Cringely's Bank Shot 272
Michael A. Lowry writes: "You may remember how Robert Cringely used a couple of directional antennas to get an 802.11b link up across a 10.5 km wide valley. The original Slashdot discussion is here. Well Cringely has done it again. This time, he has set up a passive repeater in an oak tree on a nearby mountaintop to bounce a 2 Mb/s signal around a hill that lies between his house and the acces point in Santa Rosa. Read about it here. Details about the homemade hardware he used can be found here. There's going to be a lot more of this in the near future."
Off the tree around the hill... (Score:5, Funny)
:-)
~Eric
Tragedy of the commons (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Tragedy of the commons (Score:2)
Re:Tragedy of the commons (Score:4, Insightful)
Make that sophisticated, motivated geeks. I'm sophisticated, but that is way too mch work for me.
Re:Tragedy of the commons (Score:2)
Sir, we've made contact with itelligent life...The radio telescope is picking up all sorts of information...Wait a sec, that college kid is bouncing a wireless lan connection of our dish to an access point in China! Damn you Boy.
I remeber reading something about the radio free "Dark Areas" in the US are almost extinct. This is important to those Radio Telescope operators and the super senstive listening device the gov't uses. If you are thinking of experimenting with your wireless equipment be aware of the FCC regulations about interfernce and protected feq. Ingorance of these laws and regulations is not a defence when you get fined thousands of dollars for screwing up local broadcast signals for emergency vechicles. Just don't your know neighbors your responsiable for the weird static they get on cordless phones.
Re:Tragedy of the commons (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Tragedy of the commons (Score:3, Informative)
If you are thinking of experimenting with your wireless equipment be aware of the FCC regulations
That's what 2.4Ghz is for - keep it under 250mw and you're fine.
Re:Tragedy of the commons (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Tragedy of the commons (Score:2)
Your only stealing if there is an actual loss from your efforts.
Humm, I could see a counter argument thou.
This is like the software industry saying they lost zillion dollars from pirated warez. The priates wouldnt buy the software in the first place.
Re:Tragedy of the commons (Score:2)
If you use a coil to pick up electricity from a high power line, you are in fact stealing power. Otherwise, there would be an energy conservation problem.
Re:Tragedy of the commons (Score:2)
Who owns what? (Score:2)
You are only "in fact stealing power" if the land does not "in fact" belong to you.
On the other hand, if you own the land, it is entirely possible that what you're 'stealing' is the current that someone volunteered to put over your property. Which might not be stealing at all.
Re:Tragedy of the commons (Score:2, Interesting)
Granted, the owner of the coil also owned the land over which the high-tension lines passed.
-Knots
Re:Tragedy of the commons (Score:3, Insightful)
You get together and create a coherent network.... (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.freenetworks.org/
The more the merrier.
Wireless is good. (Score:3, Interesting)
This would be a big boon for us. I hope a clever company picks up the ball and runs with this.
What I see (Score:4, Interesting)
I want it while I sit on the bus commuting to university. I want it when I'm relaxing at my friend's house. I want it when I'm sitting in my bathroom dumping core.
And no company is going to give this to us.
I want it unmetered. I don't mind paying a flat rate but I'm not going to sit in the dark ages of per minute cell phone charges. That would be useless.
And no company is going to do that, either.
So we all have to be like Cringely....
I already have a WAP in my house, albeit a low power one. Come summertime I might buy an antenna for it so I can get a decent connection when outside in my large property.
Imagine if everybody did this. Imagine if half the houses on your street had a WAP with the SSID set to something like "freewire" or something, seamlessly providing wireless access wherever you go via people's boradband links.
NAN - neighbourhood area network.
Now if only I didn't live in outer suburbia where my neighbours have never heard of the Internet and houses are too far apart to make this worthwhile...
How flat is flat? (Score:2)
But face it, the all-you-can-eat model doesn't work. Bandwidth aint free, and if you give people unlimited access to it, they'll take advantage of you.
That's why ISPs have started capping bandwith. They have to pay for it. If they can't recover their bandwidth costs from you in connect-time charges, then they just have to find ways to limit the amount of bandwidth they provide.
Which is why Cringley will probably will probably get a stern warning from his wireless provider. They're charging him on the assumption that he's an occasional user, not somebody pumping megabits up and down all day.
What would be ideal is a scheme where the connect-time is flat-rate, but every packet past your pre-paid allotment costs. People (like Cringely) who have greater needs would end up negotiating slightly higher monthly fees with a higher allotment. Casual users would get off cheaper. And the ISPs could forget about all the weird rules designed to root out re-sellers and heavy users.
