The concept that the Netflixes or Googles of the world pay for their Internet feed is somewhat inaccurate.
Netflix, Google, Amazon, etc, get a large chunk of their connectivity through peering which is the same way that internet providers exchange traffic. This means that they will either collocate servers at an Internet Exchange Point or will build a datacenter close enough to one to be able to purchase/build dark fiber to it. At the exchange point, often the only fee is a one-time port cost or a miniscule (in the grand scheme of things) ongoing fee.
Netflix in particular has a really good racket going.... They offer appliances which ISP's host *for free* effectively in exchange for the benefit of moving the significant Netflix traffic off of the ISP's upstream and peering connections. See https://openconnect.netflix.co... . Note that the only cost to netflix is providing the server.. All of the bandwidth and power to run the server (including filling it from the internet and the feed to the customer) is born by the ISP. From an ISP standpoint it makes financial sense to do so since the incremental cost of hosting the server is most likely less than the cost of upstream circuits consumed by netflix. But, it also puts netflix at a advantage that other smaller companies may not have.
That isn't to say that these providers don't have any connectivity costs, they just are significantly lower than one would assume based on the amount of traffic that they are moving.
Just to add a couple of datapoints to your well-thought out reply:
The Title-II style network neutrality did not do a lot of what network-neutrality proponents seem to think it did. For instance throttling generally was permitted provided it didn't single out one source. In addition, ISP's had a lot of latitude as far as what they could or could not do under the guise of 'reasonable network management'. For instance, an ISP would have been permitted to slow down traffic such as software updates in order to improve performance during peak times for other traffic such as video streaming. This is provided the ISP discloses what they are doing.
As I mentioned in a different comment, one thing the Title-II regulation did do is saddle ISP's with a lot of paperwork and regulatory hurdles, increasing costs. For a carrier like the large companies which dominate the landscape this wasn't a big deal. For those smaller companies trying to bring another option to the mix, this was much more difficult, and could mean the difference between a viable business and bankruptcy. So the Title-II style network neutrality actually helped prevent the breaking of the oligopoly.
ISPs are able to throttle Netflix because they have a monopoly granted to them by the local government. So even though they degrade Netflix quality, their customers cannot flee to another ISP because the local government has banned competition.
This concept is factually wrong, that is, there is no monopoly granted to ISP's. Anyone can go buy a "resellable" INTERNET feed from a carrier like Zayo, Hurricane Electric or Cogent or similar and then build out a local network from that. The cost to do so is relatively low in the grand scheme of things, especially if technologies like unlicensed wireless are used to do so. But the repealed network neutrality rules makes it harder for these small, independent, providers to be able to do so.
All that the repealed Title II-style network neutrality did was increase the amount of paperwork required to be filed with the FCC, increasing the costs for Internet providers to comply with the regulation. This was a tolerable thing for the big providers, but a very bad thing for the smallest of the providers who are desperately trying to compete with the largest carriers (Comcast, etc). The reason is that a company the size of Comcast can afford to pay the couple of full time staff needed to keep up with the record keeping requirements, but a smaller ISP just trying to provide service in a reasonably small area or even a portion of a state generally does not have the resources necessary to keep up with all of the filing requirements - even though that small ISP is generally going to be far less likely to do the 'evil' things that people thing that we need network neutrality for.
Or stated differently: The companies which most needed the regulation were the ones least affected by it.
We need to quit thinking that Internet can only be provided by the Cable company and the Phone company. There are thousands of small providers out there who are proving that it's not only possible for other to provide internet service, but that actually these smaller companies are often able to provide better service at a similar cost.
I would like to see a third option created.
Title II is not the right solution. And Title I has no teeth. Congress will need to get involved, and a solution hashed out that both protects network neutrality yet is a far lighter approach than lumping internet providers into Title II.
Actually small, startup ISP's are starting all the time. I regularly interact with providers throughout the US which are less than a year old (I sell products into this space).
Even locally, I'm aware of one which has started within my rather small community within the last couple of years years. There are also two older ones so there are now at least 3 different providers besides the telco and the cable company providing service to the area.
Another trade group which represents a large chunk of them has the other view regarding Title II.
