www.wayward4now.net <---down4now too
================================================
11 p.m.
Tim wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 11:58 -0700, Les wrote:
> My one point here is that RF is not a "Black art".
>
If you want to talk about theoretical performance, sure. But when you
put up a transmission aerial, then find you have areas with no
reception, severe ghosting, etc., and no solution, it becomes one.
A point in case: A friend of mine, years ago, had the wierdest of
variable TV reception problems that changed throughout the day. It was
eventually tracked down to the milk depot some way away. When they
parked all their big metal trucks back in the depot, it caused massive
reflections. When they were all out delivering in the morning, things
were fine. And there were other strange issues when some of them were
there as they went back and forth during the day.
Here, we have rotten AM radio reception. There's a terrible hum all
over the band. It only went away when the district power failed. My
guess is the nearby high tension power lines are radiating the crap that
disrupts it. You can even hear them audibly, if you go near them. And
they sizzle evilly in wet or damp weather. ;-)
There's much more to it than putting up a transmission antenna and
reception antennas with good cabling.
Luckily, digital switch next February will curtail those issues.
Tom
10:49 p.m.
On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 11:58 -0700, Les wrote:
My one point here is that RF is not a "Black art".
If you want to talk about theoretical performance, sure. But when you
put up a transmission aerial, then find you have areas with no
reception, severe ghosting, etc., and no solution, it becomes one.
A point in case: A friend of mine, years ago, had the wierdest of
variable TV reception problems that changed throughout the day. It was
eventually tracked down to the milk depot some way away. When they
parked all their big metal trucks back in the depot, it caused massive
reflections. When they were all out delivering in the morning, things
were fine. And there were other strange issues when some of them were
there as they went back and forth during the day.
Here, we have rotten AM radio reception. There's a terrible hum all
over the band. It only went away when the district power failed. My
guess is the nearby high tension power lines are radiating the crap that
disrupts it. You can even hear them audibly, if you go near them. And
they sizzle evilly in wet or damp weather. ;-)
There's much more to it than putting up a transmission antenna and
reception antennas with good cabling.
--
(This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's
important to the thread.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
10:43 p.m.
On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 11:21 -0500, Tom Poe wrote:
You're way too real world for me. Looks like you were at the
Planning Committee meeting on Monday night. You should have let me
know. :)
So, rather than move the discussion forward, the next thing I know,
they had decided to form yet another committee to draft a report on
their findings about FTTH, and its feasibility to complete by 2020.
I had thought about including committees in the list, too. ;-) You
give them a list of all the possible options, they ignore them and
decide that they want to do something impossible or incredibly stupid...
Ekiga is still a geeky thing for me. What about Skype? Would that
be
possible without Internet access? Maybe xten's lite softphone might
work?
Skype's proprietary. As far as I'm aware, only Skype devices can talk
to each other. Tough luck if you have another VOIP thingo that you
prefer to use, tough luck if you want to call someone using a different
protocol. They've not learnt anything from the umpteen year long
debacle of separate IM protocols. i.e. If you're on MSN and your friend
uses Yahoo, one of you has to switch protocols. Then when it comes to
chatting with another friend, the same applies, or one of you has to use
both protocols.
I've tried XTen's thing, it's wierd to set up and use.
--
(This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's
important to the thread.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
10:39 p.m.
Tim:
> 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.
Bill Davidsen:
You need the same approval from the town as any other low power
wireless
router, which is to say NONE. You can buy one of these, put the antenna
on your roof, and no one has a right to tell you no (unless you cause
interference).
From what the original poster was talking about, he's wanting to
create
a community, and that'll involve more than one transmission point.
He'll need to get others on-board, to do that. If he's trying to do
something more official for his community, he'll want to get whatever
officials are on-board.
It's not so much a legal transmission requirement issue, but if you want
bolt some gadget to your town hall or local radio station mast, you're
going to have to convince them there's a benefit in it for them, too.
