Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 08:50 -0500, Ruben Safir wrote: > Common carrier > >From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia > Jump to: navigation, search > A common carrier is an organization that transports a product or service > using its facilities, or those of other carriers, and offers its > services to the general public. > > Traditionally common carrier means a business that transports people or > physical goods. In the 20th century, the term came to refer also to > utilities (those transporting some service such as communications or > public utilities). The term differs from private carrier, which operates > solely for the benefit of one entity and does not offer services to the > general public > > > > That should end the discussion on common carriers. Any fair minded > individual can clearly understand that the sentence > > "Internet Service Providers generally wish to avoid being classified as > a "common carrier" and, so far, have managed to do so." > > means that ISPs have managed enough political power to prevent their > rightful regularity definition as common carriers. But that has nothing > to do with the clear fact that they are a common carrier, and if they > mess up network neutrality, they will be facing far more regulations to > protect the public from any gross violation of unfair business practice. > > Ruben Ruben, Wikipedia is not an authoritative reference. The FCC and the Federal government make the rules. An online, publicly editable application does not make a strong supporting reference. While it can often provide a good summary for people who won't take the time to hunt down the original sources themselves. Its is still just job blow writing down his interpretation. -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 10:21 -0500, Ruben Safir wrote: > > > > As a result, you are entirely wrong about backbones 'processing' IP ToS > > tagged frames - no carrier that I know does respect user-set IP ToS tags > > with regard to queueing. All IP transit is "best effort". (exceptions are > > certain carriers offering IP-VPN, but that's beside this discussion, and > > its not "transit" anyway). > > > > So, what is the bottom line about QoS in real world? It does not exist, > > beyond given carrier's network, as specified by carrier's networking > > staff and defined by carrier's business needs, available technologies and > > equipment. > > > This is where your mistake is. The backbone is now owned by the telcos No its not. Large portions of the fiber plant are privately owned, as well as the companies that light it not being ATT or a BabyBell. Many naps are privately held and provide public switch fabrics anyone can plug into. (See switch&data, telehouse, internap, etc..) > They can do whatever they want, aside from the fact that this marelous > techno display just clouds the issue that when someone is buying > common carrier class servers, A) They should have the right to do so > at a fair price, and B) At no point in the chain should anyone have the > right prevent fair access. --This is all covered in peering arrangements. If you start block people's traffic you are probably in violation of your peering arrangement with another provider... Tier1 providers depends on their peering and transit arrangements to be able to deliver 'internet access' to their transit customers. Their peering is for resiliency and reach. > In addition to that, they don't need to own the backbone (or even the > last mile). They can interfere with Vonage anywhere from your phone jack/ATM > Bridge, etc to the point where they hand off your packets to someone else. They don't own the backbone. But they down own the last mile, which is a natural monopoly. (like most public utilities). > So the ISP can do it, the back bone CAN do it, the last mile can do it. They > can all carve out portions of the net for unfair competition. Not really. It doesn't make business sense for backbone providers(tier 1 networks), because it would probably subject them to de-peering. It doesn't make sense to ISP's, because we like all of our customers and I don't want to lose customers to my competition because they can't tinker with the latest 'intarweb' fad. Both ISP's and Backbone providers already have fair competition to deal with and host of service providers with ambitions of being tier 1 networks working their way up the food chain. The only place where this type of anti-competitive practice makes any business sense is if you already have a natural monopoly to work with. Like the last mile. > Ruben -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 09:56 -0500, Ruben Safir wrote: > On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 07:01:33PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Clearly you depend on Verizon for access to your customer base. > Clearly Verizon is a Common Carrier > and Clearly YOU become a Common Carrier once someone purchases service from you. No Alex, nor someone like myself becomes a common carrier when some purchases service from us. The common part in question for us is the copper and fiber plant the public has paid for. Not the access hardware nor the service infrastructure ISP's develop that use that public infrastructure. There should be nothing stopping you from setting up a small network between you and several neighbors and sharing your internet access for redundancy or hosting you own mail servers, but since most people would rather pay for us to do it, we do. There should be nothing dictating how traffic over your home network is handled if you peer with a neighbor, just be cause you both also interconnect to the public infrastructure. And maybe carry VoIP traffic for one of you neighbors over your link... > When you become a Commmon Carrier, the public has every right to expect > unobstructive, and regulated business practices. I think Alex is doing a bit of knee jerking about Network Neutrality and his network. I think a common carrier who manages infrastructure paid for the public(subsidized or otherwise), and have a natural access monopoly resulting from that infrastructure management position granted by the government, should be subject to network neutrality. As for prioritization of traffic and access, that has normally been specified in peering arrangements or transit arrangements. Peering is a completely different subject. but if you're interested.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering > > > So, what exactly do network neutrality bills would do? "Strengthen" what? > > Devil's in details. > > > The Devil is in the Common Carrier which conducts business in a way to prevent > fair competition...be their name Verizon, Time-Warner or Pilosoft. > > Ruben > > > > > Given the fact that NYCWireless historically supports > > the more extreme positions, I find it important to emphasize that not all > > "Neutrality" is a good thing. > > > > Actually, it is. And, BTW, your opinion on this issue is not an isolated > example. You have repeatedly favored giving businesses extra rights which > limit the use and access to communication systems purchased in good faith > by indiciduals for their needs. This has been a common thread with you from > the GPL, to DRM, and now network access. You positions are fundementally > in opposition to Free Software, and any other community based initiative. Businesses like Pilosoft, Bway.net's, thing.net, panix, etc... sell services. We have paid for a developed a service infrastructure, without public funding, and yes the government shouldn't be able to tell us how to treat traffic. That is up to the arrangements we make with our peering partners, or transit providers. Those arrangements are driven by a businesses primary objective(making money). > You also skipped over the admitence on your part of agreeing that their is a > moral basis for regulating common carriers. If the details of fair > implementation of Network Neutralily bothers you, I strongly suggest that you > give up on your original position, a position which would clearly shoot your > own business model in the foot, and join the conversation of those working > to assure fair access to all individuals to "the network" when purchasing > necessary common carrier access which remains the cornstone of the internet > and our revolutionary digitally dependent society circa 2006. I agree about the concept of Net Neutrality. Ruben you may not realize it, but you're comparing potatoes to oranges. Network Neutrality is common amongst peers,It makes business sense for tier 1 providers. For companies that have a monopoly over a public resource, I feel, it should be required. PS. If SBC told me I had to pay for transit across their network, I'd tell them to speak to their peering partners and see how they feel about it... I'd also bring it up with my upstream provider I'm sure they'd have a position about it as well. Which would probably mean bad business for SBC. There are many network service providers who would rejoice at seeing the ILEC's De-Peered. I'd rejoice at seeing them relegated to only layer 1 and layer 2 technologies. So Mr. Henry may not be completely wrong about Market Wisdom... :). > Ruben > > President - NYLXS > -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] luddites, ranting, and the new american foundation. drunk texans.
