|
BPL Powers Off
In article , Robert Casey
writes: Wi-Fi "nodes" need the same cable or fiber optic feeds as BPL does but then the costs of implementation go 'way down below the costs of implementing BPL. BPL is a hard-wired very localized system with toxic side effects. A single Wi-Fi node can serve dozens of users simultaneously over some pretty big areas without any wires. Huge pluses vs. BPL. I think we are in agreement. The costs of the feed would be the same, the costs of the "modems" would be similar. Maybe. A BPL modem has to be across the AC line, which brings in a whole bunch of safety issues. The big difference is that Wi-Fi should be able to handle much more bandwidth in the part between the individual Wi-Fi "modems" than the part between BPL "modems". Both use either the existing slice of radio spectra (somewhere up in the microwave bands) or existing power wires. But that would leave out laptops running off batteries (unless BPL fesses up to being a radiator and that laptop actually transmits a signal thru an antenna to be picked up by leaky nearby power wires being fed by a BPL system, and visa versa. Then the entire camel gets into the tent...). Then it's not incidental radiation anymore, but intentional. Another big difference is that a Wi-Fi modem bought here in EPA today can be used all over the country if I sign up with the right provider. A BPL modem for a particular system doesn't work on BPL systems by other companies. Wi-Fi is already "on the shelf" vs BPL which would have to charge more to pay off the development costs, or the providers would have to front a huge investment that may never pay off. Most of this country's major airports have Wi-Fi nodes ("hot spots"). Drop into yer seat in the podium areas, fire up the laptop and catch up with your e-mail or whatever. Sixty bucks for the modem and yer online. And they're already on the shelf and in use. Ditto the Starbucks stores, truck stops, etc. It doesn't take much of a stretch to imagine that the basic technology can be deployed over huge swaths of users at low installation costs. One inexpensive little black box up a pole per block or on cell phone towers in urban and suburban neighborhoods, etc. Supposedly one inexpensive BPL box on a neighborhood power pole is the equivalent. And every user needs a BPL "modem" as well. These would cost about the same as Wi-Fi and offer inferior service. Depends on the system. And the BPL injectors and extractors have to be insulated to stand the MV distribution voltages. And the power line has to be clean enough not to interfere with BPL signals. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/07/28/5/?nc=1 73 de Jim, N2EY http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/08/06/2/ There goes another one! This time it's one of Mikey's BPL poster children who bailed out. .. . . works for me . . ! w3rv |
Brian Kelly wrote:
(N2EY) wrote in message . com... http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/07/28/5/?nc=1 73 de Jim, N2EY http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/08/06/2/ There goes another one! This time it's one of Mikey's BPL poster children who bailed out. . . . works for me . . ! Good to see they gathered the "valuable information" and still pulled the plug. Obviously if it was such a good thing, they would have announced their immediate plans to expand the service area. Took 'em $500,000 dollars to find out exactly what we told 'em would happen. I'll offer to consult with these Powerline companies for 20 percent of that cost. One more battle....... - Mike KB3EIA - |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: One more battle....... ...with you on the sidelines egging on the fight? Now be honest, Leonard. Isn't that the sum total of your involvement in amateur radio? Dave K8MN |
|
The City of Grandhaven, MI has just set up WiFi for the whole area, and
Ottawa County is taking about doing the same for the whole county. How could any local entity (govt. or otherwise) do this using satellite? The cost of launching a satellite is too high. Aren't the existing staellite Internet services (DirecWay -- is there any other?) slow and expensive, and require a large outlay up front for equipment? Alan NV8A On 08/14/04 05:47 am S. Hanrahan put fingers to keyboard and launched the following message into cyberspace: Wires for any type of communications purposes are already on their way into history. BPL was stillborn from the gitgo. The future is satellite. Wi-Fi will just be a fad like the laserdisc. |
Minnie Bannister wrote in message ...