I fully agree with the principles of Network Neutrality - that is, the concept that all traffic should be created equal, and internet providers shouldn't be able to pick winners and losers among the services out there. A cable company who is providing internet service shouldn't be able to block or degrade video from competitors. A telephone company who is an ISP shouldn't be able to block or degrade VoIP providers and so on. Ajit Pai agrees with those principles.
The problem with Title II is that it replaces the free principles that the internet was founded on with overbearing regulations. An example: Let's assume that your neighborhood wasn't adequately served by internet service. You decide to do something about it. You start a small internet provider for your neighborhood, convincing all of your neighbors to invest. You go get an expensive resellable gigabit (or 10 gig) internet feed, and then run fiber from the feed to everyone's homes. Or use wireless technology to distribute it. Everyone is happy, until you realize that you are now an internet provider and have to also jump through the Title II hoops, which include a pile of regulations, and have to hire employees simply to comply with the government mandate.
There are many many small, independent internet providers out there which are feeling the pain of Title II. This isn't pain because of anything they've done wrong. If anything, they all are shining examples of how network neutrality should work. Fortunately, much of the regulatory burden of Title II has been deferred for these providers, and now won't be implemented - but this level of regulation definitely has a much heavier impact on a small internet provider with a handful of employees.
Everyone who is considering their position on this issue really should go read Ajit Pai's disssent on the original passing of the order classifying ISP's under Title II. It's available at on the FCC website. I would encourage everyone to read it to truly understand Commisioner Pai's position.
Basic on an Apple II....and pretty much every other computer at that point. That pretty much was the choice for learning how to program back in the mid-80's.
I also picked up Pascal and C shortly thereafter. C stuck, Pascal didn't. I seem to remember learning COBOL and PL/I at some point, along with a bit of fortran.
I've learned so many languages over the years, that I've lost count. Right now I have active projects going in C, HTML5/Javascript, and Python. It's gotten to the point where another language isn't a big deal: it's more about learning libraries than the language itself.
Java ranks near the top of my list in languages I prefer not to program in if I can avoid it.
See the PIC18F67J60. I currently sell a product I developed which includes a complete software TCP/IP stack, HTTP server, SNMP server, ICMP client and server, NTP, and and so on which fits in this device which has 128K of flash and 3.808K of ram. 32MB is enormous.
My total code + static web page storage (in a small external flash) is around 196KB. That isn't anywhere near 32MB.
I'm in the process of moving to a PIC32 platform to be able to support HTTPS and IPv6, along with a lot of other functionality that needs to be in the next version of this product. This is still going to have a code size of well under 1MB (and probably more in the 3-400K range). So I'm not sure where people get off with saying that 32MB is "extremely resource constrained".
My opinion about why 'C' is still highly relevant is that there are still many needs for small, tight, code which runs very close to to the metal, and C is ideal for this.
When you look at the output code from a C compiler, it tends to be small and fast, and relatively light on resources. In many cases, with modern compiler optimizations, the resulting code can actually be smaller and faster than all but assembly code written by someone who really knows how to optimize for a specific machine. Almost all embedded development work is done in either C or assembly, and C tends to be faster to write, and portable - so you can move the code to the next project if necessary.
Using any 'modern' object oriented language immediately adds a level of bloat which is generally not acceptable in places where C still shines. These modern programming languages are written for environments where a few extra bytes or a few extra cycles isn't going to cause a problem. When working on a resource-limited platform (aka where you'd kill for a few hundred KB of code space, and more than a few thousand bytes of ram) you're just not going to be able to use a modern language because of the overhead of an object oriented language.
I'd actually predict C is going to grow in the near term, just because of the growth of internet-connected low-resource devices. I actually develop products on a platform which has a complete TCP/IP stack (including web server and SNMP) running in less than 128KB (yes K not M) of memory. These and other similar small platforms are going to be the basis of the 'things' half of the internet of things, all of which are going to have C code at their base.
In my area we use a paper, marked, optical-scan ballot. I've seen a couple different variations over the years, but they all have some characteristics in common: They're simple, can be audited by a human, and read by a machine. Our ballots are not counted at the precinct but at the county level due to the population of most of our precincts (we only have a million or so people in our entire very large state).
To handle people with disabilities, we have machines which mark an identical ballot using a special voting-machine like device. This allows those who can't mark a paper ballot to vote, yet still results in an auditable, paper, ballot.
Personally, I think we need to abolish electronic voting in any form which doesn't result in an auditable, verifyable, paper, ballot for each voter.
Having been the victim of tax identity theft two years in a row, you'd think those computers could be programmed in a way to detect say, multiple refunds going to the same bank account, or the same IP address submitting thousands of returns and shut these thieves down....or *gasp* even perhaps verify the data which is on a return before sending a refund check... You know, to stop the $5 BILLION in tax refund fraud every year....
I was recently in Weird Stuff Warehouse in Sunnyvale. I like to walk through the store when I'm in the area just for the walk down memory lane... They have used computer stuff for sale from, well, pretty much the last thirty or so years of computer history.
At one spot in the store, I stopped and picked up a device I hadn't seen for years, and thankfully haven't had to touch one for much longer than that. And then realized that many of my younger networking peers wouldn't have a clue what the heck it was.
I personally use insteon for most everything, other than those things which seem better for m-wave - in my case, I use m-wave for door locks, thermostats, etc., which are somewhat slim picking on the insteon side. I like how the insteon works for power control, and m-wave seems way expensive and weird for that stuff.
I haven't yet purchased it so I can't say how it works, but I'm about ready to spring for a Elk M-1 panel in combination with a ISY-994i with their new (beta) m-wave radio. Looks like it should work great.
I think the biggest thing you can do is ensure that the home is easy to run wires inside the walls and across floor/ceiling spaces without making a big mess. I recently moved into a new-to-me house and have had to do a fair bit of home automation/network refit. In this case, this is a single story home with a full basement. The basement is finished but has a drop ceiling instead of sheetrock. This makes it really easy to run wires throughout the house since you can run the wires in the space between the ceiling and the dropped ceiling and access the space immediately below any wall space.
Need to run a cable into a new spot on a wall? Cut a hole in the wall, put a data ring in the hole, then use a flexible drill bit to drill a hole through the bottom plate and the subfloor. Find the hole underneath and use the drill bit to pull the wire up through. Simple.
The basement walls are similar as you can access the top portion of all of the walls above the dropped ceiling.
This will also work in a 3 story house as well, just make sure you have a full attic or crawlspace which gives you access to the tops of all of the 2nd story walls.
This helps future-proof the house.
I'd also consider/ensure the following:
1) Make sure there is a NEUTRAL at EVERY electrical box, including switches. Makes things lots easier. I've also gotten in the habit of using an additional conductor from the lightswitch to the light in case I decide to install a fan or similar.
2) Have the electrical contractor use the biggest box that will fit in the wall space. None of these cheap 2" deep things. 22 cubic inches is the size for a single gang box. They are roughly 3.5" deep (the width of a 2x4 wall stud). This is to accomodate the much larger volume of a home-automation switch and/or outlet.
3) Consider truss construction in spaces you'll have to run lots of wires through - it solves the issue with too many holes weakening the structure.
4) Take the advice of others on the thread, and do go ahead and install boxes with conduits on at least each wall. The conduits should be at least 3/4" - 1" would be better. If you've got a dropped ceiling or similar, they just need to be stubbed out into the ceiling/attic area. If you're enclosing, then they need to be run to a central closet or similar.
5) Don't forget satellite, cameras, etc. etc. etc. - run boxes/conduits for them as well.
6) In bedrooms, think about where the bed might be placed and make sure you have outlets on both sides of each bed position. In the master, if you know where the bed is going to be placed, consider adding nightstand height switches and/or boxes for automation controllers, cell chargers, etc.
I probably could keep coming up with other ideas, but that are the main ones...
I design and sell products which generally have a microcontroller at the center. And almost everything is in the digital realm.
Because of the work I do I have a collection of test gear I've accumulated over the years. The things which get the most use? The variable DC power supplies, the multimeters, and yes, the oscilloscope.
The oscilloscope occupies the spot right above where the target sits most of the time. I find it to be very useful to troubleshoot digital realm issues, including things which one would seem to think a logic analyzer would be perfect for. If I'm having a hard time getting two things to talk, say over an I2C bus, I reach for the scope first, since I can see whether or not the lines are toggling as expected. And if they're at the right voltages, and so on. I can also tell if the clock edges are correct and similar. This accounts for like 99% of the problems I run into that I need an external test instrument for.
Yes, I do have various logic analyzers. Two USB ones, a big one I'm about to sell on ebay, and a few more specialized ones (serial protocol analyzer, USB protocol analyzer). Most of the time they sit in their cases on the shelf.
There's a jules verne short story called "in the year 2889" which is a very interesting read as well.. . I'd say in many ways he was describing 2013, not 2889...
There are a lot of us out there doing exactly what you're wanting to do, using fixed wireless technology typically from Cambium Networks, Ubiquiti, or Mikrotik.
Some links which will help you find people who are doing this already, and are more than willing to help you start down this path follows. Believe it or not, most operators in the WISP industry are pretty friendly and more than willing to help a new wisp get started with advice and the like.
I'm sure there are others. I'd start by reading what I can, probably joining the (free) email lists on a couple of the sites above, and asking questions. Everyone in the industry was a newbie sometime, and most of us remember what it was like to start out, often with about as much knowledge as you have.
recently had the "file-sharing is theft" discussion with a manager i'm on otherwise good terms with, and the guy doesn't understand how fallacious it is to compare this activity to shoplifting.
Try this: P2P is like carrying something out of the store. Whether or not the action of carrying something out of a store is legal depends on various other things, and very few of them have to do with the actual method of conveying the object out of the store. Yes, P2P can be used for theft, but so can a shopping basket.
Great... replying to my own comment. I also meant to mention that It comes pre-loaded with OpenOffice so it's pretty much ready to go if your boss does slides in a way that is compatible with Openoffice.
I forgot to respond to this part, and I wanted to:
How much energy?
For me, I don't expect my usage to be any different at all with or without daylight savings time.
The thermostat setback time doesn't get changed summer to winter - it's pretty much always on MST time since that's when I care about it. And, even if it was an hour earlier/later, I can't see how it would make much difference... Sure, it's harder to heat against the temperature in the morning since it is colder in the early a.m. than late p.m., but I suspect we're talking pennies a day here.
Slashdot Mirror
Netflix, Google, Amazon, etc, get a large chunk of their connectivity through peering which is the same way that internet providers exchange traffic. This means that they will either collocate servers at an Internet Exchange Point or will build a datacenter close enough to one to be able to purchase/build dark fiber to it. At the exchange point, often the only fee is a one-time port cost or a miniscule (in the grand scheme of things) ongoing fee.
Netflix in particular has a really good racket going.... They offer appliances which ISP's host *for free* effectively in exchange for the benefit of moving the significant Netflix traffic off of the ISP's upstream and peering connections. See https://openconnect.netflix.co... . Note that the only cost to netflix is providing the server.. All of the bandwidth and power to run the server (including filling it from the internet and the feed to the customer) is born by the ISP. From an ISP standpoint it makes financial sense to do so since the incremental cost of hosting the server is most likely less than the cost of upstream circuits consumed by netflix. But, it also puts netflix at a advantage that other smaller companies may not have.
That isn't to say that these providers don't have any connectivity costs, they just are significantly lower than one would assume based on the amount of traffic that they are moving.
The Title-II style network neutrality did not do a lot of what network-neutrality proponents seem to think it did. For instance throttling generally was permitted provided it didn't single out one source. In addition, ISP's had a lot of latitude as far as what they could or could not do under the guise of 'reasonable network management'. For instance, an ISP would have been permitted to slow down traffic such as software updates in order to improve performance during peak times for other traffic such as video streaming. This is provided the ISP discloses what they are doing.
As I mentioned in a different comment, one thing the Title-II regulation did do is saddle ISP's with a lot of paperwork and regulatory hurdles, increasing costs. For a carrier like the large companies which dominate the landscape this wasn't a big deal. For those smaller companies trying to bring another option to the mix, this was much more difficult, and could mean the difference between a viable business and bankruptcy. So the Title-II style network neutrality actually helped prevent the breaking of the oligopoly.
ISPs are able to throttle Netflix because they have a monopoly granted to them by the local government. So even though they degrade Netflix quality, their customers cannot flee to another ISP because the local government has banned competition.
This concept is factually wrong, that is, there is no monopoly granted to ISP's. Anyone can go buy a "resellable" INTERNET feed from a carrier like Zayo, Hurricane Electric or Cogent or similar and then build out a local network from that. The cost to do so is relatively low in the grand scheme of things, especially if technologies like unlicensed wireless are used to do so. But the repealed network neutrality rules makes it harder for these small, independent, providers to be able to do so.
