Slashdot Mirror


Wireless along the Maine Coast

eggboard writes: "The coast of Maine started getting lit up by wireless over long distance back in 1997. Now hundreds of users, some of them dozens of miles from the connecting ISP's HQ, use plain old 802.11, 802.11b's predecessor, to hit nearly 2 Mbps of throughput. Cable Internet is broken out there; DSL unreachable; ISDN expensive. Other communities are also adopting tower-based point-to-point, bridge and repeater wireless to bring broadband to rural and small towns. Is this the way to drag lesser-populated areas into the modern economy, and promote deurbanization?"

34 of 100 comments (clear)

  1. Honestly by Mr.+Fusion · · Score: 2

    Do we really need to deurbanize that badly?

    1. Re:Honestly by grammar+nazi · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I agree. Deurbanization = bad thing.

      Especially in Maine, one of the last states 'wilderness' states and here we are going to decentralize everything and put wireless network towers up in the mountains.

      It's not as refreshing when you hike to the top of a remote mountain and find a cel tower at the top. At least you can take the service drive back to the bottom, but it takes away something from the serenity. Maybe it's the phone call from your girlfriend wondering why you aren't spending the afternoon with her. You wouldn't have recieved it if the tower wasn't there.

      --

      Keeping /. free of grammatical errors for ~5 years.
    2. Re:Honestly by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I'll try to keep the Me2 to a minimum, but..Me2.

      We already had a great experiment in deurbanization called the suburb. Suddenly, Towns all over the country start to look more and more like orange county! No! Superficiality without the attractiveness! No! We must escape! To where? to the small towns! But wait, I won't be able to check my stocks and The Hun for natalie portman pr0n from there!

      I've delved into the silly, but the point is serious. Keep your suburban, SUV-driving, mall-patronizing asses out of the in the damn suburbs where they belong.

      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

    3. Re:Honestly by rtaylor · · Score: 2

      Don't know about the US, but in Canada your not a city unless you cross the 100K mark and greator area doesn't count. I also believe Ontario raised that marker to 150k not all that long ago (last year?).

      Does that mean Maine doesn't have any cities? Or do americans bench their cities at a different mark -- like 50k?

      --
      Rod Taylor
    4. Re:Honestly by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2

      umm...

      You wouldn't have received the phone call from your girlfriend if you hadn't taken your cell phone with you.

    5. Re:Honestly by isdnip · · Score: 2

      In New England, of which Maine is a part, "City" is defined by its type of government. A "Town" has a town meeting, either "open" (all voters can come) or "representative" (vote for your neighborhood's representatives, so TM is more like a legislature). I'm not sure about Maine, which spun off of Massachusetts in 1820, but in Massachusetts, a Town doesn't have a mayor; the Selectmen are the executive. A "City" in contrast has a mayor and council, no town meeting.

      So we have Cities typically ranging from 10k population up, but Towns can be quite large too. Last year, several Towns in Massachusetts adopted City government. (But the largest, with over 60k pops, refuses.) Maine's cities are all small by Ontario standards, but they tend to be regional centers, and if they were Towns, they'd be too large for open meeting anyway.

      Back to the original topic -- I think it'sa shame that Slashdotters overlay their aversion to Sprawl atop midcoast Maine, which really doesn't look a bit like Orange County.

    6. Re:Honestly by grammar+nazi · · Score: 2
      If I look out accross a valley and I see a tower, then it is polluting my view and thus has an environmental inpact. The very fact that these towers have to be in a prominent location in order to cover the most amount of area means that you will be able to see it from miles in any direction.

      This doesn't mention the service drives and powerlines that they build in order to maintain these towers.

      I prefer no towers. If somebody needs to use their phone badly enough, they will get a Satellite phone.

      --

      Keeping /. free of grammatical errors for ~5 years.
    7. Re:Honestly by ckedge · · Score: 2

      I strongly disagree. Deurabnization would be a great thing.

      The software company I work for needs to be located in the expensive heart of the biggest city in Canada like we all need a hole in our head. But because of the "perceived need", all of the employees either have to pay a HUGE amount of money for a SMALL place to live, or they have to spend 1-3 hours a day commuting.

