On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:44:50 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Sorta. I guess you haven't bought any CAT6 lately. I just blew $170
for a 1000ft roll of CAT6 at Home Depot. Add in, wall plates, RJ45
jacks, and jumpers, and I can probably buy 4 or 5 wireless routers for
the price.

Cat vs. WiFi?

Sure. We had a neighborhood LAN/WLAN for many years. It started out
as a neighborhood bootleg satellite TV and CATV distribution system in
the 1970's. Over the years, conduit, fiber, RG-6/u, CAT5, and
wireless were added. It does some TV, internet, VoIP, bungler alarm,
intercom, neighborhood watch, surveillance, and gaming[1]. I built
most of it myself. At it's height, we had about 15 houses wired into
the system (all sharing one DSL line). Health issues and general
laziness are limiting my ability and time to do installs, repairs,
troubleshooting, and cable chewing squirrel abatement. The price and
availability of DSL and cable had made it easy for individual owners
to get their own services. Due to the dense Redwood, Oak, and Douglas
Fir forest, wireless was rather problematic between some houses. So,
I resorted to horizontal drilling under the road, conduit, and lots of
scrap CAT5. There was no problem running 900ft between switched ports
as long as I kept the line protocol to 10baseT HDX.

The roll of CAT6 I previously mentioned is for rewiring a clients
office for all gigabit ethernet. Pricewise, is still cheaper than
fiber at gigabit rates.

Isn't that kinda like comparing a hardwired phone with a cell? One I
can do without, the other I can't ...

Maybe. The CTIA notes that 15% or more of cell phone use the cell
phone as their sole means of voice communications. (That's wrong
because they only consider if they do NOT also have a conventional
POTS line and ignore VoIP over broadband). Still, it's a growing
number that have elected to consider cellular as essential. Like all
analogies, the wired versus wi-fi will fall apart if you dig deep
enough. Still, there are sufficient similarities in function where
they can be considered alternatives.

I have a customer with a mostly wireless office. Everything from
desktop to 4 line phones are wireless. That's because the ancient
Victorian nightmare of a building they're in has no place to run CAT5
except the OUTSIDE of the building:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/drivel/slides/SCZ%20Victorian%20wiring%20mess.html
The cost of running surface conduit either inside or outside was
prohibitive, so they went wireless.

I'm drifting off topic here, so let me get back to the original
"community" network. Running copper or fiber is an option if the
community is small enough, the local authorities are cooperative, and
density is high enough to avoid long runs. It's been done in small
towns and planned communities many times. It's far more cost
effective than wireless, mostly because wireless does not scale very
well. The same high density systems that work so well with wired
networking, cause interference and capacity issues with wireless. On
the negative side, copper has become so valuable, that running it in
3rd world countries has become a futile exercise. It will be stolen
as soon as it's installed. That's one reason that wireless phone
penetration in 3rd world countries tends to be very high, the
alternatives just don't work.

There's lots more to wired versus wireless, but this is not the time
or place to discuss them. If the "community" is huge, and copper is
not an alternative, then use Wi-Max, not Wi-Fi. If the community is
like my miniature neighborhood LAN/WLAN, use whatever his handy
including Wi-Fi.


[1] Just before its demise, my biggest problem was a bumper crop of
12-14 year olds, turning the system into a big chat room and gaming
network.

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