Re:How flat is flat? (Score:2)
I could deal with that, but it's still kind of lame. Why is bandwidth so expensive anyway?
Re:How flat is flat? (Score:3)
A) Because the fiber cost several hundred million dollars to lay down. The ownser of the companies that laid the fiber would like to recoup their investment (and eventually make a profit) before they die.
B) Bandwidth is a limited commodity. There are only so many bits that can travel at any given moment. Most of the time we are not at maximum capacity on a large scale, but occasionally it happens (9/11 when everyone in the world was going to cnn every 30 seconds). However locally, or regionally you can get a bottleneck quite often.
Supply is exceeded by demand, so the price goes up until people dont want to pay anymore.
Re:How flat is flat? (Score:2, Insightful)
But, like airplane seats and hotel rooms, unsold bandwidth is a 100% loss. Bandwidth that went unsold yesterday can not be sold tomorrow. The trick is always selling all of the inventory at as good a price as you can get for it.
Supply is exceeded by demand, so the price goes up until people dont want to pay anymore.
But not all the time. There are plenty of hours every week in which huge amounts of bandwidth lays idle. That's money down the drain. Sure, giving away bandwidth for next to nothing is stupid on a Thursday afternoon. That's prime-net-time. But really, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to plop down in Starbucks on Saturday night at 7:30 and surf to my heart's content. It's not like anyone ELSE is using it. I'm not saying I should be able to steal it, but I shouldn't have to pay an arm and a leg for it either.
Re:How flat is flat? (Score:2)
Exactly, that's why I'm a big fan of paying the big bucks for guaranteed bandwidth, and flat rateing all the rest. Of corse I don't know any ISPs that really do that...
Re:How flat is flat? (Score:2)
First, I don't understand how this relates to the post you replied to. That post basically argued that companies should try harder to sell unutilized bandwidth (perhaps by making it cheaper at off-peak times). Failing to sell something that someone is willing to buy is practically like losing money. I can't imagine why you would have a problem with companies selling off-peak bandwith at cheaper rates.
Second, the complaints you make do not show a problem with economics, even if they are true. You allege that people are making bad business decisions, but if your points are correct, neoclassical economic theory would agree that these decisions are bad.
Very unlike industrial age planes, trains, and automobiles, the capacity of the fiber is a VARIABLE ... it grows or shrinks with different devices on the end points. So how much "bandwidth inventory" is there on a fiber? You CANNOT know, because there is so much more innovation to complete in this arena. You can only pretend to know, in order to cook up a spreadsheet that Proves Your Presupposition, by putting some device or another on the ends of the fibers and pretending like that is a constant that won't change in 18 months.
If I understand your point correctly, you claim that people aren't taking into account that the bandwidth of fiber will improve, and that said improvement will not require replacing the fiber. I don't understand why you think that economic theory requires you not to take that into account. That simply isn't the case. You'd have to be an idiot not to realize that technological improvement will allow you to get increasing bandwidth out of your investment.
Let's take it another step. Since we know that the capacity of fiber is only limited by the performance of the end devices and we know that devices will continue to improve into the foreseeable future, we must concede that the capacity of the fiber we put in the ground is at least 100X more than we are able to deliver today. That's a future 100X LOSS! Therefore, improving the Internet is the stupidest investment in the world. Is this really the way you want to model the future of communications? I don't think so. Let's not pretend like we are all beholden to some immutable universal law of capacity utilization. We have CHOICES on how to account for all these things. Nineteenth century economics may have kludged us through the twentieth century world of planes, trains, and automobiles, but we're in the quantum world now; and that is going to require some Quantum Economics. Just because you can't conceive of what that looks like, yet, doesn't mean it's any less true.
I'm afraid I have trouble understanding this paragraph. Specifically, I don't understand why you think that anyone would think that they shouldn't invest in technology because it might be improved.
What we need are MBA's who are as able and willing to innovate as technologists. Instead, as a general rule, they march into the lab with textbook models from P&G in hand and a set of nineteenth century rules etched into their neurons. The economics of communications will either be completely re-written over the next few years, or we truly risk be permanent AOL doom by John Perry Barlow's Death From Above [eff.org].
John Perry Barlow's article alleges that demand for upstream bandwidth is being underestimated because media executives are obsessed with control. It's probably true that said demand is underestimated, though less so now than in 1995 when he wrote that, but we don't need "Quantum Economics" to tell us that underestimating demand leads to poor business decisions.