I don't know what level of access control this has, but I doubt
that
anyone can "take it over" in any case. They might create a competing
network, but the network which was there first can probably complain
about interference if someone else deliberately does so.
If you're going to be anything other than a one-man-band you will need
the co-operation of others. Even if you do intent to do it all
yourself, you still may have to contend with someone else using all the
bandwidth, setting up transmitters on the same channels that block
yours, etc.
--
(This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's
important to the thread.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
5:33 p.m.
g wrote:
also, you should have a look at part 15.??? that it refers to.
I am not sure what your obsession is with FCC part 15 is. If you look at
almost any manual for a Wifi Access Point you'll find a reference to the
device being tested and in compliance with the FCC part 15 regulations. My
DLink even goes so far as to explain "These limits are designed to provide
reasonable protection against harmful interference in a residential
installation......".
However, you probably should be less glib in your assertion that no town
approval are required. I seem to recall the OP saying the intention is to
mount it on a water tower. Also, the device being mounted is going to be
supplying a service and the town may have regulations in this
area...sometimes call an ordinance. Many towns have tons of ordinances that
include things like how your sidewalk must be maintained, how your tree
branches can extend over another's property, how high your flag pole is and
if your kids can set up a lemon aide stand.
IMHO, checking the local ordinances is much more important that trying to
look up what FCC part 15 is all about
2:55 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Clearly you didn't look at the web page, which lists the FCC
approvals.
very clearly, you did not read all of post in thread.
also, you should have a look at part 15.??? that it refers to.
But this is not a TV transmitter,
this is true. but his intent is to stream tv.
Fedora supports receiving them, presumable it can send as well.
file transfer is file transfer.
I suggest going to slashdot and searching for intel+wifi
if you are referring to particular info, send a link, as i really do not
care to check a bunch of links on something i read about from time to time.
ie, qst, amateur radio, wireless world, etc.
- --
tc,hago.
g
.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFIDPFFQCGYa6nWX2MRAiFhAJ9Lofdekf4hOwWyiYADHPFnt0IrYwCfehGe
11qJuemyC/oCy9j1BPqbvDU=
=50wz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2:49 p.m.
Tim wrote:
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.
You need the same approval from the town as any other low power wireless
router, which is to say NONE. You can buy one of these, put the antenna
on your roof, and no one has a right to tell you no (unless you cause
interference).
I don't know what level of access control this has, but I doubt that
anyone can "take it over" in any case. They might create a competing
network, but the network which was there first can probably complain
about interference if someone else deliberately does so.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
2:36 p.m.
g wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Tom Poe wrote:
> www.ubnt.com offers Nanostation2 "radio" that creates wireless cloud up
> to 15 kilometers. That sounds like the perfect way to broadcast live
> interactive tv shows (think neighborhood videoconferencing). Anyone
> doing this with Fedora operating system and whatever other software needed?
not to put a damper on your 'find', but;
in u.s.a. there is what is know as 'fcc', in england, i believe it is postal
service, that have regulations regarding 'power output' and range.
i would check further before getting hope up too high.
Clearly you didn't look at the web page, which lists the FCC approvals.
But this is not a TV transmitter, it is an alternative to WiMax for
middle range network connections, over which you could run any of the
streaming protocols. Fedora supports receiving them, presumable it can
send as well.
I suggest going to slashdot and searching for intel+wifi and look at the
distances and bandwidth they got out of cheap WiFi and some antennae and
software fixes. I don't know if you would find it useful, but you should
know about it.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
9:09 p.m.
On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 06:50 -0500, Tom Poe wrote:
Ric Moore wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 00:52 -0500, Tom Poe wrote:
>
>> g wrote:
>>
>>> things just got interesting. part 15.247 does not really apply as i would
have
>>> expected it to be.
>>>
>>> from what i have found so far, i can see that there is more to find and
read.
>>>
>>> from what i have found and read, i will say this, go for it.
>>>
>>> as long as what ever system you use is within guide lines of part 15, you
>>> should be safe.
>>>
>>> i do recommend that you get full part 15 and read thru it to be familiar
with
>>> what you are dealing with.
