Wireless can easily supply the same speeds as most of the DSL in service right now. It takes planning and the correct gear but it works very well. WISP's will be the future if/when this is implemented. We are luck as Google was ABC's first target and they said "go to H#LL!" to SBC. In the end this wont last long as people run away from the ILEC's to anyone who is offering a less restricted pipe. WISPs will force ILECs to rethink this just as VoIP made them offer flat rate calling, this is just the strike back.
Jeromie Reeves I own a WISP so my view is tainted Joe Street wrote: > Ok so we go wireless. The original idea for internet protocol came > from packet radio which was an amateur radio thing. Granted the > bandwidth was not to be compared but I can easily set up an ad hock > net over several kilometers using a standard wireless adapter and a > high gain antenna which is nothing more than a tin can pressed into > service as a coaxial to waveguide transition feeding into the > feedpoint on a surplus primestar satelite tv dish giving plenty of > gain for a line of sight link over a fairly long haul with no > amplifiers or anything other than what is on the card. A server > centrally located and operating on an omidirectional antenna can serve > many subscribers within a line of sight path using this scheme. > Repeaters can be added to expand the network. Where there is a will > there is a way. > See here > http://www.wwc.edu/~frohro/Airport/Primestar/Primestar.html > other useful network info here > http://epanorama.net/links/tele_lan.html > > Joe > > Michael Redler wrote: > >> Keith, >> So, it seems as though the federal government (a.k.a. corporate >> America) is threatened by the Second Superpower and is making >> preparations for war. >> Mike >> >> */Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote: >> >> http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/31753/ >> >> The End of the Internet >> >> By Jeffrey Chester, The Nation. Posted February 6, 2006. >> >> America's big phone and cable companies want to start charging >> exorbitant user fees for the supposedly-free internet. >> >> The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an >> alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and >> nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded >> service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do >> online. >> >> Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are >> developing strategies that would track and store information on our >> every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing >> system, the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency. >> >> According to white papers now being circulated in the cable, >> telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest >> pockets -- corporations, special-interest groups and major >> advertisers -- would get preferred treatment. Content from these >> providers would have first priority on our computer and television >> screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer >> communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out. >> >> Under the plans they are considering, all of us -- from content >> providers to individual users -- would pay more to surf online, >> stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling new >> subscription plans that would further limit the online experience, >> establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of Internet >> access that would set limits on the number of downloads, media >> streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received. >> >> To make this pay-to-play vision a reality, phone and cable lobbyists >> are now engaged in a political campaign to further weaken the >> nation's communications policy laws. They want the federal >> government >> to permit them to operate Internet and other digital communications >> services as private networks, free of policy safeguards or >> governmental oversight. Indeed, both the Congress and the Federal >> Communications Commission (FCC) are considering proposals that will >> have far-reaching impact on the Internet's future. Ten years after >> passage of the ill-advised Telecommunications Act of 1996, telephone >> and cable companies are using the same political snake oil to >> convince compromised or clueless lawmakers to subvert the Internet >> into a turbo-charged digital retail machine. >> >> The telephone industry has been somewhat more candid than the cable >> industry about its strategy for the Internet's future. Senior phone >> executives have publicly discussed plans to begin imposing a new >> scheme for the delivery of Internet content, especially from major >> Internet content companies. As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of >> AT&T, >> told Business Week in November, "Why should they be allowed to >> use my >> pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the >> cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! >> or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is >> nuts!" >> >> The phone industry has marshaled its political allies to help win >> the >> freedom to impose this new broadband business model. At a recent >> conference held by the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a think tank >> funded by Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and other media companies, there >> was >> much discussion of a plan for phone companies to impose fees on a >> sliding scale, charging content providers different levels of >> service. "Price discrimination," noted PFF's resident media expert >> Adam Thierer, "drives the market-based capitalist economy." >> >> Net Neutrality >> >> To ward off the prospect of virtual toll booths on the information >> highway, some new media companies and public-interest groups are >> calling for new federal policies requiring "network neutrality" on >> the Internet. Common Cause, Amazon, Google, Free Press, Media Access >> Project and Consumers Union, among others, have proposed that >> broadband providers would be prohibited from discriminating against >> all forms of digital content. For example, phone or cable companies >> would not be allowed to slow down competing or undesirable content. >> >> Without proactive intervention, the values and issues that we care >> about -- civil rights, economic justice, the environment and fair >> elections -- will be further threatened by this push for corporate >> control. Imagine how the next presidential election would unfold if >> major political advertisers could make strategic payments to Comcast >> so that ads from Democratic and Republican candidates were more >> visible and user-friendly than ads of third-party candidates with >> less funds. >> >> Consider what would happen if an online advertisement promoting >> nuclear power prominently popped up on a cable broadband page, while >> a competing message from an environmental group was relegated to the >> margins. It is possible that all forms of civic and noncommercial >> online programming would be pushed to the end of a commercial >> digital >> queue. >> >> But such "neutrality" safeguards are inadequate to address more >> fundamental changes the Bells and cable monopolies are seeking in >> their quest to monetize the Internet. If we permit the Internet to >> become a medium designed primarily to serve the interests of >> marketing and personal consumption, rather than global civic-related >> communications, we will face the political consequences for decades >> to come. Unless we push back, the "brandwashing" of America will >> permeate not only our information infrastructure but global society >> and culture as well. >> >> Why are the Bells and cable companies aggressively advancing such >> plans? With the arrival of the long-awaited "convergence" of >> communications, our media system is undergoing a major >> transformation. Telephone and cable giants envision a potential >> lucrative "triple play," as they impose near-monopoly control over >> the residential broadband services that send video, voice and data >> communications flowing into our televisions, home computers, cell >> phones and iPods. All of these many billions of bits will be >> delivered over the telephone and cable lines. >> >> Video programming is of foremost interest to both the phone and >> cable >> companies. The telephone industry, like its cable rival, is now in >> the TV and media business, offering customers television channels, >> on-demand videos and games. Online advertising is increasingly >> integrating multimedia (such as animation and full-motion video) in >> its pitches. Since video-driven material requires a great deal of >> Internet bandwidth as it travels online, phone and cable companies >> want to make sure their television "applications" receive >> preferential treatment on the networks they operate. And their >> overall influence over the stream of information coming into your >> home (or mobile device) gives them the leverage to determine how the >> broadband business evolves. >> >> Mining Your Data >> >> At the core of the new power held by phone and cable companies are >> tools delivering what is known as "deep packet inspection." With >> these tools, AT&T and others can readily know the packets of >> information you are receiving online -- from e-mail, to websites, to >> sharing of music, video and software downloads. >> >> These "deep packet inspection" technologies are partly designed to >> make sure that the Internet pipeline doesn't become so congested it >> chokes off the delivery of timely communications. Such products have >> already been sold to universities and large businesses that want to >> more economically manage their Internet services. They are also >> being >> used to limit some peer-to-peer downloading, especially for music. >> >> But these tools are also being promoted as ways that companies, such >> as Comcast and Bell South, can simply grab greater control over the >> Internet. For example, in a series of recent white papers, Internet >> technology giant Cisco urges these companies to "meter individual >> subscriber usage by application," as individuals' online travels are >> "tracked" and "integrated with billing systems." Such tracking and >> billing is made possible because they will know "the identity and >> profile of the individual subscriber," "what the subscriber is >> doing" >> and "where the subscriber resides." >> >> Will Google, Amazon and the other companies successfully fight the >> plans of the Bells and cable companies? Ultimately, they are likely >> to cut a deal because they, too, are interested in monetizing our >> online activities. After all, as Cisco notes, content companies and >> network providers will need to "cooperate with each other to >> leverage >> their value proposition." They will be drawn by the ability of cable >> and phone companies to track "content usageŠby subscriber," and >> where >> their online services can be "protected from piracy, metered, and >> appropriately valued." >> >> Our Digital Destiny >> >> It was former FCC chairman Michael Powell, with the support of >> then-commissioner and current chair Kevin Martin, who permitted >> phone >> and cable giants to have greater control over broadband. Powell and >> his GOP majority eliminated longstanding regulatory safeguards >> requiring phone companies to operate as nondiscriminatory networks >> (technically known as "common carriers"). He refused to require that >> cable companies, when providing Internet access, also operate in a >> similar nondiscriminatory manner. As Stanford University law >> professor Lawrence Lessig has long noted, it is government >> regulation >> of the phone lines that helped make the Internet today's vibrant, >> diverse and democratic medium. >> >> But now, the phone companies are lobbying Washington to kill off >> what's left of "common carrier" policy. They wish to operate their >> Internet services as fully "private" networks. Phone and cable >> companies claim that the government shouldn't play a role in >> broadband regulation: Instead of the free and open network that >> offers equal access to all, they want to reduce the Internet to a >> series of business decisions between consumers and providers. >> >> Besides their business interests, telephone and cable companies also >> have a larger political agenda. Both industries oppose giving local >> communities the right to create their own local Internet wireless or >> wi-fi networks. They also want to eliminate the last vestige of >> local >> oversight from electronic media -- the ability of city or county >> government, for example, to require telecommunications companies to >> serve the public interest with, for example, public-access TV >> channels. The Bells also want to further reduce the ability of the >> FCC to oversee communications policy. They hope that both the FCC >> and >> Congress -- via a new Communications Act -- will back these >> proposals. >> >> The future of the online media in the United States will ultimately >> depend on whether the Bells and cable companies are allowed to >> determine the country's "digital destiny." So before there are any >> policy decisions, a national debate should begin about how the >> Internet should serve the public. We must insure that phone and >> cable >> companies operate their Internet services in the public interest -- >> as stewards for a vital medium for free expression. >> >> If Americans are to succeed in designing an equitable digital >> destiny >> for themselves, they must mount an intensive opposition similar to >> the successful challenges to the FCC's media ownership rules in >> 2003. >> Without such a public outcry to rein in the GOP's corporate-driven >> agenda, it is likely that even many of the Democrats who rallied >> against further consolidation will be "tamed" by the well-funded >> lobbying campaigns of the powerful phone and cable industry. >> >> Jeffrey Chester is executive director of the Center for Digital >> Democracy (www.democraticmedia.org). >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Biofuel mailing list >>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org >> >>Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html >> >>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): >>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ >> >> >> >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Biofuel mailing list >Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): >http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > > > _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