The City of Grandhaven, MI has just set up WiFi for the whole area, and Ottawa County is taking about doing the same for the whole county. There ya go! How could any local entity (govt. or otherwise) do this using satellite? The cost of launching a satellite is too high. Aren't the existing staellite Internet services (DirecWay -- is there any other?) slow and expensive, and require a large outlay up front for equipment? They can take any number of routes into existing satellite capabilities which are both inaccessible and unaffordale out here at the RRAP consumer level. Very hypothetical example: Podunk Hollow County ND pays some first tier commercial ISP which has a connection into the INTELSAT network and pays them $10,000 a month for their connection. Could be AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc. Then Podunk Hollow County becomes a local non-profit ISP which puts up a bunch of Wi-Fi nodes, signs up 2,000 of it's citizens as subscibers to it's service and charges them ten bucks a month for the connection. The $10,000 "profit" they appear to be getting in this scenario actually goes into initial capital investment recovery, the sinking fund and the system operating and maintenance expenses. Alan NV8A w3rv On 08/14/04 05:47 am S. Hanrahan put fingers to keyboard and launched the following message into cyberspace: Wires for any type of communications purposes are already on their way into history. BPL was stillborn from the gitgo. The future is satellite. Wi-Fi will just be a fad like the laserdisc. |
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 07:31:31 -0400, Minnie Bannister
wrote: How could any local entity (govt. or otherwise) do this using satellite? The cost of launching a satellite is too high. Aren't the existing staellite Internet services (DirecWay -- is there any other?) slow and expensive, and require a large outlay up front for equipment? Easy, they (local entity) won't have to. Sure, there's DirecWay, then there's Starband, and soon there will be a third player, WildBlue. Alan NV8A Stacey/ AA7YA |
S. Hanrahan wrote in message . ..
On 2 Aug 2004 08:25:26 -0700, (Brian Kelly) wrote: Wires for any type of communications purposes are already on their way into history. BPL was stillborn from the gitgo. The future is satellite. Wi-Fi will just be a fad like the laserdisc. Probably not - that is, if we're talking about customers directly accessing the satellite. While there's definitely a future for satellite comms, the "last mile" problem combined with the enormous bandwidth of fiber limits its usefulness as a general-purpose broadband access method. Say you orbit a new, state of the art satellite. How much bandwidth can it provide to how many customers? Compare that to what is available in a single fiber. Also remember that once the duct is in place, pulling another fiber isn't that expensive, and that new technologies permit more bandwidth in existing fibers. -- One thing the BPL folks downplay is that they really only use the power lines for customer delivery (the "last mile" or so). Which could almost always be done better by some form of Wi-Fi, DSL, cable, or (yes) satellite. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
S. Hanrahan wrote in message . .. On 2 Aug 2004 08:25:26 -0700, (Brian Kelly) wrote: Wires for any type of communications purposes are already on their way into history. BPL was stillborn from the gitgo. The future is satellite. Wi-Fi will just be a fad like the laserdisc. Wi-fi is already much bigger than the laserdisc was and it's growing exponentially. The laserdisc died on the stores shelves from the gitgo. Probably not - that is, if we're talking about customers directly accessing the satellite. It's the cost of consumer direct access to the satellites which is the show-stopper and I don't see it coming down to dialup costs for years if ever. 80% of the U.S. consumers with access are still using dialup connections and most of 'em are not going to move to broadband until the costs get a lot closer to dialup than they are. While there's definitely a future for satellite comms, the "last mile" problem combined with the enormous bandwidth of fiber limits its usefulness as a general-purpose broadband access method. Say you orbit a new, state of the art satellite. How much bandwidth can it provide to how many customers? A whole bunch. Even the old birds which have been up for years can repeat something like 900 TV channels and those are not considered high-capacity satellites. Compare that to what is available in a single fiber. Also remember that once the duct is in place, pulling another fiber isn't that expensive, and that new technologies permit more bandwidth in existing fibers. What "ducts"?? There aren't any ducts running into farms and vacation lodges out in the boonies. They'll have the last mile problem for years to come. Until the phone companies replace their twisted-pair wiring with cable, fiber optic and otherwise. w3rv |
