[Syd-Wireless] RE: [MLB-WIRELESS] Is Melbourne Wireless dead?

[Tony Langdon (ATC)]

> I see community networks as the network equivalent of Open 
> Source software. People contribute to Open Source because 
> no-one is being exploited.  As soon as someone sells 
> software, then the person writing that software wants to get 
> paid.  If the software is being given away for free and is 
> legally bound to stay free (a la the GPL) then people feel 
> driven to contribute in extraordinary ways to the project.  
> The software becomes public domain and contributing to it is 
> contributing to the public good.

That's much my take on it too Dan.  I like to share ideas and expertise.
Operated that way for a long time in ham radio and around the Linux
community.  I see no reason why wireless networking should be any different.
We all learn together, and much of the fun is in making the darned thing
work in the first place :-)
> 
> It is the same with a community network.  If no-one is making 
> a buck from it, then many talented people will derive 
> satisfaction from contributing to it, gratis.

Yes.  In fact, I tend to lose interest in projects, once it gets to the
"We've gotta make it pay" stage.  I prefer to throw in time and resources
gratis.  If I can't afford to do that, it just slows the project down, or
I'll do what I can to help someone else.
> 
> Sure, not everyone gets satisfaction in this way, but the 
> larger the network, the more people benefit, and the more 
> people will want to contribute.  Contribution could be the 
> day-to-day maintenance of the network, or it could be 
> developing smarter systems to automate the day-to-day maintenance.

Or even other things like documentation, building content, offering help (or
as we call that on radio, Elmering), or just using the network.  For thos of
us who like to make things work, it's nice to sometimes sit back and see
someone gaining enjoyment out of our work.

> I totally agree.  I don't believe that flat "mesh" networks - 
> which would require hundreds of node "hops" to get from one 
> side of a city to the other
> - are scalable to a city size.  A hierarchical - a star or 
> "central ring" topography is needed.

You're probably right. 

> A community network would make no service-level guarantees at 
> all.  It would not claim to be fit for any purpose 
> whatsoever, etc, etc.  This higher-bandwidth backbone would 
> be obtained through the donations of philanthropic persons 
> who believe in the principle of a free data network. With the 
> ACA regulations the way they are, the point needs to be made 
> that this donation is in no way payment for a service or any 
> sort of commercial arrangement being made by any 
> organisation.  It must be a private donation - or the 
> equipment must remain the property of the donator.

I agree, we can't offer SLAs, to me, that's a bit like the natural
variability of the radio bands.  If exceptional propagation allows us to
make interesting contacts, we do.  Otherwise we do without.  Same for the
network.  If we can send live video across town one day, all's well and
good.  If not, well, maybe things are too busy that day.  However, we should
aim to have good connectivity within local clusters, as I feel the local
aspect is worth leveraging.
> 
> Higher-order nodes would probably be something like Motorola 
> Canopy, KarlNet, WiMax gear or similar.  Stability would come 
> when nodes are plentiful enough that diverse routes can 
> compensate for the failure of any one particular node.

Yes, it will probably take one of these othger technologies to do the long
haul links.

> There certainly is a place for telcos.  I don't propose that 
> free community networks will ever replace telcos, simply 
> because people need a Service Level Agreement when it comes 
> to their data, and they will pay for it.  But community 
> networks provide an alternative that will keep the telcos in 
> check and stop them charging more than they should.  Telcos 
> are reluctant to innovate, community networks will experiment 
> whenever and wherever they can.

This sounds a bit like the difference between the amateur and commercial
radio services of years ago.  One was highly experimental and came with
prohibitions on commercial use and no guarantees.  The other was more of an
expensive tool that had to work for business/emergency services, etc, but
with nowhere near the level of innovation.  Ovedr time, a lot of the
techniques the amateur experimenters used migrated to commercial services.
In fact, the very use of HF itself was pioneered by amateur experimenters,
who were banished to the "useless" wavelengths of 200 metres (1.5 MHz) and
shorter.  It was the amateurs who worked out they could cover great
distances in what is now known as the shortwave bands.  

My point?  If we give it a go, who knows what innovative ideas people will
come up with while tinkering with a wireless network.

> Indeed, which is why community networks are so important.  
> The will be able to participate at the front line of this 
> VOIP revolution, as they are 100% compatible IP networks.  
> Community networks the world over are likely to contribute 
> much of the innovation in this area.

Agreed.  We are rapidly entering an era where almost all voice traffic will
be carried over some form of IP based network, and I'm sure a number of us
will want to do things to leverage locally available wireless IP
connectivity.

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