Re:How flat is flat? (Score:3, Interesting)
you have trouble understanding concepts that are either new, or outside your comfort bubble. Basically, all flame-bait and no value.
End Of Line. PLEASE MODERATE.
With all due respect, you should at least consider the possibility that your argument could be more clear. Immediately ending a discussion because someone needs clarification is rude, and would seem to indicate an unwillingness to subject your point to debate.
you believe I am wrong, even if my assertions are true;
The argument I was trying to make outlined relatively clearly:
Second, the complaints you make do not show a problem with economics, even if they are true. You allege that people are making bad business decisions, but if your points are correct, neoclassical economic theory would agree that these decisions are bad.
However, unlike you, I'm willing to clarify. You argue that we need a new form of economics. Your argument is that currently business decisions are being made that are obviously bad, that these decisions are supported by economics, and therefore economics is bad. I am agreeing that at least some bad decisions probably are being made, but I can in any case just stipulate that all your points about bad decisions are true, because I am arguing that these bad decisions are not supported by economics. If they aren't, we don't need "Quantum Economics." This is all I am trying to argue.
My first claim, that your post had no relation to its parent, was just dumb. Sorry.
I see now that you interpreted the statement in the parent about 100% loss incorrectly, and attributed it to 19th-century economics. When that post said the "unsold bandwidth is a 100% loss," that didn't literally mean that it would be recorded as a loss on the balance sheet, any more than I could claim a $100,000 business loss on my taxes if I try to sell a banana for that amount, but it goes unsold and becomes spoiled and I throw it away. Now THAT would be voodoo economics :) All I lose is the cost of producing the banana. There is nothing in economics that says otherwise. However, you seem to think that there is, because you say that multiplying the bandwidth must multiply the loss (that is, you say that economics says that). By analogy, suppose I had a device that produced 10 bananas per minute ex nihilio. If I can upgrade the machine for $1000 to produce a million bananas per minute, I would do so as a rational economic agent as long I can recoup the $1000. The value of excess bananas that might spoil is of no concern. I believe the burden is on you to show why any economics, even from the 19th century, would have me do otherwise.
I hope this accurately represented your argument.
Re:How flat is flat? (Score:2)
Bandwidth isn't expensive, but it's not free either. It's a commodity, like vegetables. Imagine how long produce vendors would stay in business if they charged people by consumption/month instead of by radishes consumed.
Re:How flat is flat? (Score:2)
Catch up at the back there. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What I see (Score:2)
I want it while I sit on the bus commuting to university. I want it when I'm relaxing at my friend's house. I want it when I'm sitting in my bathroom dumping core.
I want it unmetered. I don't mind paying a flat rate but I'm not going to sit in the dark ages of per minute cell phone charges. That would be useless.
Step 1: Buy a cell phone. Step 2: buy a handheld device. Step 3: buy an extra phone line. Step 4: sign up for Nextel's unlimited incoming calls cell phone service. Step 5: have your computer's modem call your cell phone which is hooked up to your handheld device. 5 easy steps (and about $100/month) for unlimited 19.2 "anywhere".
Grain elevators (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Grain elevators (Score:2)
While not universal, cable tends not to sell fixed addresses or officially allow servers (which is kind of hard, but not impossible, with floating addresses); on the other hand DSL ISPs frequently (but not always) have (normally as a slightly more expensive option) fixed IP addresses and allow servers.
In my area while I could still get it DSL let me have not only some fixed addresses, but a class C that I (well a friend) had obtained when it was still easy to get portable class C space. After Rythms went bankrupt I couldn't get a new provider that would go to 18k feet (even as IDSL), so I'm on cable. The cable is actually more reliable, and faster, and cheaper. I can't get fixed IP addresses though, and and prohibited from running servers :-(
I would pay extra for fixed addresses and the right to run servers...
I'm seriously tempted to try something like this.. (Score:2)
No cable because we're too isolated and far up a hill.
No satellite access because the house is surrounded by trees and blocks the signal.
DSL doesn't reach out here.
Cell phone coverage exists but is fairly crappy.
I consider it a minor miracle the house gets a phone line.
We don't live in some rural area; we live in a suburb outside Seattle that's fairly dense. Everyone around us gets this stuff but we can't.
Re:I'm seriously tempted to try something like thi (Score:3, Funny)
Enter the chainsaw! Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Re:I'm seriously tempted to try something like thi (Score:3, Funny)
Say, didn't you sit in front of me in algebra?