>>>
>>> in using such low power, you will be limited to near 'line of sight'
coverage
>>> and you may get some degrading due to terrain, buildings and such.
>>>
>>> over all, your intent of use may be satisfied with results you want. as was
>>> said, $80 is not much to spend on such equipment.
>>>
>>>
>>> - --
>>>
>>> tc,hago.
>>>
>>> g
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>> There's lots of activity when I type keywords, video conference distance
>> learning, but nothing at the no budget level, yet. Seems like there's
>> going to be a server/client network description someplace.
>>
> Tom, Check out Wonderland from Sun Microsystems. It runs under Java,
> provides a 3D world builder and get this, it'll run X11 apps within. I'm
> having problems getting the darn thing to connect as it uses inet6 but
> others have done it. It might be worth looking into.
>
>
Ric: Good pointer. It definitely would be an excellent use of a
community wireless network (intranet). Might be even a critical one for
introducing our local teachers to computers and how they can be used in
the classroom for collaborative educational projects.
I saw Firefox boosting notes that called for disabling inet6 as one step
to speed up browsing. I wonder if you have to do something similar with
your system whenever you move to Wonderland.
I'm still beating my brains out with inet6 but I've almost got it
licked. Wonderland has two features the OP might wish to consider.
First, telephony is neccessary in the middle of it. Second, it uses
graphic avatars to put a body to the voice, plus X11 apps all streaming
to the clients in virtual conference rooms. So, you could be sitting in
a virtual boardroom, with everyone else present in their avatars (like
SecondLife) then you can open an Xterm on a wall of the room and
everyone can manipulate it in real time, although only one user using it
at one time. You can pull up Open Office or Spanish Lessons, or Firefox.
All of this while people are talking. No doubt, for it to really be
effective, you would probably have to have Fiber Channel to a community
fiber-based cable company service.
What excites me is that Wonderland is Linux-centric first, Windows last.
I say screw Gates of the future and apparently so does Sun. This is
GOOD! Only problem Im having is getting permission for Wonderland to
launch the apps... still looking for the glitch, others are already
doing it with great success. Now, here's the grabber for the OP,
Wonderland will save a session movie. Couldn't that be streamed to his
low-cost transmitter? I would think so. Using Webcams is already under
alpha testing. I think this would be a heckuva thing to do to stream as
a source of media to broadcast. My two-cents, Ric
--
================================================
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar
http://www.wayward4now.net <---down4now too
================================================
1:58 p.m.
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
8:56 a.m.
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.
--
(This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's
important to the thread.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
7:59 a.m.
Tim wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 06:34 -0500, Tom Poe wrote:
> I want to use the switch to digital transmissions coming in February
> of next year, to get everyone on the community wireless network
> (intranet) to do the AT&T video phone vnc thingy.
>
If you want more than a group of about five locals being able to do it,
you need to put a lot of money into putting hardware everywhere, so that
people could use it (that's access points everywhere outdoors, and base
stations everywhere indoors), then a lot of money into education and
marketing so that people can and will use it.
The phone companies, et al, already do that. It can't be done for free,
it will cost lots of money (hardware, electricity, people), and as soon
as you find someone able to invest the necessary money, they'll be doing
so to make a return on their capital, just the same as the other
organisations that you're hoping to avoid (making as much money out of
it as they can).
Tim: Have to agree with you on most of what you say. 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?
Tom
7:48 a.m.
On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 06:34 -0500, Tom Poe wrote:
I want to use the switch to digital transmissions coming in February
of next year, to get everyone on the community wireless network
(intranet) to do the AT&T video phone vnc thingy.
If you want more than a group of about five locals being able to do it,
you need to put a lot of money into putting hardware everywhere, so that
people could use it (that's access points everywhere outdoors, and base
stations everywhere indoors), then a lot of money into education and
marketing so that people can and will use it.