In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message .com... S. Hanrahan wrote in message ... On 2 Aug 2004 08:25:26 -0700, (Brian Kelly) wrote: Wires for any type of communications purposes are already on their way into history. BPL was stillborn from the gitgo. The future is satellite. Wi-Fi will just be a fad like the laserdisc. Wi-fi is already much bigger than the laserdisc was and it's growing exponentially. The laserdisc died on the stores shelves from the gitgo. For reasons listed in another post. Probably not - that is, if we're talking about customers directly accessing the satellite. It's the cost of consumer direct access to the satellites which is the show-stopper and I don't see it coming down to dialup costs for years if ever. 80% of the U.S. consumers with access are still using dialup connections and most of 'em are not going to move to broadband until the costs get a lot closer to dialup than they are. Absolutely. This is where DSL can really get the market, because with DSL you don't need a second phone line. While there's definitely a future for satellite comms, the "last mile" problem combined with the enormous bandwidth of fiber limits its usefulness as a general-purpose broadband access method. Say you orbit a new, state of the art satellite. How much bandwidth can it provide to how many customers? A whole bunch. Even the old birds which have been up for years can repeat something like 900 TV channels and those are not considered high-capacity satellites. That means 900 customers can have 6 MHz of bandwidth each. Or maybe 5400 can have 1 MHz each. When the satellite repeats a channel, it doesn't matter how many people watch it. Internet bandwidth is a completely different beast. Compare that to what is available in a single fiber. Also remember that once the duct is in place, pulling another fiber isn't that expensive, and that new technologies permit more bandwidth in existing fibers. What "ducts"?? There aren't any ducts running into farms and vacation lodges out in the boonies. They'll have the last mile problem for years to come. Until the phone companies replace their twisted-pair wiring with cable, fiber optic and otherwise. I meant ducts that carry it to within a mile of the customer. Ducts that go across the country, etc. Satellites can't create another RF spectrum. Fiber and Wi-Fi...watch out... One caveat! A lot of folks are setting up their own little wireless networks. The stuff is becoming cheaper than the cable it replaces! But not enough folks understand the need to encrypt. Without good encryption of your network, anybody can drive by with a lapper and access your network - and your hard drives, etc. Your internet firewall won't help because your network thinks the invader is *inside* your network, not outside. You need for the network itself to be encrypted. Where's my RJ-45 plugs? 73 de Jim, N2EY 73 de Jim, N2EY |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 "N2EY" == n2ey writes: [...] N2EY One caveat! N2EY A lot of folks are setting up their own little wireless N2EY networks. The stuff is becoming cheaper than the cable it N2EY replaces! And for good reason. In my new location, I'm terrified to drill through the walls (it's an old *solid* house that predates cheap sheetrock by decades) but I've no trouble using wireless. N2EY But not enough folks understand the need to encrypt. Without N2EY good encryption of your network, anybody can drive by with a N2EY lapper and access your network - and your hard drives, etc. Your N2EY internet firewall won't help because your network thinks the N2EY invader is *inside* your network, not outside. You need for the N2EY network itself to be encrypted. If someone truly sets up their network in this manner, they are truly running a serious risk, as you describe. I've just moved, so I have to reinstall my network, and it will actually be set up with two wireless access points: one for the "inside", which will be MAC-restricted and locked down with WEP (until my operating system fully supports TKIP in which case I'll go up to that protocol), and one which is "outside" for any and all comers to sit in the nearby park and reach the internet. No traffic goes to the inside from the outside, and both sides can see the internet, so life is good. N2EY Where's my RJ-45 plugs? Put some time and effort into understanding exactly how to make it all work properly, and you'll find that you need fewer RJ-45 plugs. N2EY 73 de Jim, N2EY Oh, and I get that you're not talking about setting up your own network in the encryption-free manner in which you describe. I'm just trying to show that there are many good ways to make wireless work such that you can be friendly to your neighbors while protecting your assets. Jack. (one of those paranoid computer security types) - -- Jack Twilley jmt at twilley dot org http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBJAtEGPFSfAB/ezgRAtWqAJ9crOHo6IKrEZ089EPMgfeXTJpb+QCfUztP Rtp9XKoV8+kiWCs4iL8r7O4= =Fcq3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Jack Twilley wrote in message ...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Oh, and I get that you're not talking about setting up your own network in the encryption-free manner in which you describe. I'm just trying to show that there are many good ways to make wireless work such that you can be friendly to your neighbors while protecting your assets. I use a very simple all-platforms bulletproof "security protocol" Jack. I don't put anything of a sensitive nature on a hard drive in a computer which is networked, particulary when the network includes the Internet, *nothing*. Net result is that my sensitive info can't possibly get hacked and I don't have to diddle with any contorted encryption and firewall sorts of pushups. I could care less if this computer gets hacked, there's nothing in it which is of any pecuniary or "intelligence" value at all to anybody else. What do I care if somebody taps into my antenna modeling files, e-mail to N2EY or my ..jpegs of family and such which are in this box?! Of course in the process I'm giving up a lot of current-tech conveniences like online banking, online shopping and others. But that's OK where I come from, my telephone still works and I still dial around to place orders with the plastic, the banks are still issuing statements, the post office still sells stamps, yadda, yadda. I have yet to run into a transaction or an instance of passing out any other type of sensitive info which was stymied by doing it offline. Depends on the tradeoffs you make between security and convenience, I've taken the easy way out of the whole endless computer security swamp. Jack. w3rv (one of those paranoid computer security types) (ya done it to yerself Jack) |
Subject: BPL Powers Off
From: (Brian Kelly) Date: 8/19/2004 7:40 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: Jack Twilley wrote in message ... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Oh, and I get that you're not talking about setting up your own network in the encryption-free manner in which you describe. I'm just trying to show that there are many good ways to make wireless work such that you can be friendly to your neighbors while protecting your assets. I use a very simple all-platforms bulletproof "security protocol" Jack. I don't put anything of a sensitive nature on a hard drive in a computer which is networked, particulary when the network includes the Internet, *nothing*. Net result is that my sensitive info can't possibly get hacked and I don't have to diddle with any contorted encryption and firewall sorts of pushups. I could care less if this computer gets hacked, there's nothing in it which is of any pecuniary or "intelligence" value at all to anybody else. What do I care if somebody taps into my antenna modeling files, e-mail to N2EY or my .jpegs of family and such which are in this box?! Of course in the process I'm giving up a lot of current-tech conveniences like online banking, online shopping and others. But that's OK where I come from, my telephone still works and I still dial around to place orders with the plastic, the banks are still issuing statements, the post office still sells stamps, yadda, yadda. I have yet to run into a transaction or an instance of passing out any other type of sensitive info which was stymied by doing it offline. Depends on the tradeoffs you make between security and convenience, I've taken the easy way out of the whole endless computer security swamp. Jack. w3rv (one of those paranoid computer security types) (ya done it to yerself Jack) I still think that these "holes" in Windows are intentional. And I am with you, Brian...If I need to do something that bad, I will make the call with the plastic. Otherwise I'll keep Ben Franklin's ugly cousins working another day! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: Say you orbit a new, state of the art satellite. How much bandwidth can it provide to how many customers? A whole bunch. Even the old birds which have been up for years can repeat something like 900 TV channels and those are not considered high-capacity satellites. That means 900 customers can have 6 MHz of bandwidth each. Or maybe 5400 can have 1 MHz each. That's with antique satellites, not with the monster birds being tossed up these days each of which which has orders of magnitude more capacity than the TV repeaters. When the satellite repeats a channel, it doesn't matter how many people watch it. Internet bandwidth is a completely different beast. Welp, I read recently that several new satellite ISPs have jumped into that biz so common sense indicates that they have to have unused bandwidth available in copious supply or they wouldn't have opened shop. Fact is that the demand for sattelite access is very cost-limited which automatically keeps the need for bandwidth down to manageable levels. Sattelite comms will continue to grow in markets where the users are 'way out in the boonies where cables will never go and they don't have any options and there are plenty of those. Then comes the huge and growing market for sattelite mobile comms. And the consumer market populated by folk who just like working the birds. It appears to me that in the limit and ignoring some obvious realities the Wi-fi vs. Satellite market competition won't be a competition. By their very natures Wi-fi or some evloutionary form of Wi-fi will grab the big pieces of the light-duty consumer and business travel markets and the sattelites will continue to carry the heavy duty business mobile and remote access comms. And all this with the monster volume of *really* broadband military sattelite comms sharing the RF spectrum with the commercials. Compare that to what is available in a single fiber. Also remember that once the duct is in place, pulling another fiber isn't that expensive, and that new technologies permit more bandwidth in existing fibers. What "ducts"?? There aren't any ducts running into farms and vacation lodges out in the boonies. They'll have the last mile problem for years to come. Until the phone companies replace their twisted-pair wiring with cable, fiber optic and otherwise. I meant ducts that carry it to within a mile of the customer. Many people in this country live twenty and more miles from anything even vaguely resembling a cable. Wi-fi is never gonna reach them. Ducts that go across the country, etc. Satellites can't create another RF spectrum. What's a "duct" anyway? How many of those are running all over North Dakota and Idaho?? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Subject: BPL Powers Off
From: (Brian Kelly) Date: 8/19/2004 8:38 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: Say you orbit a new, state of the art satellite. How much bandwidth can it provide to how many customers? A whole bunch. Even the old birds which have been up for years can repeat something like 900 TV channels and those are not considered high-capacity satellites. That means 900 customers can have 6 MHz of bandwidth each. Or maybe 5400 can have 1 MHz each. That's with antique satellites, not with the monster birds being tossed up these days each of which which has orders of magnitude more capacity than the TV repeaters. For the quality of TV programming provided today (with the possible exclusion of Discovery, History Channel and TLC) they could just use one of the old ECHO balloon satellites for all they are worth. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
it is good to see bpl dieing. 73's Joe kb9mth
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message om... (N2EY) wrote in message . com... http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/07/28/5/?nc=1 73 de Jim, N2EY http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/08/06/2/ There goes another one! This time it's one of Mikey's BPL poster children who bailed out. . . . works for me . . ! w3rv |
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 "Brian" =3D=3D Brian Kelly writes: Jack Oh, and I get that you're not talking about setting up your own Jack network in the encryption-free manner in which you describe. Jack I'm just trying to show that there are many good ways to make Jack wireless work such that you can be friendly to your neighbors Jack while protecting your assets. Brian I use a very simple all-platforms bulletproof "security Brian protocol" Jack. I don't put anything of a sensitive nature on a Brian hard drive in a computer which is networked, particulary when Brian the network includes the Internet, *nothing*. Net result is Brian that my sensitive info can't possibly get hacked and I don't Brian have to diddle with any contorted encryption and firewall sorts Brian of pushups. I could care less if this computer gets hacked, Brian there's nothing in it which is of any pecuniary or Brian "intelligence" value at all to anybody else. What do I care if Brian somebody taps into my antenna modeling files, e-mail to N2EY or Brian my .jpegs of family and such which are in this box?! It is interesting that your primary concern is to keep your information secure -- that is indeed a very valid concern. The approach you describe is the one that was followed at the defense contractor where I started my career. It works very well for many many cases and is "the right way" to handle most kinds of classified information. However, there is a concern which isn't addressed by your system, which is being a good Internet citizen and preventing your computer from being used for Evil. You could care less if the machine gets hacked, but if it gets hacked and used as an open proxy for delivering spam or as part of a distributed denial of service attack, your negligence leads directly to the economic losses of others. That's something worth considering. Brian Of course in the process I'm giving up a lot of current-tech Brian conveniences like online banking, online shopping and Brian others. But that's OK where I come from, my telephone still Brian works and I still dial around to place orders with the plastic, Brian the banks are still issuing statements, the post office still Brian sells stamps, yadda, yadda. I have yet to run into a Brian transaction or an instance of passing out any other type of Brian sensitive info which was stymied by doing it offline. In some ways it's harder to do business offline these days, but just as you can still use a pulse telephone without Touch-Tone, you can still use the phone instead of the Internet. Brian Depends on the tradeoffs you make between security and Brian convenience, I've taken the easy way out of the whole endless Brian computer security swamp. =20 That is indeed one approach, and other than the blind spot I described above, it's a perfectly reasonable and consistent approach. You can still send all your Internet traffic over AX.25[1] and I can't, which is also a plus for you. But I've got a versatile tool, a profitable source of income, an engaging hobby, and a space heater all in one, and that doesn't completely suck. Jack Jack. Brian w3rv Jack (one of those paranoid computer security types) Brian (ya done it to yerself Jack) Of course, and I'm totally okay with it -- just issuing a disclaimer to let folks know that my perspective, while reasonable and consistent =2D From where I sit, may be completely insane from another's point of view.=20 Jack. [1] ObTopicalReference =2D --=20 Jack Twilley jmt at twilley dot org http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBJOHqGPFSfAB/ezgRAliCAJ928F5+DAa1FYNE15xHITf36NJHdACg+mXR kOD6x00BbZuDwOSvgkhaK4o=3D =3D3vLr =2D----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: BPL Powers Off From: (Brian Kelly) Date: 8/19/2004 7:40 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: Jack Twilley wrote in message ... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Oh, and I get that you're not talking about setting up your own network in the encryption-free manner in which you describe. I'm just trying to show that there are many good ways to make wireless work such that you can be friendly to your neighbors while protecting your assets. I use a very simple all-platforms bulletproof "security protocol" Jack. I don't put anything of a sensitive nature on a hard drive in a computer which is networked, particulary when the network includes the Internet, *nothing*. Net result is that my sensitive info can't possibly get hacked and I don't have to diddle with any contorted encryption and firewall sorts of pushups. I could care less if this computer gets hacked, there's nothing in it which is of any pecuniary or "intelligence" value at all to anybody else. What do I care if somebody taps into my antenna modeling files, e-mail to N2EY or my .jpegs of family and such which are in this box?! Of course in the process I'm giving up a lot of current-tech conveniences like online banking, online shopping and others. But that's OK where I come from, my telephone still works and I still dial around to place orders with the plastic, the banks are still issuing statements, the post office still sells stamps, yadda, yadda. I have yet to run into a transaction or an instance of passing out any other type of sensitive info which was stymied by doing it offline. Depends on the tradeoffs you make between security and convenience, I've taken the easy way out of the whole endless computer security swamp. Jack. w3rv (one of those paranoid computer security types) (ya done it to yerself Jack) I still think that these "holes" in Windows are intentional. Quite a few are, Steve. A lot are also that integration between the browser, mailreader and system that was supposed to open up a new world of computing ease for us. And I am with you, Brian...If I need to do something that bad, I will make the call with the plastic. Otherwise I'll keep Ben Franklin's ugly cousins working another day! My suggestions for computer security a 1. Buy a Mac If you can't buy a Mac: 1. Zonealarm Pro (avoid version 5 - if you have to register it with version 5 do it, then find the previous version) 2. Proxomitron (or some other proxy hardware or software) 3. Don't use Internet Explorer at all - ever. 4. Never ever ever use Outlook or Outlook Express. 5. Nortons of course. 6. Adaware don't hurt. I have to do all that stuff for my home computer (a PC) but all I have to do for my work computer - the Mac - is turn it on, download the updates from Apple around once a month. Hundreds of hours saved per year. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Jack Twilley wrote in message ...
It is interesting that your primary concern is to keep your information secure -- that is indeed a very valid concern. The approach you describe is the one that was followed at the defense contractor where I started my career. It works very well for many many cases and is "the right way" to handle most kinds of classified information. However, there is a concern which isn't addressed by your system, which is being a good Internet citizen and preventing your computer from being used for Evil. You could care less if the machine gets hacked, but if it gets hacked and used as an open proxy for delivering spam or as part of a distributed denial of service attack, your negligence leads directly to the economic losses of others. That's something worth considering. In this respect I do what everybody else with any common sense does. I have Norton Anti-Virus up, running and current and I trash e-mail attachemnts from folk I don't know as they come thru the gate. If after that I'm still considered negligent then so be it. Brian sells stamps, yadda, yadda. I have yet to run into a Brian transaction or an instance of passing out any other type of Brian sensitive info which was stymied by doing it offline. In some ways it's harder to do business offline these days, but just as you can still use a pulse telephone without Touch-Tone, you can still use the phone instead of the Internet. No question about it. I got along just ducky for my first 55 years without the Internet and I expect to squeek thru a few more years without some of it's conveniences. Jack. Brian w3rv |
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: BPL Powers Off From: (Brian Kelly) Date: 8/19/2004 8:38 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: Say you orbit a new, state of the art satellite. How much bandwidth can it provide to how many customers? A whole bunch. Even the old birds which have been up for years can repeat something like 900 TV channels and those are not considered high-capacity satellites. That means 900 customers can have 6 MHz of bandwidth each. Or maybe 5400 can have 1 MHz each. That's with antique satellites, not with the monster birds being tossed up these days each of which which has orders of magnitude more capacity than the TV repeaters. For the quality of TV programming provided today (with the possible exclusion of Discovery, History Channel and TLC) I moved over a year ago and have yet to power up my TV rcvr . . but now that DVD players are getting dirt cheap and a Blockbusters is only a few blocks down the street maybe I'll be able to watch TV sans the electronic air pollution. they could just use one of the old ECHO balloon satellites for all they are worth. Agreed. 73 Steve, K4YZ w3rv |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: In the beginning of my problems the local power company sent out a engineer. A 'professional'...;-) After about an hour of showing him the racket, discussing the levels and how it trashed the signals, he asked "what happens when you disconnect your antenna". I replied with "the noise goes away". His reply "well there it is, just leave the antenna off". I am...speechless. Well he was right! 8^P .....It hurts when I do this, Doc!..... Some places idea of customer service is to try to convince the customer that the problem is the customer's fault. Dan's experience is about as Brazen as I've ever heard of tho' My next step was a letter to the FCC and the Public Service Commission. I hope that when whatever resolution is had, that they will remember that idiot Engineer. - mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: Some places idea of customer service is to try to convince the customer that the problem is the customer's fault. That was the case in Ohio when my 5-watts to a 1/4 wave vertical was getting into one of Warner Cable's premium movie channels (using 146 MHz) - and amplified up their line. I called Warner's customer service and complained that their cable was leaking. The customer service person then informed me that the problem was my antenna was leaking. I told her that's what antennas are supposed to do; a letter from the FCC to Warner got the leaks taken care of. ak |
|
In article , Jack Twilley
writes: "N2EY" == n2ey writes: [...] N2EY One caveat! N2EY A lot of folks are setting up their own little wireless N2EY networks. The stuff is becoming cheaper than the cable it N2EY replaces! And for good reason. In my new location, I'm terrified to drill through the walls (it's an old *solid* house that predates cheap sheetrock by decades) but I've no trouble using wireless. There's also the portability issue. N2EY But not enough folks understand the need to encrypt. Without N2EY good encryption of your network, anybody can drive by with a N2EY lapper and access your network - and your hard drives, etc. Your N2EY internet firewall won't help because your network thinks the N2EY invader is *inside* your network, not outside. You need for the N2EY network itself to be encrypted. If someone truly sets up their network in this manner, they are truly running a serious risk, as you describe. I've just moved, so I have to reinstall my network, and it will actually be set up with two wireless access points: one for the "inside", which will be MAC-restricted and locked down with WEP (until my operating system fully supports TKIP in which case I'll go up to that protocol), and one which is "outside" for any and all comers to sit in the nearby park and reach the internet. No traffic goes to the inside from the outside, and both sides can see the internet, so life is good. Are WEP and TKIP sufficiently secure? N2EY Where's my RJ-45 plugs? Put some time and effort into understanding exactly how to make it all work properly, and you'll find that you need fewer RJ-45 plugs. HAW! Well said! N2EY 73 de Jim, N2EY Oh, and I get that you're not talking about setting up your own network in the encryption-free manner in which you describe. No way! If I ever do go wireless, it'll be encrypted for sure! I'm just trying to show that there are many good ways to make wireless work such that you can be friendly to your neighbors while protecting your assets. Jack. (one of those paranoid computer security types) Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean nobody's out to get you... |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 "N2EY" == n2ey writes: [... wireless is cheap and portable but needs to be secured ...] Jack If someone truly sets up their network in this manner, they are Jack truly running a serious risk, as you describe. I've just moved, Jack so I have to reinstall my network, and it will actually be set Jack up with two wireless access points: one for the "inside", which Jack will be MAC-restricted and locked down with WEP (until my Jack operating system fully supports TKIP in which case I'll go up to Jack that protocol), and one which is "outside" for any and all Jack comers to sit in the nearby park and reach the internet. No Jack traffic goes to the inside from the outside, and both sides can Jack see the internet, so life is good. N2EY Are WEP and TKIP sufficiently secure? For my purposes, they are. WEP is known to be breakable, and TKIP hasn't yet been properly tested, but those are the link-level encrypted layers. 95% of what I do is done through a VNC session tunneled through SSH -- the combination of WEP/TKIP and SSH is such that I'm comfortable typing my GPG passphrase over the link. Jack. - -- Jack Twilley jmt at twilley dot org http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBKoi+GPFSfAB/ezgRAsx9AKDK6xFnjYZ8U27Pg28NiU9/R0YGzQCgzKc9 Roj2Viq0ikK3biziUqByKSE= =jRtj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: That means 900 customers can have 6 MHz of bandwidth each. Or maybe 5400 can have 1 MHz each. That's with antique satellites, not with the monster birds being tossed up these days each of which which has orders of magnitude more capacity than the TV repeaters. Doesn't matter, they're still limited to the RF spectrum. Of which there is only one. There's only one RF spectrum but that doesn't mean that a given frequency can only have one user. Digital comms satellite operating frequencies are shared via a bunch of schemes. Each fiber is a whole new bunch of unshared spectrum. Obviously fiber optics is the better choice vs. the satellites *IF* the cable is in the neighborhood where service is needed. Big if. It'll be years before optics cables are run into crossroads burgs and made available for their use as neighborhood Wi-Fi feeds. I've watched optics cables being run through places like Malvern. Took a tech working in an air-conditioned mobile lab a full day to make and test a single 1 1/2 inch splice. Which did not incxlude a repeater. Takes one helluva lot of revenue traffic to justify those kinds of installation outlays and that's why optics is a non-answer today except as long-haul and/or enormous volume data pipes. Fiber optics cables are cheaper and can provide more bandwidth than the old AT&T & Ma Bell microwave systems and that's about as far as they've taken the optics cables so far. In the meanwhile back at the ranch the sattelites are already up and running . . What "ducts"?? There aren't any ducts running into farms and vacation lodges out in the boonies. They'll have the last mile problem for years to come. Until the phone companies replace their twisted-pair wiring with cable, fiber optic and otherwise. I meant ducts that carry it to within a mile of the customer. Many people in this country live twenty and more miles from anything even vaguely resembling a cable. Wi-fi is never gonna reach them. You'd be surprised at some of the boonie places that have Wi-Fi. Like that remote village in Nepal which gets it's broadband feed from a satellite . . ? What's a "duct" anyway? A pipe you can pull cable(s) and/or fiber(s) through. Usually installed along various rights-of-way, such as interstate highways. How many of those are running all over North Dakota and Idaho?? More than you might suspect. I doubt it. Where's the map? 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
|
In article , Jack Twilley
writes: "N2EY" == n2ey writes: [... wireless is cheap and portable but needs to be secured ...] Jack If someone truly sets up their network in this manner, they are Jack truly running a serious risk, as you describe. I've just moved, Jack so I have to reinstall my network, and it will actually be set Jack up with two wireless access points: one for the "inside", which Jack will be MAC-restricted and locked down with WEP (until my Jack operating system fully supports TKIP in which case I'll go up to Jack that protocol), and one which is "outside" for any and all Jack comers to sit in the nearby park and reach the internet. No Jack traffic goes to the inside from the outside, and both sides can Jack see the internet, so life is good. N2EY Are WEP and TKIP sufficiently secure? For my purposes, they are. WEP is known to be breakable, and TKIP hasn't yet been properly tested, but those are the link-level encrypted layers. 95% of what I do is done through a VNC session tunneled through SSH -- the combination of WEP/TKIP and SSH is such that I'm comfortable typing my GPG passphrase over the link. Thanks for the advice, Jack. Will keep it in mind if I ever go to wireless networking. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com