Re:I'm seriously tempted to try something like thi (Score:2)
And moving ain't much of an option because we're getting a pretty damn good deal on rent. Housing this cheap is hard to find this close to Seattle.
Emissions? (Score:2)
Anyone know?
-me
Re:Emissions? (Score:2, Informative)
For example, with FRS radios it is specifically forbidden to replace the supplied antenna at all, and the supplied antenna cannot be of a gain type. I'm pretty sure that there are similar restrictions on cordless phone antennas.
Re:Emissions? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Emissions? (Score:2, Informative)
Normal LMR-400 only loses 6.6 dB/100'
2 inch heliax (around $1/ft) would lose less then 1.5dB/100'
Please do some research before posting!
Re:Emissions? (Score:2, Informative)
You do need to know the cable loss between your radio and your antenna. With your 24 dBi example and 2dB of loss through the cable, and 1 watt EIRP == 30 dBm:
directional antenna over 6dBi (have to reduce output power by (24-6) or 18 dB):
30dBm + 24dBi - 2dB - (24dBi - 6dBi) = 34dBm (== 2.5W EIRP)
same scenario for a fixed point-to-point link (have to reduce power by (24-6)/3 or 6 dBm):
30dBm + 24dBi - 2dB - (24dBi - 6dBi)/3 = 46dBm ( == 40W EIRP!)
A good summary of this info is found here:
The FCC's Part15 Rules and Regulation and 802.11b emissions in the ISM 2.4GHz Band [lns.com]
check it out and double check my math!
Re:Emissions? (Score:2)
Example:
two systems interconnected with a 21 db dish at each point
Your total radiated power at each end would be 30dbm+(21db-(21db-6db/3)) or 46dbm which is aprox. 39.8 watts Eirp (on each side)
This is not ment to imply that you can break out that old russian amp and crank it up to 40 W of output (that would be putting out WAY to much power{around }) your output after amp should be a bit over 250mW
ps: 30 dbm = 1 W
pps: I know someone posted something close to this but I need to get octave to compile to do the proper calcs (on a 150 mhz laptop (8h))
Re:Emissions? (Score:2, Informative)
FCC Rules part 15.247 is the reference here. The reason we use DSSS encoding is that FHSS is limited to 0.125 watts in the 2.4 ghz band. 15.246(b)(2). The 5.725 ghz band allows 1 watt in most spread spectrum modes (802.11a/g?)
15.247 (b)(3)(i) allows high-gain directional point-point links. For every 3 db above 6 db gain, you have to reduce your peak output power by 1 db.
Of course, if you get a basic ham license, you can increase this quite a bit. However, you then cannot encrypt your traffic, IIRC.
Violation of TOS (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Violation of TOS (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Violation of TOS (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Violation of TOS (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted, that'd take a lot of work, but given the extent to which Cringely is encouraging others to emulate him and cause ISP's everywhere (and his ISP in particular, perhaps maybe even) grief, there might be people who would invest the time.
Re:Violation of TOS (Score:2)
Tracing... (Score:2)
1) send emails to his pbs.org mail address that will generate a reply (ether by nasty scripting tricks, or simply asking him to respond...)
2) Look at the IP address of the reply.
If he does it from his home, they have the IP of his buddy. End game.
Second trick - look around in the specified neighborhood for a transmitter at 2.6GHz. Sniff with Snort.
It reminds me of an old saying: "If you are breaking the the rules, be QUIET about it."
Re:Violation of TOS (Score:2)
Tell him to get a new DSL provider. Some, like Speakeasy, don't mind this sort of thing at all.
Schwab
Re:Violation of TOS (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Violation of TOS (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd say at this point that the only way the ISP could really do anything about it would be to require different authentication levels on their network depending on each user's connection (which could be a pain to do) or contact the owners of the mountain to have the repeater removed from the tree. If I were Cringely, I wouldn't have mentioned the specifics of the location, because it wouldn't be very difficult to find, nor to figure out where he lives.
On a slightly unrelated note, considering the potential effects of excessive EM radiation on the body, how safe is this? I know that in this case, all Cringely is doing is repeating a signal, but I'm not so sure that this idea of beaming directional 802.11b radio streams at unaware people sitting in coffee bars is going to be good for people in the long run. I was a physics major in college, but I honestly don't know enough about 802.11 radio waves at 2.4GHz to make any sort of scientific judgement. Can anyone elaborate or speculate?
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Ghandi
Cringely earns the title "hacker"... (Score:4, Insightful)
He da man.