      Do you have any idea what 1-3 hours of commuting creates in terms of pollution? Do you have any idea of what a huge drain on the economy all these grossly inefficient highly expensive cities and concrete towers cost? Don't attribute to "economic necessity" that which can be easily explained by social dellusion.

      Now I appreciate your concern about having all of North America covered by one big suburb. So where's the right middle ground?

      Currently the US and Canada are 75% urban, 25% rural. (see here) If all the small towns in the country were tripled in size (which means taking people from the city cores AND the suburbs, which are counted as part of the urban megopolis'), what would it look like? I think that the country would not look like one massive suburbia. My little tiny home town would simply be a little bigger, still surrounded by massive amounts of nature. (Currently 1000 people in a couple square miles in the middle of 400 square miles of countryside).

      The suburbs are PART of urban areas. When people talk about deurbanization, they are talking about taking the people in those 100 square miles of suburbia and spreading them out.

      I'm 100% behind deurbanization.

  2. Being Done in Iowa by Rura+Penthe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My uncles who live in Iowa have talked frequently about this sort of thing being done there. However, the companies are using old unused silos and other structures that are already standing to reduce costs and make it easier to get the network up and running more quickly. :)

  3. Re:Privacy/Security? by rosewood · · Score: 2, Informative

    REading through http://80211b.weblogger.com/weak.defense.html basically sums up the security concerns and then offers solutions. Basically, same rules as if you were on a wired connection. SSH SSL, and VPN, etc.

  4. What is in the air? by mattkime · · Score: 2, Funny

    This article has explained that funny smell in the air on the coast of Maine - porn in the air at 2 Mbps.

    --
    Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
  5. Good and bad sides. by BlowCat · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Better wireless connectivity means more telecommuting jobs. This means less driving. Less CO2 in the air. Good for people (adults). Good for mooses. Bad for plants that need CO2. Bad for children in Maine, who don't see anything except their town and the the computer monitor. Many families in Maine visit Boston just one or two times a year, let alone New York or Washington.

    That's ecology - you fix one thing and break another.

  6. Too bad it wasn't around in 1990 by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Funny

    Instead of hoping Jack Ryan would understand he was defecting, and instead of goofing around with morse code messages and sonar pings in the middle of nowhere in the sea, Cpt. Ramius could have simply popped the periscope in Maine's coastal waters, connected to the local 802.11 network and emailed jack@cia.gov "huh, we're just defectors really, just you guys don't get your blood pressure up now ..."

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  7. A Voice In The Wilderness (Of Maine) by TellarHK · · Score: 3, Informative

    Apologies for the title ripoff.

    I currently live in a city called Calais, a hop-skip-and-underage-drinker-puke from the Canadian border. Our internet access solutions are a few small ISPs, a couple large ISPs, and a maximum connection speed of 56,666 bps. Here in the 'Downeast' region of Maine, we've got a very odd situation where we're surrounded by native american tribal communities with the ability to get some form of high-speed access, while the normal cities and towns stagger along on standard POS POTS. It's great to see these kinds of service available in the state, but by looking at the map in the article, it looks like it's only the southern parts of Maine that are being wired in. There's a lot more to Maine above Belfast, with a lot more economic need.

    Economically, Downeast Maine is pretty much a wasteland. Some companies are relocating here, but most of the region's major employers have bugged out long ago. The prices quoted for the 802.11 setup are quite high to start, seeming priced more for the already-wealthy, not for any possible benefit to those with true economic needs. Around here, a popular bumper sticker is ''I live in the other state of Maine: Washington County''. When a service like this comes to Calais with the ability to afford it with some kind of state subsidy, or with a lower starting cost, that's when it might really help.

    And no, this isn't just all about me wanting the access. Even though I've got a modem at home, I've got a laptop and root on the local community college network systems. I've got all the net access I need.

    1. Re:A Voice In The Wilderness (Of Maine) by maggard · · Score: 2
      Folks make choices. Live side by side & get water, sewage, etc. Live spread out and go with pumps, septic, paying $1k a pole to have electricity run in.

      That said for folks in a suburban situation it's not too difficult to set up a neighborhood LAN. Run a cable or even 802.11b between the houses. Cut a deal with an ISP where they support all of the local folks. Will it cost? Yeah but one can proablably get some deals; figure it over 2 years and it's reasonable.

