Taling in the Dark

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/ma...html?th&emc=th

"(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/ma...html?th&emc=th

Ok, so it's "Talking in the dark":

/*
In an emergency, our communications systems always seem to break down.
Does WiFi technology promise a better way?
*/

Yeah, but only if you use that still unratified 802.3pm (for perpetual
motion-derived power supply) connection. When the power's out,
(nearly) all communications are going to fail after a short period of
time.

This sounds like "WiFi is so wonderful, let's see if we can't apply it
to <this>." Oh, wait, "Mesh will solve everything!". If there's no
power, there's no WiFi, and any mesh can be overloaded even if there
is power. Oh, but "VOIP is Yet Another Magical Technology!", that'll
solve everything! Put them all together and it's unstoppable.

Sigh.

Note that I'm not saying our communications technologies shouldn't be
more robust, but throwing the latest buzzwords at them isn't the
solution. If Naw'lins taught us anything, it's that however long a
disruption you are prepared for, you underestimated the scope of the
problem and the length of the disruption.

Hey, I know, how about nanotechnology, that's a sure winner. 8*}

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 08:19:28 -0400, William P. N. Smith <> wrote:

>This sounds like "WiFi is so wonderful, let's see if we can't apply it
>to <this>." Oh, wait, "Mesh will solve everything!". If there's no
>power, there's no WiFi, and any mesh can be overloaded even if there
>is power. Oh, but "VOIP is Yet Another Magical Technology!", that'll
>solve everything! Put them all together and it's unstoppable.

You left out FRS and GMRS radios. I wonder when someone will propose
using mesh technology with cell phones. Personally, I'm partial to
nuclear powered home reactors, for ummm... emergency purposes.

The basic problem with Mesh and WiFi is that the connection between
the wireless network and the internet is where it will fail. That's
what happened in New Orleans. Many of the cell sites, which were
located high and dry on top of buildings and hills had power and were
working. The backhaul to the CO (central office) was what failed and
fell apart. You would think that cell phones could communicate with
each other through a single isolated cell site. Unfortunately,
without authentication from the central billing system, the site is
effectively useless.

The basic requirement is for "infrastructure-less" communications.
Mesh only provides a different type (or style) of infrastructure.

This article on the topic was written by Andy Seybold who methinks
knows more about the communications biz and technology than the NY
Times.
http://www.outlook4mobility.com/comm...5/sept1205.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

Please excuse my poor typing .

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 08:19:28 -0400, William P. N. Smith <> wrote:
>
> >This sounds like "WiFi is so wonderful, let's see if we can't apply it
> >to <this>." Oh, wait, "Mesh will solve everything!". If there's no
> >power, there's no WiFi, and any mesh can be overloaded even if there
> >is power. Oh, but "VOIP is Yet Another Magical Technology!", that'll
> >solve everything! Put them all together and it's unstoppable.
>
> You left out FRS and GMRS radios. I wonder when someone will propose
> using mesh technology with cell phones. Personally, I'm partial to
> nuclear powered home reactors, for ummm... emergency purposes.
>
> The basic problem with Mesh and WiFi is that the connection between
> the wireless network and the internet is where it will fail. That's
> what happened in New Orleans. Many of the cell sites, which were
> located high and dry on top of buildings and hills had power and were
> working. The backhaul to the CO (central office) was what failed and
> fell apart. You would think that cell phones could communicate with
> each other through a single isolated cell site. Unfortunately,
> without authentication from the central billing system, the site is
> effectively useless.
>
> The basic requirement is for "infrastructure-less" communications.
> Mesh only provides a different type (or style) of infrastructure.
>
> This article on the topic was written by Andy Seybold who methinks
> knows more about the communications biz and technology than the NY
> Times.
> http://www.outlook4mobility.com/comm...5/sept1205.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 wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 08:19:28 -0400, William P. N. Smith <> wrote:
>
> >This sounds like "WiFi is so wonderful, let's see if we can't apply it
> >to <this>." Oh, wait, "Mesh will solve everything!". If there's no
> >power, there's no WiFi, and any mesh can be overloaded even if there
> >is power. Oh, but "VOIP is Yet Another Magical Technology!", that'll
> >solve everything! Put them all together and it's unstoppable.
>
> You left out FRS and GMRS radios. I wonder when someone will propose
> using mesh technology with cell phones. Personally, I'm partial to
> nuclear powered home reactors, for ummm... emergency purposes.
>