Need for product durability and stability (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of amature 802.11b hackers are building a utility infrastructure, wether they think they are or not and even if it's for their own private use.
In the VERY near future, wireless devices like this are going to have to become *very* durable to stand up to long-term outdoor use... and I don't mean having a water-tight battery compartment. A lot of the stuff out there... Pringle Can antennas, anyone?... is homerolled hacks.
Things like wireless routers and repeaters, however, need to be designed with things like natural disaster, wild animals, and vandalism in mind.
Ever wonder why public utility stuff is so bulky and hard to get into?
Re:Need for product durability and stability (Score:3, Informative)
The other solution is just to put all your stuff inside an enclosure with whatever NEMA rating your environment requires. Add a heat exchanger and UPS in there and you have a nice sealed up shielded box that's good to contain about any piece of computing equipment you want.
Re:Need for product durability and stability (Score:2)
You could do it yourself, but why?
Re:Need for product durability and stability (Score:2)
Did you even read the article before posting? This is a passive repeater. There is no battery compartment. It's just some threaded rod, washers, and some PVC pipe to wrap it all in. He also claims that he's going back to his DSL service until he can find out who "owns that oak tree" and ask permission. He also admits that it may not work as well once the tree starts producing leaves again in the spring.
Although I will admit that now he's told us it's in a tree somewhere near the USGS marker on the top of a specific hill, the chance that it will be "visited" is much higher. Sounds like a future geocaching [slashdot.org] location to me...
Cringley does it again (Score:2, Interesting)
I bet that he isn't the first to do this either. I have a friend who lives accross the street from his ISP and has tried multiple times to get a strand of fiber run to the main switch (he is friends with the owner). Before I moved and lost contact with him he was working on a radio based method of getting 100Mbps using multiplexing and directional antennas. At less than 300 feet it seemed feasible. This was of course before 802.11x and I am sure he has looked into this. The company we worked for there has a few wireless net connections but the microwave setup we were looking at for 100Mbs and even OC-3 speeds was big bucks! About $10,000 for a single site. Are there any cheaper solutions for that kind of speed?
Re:Cringley does it again (Score:2)
Wireless will scale...if done right (Score:4, Interesting)
The reason this company's solution just might work is this: They are installing multiple access points at businesses in my area. Each tranceiver (yes, everyone's antennae both receives and transmits the network signal, widening the effective range) that is brought online is assigned to a specific access point. As bandwidth starts to saturate a given access point, a new access point is to be brought online by splitting the cost with a business that will play host. That just may be what is needed to make wireless work, instead of becoming a choked alternative to 56k.
Just maybe it will make high bandwidth available to the poor saps (myself included) that can't get dsl or cable.
-Pride
This is what the term Hacker was invented for (Score:4, Insightful)
Mo' power, Cringe.
taking things a bit further? (Score:2)
Later this month... (Score:5, Funny)
On "This Old Geek hosted by McGyver" Feb 29th (not availiable on all PBS stations, ask your parents for permission first.)
Cringely Icon, Please (Score:5, Interesting)
You can perform a simple search [slashdot.org] to see just how many times his material has been posted as a new story on the front of Slashdot.
He's not a God, but he's damn close. His articles are almost always interesting and sometimes he even manages to produce original ideas that are quite captivating.
I don't think I'm the first one to suggest this, either...
Re:Cringely Icon, Please (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cringely Icon, Please (Score:2)
Doesn't work (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Doesn't work (Score:2)
filters tradeoff (Score:2)
Not really. Any filter at any frequency (even audio frequencies) is going to have tradeoffs in the passband where there will be some distortion. Normally things like phase distortion get severe when you're trying to do something this tight.
Think of it this way. Say your 802.11b carrier is 2 MHz wide (I have no idea if that's what it really is) and is centered at 2.400 GHz. If you want to filter out everything but that carrier, you want your filter to A) block every thing below 2.399 GHz, B) block everything above 2.401 GHz and C) pass everything in between. And you want the rolloff (think cliffs) at those edge frequencies to be steep. Well, guess what: that's really really hard to do -- it's like you're asking the RF circuitry to reach waaaaay out to 2.4 GHz and then pick out a little 2 MHz slot. That's strictly military-grade stuff :)
The real problem with the whole Linksys mod is that you're driving the power amp into saturation, and THAT's what causes all that intermod to poke up. All RF amps can push X watts going full blast, but you need to "back off" a certain amount in order to get a clean signal through and not produce intermod. Typical backoffs are in the range of 2-7 dB. So Linksys builds a 100mW amp but intends to only use 25mW of that, for a backoff of 6 dB.