The phone companies, et al, already do that. It can't be done for free,
it will cost lots of money (hardware, electricity, people), and as soon
as you find someone able to invest the necessary money, they'll be doing
so to make a return on their capital, just the same as the other
organisations that you're hoping to avoid (making as much money out of
it as they can).
--
(This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's
important to the thread.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
6:34 a.m.
Ed Greshko wrote:
Tom Poe wrote:
> There's lots of activity when I type keywords, video conference
> distance learning, but nothing at the no budget level, yet. Seems
> like there's going to be a server/client network description
> someplace. The server most likely has to have a way to manage
> connections/cam screens, so what is that, distance learning
> dashboard, or something? I'm also thinking there may be requirement
> for specialized video card/tuner card capability for handling video
> feeds into the server. Does that make sense?
> Tom
OK, I officially don't get it.
At the beginning of the thread you started talking about the
Nanostation2 and, I believe, for some reason lumped it in with TV.
Nanostation2 is an 802.11bg CPE. 802.11 is the wireless standard used
by all wireless access points. There is no correlation with broadcast
TV.
If you want to "stream video" (not the same as broadcast TV) and your
source is a video camera then you may need a video capture card that
feeds the streaming software. I've not done this in quite some
time....but I think I remember feeding my TV card to mplayer and
streaming it to my friend in his office so he could watch baseball
games. Now, I just use a slingbox as all I need is one-to-one.
So, I'm really not sure of what you are wanting since I believe you
have intertwined 2 questions when they are not connected.
I think you are asking....
1. How can I set up a wide area community wireless network (intranet).
2. What is needed to stream video over #1.
Ed: That's why you guys are the experts, and I'm down in the ditch with
the shovel. :) Thanks, much.
Some time ago, AT&T was doing stuff with video phones and vnc. It was
like they had a high quality network set up inside a location, and
everyone was participating in a live, interactive tv show. Then, a
couple years ago, that project moved out into the market, and I didn't
see the next level (my ignorance is showing) project that I expected to
replace it.
Nanostation2 takes a really big step to make an affordable community
wireless network (intranet) possible for non-techies like me to explore
and try out.
The streaming video is to me, old hat. I want to use the switch to
digital transmissions coming in February of next year, to get everyone
on the community wireless network (intranet) to do the AT&T video phone
vnc thingy.
Tom
3:45 a.m.
On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 00:52 -0500, Tom Poe wrote:
g wrote:
> things just got interesting. part 15.247 does not really apply as i would have
> expected it to be.
>
> from what i have found so far, i can see that there is more to find and read.
>
> from what i have found and read, i will say this, go for it.
>
> as long as what ever system you use is within guide lines of part 15, you
> should be safe.
>
> i do recommend that you get full part 15 and read thru it to be familiar with
> what you are dealing with.
>
> in using such low power, you will be limited to near 'line of sight'
coverage
> and you may get some degrading due to terrain, buildings and such.
>
> over all, your intent of use may be satisfied with results you want. as was
> said, $80 is not much to spend on such equipment.
>
>
> - --
>
> tc,hago.
>
> g
> .
>
There's lots of activity when I type keywords, video conference distance
learning, but nothing at the no budget level, yet. Seems like there's
going to be a server/client network description someplace.
Tom, Check out
Wonderland from Sun Microsystems. It runs under Java,
provides a 3D world builder and get this, it'll run X11 apps within. I'm
having problems getting the darn thing to connect as it uses inet6 but
others have done it. It might be worth looking into.
--
================================================
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar
http://www.wayward4now.net <---down4now too
================================================
11:40 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Tom Poe wrote:
G. I used the wrong term. I apologize.
accepted.
There are no interference
issues, nor are there any licensing issues. A wireless network that
covers a 2 mile by 3 mile square area without Internet connection, is
called an intranet. Any computer that can see the cloud, can
communicate with all the other computers, and participate in a
videoconference. Thus, it looks a lot like low power tv. Does that
make sense? So, what's to keep that from happening? Is it the cost of
the equipment for hosting a videoconference? Do you know what's needed?
taking a break to read up on part 15.
truth of matter, something of a similar order was considered by local lug,
but it was dismissed for various reasons.
