[wsfii-discuss] Fw: public demand for information technology

Fri Sep 22 08:39:45 UTC 2006

Now here in order to don't make it longer/unreadable:

-About imagination of the future: Regardless of which are my believes or 
not, not that everybody can say lots of things. There is no deficit 
here. It is on present executions and call for actions now. IMHO I don't 
think that there is a need more hype.
-About to distinguish between available and developing technologies 
stages: We already have dozens of mikrotiks here: http://guifi.net/osona 
, so we already have a clue of what we can get, with or without 
overlapping channels. In the meantime, for sure there are technologies 
in developing stages, you have always the choice of wait or deploy and 
later upgrade if necessary. If everybody choose to wait, nothing will 
happen.
-About the agreement with enterprises, I have no idea of what you mean 
while mentioning "very close an agreement", between you and who? Our 
Wireless Commons License is already doing the trick for us. It's easy.
-Finally, about press releases, I suggest you to distinguish between a 
commercial press release and a real world experience. And again, on the 
future, we'll see.

Cheers!
Ramon.

En/na Ken DiPietro ha escrit:
> Ramon Roca wrote:
>> Ups! Big differences between points of view here, that's always good 
>> for a debate, also inline:
>
> And this is how we learn. I try to participate on these lists because 
> they are a wealth of knowledge and I try to help whenever I can.
>
>> I mean spaces where neutrality is preserved, free spectrum not 
>> invaded by not neutral networks. I can't imagine either in short or 
>> mid term all the spectrum being free.
>
> This is something that every governing body needs to make the decision 
> on based on what they believe is best. If you are willing to take a 
> look into one possible future, please consider what information could 
> not be carried over a wireless link if the entire spectrum was opened 
> up for these expressed purposes. Seriously, radio, television (or 
> video of all kinds) telephone (or voice communication with video 
> communications as well) because if it can be digitized it can be 
> carried over a wireless link.
>
>>> I am sorry, you are wrong. Currently, I know of several companies 
>>> indifferent stages of building radios that provide well above 
>>> 100Mbps (with one claiming real data rates of 300Mbps on the 
>>> backhaul end while having the capability to provide an aggregate of 
>>> over 100Mbps on the distribution side) which when deployed on every 
>>> block could handle thousands of concurrent VoIP sessions while still 
>>> leaving room for data and possibly even video - if the video is of a 
>>> low definition variety such as You Tube or Google Video provide and 
>>> cached locally.
>> If that's really true and available today, pls. give details on this. 
>> Note that we will be very thankful if you share that knowledge: 
>> Myself and probably many others can't achieve those bandwidths in the 
>> real world in wireless communications today without combining several 
>> frequencies, and even worst, if large scale of clients have 
>> simultaneous traffic in a common frequency, that creates a noise 
>> between all of them.
>> If it's not available, we are mixing present and future here, 
>> therefore hyping.
>
> Okay, I have to be careful because I am under NDAs to a few companies 
> but speaking strictly on a basis of what is theoretically possible, 
> using the Atheors chipset based radios and a program like Mikrotik 
> 40Mhz wide channels can be bonded together in the 5GHz band that will 
> provide 70Mbps (real throughput - with no compression) per channel. If 
> you now take two (or more) of these channels and "bond" them (this can 
> be easily accomplished using load balancing)  depending on where you 
> are located (and the regulations that apply) you can build radios that 
> are capable of well over 100Mbps real throughput.
>
> This also requires a different mindset when it comes to deployment as 
> we now need to think in ranges that allow for the maximum connection 
> speed but in metropolitan environments short range links are not only 
> what's needed but it is the only way spectrum can be reused repeatedly 
> allowing for these kinds of networks to be build without destroying 
> the spectrum's usability.
>
> If we look at the newest 802.11n (Draft) we can see real throughputs 
> of well above 100Mbps but a large portion of the 2.4GHz band is 
> utilized. This does not preclude the building of ultra high speed 
