[MLB-WIRELESS] Is Melbourne Wireless dead?

[Tony Langdon (ATC)]

> These are very good questions.  We the proponents of 
> community wireless networking must continually ask ourselves 
> "why are we doing this?" and also ask "What attraction does 
> wireless networking have for the average user?"

I guess the answer to the first is "because we can", but like the old "Why
do people climb mountains?"

> As you point out, a couple of years ago, ADSL download limits 
> were restrictive and somewhat expensive and that spurred much 
> of the initial interest in Wireless Networking as a way to 
> beat the ISPs at their own game. Those that saw a Community 
> Wireless Network (CWN) purely as an "Internet Alternative" 
> have understandably lost much of their interest.  But some of 
> us see more important uses for such a network.

Agreed.  My interest lies in 2 areas:

1.  Simply "'cause I can" - the exact reason I run ham radio repeaters, VoIP
and other cool gadgets. :-)

2.  To provide some local service and meeting point.  Wireless networks have
the potential of getting like minded people in touch, without getting lost
in the sheer size of the Internet.  It could become a bit like a cross
between ham radio and the BBSs of years ago.  Who remembers BBSs?  For those
that don't, they were cool, with a strong local community focus.  Some were
free (besides the obvious call charges, which were local calls), others were
pay systems.  A friend and I actually ran a free BBS for a while, until the
Internet rendered it obsolete.  Again, because we could, and felt we had
something worthwhile to contribute.
> 
> The main attraction of a CWN is that it is Free.  Certainly 
> the hardware costs aren't free, but they are relatively cheap 
> and are getting inevitably cheaper.  And these are a one-time 
> cost, whereas ISP fees go in forever. 

And don't overlook the local aspect of a CWN either. 

> Commercial networks charge for access, and charge like 
> wounded bulls for mobile access.  The cost of installing and 
> operating a mobile network in a city is far lower than laying 
> copper wires throughout the same city, so why are mobile 
> phone bills higher than an equivalent fixed-line bill?  
> Because the company can charge what it likes - there are few 
> competitors, and people pay for mobile access.

Don't overlook the fact that mobile networks to utilise a scarce resource -
namely the radio spectrum.  We have the potential to show companies how to
use a small slice of that scarce resource to benefit the most people, and
not require excessive protection to do so.

> A CWN can stay within the law and still be a major benefit to 
> the city in which it is located.  It can be free for personal 
> use amongst all its participants, but I would argue can also 
> supply free data services to non-profit and community 
> organisations.  As Dawid Ostrowski pointed out in his post - 

Again, we can leverage the local community aspect of the network.  Because
we are limited to covering the Melbourne area (unless someone can float
suitably equipped balloon 20-30km above Wagga :-) ), the CWN naturally lends
itself to local input.  Even before we get the whole place unwired, each
region can certainly build its own little online community.  Also, traffic
flows much more efficiently in local groups.  We may have a balance between
good access to data and local focus, and all free to the end user! :-)

> With just a few of these organisations involved in the 
> network, politicians would see the network as a force for 
> public good and would be more sympathetic to relaxing the 
> restrictions on "commercial" arrangements. Politicians would 
> be much less sympathetic to a network that was flouting 
> telecommunications regulations to simply provide discounted 
> Internet access to p2p-geeks.

Agreed.
> 
> There are a couple of "tipping points" which, when achieved, 
> will make CWNs much more appealing.  First is ease of use:  
> At the moment it is difficult for the average user to build 
> and configure a wireless node.  If a prefabricated and 
> user-friendly node were available for sale at a reasonable 
> price, more people would participate.

Yes, a "turnkey" node would be a good thing to have.
> 
> The second point is network coverage:  People are much less 
> likely to put up a node if they can't connect to the network. 
>  This is Metcalf's Law - explained here: 
> http://www.mgt.smsu.edu/mgt487/mgtissue/newstr> at/metcalfe.htm
> 
> Putting nodes in as many strategic locations 
> as possible will accelerate this growth.  These two points 
> affect each other, but both must be at a certain minimum 
> point before the network becomes truly useful and popular.

Guess we early adopters have no choice but to "tough it out" and throw a
node up in the air. :-)

> 
> So, if you were interested in wireless networks purely as a 
> way to get cheap or free Internet for yourself, then maybe 
> you should be paying for it instead.  If you are interested 
> in the idea of helping to create a free data network that 
> benefits the wider community (and therefore yourself as 
> well), then please, get involved.

Well, count me in!  I already have good Internet access at a price I'm happy
with, but I like both the ideals and the tinker factor of a CWN. :-)

Hmm, maybe once we get rolling, the local gym (which is 300m from home and
well within range of anything I put up) might want a PC offering access
sitting in the corner. :-)

We also need to be thinking about services.  Library access is a good one,
as are things like community bulletin boards, which could be built on top of
one of the web based CMS packages out there.  Some chat rooms (I like the
idea of IRC with a web based front end) would be handy as well.

To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message