(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> I'm not sure if what I'm about to ask belongs in this group - heck,
> I'm not even sure which way to go with this :-) My apologies in
> advance and if you can point me in another direction, please do!
>
> Here's the situation:
>
> My fiancee & I will be getting married in a couple of months. We plan
> to do it outdoors in a park near our house. It looks like a couple of
> important guests will not be able to make it from out of town, so a
> friend suggested a webcast. I've been looking into the webcasting side
> of things & I have a pretty good handle on that.
>
> The problem is getting the webcast from the park to the internet. I
> have considered two solutions:
>
> 1. I have access to a laptop with a connection to Verizon's wireless
> network. The speeds they advertiser are around 1000-1500 kbps down and
> 500-800 kbps up. A little low for a webcast, but maybe workable. I am
> worried, however, by a clause in the fine print of their terms that
> says if you exceed 5 GB/month transfer they may impose a cap of 200
> kbps.
>
> 2. The other solution, since the park is approximately 900-1000 m from
> my house, is some sort of wireless connection. At home I'm lucky
> enough to have a fiber optic connection (5 Mbps down/1.5 Mbps up). If
> I could set this up, it would be the answer to all my problems.
>
> So, the question I'm hoping the experts in this group can answer is:
>
> Is there some sort of wireless solution that can cover a 1000m gap
> between client and router while maintaining good throughput (at least
> 1.5 Mbps) ?
>
> I considered some sort of "daisy-chaining" arrangement with range
> extenders, although I'm not sure how practical that is, given
> constraints on AC power sources & such.
>
> Any input would be greatly appreciated!
>
> Thanks
> Dave
Fascinating. I don't have an answer but I'd start here:
http://www.google.com/search?num=50&...ge&btnG=Search
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity