That should have read: Mesh+P2P. The details of such could not be spelled out within this comment box.
Just as our modern "Free" internet is, a new wireless network would have to operate on a variety of technologies. A mesh would actually work out great for metro areas in terms of simple data, handset to handset, but there would have to be more powerful fixed site connections to allow continuity across the lager scope of the project. There is a Ukrainian guy who made a nice point to point with (i think) off the shelf parts. Its a Point to Point laser bridge.

Who needs net neutrality. We are the net.

These things we speak of however, are as most would say something like "out of the realm of possibility even for a group of autonomous people and their distributed development processes".

Anyone have any good links to this nature?

OpenHandsetAlliance = Google + Network Carriers + Hardware Manufacturers;

peoplesChoice = People + OpenMeshPoint2PointNetwork + OpenSoftware + OpenHardware;

Start making it, or Microsoft/Danger says "all your data are belong to us"

This is true, and will be the same story with the other carriers as well. Shall we see what happens when the Sprint Hero starts to hit.

Android is not open, parts of it are still locked down. Not even the SDK is open. How is it that all of the carriers all have their own flavor planned, and all of which are going to create limitations for the consumer, not empower them. This is the same system we are both talking about right? OH wait, AT&T must have a pure android flavor planned right? they are going to let you use tethering and VOIP, and incur no additional charges right? bullshite.

Google is too big, and they have revenue at heart. Google will be the killer of the FOSS spirit. I cant wait till I have the ability to view some ads on my Goobuntu box, it will be much better then that old Ubuntu system.

As if developing for this platform is truly going to benefit much more than those carriers that will continue the same process.

You might as well go dev for Microsoft's WM.

We need a middle point for us to market our wares yes, but not within the limitations created by giants such as Google and phone carriers. What strength they bring, creates a great weakness for the community.

An excerpt from Wikipedia:
* The un-restrictive terms of Android's license have allowed corporations using Android to place restrictions on their own customers. As an example, tethering (PC or laptop internet connectivity via the cell phone) is forbidden by T-Mobile USA, and the Android Market has de-listed such applications for T-Mobile customers.[109] This also means that the apps can be carrier-specific as chosen by Google.[110]. (As a note, users can still download any application that is hosted on the internet whether or not it is in the market).
* Android uses Linux as its kernel,[111] but according to Google, it is not a conventional Linux distribution. It does not have a native X Window System, nor does it support the full set of standard GNU libraries like its system libraries (GNU C Library). This specific modification makes it difficult to reuse existing Linux applications or libraries on Android.[112]
* Android does not use established Java standards, i.e. Java SE and ME. This prevents compatibility among Java applications written for those platforms and those for the Android platform. Android only reuses the Java language syntax, but does not provide the full-class libraries and APIs bundled with Java SE or ME.[113]
* Because of potential security issues[114] Android does not officially allow apps to be installed on, nor run from, an SD card. Current Android products such as the HTC Dream and Magic have limited onboard memory and many users feel restricted by this lack of functionality.[115] Several unsupported modifications exist, however, to give the user this capability.[116]
* Android is criticized for its multitasking abilities and the lack of a significant driver base. For these reasons ARM and Real have expressed doubt that it will gain a major market share as a netbook OS.[117]
* Responsiveness can be poor due to the limitations of Dalvik's automatic memory management.[118]
* Developers report that it's difficult to maintain applications working on different versions of Android, because of various compatibility issues between versions 1.5 and 1.6[119].


/end excerpt


Support a true honest open platform, support angstrom: http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/

Android is not an open platform. It may be free(as in beer), but it is not fully free(as in freedom). Anyone ever tried starting up their G1 phone while out of network coverage after a hard reset. OUCH.