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 06:02 -0800, Jim Henry wrote: > Darrel, > No I have not been sleepwalking. I have been working hard and > reaping the rewards. ** nice to know you can double speak yourself to ** > Again, if you REALLY feel that Europe, even all nations > combined, has a stronger economy than the U.S., then you are so > disconnected from the facts that I don't think I could ever > convince you otherwise. Korea does indeed have a strong economy, > but it too is not equal to ours. No on per capita basis their economy is no stronger than the US's. However the concept that the money has to leave to come back is compelling, but if we don't have any 'goods' to export in the future the money won't come back... Our money pool will be shrunk, which means the velocity of our economy has to increase proportionately to maintain our economic strength... When it comes to the working class and business this means you can save you have to spend (look around you, we're already slipping into debt, because we can't maintain the required velocity, so we're trying to fill a pool with an open drain).. > Perhaps most telling is that you seem to equate the average > speed of a residential connection to an ISP with the strength of a > nation's economy. To that all I can say is "Please re-read > paragraph 2." No I don't relate a residential connection to an isp with the strength of the nations economy. I relate it to the quality of their internal communications infrastructure. > Yes, our economy is changing. It has been changing since the > beginning of our nation. Some people get lucky and get to stay in > their same occupation for their 30-50 years but most don't. They > either change with the times or fall behind. Twenty to thirty > years ago I was a skilled tradesman in a good union job.It was > good. I got triple time on Sunday,2 1/2 time on Saturday night, 1 > 1/2 time in the evenings, and good benefits. Then as the economy > changed more of my work out-sourced, though back then the term was > "privatized". Every 3 years our contract got worse. I saw the > writing on the wall and educated myself and changed careers. My > co-workers from back then either did the same or stayed,but now > they earn less than half what I do,and complain about the "union". > If the contracts had stayed the same, their employers would have > gone out of business because they could not have competed any > longer, and they would have no jobs at all. We are talking about unions and price fixing here Jim. Unions prevent businesses from being able to manage costs effectively. I agree 100% I'm from Texas, its a non-union right to work state. I think unions are closer to welfare organizations than they are workers rights organizations. Corruption and selfishness creep in everywhere. > Nothing sinister in all this, it is just the way Economics > works. I have a tiny grasp on how Economics works. I know things will level out, it just no looking good for us in the short term (10-50 years)... We're like teenagers with their first credit card in the community of nations, spend, spend, spend then you hunker down to pay off in 5 years the debt you amassed in two... Well got news for you, we amassed a lot of debt the last 6 or so year > Jim > > > > On Wed Mar 15 21:54:52 PST 2006, Darrel O'Pry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 22:11 -0500, Ruben Safir wrote: > >> << Make the U.S. more competitive? Look around you! It is other > >> nations who need to emulate us to attempt to compete with US. > >> And as a > >> relative measure against ourselves, by all the parameters used to > >> measure the health of the U.S. economy (unemployment pct, cost of > >> living, inflation, # people employed, home ownership, inflation, > >> GDP, > >> etc.) the U.S. economy has never been better or stronger.>> > >> > >> > >> BTW this is rather insulting. Have you actually been > >> sleepwalking > >> through the last 6 years of the high tech economy? > > > > Lets see, 10Mbps+ connections to the home are common in europe. > > Korea > > can even bling bling a 25 megabit connection to the home... Jobs, > > well IBM is moving a big portion of their future software > > development to india(about 55k new jobs for india). Turning their > > US > > holdings in more 'customer facing' facilities. (America to be the > > worlds > > mall) I'd say billions in IT dollars are flowing out of the > > US > > economy. Our imports exceed our e
[Fwd: RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Multichannel News - Analysts Question BellInvestments]
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 22:11 -0500, Ruben Safir wrote: > << Make the U.S. more competitive? Look around you! It is other > nations who need to emulate us to attempt to compete with US. And as a > relative measure against ourselves, by all the parameters used to > measure the health of the U.S. economy (unemployment pct, cost of > living, inflation, # people employed, home ownership, inflation, GDP, > etc.) the U.S. economy has never been better or stronger.>> > > > BTW this is rather insulting. Have you actually been sleepwalking > through the last 6 years of the high tech economy? Lets see, 10Mbps+ connections to the home are common in europe. Korea can even bling bling a 25 megabit connection to the home... Jobs, well IBM is moving a big portion of their future software development to india(about 55k new jobs for india). Turning their US holdings in more 'customer facing' facilities. (America to be the worlds mall) I'd say billions in IT dollars are flowing out of the US economy. Our imports exceed our exports As a country we are deeply in debt, both private and public. A large portion of our manufacturing has moved overseas as well... We're left with a service and sales driven economy which is as shaky as the stock market when all is said and done... It will take a long time to recover, and it doesn't help that financially our country (not just the government) has been headed in the wrong direction riding a near unregulated free market where % are more important than concrete $ and goods That's my pessimistic luddite view... -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] Wifi, meshes, and peering oh my!