- --
tc,hago.
g
.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFICCYvQCGYa6nWX2MRAiVyAKCQSgZpb65Vxc4TyU+YEK5j9HaiuQCgpUzJ
Agb+cz3LmI92RdqIn2HjsdI=
=P9If
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
1:32 a.m.
Tom Poe wrote:
There's lots of activity when I type keywords, video conference
distance
learning, but nothing at the no budget level, yet. Seems like there's
going to be a server/client network description someplace. The server
most likely has to have a way to manage connections/cam screens, so what
is that, distance learning dashboard, or something? I'm also thinking
there may be requirement for specialized video card/tuner card
capability for handling video feeds into the server. Does that make sense?
Tom
OK, I officially don't get it.
At the beginning of the thread you started talking about the Nanostation2
and, I believe, for some reason lumped it in with TV. Nanostation2 is an
802.11bg CPE. 802.11 is the wireless standard used by all wireless access
points. There is no correlation with broadcast TV.
If you want to "stream video" (not the same as broadcast TV) and your source
is a video camera then you may need a video capture card that feeds the
streaming software. I've not done this in quite some time....but I think I
remember feeding my TV card to mplayer and streaming it to my friend in his
office so he could watch baseball games. Now, I just use a slingbox as all
I need is one-to-one.
So, I'm really not sure of what you are wanting since I believe you have
intertwined 2 questions when they are not connected.
I think you are asking....
1. How can I set up a wide area community wireless network (intranet).
2. What is needed to stream video over #1.
12:52 a.m.
g wrote:
things just got interesting. part 15.247 does not really apply as i
would have
expected it to be.
from what i have found so far, i can see that there is more to find and read.
from what i have found and read, i will say this, go for it.
as long as what ever system you use is within guide lines of part 15, you
should be safe.
i do recommend that you get full part 15 and read thru it to be familiar with
what you are dealing with.
in using such low power, you will be limited to near 'line of sight' coverage
and you may get some degrading due to terrain, buildings and such.
over all, your intent of use may be satisfied with results you want. as was
said, $80 is not much to spend on such equipment.
- --
tc,hago.
g
.
There's lots of activity when I type keywords, video conference distance
learning, but nothing at the no budget level, yet. Seems like there's
going to be a server/client network description someplace. The server
most likely has to have a way to manage connections/cam screens, so what
is that, distance learning dashboard, or something? I'm also thinking
there may be requirement for specialized video card/tuner card
capability for handling video feeds into the server. Does that make sense?
Tom
11:35 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Ed Greshko wrote:
I think you misunderstand what the nanostation is....
from logging their site and reading thru several of specs on different units,
i have a fair understanding.
it has been a while that i was last involved with radio communications, both
11 meter citizens band and amateur radio [wb4oyi], but i do from time to time
read up on what is going on.
as i recall, any transmitter with a power output of 500 milliwatts or less,
is allowed with out license, and may be used as long as it does not interfere
with licensed operations.
anything above 500 milliwatts requires a license and operations limited to
certain frequencies.
i just logged site again and in specs for nanostation2, it shows;
Wireless Approvals FCC Part 15.247, IC RS210.
granted, it has been a while that i have been thru part 15 rules and they have
changed. because of this, i have just pulled part 15 rules to see just where it
is now and what is in effect.
therefore, after i read, i will comment further.
- --
tc,hago.
g
.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFICCUqQCGYa6nWX2MRAnPVAKDMo0kQ5ql5c5R7hG0qbWe1j4A9XQCg4hzy
6W6XC58+6WkIC9DWFdJVYew=
=GKm2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
11:05 p.m.
g wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Tom Poe wrote:
> G. You're determined to mislead the list members. How come?
>
i am not misleading any one. i just believe that people should be aware of
is regulated before they get fined for illegal broadcasting.
- --
tc,hago.
g
.