More snack food (Score:3, Funny)
Gigahertz Pringles cans (Score:2)
I've been stockpiling the $1.19 WiFi antennas, but am running out of room for the dozens of little wave-shaped shipping protection cushions that I find in each can.
The cashier told me you're supposed to eat them, but I think he's just out to get me after I 'accidentally' tried to pay with the copper slugs leftover from waveguide construction. Hey, at 6AM after a long night of wardriving, it's an easy mistake to make.
us vs the 'crats (Score:2)
Not once the bureaucrats find out about what he's up to.
And I must say that in this case they would probably be correct. Can't have everyone walking around polluting the EM spectrum.
Re:us vs the 'crats (Score:2)
Still 10 years to my access (Score:4, Funny)
from the article: (Score:2)
(this is from somebody that emailed Cringe)
I set one up this morning. I put a two year-old two Mbps AP with an 18dBi directional antenna on top of our downtown San Jose WiPoP, and pointed it at the Starbucks, Rock 'N Tacos, Spiedo restaurant, and the Campbell Cigar shop below. It works great. I got 1.2 Mbps inside these places with my WiFi card. I didn't have to ask Starbucks, nor offer to pay them anything!"
Does anyone else smell the start of a new type of stupid law, one that says you can't beam otherwise permitted radio waves into buildings?
When the ISPs all start blocking P2P.... (Score:5, Interesting)
We start with neighborhood wireless LANs. A few WAPs on the block, and forthcoming wireless technology will allow the WAPs to uplink to one another. It's not all that different from the old BBS, except that it's over the airwaves, rather than over the phone, the bandwidth is about 1000x better, and it's completely public.
Then we get some Cringely-esque techniques in place to route between different neighborhood LANs. Set an IP router in front of several microwave links to other IP routers, each in a nearby town/neighborhood. This would be like a wireless version of the old FidoNet.
If we can get the whole nation connected, we can then have P2P-paradise that the Media companies can't touch. Well, except that bandwidth would suck, and it would be able to scale for anything. Only, I'm looking at 5 or 10 years down the road, after technology has taken a few leaps forward.
And, you could have access to this network virtually anywhere you can take an 802.11 device. And don't get me started on the Voice-over-IP possibilities.
That would *rule*.
Re:When the ISPs all start blocking P2P.... (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Routing tables could potentially grow HUGE to handle loops within the system.
2) I think (am I wrong?) that a system would require point-to-multipoint or at least WAP-to-WAP, which IIRC 802.11b was bad at.
2.1) Either that or we need two or more 802.11b repeaters on anybody's internal network. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it's more complicated, since one (or more) would have to be able to touch somebody else's WAP. Is there some combination of AdHoc and AP modes that the 802.11 system can operate in?
3) How do you assign an IP address? No DHCP servers, can't be static... messy, no?
4) Suddenly route-advertising and route-discovery would have to become standard features on all WAPs.
That said... it sounds really cool and I'm thinking of solar-powered UPS-backed PC/104 with PCMCIA 802.11 cards being put up around a community ("For $small we can all share internet access and be online anywhere in {area}"). Maybe just a dream.
-Knots
Re:When the ISPs all start blocking P2P.... (Score:2)
Q1) Routing tables could potentially grow HUGE to handle loops within the system.
A1)We would probably need to develop some sort of massively hierarchical routing scheme. Several levels of domains, subdomains, sub-subdomains, and so forth. Using IPv6 wouldn't hurt. Make the domains geographically-oriented. Incorporate AI into route calculations.
2) I think (am I wrong?) that a system would require point-to-multipoint or at least WAP-to-WAP, which IIRC 802.11b was bad at.
Q2.1) Either that or we need two or more 802.11b repeaters on anybody's internal network. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it's more complicated, since one (or more) would have to be able to touch somebody else's WAP. Is there some combination of AdHoc and AP modes that the 802.11 system can operate in?
A2) Since I know even less about MAC-level networking, I'm not sure I have a better answer than "technology will improve."
Q3) How do you assign an IP address? No DHCP servers, can't be static... messy, no?
A3) WAPs can serve as perfectly good DHCP servers. The DHCP servers know what IPv6 address block to use from their sub-subdomain info, which would be culled from the IPv6 router in the LAN (see A1).
Q4) Suddenly route-advertising and route-discovery would have to become standard features on all WAPs.