I'm currently setting up several root nodes for meshes, and have yet to decide on a meshing protocol. I've tinkered with both MeshAP on stock MeshAP boxes, and OLSR on openWRT, both seem to do their job. I have been leaning more and more in the way of MeshAP since I started working with it. It runs on most commodity hardware I've tried it on. Its pretty easy to manage through WIANA. There is some good software available, asterisk comes to mind first. Its easy to grab an old junker PC, and spend your money on a couple good antennas and wifi cards. The openWRT route is cheap, but a pain to administer, and limited to the stock radios. My experience with it is more of a novelty than something that could gain wide spread effective use. Even though I do prefer OLSR to AODV for mesh routing. There is also the Soekris roll-your-own way, which it a fun option, but building a hopped up Access point on the platform can be pricy and time consuming. I think in an Urban Environment like New York meshing could be a powerful tool to give people free roam of the city and to efficient utilize the resources we have... (limited spectrum, dsl connections that get used a few hours a day, etc). I'd like to hear other peoples opinions and experiences with the subject. .darrel. -- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 7.0.269 / Virus Database: 265.1.0 - Release Date: 11/9/2004 -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
RE: [nycwireless] Re: bandwidth for 15 voip lines?
If you are willing to put together the infrastraucture.. IE) an Astrisks Server you should check out connect.voicepulse.com... You only pay for outgoing calls at about 3 cents a minute and I think its only $8/month/line... Its not a bad deal unless you make a whole lot of outgoing calls. Plus you can assign extensions as you need, setup your own dialplans, call forwarding, locate me services, music on hold... all that good stuff... .darrel. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:nycwireless- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Townsend > Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 1:11 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Re: bandwidth for 15 voip lines? > > has anyone considered how highly unlikely it is that all 15 of these > lines are going to be in use simultaneously? > > maybe if its a call center, but not if its Yury's pals (artists?) > > i would oversubscribe 3:1 or even 4:1 and say a 768/1.5 business ADSL > would be more than enough. a 384/1.5 might even work. > > > On Nov 5, 2004, at 11:47 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Yury G wrote: > > > >> to give some context to what i was asking 14 people and myself > >> are > >> moving into an office space. we need to get an affordable high-speed > >> connection and phone lines into the place. we all need separate phone > >> numbers. i thought it would be cheaper to set everyone up with > >> vontage > >> service (or another voip service). so we thought it would be best to > >> figure out what kind of bandwidth we need for the voip phones before > >> choosing the most appropriate and affordable internet package. > > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > > -- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 7.0.269 / Virus Database: 264.12.7 - Release Date: 11/1/2004 > -- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 7.0.269 / Virus Database: 264.12.8 - Release Date: 11/7/2004 -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
RE: [nycwireless] Re: Of no commercial value(?)
I think it would be nice to contact community oriented places such as Taino Towers up in Harlem around 2nd Ave & 120 st There are four tall building, with excellent line of sight in upper Manhattan. I'd think a group like NYC wireless introducing the idea of free wireless internet access to their community and providing resources for education, outreach, youth activities groups, communications tools would be considered. I think contacting groups that represent immigrant interests would also be interested in providing infrastructure for new immigrants to communicates with their families in friends still in their countries of origin, opening up access to resources that could help some new immigrants learn thr truth of what needs to be done to become a citizen instead of taking the hearsay they get on the street for truth. However I have some concerns with the idea of moving outside of the places and communities that have been targeted. Sure many people in Manhattan own laptops, wifi cards, and are knowledgeable of wireless networks. If you are looking to move the focus away from "providing network access to the rich folk of Manhattan who could afford it anyway" to paraphrase something I remember reading, probably completely in accurate, to finding other underserved communities. Who in these other communities, if they couldn't afford the luxury of for pay wireless network access, could afford the luxury of a laptop, or nice computer, with wifi hardware? While I'm in love with the concept of ubiquitous network access, are there underserved communities that have demand for it? Can the demand be built? Will it benefit the community, or encourage gentrification and its impact on cost of living? I think effectively targeting low-income neighborhoods will require going beyond just setting up a hotspot. I see those neighbor hoods as having more of a need for wireless bridging and shared internet access to make it cost efficient to provide access to the community as a whole. I think meshing would be a good idea in those neighborhoods. If funding can be found it may also be a way to put computers into the homes of people who could benefit from them, but cannot afford them and build out a wireless network by placing nodes in the homes of people who volunteer to help setup and manage the mesh node. Maybe make it some sort of contest. Win a free computer, as long as you're willing to participate in the wireless mesh for the time you have it. If you choose not to participate the computer must be returned or paid for. Ok I'm rambling. I'll