G. I used the wrong term. I apologize. There are no interference
issues, nor are there any licensing issues. A wireless network that
covers a 2 mile by 3 mile square area without Internet connection, is
called an intranet. Any computer that can see the cloud, can
communicate with all the other computers, and participate in a
videoconference. Thus, it looks a lot like low power tv. Does that
make sense? So, what's to keep that from happening? Is it the cost of
the equipment for hosting a videoconference? Do you know what's needed?
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFICB0fQCGYa6nWX2MRAgIkAKCx3SIXjHn2naVew5UeRJzpeoN+PgCgnSZ5
xzRrhu0AN8/n9UAV5D+7e+s=
=hgew
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
11:01 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Tom Poe wrote:
G. You're determined to mislead the list members. How come?
i am not misleading any one. i just believe that people should be aware of
is regulated before they get fined for illegal broadcasting.
- --
tc,hago.
g
.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFICB0fQCGYa6nWX2MRAgIkAKCx3SIXjHn2naVew5UeRJzpeoN+PgCgnSZ5
xzRrhu0AN8/n9UAV5D+7e+s=
=hgew
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
10:58 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Tom Poe wrote:
This isn't about traditional analog broadcasting. It's about
wireless
networks.
true. but, being that any broadcast has a potential to interfere with other
broadcast, there must be some sort of control and regulation.
It isn't about Internet access. It's about neighborhood
intranets.
also true. yet again, it can cause interference.
- --
tc,hago.
g
.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFICBxIQCGYa6nWX2MRAoaMAKCnmYWc14VjZ1pN3/z7g4U4BM1x4wCfa9p7
2Aw7pQLi5Tp77i/h91/+gP4=
=Puxa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
10:51 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
max wrote:
I thought some political genius or court decided that the air was
public
domain.
be nice if it was. but.
imagine what it would be like if radio frequency transmissions were not
regulated. every swinging 'stick' would be boosting power to get thru and
then there would be no one getting thru.
Anyway it ought to be!! Phuch the FCC.( I am trying to master
"Raining Blood" by Slayer on Guitar Hero 3, hence my anti social
behavior! ; )
as good a reason as any.
- --
tc,hago.
g
.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFICBrQQCGYa6nWX2MRAupeAJ9YZRAOsB/Il6yiBY64Cgcfj7aH5gCfUZ6b
FN16Y0ckkY9GSYgvXWwG90c=
=2vMb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
10:47 p.m.
g wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
max wrote:
> I thought some political genius or court decided that the air was public
> domain.
>
be nice if it was. but.
imagine what it would be like if radio frequency transmissions were not
regulated. every swinging 'stick' would be boosting power to get thru and
then there would be no one getting thru.
> Anyway it ought to be!! Phuch the FCC.( I am trying to master
> "Raining Blood" by Slayer on Guitar Hero 3, hence my anti social
> behavior! ; )
>
as good a reason as any.
- --
tc,hago.
g
.
G. You're determined to mislead the list members. How come?
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFICBrQQCGYa6nWX2MRAupeAJ9YZRAOsB/Il6yiBY64Cgcfj7aH5gCfUZ6b
FN16Y0ckkY9GSYgvXWwG90c=
=2vMb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
10:42 p.m.
max wrote:
g wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Tom Poe wrote:
>> www.ubnt.com offers Nanostation2 "radio" that creates wireless cloud
up
>> to 15 kilometers. That sounds like the perfect way to broadcast live
>> interactive tv shows (think neighborhood videoconferencing). Anyone
>> doing this with Fedora operating system and whatever other software
>> needed?
>
> not to put a damper on your 'find', but;
>
> in u.s.a. there is what is know as 'fcc', in england, i believe it is
> postal
> service, that have regulations regarding 'power output' and range.
>
> i would check further before getting hope up too high.
>
>
> - --
>
> tc,hago.
>
> g
> .