A4) No, just on the level-3 routers. The WAPs are only concerned with MAC-level connectivity, whereas each (multi-WAP) LAN would contain one IPv6 router to the greater network (for now, let's call it the "CringelyNet.") It would be like in my apartment, where I have multiple 100bT hubs, uplinked to one another, but only one router to the outside world. The hubs don't know anything about IP routing, but as long as there is MAC-level connectivity to the *router*, everyone in the LAN can get to the outside.
Hacking vs. Lobbying (Score:2)
As long laws like the DMCA (or the future SSSCA) are around, there are no "safe" alternatives. Illegal is illegal, and anything large scale will be shut down.
The thing is, if we had the clout to get rid of the DMCA, we wouldn't *need* to build an alternative way.
If we want free networks, the infrastructure we really need to hack is Congress.
Watch out for falling objects.... (Score:3, Funny)
The Unwired [1st.net]
Who owns the oak tree? (Score:2, Informative)
I was going to suggest getting a plat book from the Sonoma county extension office. But I called them, and they don't do plat books... (Maybe plat books are just a midwestern thing. I'm used to most every farmer having a plat book that shows who owns which acreage.)
So it looks like for Cringely to find out who owns that part of Bennett Mountain he's going to have to go to the Recorder or Assessor's office and find it on a map there.
Metal object in a tree atop a mountain (Score:2)
Bad laptop antenna's + repeater (Score:4, Informative)
+Cringley -Katz (Score:4, Funny)
10.5km bah - try 14.6km's at 11Mbps (Score:5, Interesting)
We successfully negotiated a link at 11Mbps over 14.6km and are trying to go for 36.5km when time allows.
check out the quick post at http://www.wireless.org.au/stories.php?story=02/0
Someone take the aerial hostage! (Score:3, Funny)
Why is it everytime Cringely has a new article... (Score:2)
...the PBS site goes down? It usually takes a week after he writes something new before I can see it. Is it because www.pbs.org is some dinky old server that takes a week to get up again after a slashdotting? Lately Slashdot's been linking to every article he writes, so of course, everyone's gonna try to look at it. This behavior has been consisten since I started reading Cringely's articles regularly last year.
Wireless could be the way out of bandwidth hell... (Score:5, Informative)
One of the coolest projects I found while researching this was the HPWREN [ucsd.edu] project at UCSD. Check out their pictures, it's hella cool. In a nutshell they are running a 45Mbps (802.11a) wireless backbone across the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve using mostly off-the-shelf equipment, for the purpose of hooking together the facilities strewn across it. They even have remote cameras hooked in that can be remotely controlled through the network, and other testing stations that send data back to them in realtime.
I dropped an email to the project lead and I asked him what kind of gear they used. He said they used a Western Multiplex Tsunami for their backend, Hyperlink for their antennas and WaveLAN and Cisco Aironet for their PCMCIA cards (you can now see how I constructed my parts list
Well, in certain places they have powered relay stations. Naturally I wondered how they were powered, and he said some of them they could get electricity to, but others they actually have solar panels powering the relays. Damn. For you real hackers he mentioned there was a parts list for the solar power array somewhere on the website, but I never bothered to try and find it.
I've noticed some arguments regarding amplifying 802.11, and thought I'd help clear it up. FCC Part 15.247 governs the unlicensed ISM (Industrial, Scientific, Medical) band, and dictates that you can amplify the signal up to 1 watt (1000mw) This gets tricky when you start using directional antennas >6dBi gain though. You may find more detailed info here. [lns.com].
What do you me HE's at it again? (Score:3, Informative)
One of the previous columnists - Mark Stephens - has been using the names for books (Accidental Empires) and tv (Nerds series). There have been at least two more Bob Cringely's since him in Infoworld.
More info at: http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/summer96/0088.ht
[)amien
Re:How is he powering this setup? (Score:5, Informative)
It's passive. No power needed. Basically, a wave received from one antenna will travel down a transmission line to an antenna connected at the other end and radiate out (and vice versa) with very little loss.
Re:How is he powering this setup? (Score:2)
if you attain a 3db loss of signal you lost 50% of that signal. the feedline he uses has at least 3db of loss and you also lose 1-2 db per connector. he is losing a significant amount of signal.
Re:Good Cringely (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Good Cringely (Score:2, Informative)
That doesn't necessarily make it legal, though - take a look at some of the recent action by the FCC [fcc.gov] against people and organizations violating the Communications Act of 1934/1996. The interesting thing is that against individuals, a good deal of the action seemed to focus on pirate radio.