      Aside from that - if ya can't pay for it you don't get it. I don't know how much economic development the State of Maine would get out of subsidizing folk's high-speed internet acess that wouldn't be better invested in roads or schoolbooks (or even the Governor's laptops in schools plan.)

      --
      I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    2. Re:A Voice In The Wilderness (Of Maine) by unitron · · Score: 2
      "I don't know how much economic development the State of Maine would get out of subsidizing folk's high-speed internet acess that wouldn't be better invested in roads or schoolbooks..."

      Yeah, we wouldn't want to attract residents with high incomes who pay lots of property taxes and have a lot of money to spend in local businesses.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    3. Re:A Voice In The Wilderness (Of Maine) by maggard · · Score: 2
      ... residents with high incomes who pay lots of property taxes and have a lot of money to spend in local businesses.

      Residents with high incomes can pay for their own damn highspeed internet access. If they're making good money then it shouldn't be an issue. If they're not making good money I don't see it being as important as other things like infrastructure & job training.

      Have you ever heard "Oh Muffy, we can't build the dream-house there - the monthly highspeed internet service bill is too high!"?
      How about "The roads suck and the schools are lousy."?

      --
      I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
  8. 802.11 eh? It works for us.. by delta0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here in Ontario there are many wireless 802.11(b) networks poping up that help fill in that large gaping hole in the infrastructure that Rogers and Bell Canada have left. I have been investigating building a repeater.. costs less than $7000CDN for a 96' tower these days (not including equipment) and that can cover a fair community so that line of sight issues aren't as big a concern. Think of the problem like a right angle triangle with the tower the opposite side and tree obsticles perpendicular from adjacent side. The closer and taller the service tower, the less likely the need for an additional tower at the site.

    The problem with the freenet concept is what I would consider a fair disadvantage in topology and cost duplication and the fact that it makes more sense to build one large tower and do point to multipoint where possible for both cost and speed. However nothing tops the freenet layout for underserviced areas that are on the fringes of a populated center or that can touch another tower that is close. Just hop through the terain and onto a landline, no worries about planning a big tower.

    In Ontario there are both community networks and some independant ISPs starting to role out the services such as Storm Internet (sister to CDSP). Some areas have had wireless for a couple of years now.

    --
    --- Delta0.. makes no difference.
  9. How is this different from Sprint Wireless? by mj6798 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sprint Broadband provides the same kind of service in major metropolitan areas. You get up to 5 Mbps at costs comparable to DSL or cable. In the SF Bay Area, Sprint Broadband actually started out as a small, local company.

    1. Re:How is this different from Sprint Wireless? by mj6798 · · Score: 2
      Huh? Sprint broadband is $50/month with installation costs from between free and $400, compared to $50/month with $500-$800 installation for the Maine effort.

      As for "remoteness", there are many spots in the SF Bay Area that aren't served by anything other than wireless; people might as well live in Maine.

    2. Re:How is this different from Sprint Wireless? by blair1q · · Score: 2

      Who did Sprint buy in the Silly Valley?

      Elsewhere, I know they bought SpeedChoice, which operated in Phoenix (great town for line-of-sight) and Detroit (Detroit?).

      --Blair

  10. In answer to the question.. by delta0 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes! I think 802.11b is what we all need in the rural areas that are say at the most 15-30 miles from town but still can't get service even if there is a CO only 5-10 km away. Also providers are building backbones from downtown areas to remote communities by installing biger pipes than the standard maximum (stress max) 11Mbps stuff like the Cisco Aironet 340/350 or Lucent stuff. They are using 45Mbps or greater as a cheap alternative to service areas where fiber doesn't go, Ma Bell wants too much money for, or to areas that have dark fiber just lying there, that cost a fortune to install, that no one -- wants to (due to lack of money) -- or is smart enough (even if they have the money) to light up and connect people to.

    If Cisco, Lucent and Nortel want any type of increased demands in their core fiber products on the home front (to help them out in returning to better times) they should consider wireless 2.4GHz and the last mile their good friend. They need more people demanding more bandwidth in more locations, doing more, for longer. That is what will allow us all to be modern and do such advanced things as download large email attachments, get our repulsive Flash animations sooner, or CVSup in less time [windows equivalent: get patches and chunky bloated shareware quicker] (-- wow, the future is here). But what it will really do is get people downloading more pr0n and mp3z, so then the need for bandwidth will sky-rocket and the backbones will need to be upgraded at ever more frequent rates not to mention HD sales will triple.