>
This isn't about traditional analog broadcasting. It's about wireless
networks. It isn't about Internet access. It's about neighborhood
intranets. $80 buys a Nanostation2 that creates a wireless cloud over a
large area, everybody has Ekiga videoconferencing capability, and voila,
there should be community wide local tv shows. Right? Is the equipment
too expensive for setting that up?
Tom
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFICAIaQCGYa6nWX2MRAhzdAJ0evZ0RV6VzQNbYQgNe4lirt9IuFgCgjHJp
> WT4I/nxbhnYYDjo39d0NPUU=
> =ib1v
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
I thought some political genius or court decided that the air was
public domain. Anyway it ought to be!! Phuch the FCC.( I am trying to
master "Raining Blood" by Slayer on Guitar Hero 3, hence my anti
social behavior! ; )
Max
10:31 p.m.
g wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Tom Poe wrote:
> www.ubnt.com offers Nanostation2 "radio" that creates wireless cloud up
> to 15 kilometers. That sounds like the perfect way to broadcast live
> interactive tv shows (think neighborhood videoconferencing). Anyone
> doing this with Fedora operating system and whatever other software needed?
not to put a damper on your 'find', but;
in u.s.a. there is what is know as 'fcc', in england, i believe it is postal
service, that have regulations regarding 'power output' and range.
i would check further before getting hope up too high.
- --
tc,hago.
g
.
I thought some political genius or court
decided that the air was public
domain. Anyway it ought to be!! Phuch the FCC.( I am trying to master
"Raining Blood" by Slayer on Guitar Hero 3, hence my anti social
behavior! ; )
Max
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFICAIaQCGYa6nWX2MRAhzdAJ0evZ0RV6VzQNbYQgNe4lirt9IuFgCgjHJp
WT4I/nxbhnYYDjo39d0NPUU=
=ib1v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
9:06 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Tom Poe wrote:
www.ubnt.com offers Nanostation2 "radio" that creates
wireless cloud up
to 15 kilometers. That sounds like the perfect way to broadcast live
interactive tv shows (think neighborhood videoconferencing). Anyone
doing this with Fedora operating system and whatever other software needed?
not to put a damper on your 'find', but;
in u.s.a. there is what is know as 'fcc', in england, i believe it is postal
service, that have regulations regarding 'power output' and range.
i would check further before getting hope up too high.
- --
tc,hago.
g
.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFICAIaQCGYa6nWX2MRAhzdAJ0evZ0RV6VzQNbYQgNe4lirt9IuFgCgjHJp
WT4I/nxbhnYYDjo39d0NPUU=
=ib1v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
12:31 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
g wrote:
Tom Poe wrote:
> G. I used the wrong term. I apologize.
accepted.
> There are no interference
> issues, nor are there any licensing issues. A wireless network that
> covers a 2 mile by 3 mile square area without Internet connection, is
> called an intranet. Any computer that can see the cloud, can
> communicate with all the other computers, and participate in a
> videoconference. Thus, it looks a lot like low power tv. Does that
> make sense? So, what's to keep that from happening? Is it the cost of
> the equipment for hosting a videoconference? Do you know what's needed?
taking a break to read up on part 15.
truth of matter, something of a similar order was considered by local lug,
but it was dismissed for various reasons.
things just got interesting. part 15.247 does not really apply as i would have
expected it to be.
from what i have found so far, i can see that there is more to find and read.
from what i have found and read, i will say this, go for it.
as long as what ever system you use is within guide lines of part 15, you
should be safe.
i do recommend that you get full part 15 and read thru it to be familiar with
what you are dealing with.
in using such low power, you will be limited to near 'line of sight' coverage
and you may get some degrading due to terrain, buildings and such.
over all, your intent of use may be satisfied with results you want. as was
said, $80 is not much to spend on such equipment.
- --
tc,hago.
g
.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFICDJKQCGYa6nWX2MRAosSAKCI0kz+HSTbLHdH3SItiMVrnXa55gCgvT/B
DTKK15oljvfp8zRsDhnVryA=
=xNlD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
11:21 a.m.
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.
Tim: You're way too real world for me. Looks like you were at the
Planning Committee meeting on Monday night. You should have let me
know. :)
So, rather than move the discussion forward, the next thing I know, they
had decided to form yet another committee to draft a report on their
findings about FTTH, and its feasibility to complete by 2020.
Ekiga is still a geeky thing for me. What about Skype? Would that be
possible without Internet access? Maybe xten's lite softphone might work?
Tom
8:14 p.m.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Tony Placilla
<aplacil1(a)jhuadig.admin.jhu.edu> wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom Poe wrote:
>>>> www.ubnt.com offers Nanostation2 "radio" that creates wireless
cloud up
>>>> to 15 kilometers. That sounds like the perfect way to broadcast live
>>>> interactive tv shows (think neighborhood videoconferencing). Anyone
>>>> doing this with Fedora operating system and whatever other software
>>>> needed?
>>>
>>> not to put a damper on your 'find', but;
>>>
>>> in u.s.a. there is what is know as 'fcc', in england, i believe it
is
>>> postal
>>> service, that have regulations regarding 'power output' and range.
>>>
>>> i would check further before getting hope up too high.
>>>
>>>
>>> - --
>>>
>>> tc,hago.
>>>
>>> g
>>> .
>>>
Just when i thought this list was getting boring : )
Max
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
>>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>>
>>> iD8DBQFICAIaQCGYa6nWX2MRAhzdAJ0evZ0RV6VzQNbYQgNe4lirt9IuFgCgjHJp
>>> WT4I/nxbhnYYDjo39d0NPUU=
>>> =ib1v
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>
>> I thought some political genius or court decided that the air was public
>> domain. Anyway it ought to be!! Phuch the FCC.( I am trying to master
>> "Raining Blood" by Slayer on Guitar Hero 3, hence my anti social
behavior!
>> ; )
>>
>> Max
>
> Now THAT is extreme gratuitous twittery worthy of a body slam. I wish I
> had the time to do it properly. Your opinion is all too common. It is
> absolutely wrong.
>
< snip marvelous dope-slap>
> {^_^}
*applause*
I remember why I stand in awe.
Welcome back, SWMBO
Tony
1:06 a.m.
From: "g" <geleem(a)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Thursday, 2008, April 17 22:31
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
g wrote:
> Tom Poe wrote:
>> G. I used the wrong term. I apologize.
>
> accepted.
>
>> There are no interference
>> issues, nor are there any licensing issues. A wireless network that
>> covers a 2 mile by 3 mile square area without Internet connection, is
>> called an intranet. Any computer that can see the cloud, can
>> communicate with all the other computers, and participate in a
>> videoconference. Thus, it looks a lot like low power tv. Does that
>> make sense? So, what's to keep that from happening? Is it the cost of
>> the equipment for hosting a videoconference? Do you know what's needed?
>
> taking a break to read up on part 15.
>
> truth of matter, something of a similar order was considered by local
> lug,
> but it was dismissed for various reasons.
things just got interesting. part 15.247 does not really apply as i would
have
expected it to be.
from what i have found so far, i can see that there is more to find and
read.
from what i have found and read, i will say this, go for it.
as long as what ever system you use is within guide lines of part 15, you
should be safe.
i do recommend that you get full part 15 and read thru it to be familiar
with
what you are dealing with.
in using such low power, you will be limited to near 'line of sight'
coverage
and you may get some degrading due to terrain, buildings and such.
over all, your intent of use may be satisfied with results you want. as
was
said, $80 is not much to spend on such equipment.
- --
tc,hago.
g
Persistent, aren't you?
Check the nanostation out on its manufacturer's web site. They cite FCC
approval. Now, you CAN show me up by going one step further than I did.
Check the FCC type approval database to see if they really ARE approved.
{^_-}
5863
days inactive
5875
days old
56 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
Alan Cox -
Antti J. Huhtala -
Bill Davidsen -
Ed Greshko -
g -
Howard Howell -
jdow -
max -
Ric Moore -
Tim -
Tom Poe -
Tony Placilla