Slashdot Mirror
Community Wifi Feeds Community Cable in NYC
akb writes "Manhattan Neighborhood Network has embarked on a project to combine two community networking communities in NYC, the nascent community wifi network on that isle with public access cable TV. The project has successfully conducted a test which involved cablecasting an mpeg4 video stream being transported by the nycwireless.net wireless node in Bryant Park."
i wonder if all this community activity will turn into a movement that actually makes all those little subnetworks (wifi and cable connected) into kind of a sub-net culture that will be independend of the big, commercial internet.
will they be controlled by the world's governments soon? will corporations try to switch them off?
anyway this is exciting. i think with dmca-legislations hanging over heads of the people in different countries all over the world, this is kind of a light in the darkness.
am i too naive?
We are all individualists!
I think ALL cable systems should be REQUIRED to have a local access channel. It could be a source of revenue for the cable stations, you actually have to buy air time. (Like Wayne's World) - New York and California shouldn't get all the fun. I bet that cooking shows, computer shows, and craft shows would flourish in local markets and help with our cable bills at the same time.
I, for one, would love to an Apple Computer / Linux Help show.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Indeed, if you paint such a black-and-white picture your point is clear. The reality is often in many shades of grey. Why do you assume that only "bourgeois pseudo intellectuals" would benefit from this? Isn't it possible that this movement will grow to the point that it will one day make it possible for someone poor enough to own a hand-me-down computer but cannot affort monthly access charges to be able to get online and get some of the same advantages in knowledge as those SoHo poseurs?
"Feed people, not networks," you say. Certainly. But why can't you do both?
------
bah! cablecasting!
you wanna be a media-consumer, that's fine... but there will be commercials involved.
I suggest you download something like andromeda and stream your own content to yourself!
It can stream video and audio files that you have to any PC on your LAN. My setup is that I have a 300GB server in my bedroom which has TV-out. This is hooked up to a cheap wireless audio/video transmitter (2Ghz)(available at x10.com) which sends the signal clearly to my TV & Surround system in the living room. Even the crappiest DivX looks unbelievably crisp at TV resolution!
geeks are cats who dig a certain kind of cool
There actually is a difference between New York public access and say, Kansas City public access. The public consists of a good seven+ million, many of which came here with artistic ambitions. So the quality of programming, IMHO actually surpasses glossy network television "let the people be the content" shows of the moment. (*Not that there isn't a whole boatload of utter garbage as well, but...diamonds in the rough)
Also, Bryant Park is in the middle of the business district. The only people who live in/near are homeless people, not wealthy urbanites.
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Okay - wait...we're talking WiFi here....not Ku Band or anything else. I limited my discussion to the scope of the article - IN WIFI. Thus, by your example, 1080i would be too much for your typical 802.11b wifi setup. And at best, you'd get a few hdtv channels on 802.11a (course, you'd be limited to a few city blocks).
With the newer technologies (we're talking general wifi here - 802.11(put your favorite variant here)), you'd still be lucky to get a dozen streams or so - even with multicast.
2. Since when does multicast have priority on a network? Fact of the matter is only one person can transmit at a time...this includes interference. So if the band is clogged, multicast won't improve anything here. QoS is required even for the mulitcasters to get the right priority. Course, this matters not for point 3 (interference).
3. Typical wifi today is 802.11b...802.11a still has to pan out and 802.11g seems like a better alternative for most. While I agree neither gets knocked out by your average Microwave - both get reduced bandwidth due to the wideband interference. And you point out other points of interference to bandwidth - which really is the whole point here.
So buddy- if you had a modicum of reading comprehension, you'd note that my point is the bandwidth/reliability isn't there for something more than a channel.
And I simply pointed out the area I'd rather people invest first....I'd gladly (and have in the past) contribute to such fine efforts simliar to NYC wireless.
Btw - talking is what we do here at slashdot (well writing and reading). And don't go calling the kettle black if you don't have the courage to post with a registered account.
Agreed, we can squash a lot...but consider:
802.11b - 5.5 Mbps - if you're lucky (turn on a microwave within 150 feet of the receiver and that drops to about 3.2 Mbps) (remember 802.11b is 11mbps half duplex....)
802.11a - 54 Mbps (is it full duplex? I have to check)
802.11g - 22 Mbps (not sure - recalling from memory)
Most you could support is about 10 channels on a 802.11a perhaps....this is assuming no interference, priority on the channel (meaning no interference plus no one else transmitting), no retransmits, 0 error rate, etc.
Do your math as well - sure, you could probably get the 20fps, 320x200 stream down to 56-100kbps range - but that's raw. Add the overhead and latency of tcp/ip and then that of wifi...let's say you're lucky and that with 192 kbps of bandwidth you get a solid channel. That's at best 20-30 streams of data (802.11b - the most popular right now)....ah - but wait....wifi has a colision space - so you'll probably top out at 15-20 (unless you've manage to synchronize your transmissions so they never collide - qos might help here)...
Come on folks...I'm not questioning our ability to stream video over wireless in a perfect world - but _WIFI_ at best is a one or two channel option for now - even with massive compression (at which point, I'm not sure it works for mainstream viewing).
Also note that technically - wifi applies to 802.11b...I'm allowing for the other less mature technologies - but they still face a lot of the same hurdles for any wireless broadcast system that's unregulated with more than a few channels.
It would be better if it were the otherway around. The internet already liberates Computers, you can get any kind of information from millions of sources on the internet.
What would be cool (imho) if Television and Radio were "broadcast" as IP-based 'channels'.
If we could build a AP that was both a Broadcast Node (if you chose to create a stream) AND a 'listening node' (so you could tune-in digital TV & Radio' AND a Repeater Node (so you could extend the service range of others who are "Broadcasting".
This kind of Radio/Television liberation could broadcast all kinds of Independant tv, 'pirate tv', etc etc etc , open up a radio/television kind of "internet" where anything/anyone can participate.
Does this make much sense?
There is, at least when you're within the few block, line-of-sight range:
Hudson Heights.
It's generated a fair amount of interest among residents even though there isn't a decent place to sit within range. It happens to cover the local public school (CSD6M287) but from the logs I'm not seeing any regular use and no one has contacted me from the school.
It would, in my estimate, be a great thing for the co-ops to get together and set up cheap co-operative internet perhaps with wireless access as a public service possibly gain enough groundswell to start a community freenet and even a freebox program. When I have a bit more time (I already volunteer) I might bring it up again but I don't see it getting beyond us hobbyists I don't see anyone stepping forward to take on this second (and third) full-time job as neighborhood ISP and technical mentor.