I found this stuff [fcc.gov] from the FCC [fcc.gov] interesting, too:
Of course, if you have a lot of free time to kill, you can read the whole Communications Act of 1934 [fcc.gov], but I don't think there's going to be much on wireless networking in there. I think for now, since Cringely is already a subscriber to the ISP that he's banking off of, he should be fine, especially since the FCC is allowing people to set up Low Power FM stations in their homes. There doesn't really seem to be any precedence to this from the FCC's point of view.First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. --Ghandi
Re:Good Cringely (Score:3)
Re:Good Cringely (Score:2)
A) The activity in question crosses two states. And you are correct, this does not cross state lines.
B) The regulation in question is in effect for more than one state. AH! FCC interference and broadcast regs are nationwide. Thats why they get jurisdiction.
Re:Good Cringely (Score:2)
Re:I hate to rain on Mr Cringely's parade, but... (Score:3, Informative)
The danger of using anything in the unregulated area is that you might get hosed by other unregulated users. If you need the reliability/durability/security, you have to pay for it.
Re:I hate to rain on Mr Cringely's parade, but... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: I hate to rain on Mr Cringely's parade, but... (Score:5, Informative)
For those moderators not paying attention, the parent post is an obvious troll.
This is precisely why we need the FCC to regulate people's use of this equipment.
Cringely's setup is regulated by the FCC and is within FCC specifications. There is nothing illegal (as far as the FCC is concerned) here.
Did Bob Cringely ask a single person living in downtown what they thought of his terrific internet access plan?
Why would he? Does the neighborhood get a vote every time someone turns on a cell phone? What about when a ham radio operator fires up his 1,500 watt amp? What about when someone turns on a microwave oven?
What about the those people who use approved wireless equipment (phones, wireless networking) and now have to deal with the background noise
Cringely was using an FCC type-accepted device well within its specifications. Did you miss that part of his article?
coming from his souped up repeater?
His 'souped up repeater', as you call it, is a couple of antennas back to back. It's passive. His antennas don't put out power, they just focus the energy. With 18db of gain, his 100mw signal is still under five effective watts.
Wait, I'm sure he did a thorough study of his setup to make sure that it didn't interfere with transmissions by public safety agencies, right?
Dude, take a basic radio class. He isn't changing the operational frequency. He isn't using an illegal amp that might cause out of band splatter. His third order distortion won't be affected by a passive antenna. There is harmless.
What stopped him from using a 10 watt transmitter, so that the connection would be even faster?
If he had a ham radio license, he could legally run up to 1,500 watts of power, operate an active repeater and use whatever antenna array he wanted all in the same frequency range he is using now. As an added bonus, he still wouldn't have to fill out any paperwork, get any government approval or take a poll of his neighbors.
Follow the rules and don't subject other people to your homebrewed technology.
Once again, other than unlawful use of a tree for the purposes of geekness, I he hasn't broken any rules.
If you want to learn something about radio (and, trust me, you're really ignorant now), why not surf on over to the American Radio Relay League [arrl.org]. They represent hams across the world. They have some very good teaching materials. If you study hard, maybe you can even get a ham license. It really is pretty nifty.
InitZero
Re:I hate to rain on Mr Cringely's parade, but... (Score:2)
However, the FCC still has restrictions. I think there's a limit to how much transmitting power you can use (or, at least, a limit to how much is detectable a certain distance away).
Other than placing a repeater on property that is not his own, I don't see anything wrong here. Cringely is just pretending that he's sitting downtown at a coffee shop. He's paying for the bandwidth he's using.
Anyway, I think 802.11 is a very liberating technology. Provided that people who set up such networks follow some sort of standard (which probably hasn't been built yet, but it probably will be before too long), this could really be a big step in the evolution of the Internet.
For the last several years, it's been commercialized to the extreme. There are people who just want to use it to connect to others, and experiment with the technology.
Oh well, I suppose I'm just an idealistic bastard...
Re:I hate to rain on Mr Cringely's parade, but... (Score:2)
If he were amplifying it beyond limits, and publishing an article about it, it would be the height of stupidity, and he'd likely be charged. He's not that stupid.
At first, when I first read him, I was worried cringely was a Chaos Manor Wannabe (and why anybody would want to be another Chaos Manor, would escape me), but this guy actually has pretty good insight and cool articles.
-me
Re:I hate to rain on Mr Cringely's parade, but... (Score:2)
Sigh, another person who didn't read the article. The repeater is a passive repeater, a threaded rod, some washers, and some PVC pipe to seal it up in. The only thing "souped up" was his base station. Which is still at his house. On the other side of the hills.