Reed Hundt's article on the benefits of municipal wireless

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...n/12917284.htm

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <it_4f.2832$(E-Mail Removed)> on Tue, 18 Oct 2005 04:02:22 GMT,
SMS <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...n/12917284.htm

Registration required on that direct link. No thanks.
I was able to get to it without registration from Google News
<http://news.google.com/news?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial_s&hl=en&q=Reed-Hundt%20municipal-wireless&btnG=Google+Search&sa=N&tab=wn>
or <http://tinyurl.com/corv3>. In part:

Congress should grant $1 billion in federal matching grants to any
municipality that will pay 50 percent of the cost of such a local
wireless broadband network. Local government should let competitive
contracts and build city-by-city, county-by-county, coast-to-coast
WiFi network.

Incredibly bad idea.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...n/12917284.htm

"Officials ought to reallocate a spectrum, probably in
the 700 megahertz band, for a national wireless network
reserved for first responders. The local WiFi networks can
be used by anyone with a laptop. The first-responder network
would be available only for authorized emergency services."

Um... that's what they've allocated 4.9 GHz to.

Also the way this article uses the term "mesh" is incorrect.

Steve

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:20:51 +0000 (UTC), (E-Mail Removed)
(Steve Pope) wrote:

>> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...n/12917284.htm
>
> "Officials ought to reallocate a spectrum, probably in
> the 700 megahertz band, for a national wireless network
> reserved for first responders. The local WiFi networks can
> be used by anyone with a laptop. The first-responder network
> would be available only for authorized emergency services."
>
>Um... that's what they've allocated 4.9 GHz to.

4.9GHz is where Motorola and others are trying desperately to prevent
customers from adopting non-proprietary (802.11a) standards. See any
802.11a mentioned here?
http://www.firetide.com/index.cfm?section=products405

700MHz is worse because even acts of congress and major FCC
concessions cannot seem to move the broadcasters off the frequencies.
Incidentally, depending upon whom you discuss the issues, "wireless
data" at 700MHz often means Project 25 data at a fabulous 3600 or 9600
baud. Whoopee.

>Also the way this article uses the term "mesh" is incorrect.

Actually, he understands mesh quite well within the frame of reference
of when the FCC first mis-allocated the 700MHz band in early 2002.
http://dailywireless.org/modules.php...ticle&sid=2434

--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
831.336.2558 voice
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann
(E-Mail Removed) (E-Mail Removed)

Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:20:51 +0000 (UTC), (E-Mail Removed)
>(Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>>Um... that's what they've allocated 4.9 GHz to.
>
>4.9GHz is where Motorola and others are trying desperately to prevent
>customers from adopting non-proprietary (802.11a) standards. See any
>802.11a mentioned here?

> http://www.firetide.com/index.cfm?section=products405

There's a pre-standard product; it will become 802.11p, probably.
>
>700MHz is worse because even acts of congress and major FCC
>concessions cannot seem to move the broadcasters off the frequencies.
>Incidentally, depending upon whom you discuss the issues, "wireless
>data" at 700MHz often means Project 25 data at a fabulous 3600 or 9600
>baud. Whoopee.
>
>>Also the way this article uses the term "mesh" is incorrect.
>
>Actually, he understands mesh quite well within the frame of reference
>of when the FCC first mis-allocated the 700MHz band in early 2002.
> http://dailywireless.org/modules.php...ticle&sid=2434

Thanks

Steve

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:10:58 +0000 (UTC), (E-Mail Removed)
(Steve Pope) wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:20:51 +0000 (UTC), (E-Mail Removed)
>>(Steve Pope) wrote:
>>
>>>Um... that's what they've allocated 4.9 GHz to.
>>
>>4.9GHz is where Motorola and others are trying desperately to prevent
>>customers from adopting non-proprietary (802.11a) standards. See any
>>802.11a mentioned here?
>
>> http://www.firetide.com/index.cfm?section=products405
>
>There's a pre-standard product; it will become 802.11p, probably.

No way. The whole idea behind allocating 4.9GHz was to allow the use
of modified 5.7Ghz 802.11a hardware on 4.9Ghz using coordination and
licensing to mitigate interference. Nobody even suggested a wide
area wireless municipal mesh network on 4.9GHz in the original
proposal. What we're seeing are vendors trying to lock large
government equipment anti-terrorism funding into proprietary corners.

I'll spare you my rant on such a technical "solution" looking for a
problem to solve. Do you remember what problem 4.9GHz was originally
intended to solve? It was a rush allocation by the FCC following the
WTC bombing as a solution to a rather disgusting inter agency
communications interoperability problem. One doesn't do that by
pushing proprietary solutions.

802.11p is for data between high speed vehicles to fixed access points
at 5.9GHz, not 4.9GHz. It is not a mesh network standard. I don't
see why Firetide would need or want 802.11p for their mesh. Progress
is currently on draft 0.23 which is very preliminary. It's been
running for about a year and there will probably need to be some live
testing before the vote. My most optimistic guess is 1.5 years.

http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/1...tgp_update.htm

--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>> http://www.firetide.com/index.cfm?section=products405
>>
>>There's a pre-standard product; it will become 802.11p, probably.

>No way. The whole idea behind allocating 4.9GHz was to allow the use
>of modified 5.7Ghz 802.11a hardware on 4.9Ghz using coordination and
>licensing to mitigate interference.

Yes, the "modified 802.11a" you're talking about, formerly
called "WAVE", is now called 802.11p.