bugger off now. ---Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:nycwireless- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Townsend > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 7:56 AM > To: Rob Kelley > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Re: Of no commercial value(?) > > i think what they meant is that we should confine our proposal to > neighborhoods that are not likely to attract commercial wireless > carriers in the near- to mid-range future > > On Aug 8, 2004, at 4:42 PM, Rob Kelley wrote: > > >> only if its something that they can show has no > >> commercial value (otherwise the city would get sued by the people who > > paid for franchises). > > > > Anthony: > > > > That's a hard one. What product of benefit to a community does not > > have > > some "commercial value"? Something the user couldn't afford on the > > open > > market? Something that is not currently sold in any market? Art? > > > > Can you give some general examples? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Rob > > > > > > -- > > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > > Un/Subscribe: > > http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > > > > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
FW: [nycwireless] NYT - "Where Entrepreneurs Go and the InternetIs Free"
-Original Message- From: Darrel O'Pry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 2:19 PM To: 'Jon Baer' Subject: RE: [nycwireless] NYT - "Where Entrepreneurs Go and the InternetIs Free" >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:nycwireless- >[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Baer >Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 10:15 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [nycwireless] NYT - "Where Entrepreneurs Go and the >InternetIs Free" > >Jacob Farkas wrote: > >>As for what can be 'next' for NYCwireless? The logical successor to the >>building of a free network infrastructure would be free content. The >>Internet as a commercial entity is half content and half ads. Try >>getting useful information, free e-mail, etc. without encountering heavy >>advertising. I support the rights of website operators to earn money, >>but I decry the diminishing number of quality free useful information. >Its still a shame that doing anything w/ voice will subject you to >regulation now, that would have been a big push ... Didn't the recent FCC decision on FWD leave VOIP untouched as long as it stays on data network and doesn't cross to the PTSN. I think it also left individually owned VoIP gateways in a grey area. Or have I not been paying close enough attention to the communications landscape? I see the biggest problem with pushing it into a wireless agenda being the Quality of Service problems that arise... I think it would be nice to see the rise of a VoIP cooperative... Using asterisks it doesn't seem like this would be too much of a challenge to implement for interested parties. It would require the development of a 'Yellow Pages' like service across domains that could be used for configuring Asterisk servers over the internet. Then there is always developing an SIP proxying system to get around firewalls. FWD seems to have solved this problem, but is pretty tight lipped about how it was done. I've been thinking about various tunneling solutions and proxying solutions that might solve the problem, but haven't had time to implement or test them. I'm still in the process of putting together a VoIP gateway using asterisks at my office for call forwarding so I can receive my phone calls in the park (really hate working in office over the summer). Ok back to the code mines... .darrel. -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] Soerkis Group buy - Dustin
I tried a personal email but got no response. Is your group buy still in the works? I would be interested in 4-5 units. What all were you planning on including in the purchase? Board, case, flash, pcmcia cards, power supply? --Darrel -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
RE: [nycwireless] alt.coffee ixnays the owerpay
Consider a 500W power supply for 1 hour = .5 kwh @ ~$0.25 kwh which is what coned commercial rates were last month... at least at my office... so we're talking 12.5 cents per hour... I'm not sure about the exact power consumption of you laptop, but you can look at the power supply and figure it out from there. But say you have 10 of these hooligans 10 hours a day 365 days a year its say .25 * 10 * 10 * 365 = ~9000 more dollars a year /12 or about 800/month... Which a business owner will take note of... That is assuming the power supply is running at max power consumption the whole time, which is not very common. I could see a socket tax :) at the coffee shop to offset the power usage... I really think I agree with it being a real estate issue more. It would be better to survey business owners. Ask them about their power expenditures before and after offering wireless, their change in sales. Then again instead of using the coffee shops power, I've been know to use those little plugs in the bushes all over manhattan :) --Darrel -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Townsend Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 9:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [nycwireless] alt.coffee ixnays the owerpay i think its more about taking up real estate. On Feb 2, 2004, at 3:07 PM, Dana Spiegel wrote: > This is interesting... We should try to do some digging to find out > how much power is really an issue. If you are sitting with your laptop > for 2 hours, how much $$$ are you costing alt.coffee in electricity? I > would have expected this to be only a few cents, but perhaps this is > not the case? > > Anyone interested in doing some research? Perhaps there are better, > alternative solutions... > > Dana Spiegel > Director, NYCwireless > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.nycwireless.net -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
RE: [nycwireless] Polls/surveys about wireless usage (by coffeebuyers, etc.)?
I think something that might work... Is making the portal an additional
Point of Sale of the store owner. Have an order entry system built into
the portal. When users place orders through the portal their account is
given time credits. Their beverage get delivered to the table. They pay
up their cash and get to surf during the process. Keep a database
function running as a timer that decrements minutes from all the users
with currently active sessions. And you might have a good product...
Then again I could just want a method to avoid standing in line. With a
solution like that you can at least take some load off the staff
handling customer orders, avoid having the staff deal telling people the
new password information, collect demographics on your clientele,
collect clientele contact information, etc, etc, etc.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of freelance
writer
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 12:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Polls/surveys about wireless usage (by
coffeebuyers, etc.)?
Anthony,
Thanks for the response. I agree with you about the fear, but I wonder
how
much of it is myth.
Would anyone want to help find out?
I'm not a programmer, so I couldn't even do this in software, but also
wonder if anyone out there might be able to put together a turnkey box
like
the one I mentioned in my prior email, which would essentially time
connections out every x amount of time (hour and a half?), requiring
people
to purchase and not just lurk/leech. Not sure how it would work - maybe
just change a captive portal password hourly and display it on a
LCD/monitor
only staff can see?
Dan
>From: Anthony Townsend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "freelance writer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Polls/surveys about wireless usage (by
coffee
>buyers, etc.)?
>Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:31:04 -0400
>
>I think that no one has systematically asked these questions.
>
>In fact, I think that many coffee shop owners are not excited about
>wireless users lurking since they don't make a lot of additional
purchases.
>Rumor has it that more than one Starbucks' manager has deliberately
>disconnected the Tmobile APs to deter wireless campers in their stores.
>
>On Tuesday, September 30, 2003, at 07:20 pm, freelance writer wrote:
>
>>I promise to quiet down after this new thread, but my original
question
>>about how to convince a small-business owner to share their connection
has
>>raised a question which I think deserves some consideration.
>>
>>Are there any poll or survey results out there that would give a small
>>business-owner a good idea of what to expect if he or she were to
provide
>>free wireless access?
>>
>>Answering questions like
>>* "How much more time will a wireless laptop user spend than a regular
>>customer?"
>>
>>* "What percentage of wireless users would go to a say, coffee shop
that
>>provided access v. one that didn't? ("And what distances would they go
to
>>do so, etc?"
>>
>>* "How many purchases can the average coffee shop wireless user be
>>expected to make?"
>>
>>I would have expected there to be dozens of studies, but I haven't
found
>>any raw data or any journalistic references. Can someone point me in
the
>>right direction, or, alternately, would anyone like to help me in
>>coordinating such a survey? I think it could be really useful.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Dan
>>
>>_
>>Help protect your PC. Get a FREE computer virus scan online from
McAfee.
>>http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>>
>>--
>>NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
>>Un/Subscribe:
http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
>>Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
>>
>
_
Instant message in style with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE!
http://msnmessenger-download.com
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/2003
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/2003
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
