[MLB-WIRELESS] [TECH] Dipole antennas, and melbwireless structure

[Ben Anderson]

It's not about elitism.  It's about causing the network to scale without
relying on altruism.  In an environment where users complain incessantly
about the shit performance of the network, the altruistic few are unlikely
to continue to roll out and support the network -- look at the number of
people that left the mailing list due to their frustration of the discussion
on committee -- a very similar thing is likely to happen to altruism.
Meaning as the network gets larger, more people are likely to complain as
'leaf nodes' not getting enough access...  Putting the onus where it should
be, on the individual, is all I'm trying to acheive with the mojo concept.
Of course, if you have alternative 'more free' ideas, please bring them out.
How, without priority access, do you prevent a large number of leaf nodes
sucking down high bandwidth apps (mp3, warez, movies) that kill the latency
of the network for other apps (the people who are likely to have built the
network to start with).
And the people I've spoken to about the idea so far, have said that given
some artificial 'priority' mechinism, they'd be willing to spend a lot of
money gaining priority access by rolling out better networks.  Without the
mechinism, they were only willing to be leaf nodes, sucking down as much
bandwidth as they could using the cheapest prism2 card they could find.
This effect is why I think it will work.  It's not about being elite, or
better, but about getting the network to scale **for everybody**.
Unless you can find someone to finance the rollout of a network structure,
it's not going to work that everybody has un-prioritised access... the
network will just die for everyone.

Ben.

> Are you actually saying you want a private, elite, network? If so,
> you're in the wrong place. Ditto for the classes of service. There
> should not be any "priority" access, and there won't be, as I doubt
> you'll find many people that will participate in that. If your aim is to
> split the network in two, that's quite unfortunate.
>
> -D
>
> Ben Anderson wrote:
>
> >I want a ubiquitous public network.  Your goals seem to be somewhat
> >different.  They're sort of mutually incompatible.  Public, give it to
> >everyone, or private, elite 'only technical capable people altruistic
enough
> >to particpate' are allowed to join.
> >I'm not advocating charging money for it, anyone who wants to connect can
> >grab the 30dollar card that's compatible with an interface to the network
in
> >their area, and start leeching.  They just don't get low-latency
'priority'
> >access to the system until they actually provide something.  Altruistic
> >providers could donate their mojo back to disadvantaged nodes.  I don't
> >think it's fundamentally less 'free' -- I think it's more free, and
> >encourages network building as part of the design instead of relying on
> >altruism.
> >
> >A UPN is my ideal endpoint goal.  Can you more accuratly detail what your
> >endpoint goal is?
> >
> >Ben.
> >
> >
> >>>otherwise, there
> >>>needs to be something to cause the network to scale **socially** -- ie
> >>>
> >most
> >
> >>>people need some sort of motivation to roll out better network
> >>>infrastructure -- if there's no motivation to engineer more bandwidth
in
> >>>congested areas, then the network will die off as it gets large, it
will
> >>>become disconnected and disjoined into smaller areas.
> >>>As far as I see it, we can either have a 'mojo' like system, or have a
> >>>"test" that people have to take before they get to use the network to
> >>>guarantee that the people are altruistic enough to donate to the system
> >>>
> >when
> >
> >>>they don't have to.
> >>>
> >>i *highly* disagree, one of the main reasons of joining this network is
> >>to create something that's better than what's currently available in
> >>australia, if people are setting up a node now, they're doing it to help
> >>the network (and themselves, yes). i think people already understand how
> >>cool this is without the need for forced motivation. if you want to go
> >>that route, move to sydney where they charge everyone $100 to join the
> >>network so that they can buy AP's, because they think nobody else will
> >>do it on their own. if there comes a time when the network is so popular
> >>that it starts getting congested, of course people are going to do some
> >>longer range links out of it. but in all reality this point will be
> >>moot, as the network will actually be the reverse of this. in the
> >>beginning most links *will* be long range, and the short range
> >>congestion will only happen after the network is quite popular, hence,
> >>the problem never occurs.
> >>
> >>-D
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>To unsubscribe, send mail to minordomo at wireless.org.au with a subject of
> >>
> >'unsubscribe melbwireless'
> >
> >>Archive at:
> >>
> >http://www.wireless.org.au/cgi-bin/minorweb.pl?A=LIST&L=melbwireless
> >
> >>IRC at: au.austnet.org #melb-wireless
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send mail to minordomo at wireless.org.au with a subject of
'unsubscribe melbwireless'
> Archive at:
http://www.wireless.org.au/cgi-bin/minorweb.pl?A=LIST&L=melbwireless
> IRC at: au.austnet.org #melb-wireless
>


--
To unsubscribe, send mail to minordomo at wireless.org.au with a subject of 'unsubscribe melbwireless'  
Archive at: http://www.wireless.org.au/cgi-bin/minorweb.pl?A=LIST&L=melbwireless
IRC at: au.austnet.org #melb-wireless