> communications networks, far from it, but it does mean a very 
> different mindset needs to be employed.
>
>> Ummmm... not sure If I explained well. Of course we have to buy 
>> things, if there is a local retailer with low margins, we'll do, if 
>> not, you can buy in China, Latvia, or wherever you want. Supply Chain 
>> is not the biggest issue here today, as long as there is a 
>> manufacturer who produces in an enough large scale to provide this 
>> technology at reasonable prices. I assume that the manufacturer 
>> should exists, if not, that means the technology is not available, 
>> therefore all of this become just empty words.
>
> If you are interested, I can supply links.
>
>> I simply don't like enterprises who don't provide a real service with 
>> value add, they trend to become parasites. All others, whit ethic 
>> business models, and respectful to network neutrality rules are  very 
>> welcome.
>
> Understood, I believe we are in very close agreement here. It is the 
> value of the business model and what its goals are that is the most 
> important underlying thing to consider.
>
>> If you consider that the academic/technical entities such the CERN 
>> and a few relevant Corporations, Universities and Foundations as 
>> governmental agencies, maybe yes, but if we mean governments as 
>> politics / legislators, I would say that no.  Internet was also a 
>> surprise for them. Traditionally politics and legislators are behind 
>> the innovation, and in fact introduced the risks of being influenced 
>> by lobbies or over-legislating.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> I believe that you misunderstanding my point here or taking it out of 
>> context. Let me try to show it in another way: Are you running either 
>> a community or a large customer base? If yes, how large? You'll be 
>> always limited by your own resources and capabilities. Nobody is 
>> magic / ubiquitous.
>
> Hmm, I am not sure how to address your point. Let me ask you a 
> question to clarify what you are saying. Do you believe a citywide 
> wireless infrastructure can be built that could handle all of the 
> telephone needs (VoIP) as well as data and video?
> http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-22-2006/0004286765&EDATE= 
>
>
> I will come right out and say this directly. You will see the 
> introduction of 100Mbps plus (backhaul of over 100Mbps full duplex and 
> end user delivery at whereever you would wish) equipment in early 
> 2007. This is three times as fast as what Strix deployed as described 
> in the above press release. Anything more than that I would need to 
> ask you (or anyone else) to contact me directly (off-list) and I will 
> provide you with further information
>
>> I was not talking about if the competition is good or bad or how much 
>> centralized/decentralized has to be. Anyway for sure network 
>> neutrality has to be somewhat organized, and never centralized.
>
> I am not sure I agree but I would agree that both models can work if 
> they are engineered correctly.
>
>> I certainly pay my taxes. I can't discuss this, I'm not an expert in 
>> how they have applied. I just have difficulties in seeing how another 
>> tax can help here.
>
> Would you pay $5/radio if you were allowed a wide slice of protected 
> spectrum? Let's say we offered the government of [pick a friendly 
> county] a one time fee of $5/radio if they gave us 100Mhz of prime 
> spectrum. In fact, we would like to suggest that they make (20) 100Mhz 
> slices of spectrum each of which we would pay $5/radio when we 
> purchase equipment for use in that one slice of spectrum. We would 
> have to convincingly explain to them that if they charged us more we 
> would have to pass that cost on to the customer and everyone would 
> lose out. Perhaps we could employ Mahabir as our spokesperson, he 
> seems to be really good at this. <grin>
>
> By the way, I live for this kind of discussion. I believe we can make 
> a difference and that different ideas need to be discussed and 
> exchanged. Thanks for being open minded in this process.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Ken DiPietro
>
> New-ISP.net/NextGenCommunications.net
> Wireless solutions - not concessions.
> http://www.nextgencommunications.net
> 1044 National Highway LaVale MD 21502
> Tel# (301)789-2968 Cell (301)268-1154
>
> ---
> ---
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wsfii-discuss mailing list
> wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
>
>