I only say "probably" in the above because it's not yet
adopted by IEEE.

N obody even suggested a wide
> area wireless municipal mesh network on 4.9GHz in the original
> proposal.

Agreed.

> What we're seeing are vendors trying to lock large
> government equipment anti-terrorism funding into proprietary corners.

There may be some of that going on, but mostly it's pre-standards
confusion, not a deliberate attempt at a lockin of non-standards.

Steve

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:57:03 +0000 (UTC), (E-Mail Removed)
(Steve Pope) wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>> http://www.firetide.com/index.cfm?section=products405
>>>
>>>There's a pre-standard product; it will become 802.11p, probably.
>
>>No way. The whole idea behind allocating 4.9GHz was to allow the use
>>of modified 5.7Ghz 802.11a hardware on 4.9Ghz using coordination and
>>licensing to mitigate interference.
>
>Yes, the "modified 802.11a" you're talking about, formerly
>called "WAVE", is now called 802.11p.

Can't be done. However, we're getting off the subject. You stated
that the Firetide mesh product that being advertised for the 4.9GHz
band will eventually mutate into 802.11p. I stated that there's no
connection, relation, or reason for Firetide mesh to have anything to
do with a completely different technology around 802.11p. There's
absolutely no connection. The 802.11p topology was suppose to be a
moving mesh network but has more realistically slithered back to fixed
access points and moving vehicles with no attempt to play mesh network
between the vehicles and the roadside access points. With the
extremely short times allows for transmission, 802.11a timing just
isn't going to work. It won't be an adaptation but a total redesign.

>> What we're seeing are vendors trying to lock large
>> government equipment anti-terrorism funding into proprietary corners.

>There may be some of that going on, but mostly it's pre-standards
>confusion, not a deliberate attempt at a lockin of non-standards.

Sorry. My perception of the situation is far more conspiratorial. In
a past life, I dealt with quite a bit of FCC related issues. Although
I'm far out of the loop these days, my experience showed that when the
big vendors proclaim "open systems" or "interoperability", they never
seem to quite deliver. I have lots of examples, but one of my
favorites is that Motorola doesn't even pretend to be interoperable
with their own equipment. Every new model requires *ALL* new
accessories and batteries. Even the power connector is new requiring
a vehicle rewiring. I don't think there's an antenna connector
available that they haven't used. The mics are similar, but the
connectors are all different. When they accidentally use a standard
connector (i.e. RJ45), then they make sure that the pinout is
completely different from other manufacturers and their earlier
products. Many more examples if you want them. Not only is the
proprietary design deliberate, but it's institutionalized by company
policy.

--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
831.336.2558 voice
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann
(E-Mail Removed) (E-Mail Removed)

Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:57:03 +0000 (UTC), (E-Mail Removed)

>>Yes, the "modified 802.11a" you're talking about, formerly
>>called "WAVE", is now called 802.11p.

>Can't be done. However, we're getting off the subject. You stated
>that the Firetide mesh product that being advertised for the 4.9GHz
>band will eventually mutate into 802.11p. I stated that there's no
>connection, relation, or reason for Firetide mesh to have anything to
>do with a completely different technology around 802.11p. There's
>absolutely no connection. The 802.11p topology was suppose to be a
>moving mesh network but has more realistically slithered back to fixed
>access points and moving vehicles with no attempt to play mesh network
>between the vehicles and the roadside access points. With the
>extremely short times allows for transmission, 802.11a timing just
>isn't going to work. It won't be an adaptation but a total redesign.

I agree, there's no way an 802.11 MAC will run on top of the
802.11p PHY, and in that sense it will be a less-standard standard.

I do not know if Fireside uses some earlier version of that
standard -- WAVE has been around for a long time, it was originally
controlled by SAE ... yep, the same people who standardize
motor oil.

In any case, yes nothing sold now will interoperate with anything
that may be standard in the future, unless someone deliberately
puts in back-compatibility.

Steve

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 01:06:36 +0000 (UTC), (E-Mail Removed)
(Steve Pope) wrote:

>In any case, yes nothing sold now will interoperate with anything
>that may be standard in the future, unless someone deliberately
>puts in back-compatibility.
>Steve

I'm trying to visualize what TCP/IP would have looked like if DARPA
had adopted the same philosophy. Back compatibility with what? The
technology lifetimes are so short that it's literally not worth the
effort. Incidentally, wanna try using my 802.11 (1-2Mbits/sec
Teletronics PCMCIA cards? It won't work with about 1/3rd of the hot
spots I've tried and does a fair job of monopolizing the ones that
allow it to connect.

If you do consider backwards compatibility a desireable feature, then
make it optional with a switch. Eventually, you just turn it off and
leave it off. I just turned on "802.11g only" mode on a clients three
access points because all the 802.11b client radios had finally been
exterminated. They noticed an immediate improvement in general
performance.

If the government really wants inter agency communications
interoperability, they have to:
1. State that this is their intent and goal. (done).
2. Establish a shopping list of functional requirements. (not done)
3. Establish a standards selection process and deadline to insure
that at least some thing useful will be done. (not done)
4. Establish a testing mechanism and criteria for standards
compliance. (not done)

This is roughly the way TCP/IP, FIPS, POSIX, (not SVID), were
established. In my never subtle opinion, either the government isn't
serious about interoperability, is completely clueless about how it is
going to achieve it, or both.

--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
831.336.2558 voice
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann
(E-Mail Removed) (E-Mail Removed)