VOIP via GMRS is forbidden by regulation. Connection of a GMRS radio
via the telephone system is in violation of regulations.

http://www.popularwireless.com/pra.html

William P. N. Smith <> wrote:

> "(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/ma...html?th&emc=th
>
> Ok, so it's "Talking in the dark":
>
> /*
> In an emergency, our communications systems always seem to break down.
> Does WiFi technology promise a better way?
> */
>
> Yeah, but only if you use that still unratified 802.3pm (for perpetual
> motion-derived power supply) connection. When the power's out,
> (nearly) all communications are going to fail after a short period of
> time.

Heh. I was going to say I'd still be up and communicating - off-grid home
and WiFi network - but I guess I'd have to ship my backup generator over to
the neighbor's base station :-)

--
derek

Derek Broughton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Heh. I was going to say I'd still be up and communicating - off-grid home
>and WiFi network - but I guess I'd have to ship my backup generator over to
>the neighbor's base station :-)

Yeah, and all of the infrastructure that's bringing him his internet
as well, which could well be multiple points of failure.

Makes DirecPC look good, but last I checked they still weren't ready
for prime time. Oh well, in an emergency, do you really need full
Internet, or is voice good enough? Ham radio licenses are easy enough
to come by...

http://compusmiths.com/BackupGenerator.jpg is the backup generator
I've been on for the last week. Nothing that baby can't handle! 8*)

William P. N. Smith <> wrote:

> Derek Broughton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>Heh. I was going to say I'd still be up and communicating - off-grid home
>>and WiFi network - but I guess I'd have to ship my backup generator over
>>to the neighbor's base station :-)
>
> Yeah, and all of the infrastructure that's bringing him his internet
> as well, which could well be multiple points of failure.

Nope. That's the easy part.
>
> Makes DirecPC look good, but last I checked they still weren't ready
> for prime time.

Sure they are. I've been on DirecPC for two years (well, it hasn't been
_called_ DirecPC in that long - it's DirecWay). I am now. However, last
week after my deal to tap into the local cable fell through, I shipped my
receiver to the neighbor - and let her pay for the power - and we're
sharing it via wireless.
--
derek

Derek Broughton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>William P. N. Smith <> wrote:
>> Makes DirecPC look good, but last I checked they still weren't ready
>> for prime time.

>Sure they are.

Well, maybe I'll take another look at it, but everytime I delve into
the applicable newsgroup I find that if it works for you it works well
and you are happy with it, but if it doesn't work there's nothing you
can do to make it work, and Hughes can't make it work, and you might
as well give up. Or maybe it's fixed in the next release, but that's
essentially the same thing.

Again, maybe that's changed, but I'm reluctant to do another iteration
on it just because I can. 8*|

William P. N. Smith <> wrote:

> Derek Broughton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>William P. N. Smith <> wrote:
>>> Makes DirecPC look good, but last I checked they still weren't ready
>>> for prime time.
>
>>Sure they are.
>
> Well, maybe I'll take another look at it, but everytime I delve into
> the applicable newsgroup I find that if it works for you it works well
> and you are happy with it,

It really depends what you want out of it. If you want Broadband - DirecWay
isn't it! If you are OK with ISDN-like speeds (large downloads are much
faster, but latency makes web browsing about ISDN-like) you're fine. What
we always say on a.satellite.direcpc is that if you have _any_ other
alternative, you should probably use it.

> but if it doesn't work there's nothing you
> can do to make it work, and Hughes can't make it work, and you might
> as well give up.

imo, there are no real oustanding problems with the service as a whole.
There _are_ issues, particularly with Hughes support, that would seem to
track to bad hardware on some of the satellites. Hughes has a real
tendency to deny that you're having a problem. Those who've managed to get
moved to another transponder find it fixes those problems. If you do get
it, don't let them put you on SatMex5.

> Again, maybe that's changed, but I'm reluctant to do another iteration
> on it just because I can. 8*|

I wouldn't - even though I'm reasonably happy with the service :-)
--
derek