    Seriously, part of the problem of why the Internet companies are doing so bad, is cause they didn't get it to enough people soon enough, at a low enough cost, fast enough and that even if they did most people don't care and consider it an expensive luxury. And the reason so many .com companies are doing so bad, was that not enough people take the Internet seriously because it's either too slow or still considered a luxury. The masses are in need of some education about the Internet *still*. It's a tool to me, not some entertainment service that should be rapidly commercialized or be ruled by the economics of media!

    Well, as you can tell I'm frustrated that things aren't moving forward for the better for everyone yet. The tech "overcapacity" is really an underlying "undercapacity" with regards to actual implementation!!

    --
    --- Delta0.. makes no difference.
  11. I don't know by DarkM00N · · Score: 2

    I don't think if it will be answer to de-urbanization, because other factors contriute to it, we had large cities long before the internet, heck even before the telephone. People don't live together in cities because of its telecomunication infrastructure. But wireless has a great potential in developing regions, wireless would be cheaper to implement than "old fashioned" copper or fiber communications.

    --


    ITL.tv - Your Resource for financial news.
  12. Re:Deurbanization? by OnanTheBarbarian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Agreed. The idea that deurbanization is something that should be blandly promoted is getting pretty old. I love how off-the-cuff the remark in the original post is; it's almost as if we're all convinced that the cities should be emptied out, and only details remain.

    The anti-urban crowd have also popped up for a series of idiotic, tasteless suggestions about the WTC bombing (perhaps if we didn't work in these big downtowns, we'd all be much safer).

    Face it, guys. There's a reason that people pay megabucks for downtown office space in big cities: promixity to other real people. We've had Internet access, videoconferencing, Kinkos, etc. in suburbia/exburbia for years and somehow the city centers refuse to empty out.

    This not to mention the very real externalities imposed by deurbanization; you know, chewing up green space, the inevitable commute once it turns out that big-screen TV and DSL fail to substitute for a social life and a vibrant work environment, etc. etc.

    If you want to live a life as a wired hermit, good for you, but don't expect too many people to join you any time soon.

  13. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. Running out of spectrum? by macpeep · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This and other articles recently about WLAN's have me wondering about how much spectrum there is available for WLAN. If you used nothing but WLAN (no ordinary LAN's) in a downtown office area of a major city, would that cause big problems? What can be done and what have been done to work around this?

  17. lasers could push 150Mbps vs 2 by motherhead · · Score: 2

    Yup, lasers. Though i have no idea how harsh atlantic weather would effect transmission.

    here is some more on laser broadband, and here and here.

    1. Re:lasers could push 150Mbps vs 2 by rtaylor · · Score: 2

      The big issue here is that you drop a ton of packets everytime a bird flies through :)

      --
      Rod Taylor
  18. Re:2.4GHz ? by autocracy · · Score: 2

    2.4 Ghz can be used for anything you'd like - you just have to stay within the power constraints. And there are exceptions to that as well...

    --
    SIG: HUP
  19. Re:Privacy/Security? by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2

    So now there's actually a justifiable reason for SSL (not ONE credit card number has EVER been stolen by external network sniffing! On your work LAN, however, that is a different story). So what?

    Apop, pgp, ssh, vpns, and ssl were created for this. If you don't want somebody mailsnarfing you, encrypt and authenticate. It's that simple.

  20. Computer science curing urban sprawl by heroine · · Score: 2

    It's a long way to tie a small corner of computer science to curing urban sprawl. Not only are there many other areas of computer science often working in opposition to the objective but there are other things besides computer science promoting deurbanization. Terrorist attacks have deurbanized areas far better than wireless LAN. The cost of houses in Contra Costa County doubled since September while the cost of houses in San Jose fell through the floor.

  21. Re:New Microsoft virus found, not limited to Outlo by unitron · · Score: 2
    If bin Laden thinks getting George ticked at him might have been a mistake, wait'll he faces the wrath of Bill.

    At least George has to try to make it look as though he's staying within the limits of the law and for the most part respecting the sovereignty of other countries. Bill, on the other hand...

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.