All that the repealed Title II-style network neutrality did was increase the amount of paperwork required to be filed with the FCC, increasing the costs for Internet providers to comply with the regulation. This was a tolerable thing for the big providers, but a very bad thing for the smallest of the providers who are desperately trying to compete with the largest carriers (Comcast, etc). The reason is that a company the size of Comcast can afford to pay the couple of full time staff needed to keep up with the record keeping requirements, but a smaller ISP just trying to provide service in a reasonably small area or even a portion of a state generally does not have the resources necessary to keep up with all of the filing requirements - even though that small ISP is generally going to be far less likely to do the 'evil' things that people thing that we need network neutrality for.
Or stated differently: The companies which most needed the regulation were the ones least affected by it.
We need to quit thinking that Internet can only be provided by the Cable company and the Phone company. There are thousands of small providers out there who are proving that it's not only possible for other to provide internet service, but that actually these smaller companies are often able to provide better service at a similar cost.
I would like to see a third option created. Title II is not the right solution. And Title I has no teeth. Congress will need to get involved, and a solution hashed out that both protects network neutrality yet is a far lighter approach than lumping internet providers into Title II.
Even locally, I'm aware of one which has started within my rather small community within the last couple of years years. There are also two older ones so there are now at least 3 different providers besides the telco and the cable company providing service to the area.
Another trade group which represents a large chunk of them has the other view regarding Title II.
The problem with Title II is that it replaces the free principles that the internet was founded on with overbearing regulations. An example: Let's assume that your neighborhood wasn't adequately served by internet service. You decide to do something about it. You start a small internet provider for your neighborhood, convincing all of your neighbors to invest. You go get an expensive resellable gigabit (or 10 gig) internet feed, and then run fiber from the feed to everyone's homes. Or use wireless technology to distribute it. Everyone is happy, until you realize that you are now an internet provider and have to also jump through the Title II hoops, which include a pile of regulations, and have to hire employees simply to comply with the government mandate.
There are many many small, independent internet providers out there which are feeling the pain of Title II. This isn't pain because of anything they've done wrong. If anything, they all are shining examples of how network neutrality should work. Fortunately, much of the regulatory burden of Title II has been deferred for these providers, and now won't be implemented - but this level of regulation definitely has a much heavier impact on a small internet provider with a handful of employees.
Everyone who is considering their position on this issue really should go read Ajit Pai's disssent on the original passing of the order classifying ISP's under Title II. It's available at on the FCC website. I would encourage everyone to read it to truly understand Commisioner Pai's position.
I also picked up Pascal and C shortly thereafter. C stuck, Pascal didn't. I seem to remember learning COBOL and PL/I at some point, along with a bit of fortran.
I've learned so many languages over the years, that I've lost count. Right now I have active projects going in C, HTML5/Javascript, and Python. It's gotten to the point where another language isn't a big deal: it's more about learning libraries than the language itself.
Java ranks near the top of my list in languages I prefer not to program in if I can avoid it.
So, they can't change the icon color. So, instead, they should just include a flaming phone icon. That should convey it perfectly.
My total code + static web page storage (in a small external flash) is around 196KB. That isn't anywhere near 32MB.
I'm in the process of moving to a PIC32 platform to be able to support HTTPS and IPv6, along with a lot of other functionality that needs to be in the next version of this product. This is still going to have a code size of well under 1MB (and probably more in the 3-400K range). So I'm not sure where people get off with saying that 32MB is "extremely resource constrained".
When you look at the output code from a C compiler, it tends to be small and fast, and relatively light on resources. In many cases, with modern compiler optimizations, the resulting code can actually be smaller and faster than all but assembly code written by someone who really knows how to optimize for a specific machine. Almost all embedded development work is done in either C or assembly, and C tends to be faster to write, and portable - so you can move the code to the next project if necessary.
Using any 'modern' object oriented language immediately adds a level of bloat which is generally not acceptable in places where C still shines. These modern programming languages are written for environments where a few extra bytes or a few extra cycles isn't going to cause a problem. When working on a resource-limited platform (aka where you'd kill for a few hundred KB of code space, and more than a few thousand bytes of ram) you're just not going to be able to use a modern language because of the overhead of an object oriented language.
I'd actually predict C is going to grow in the near term, just because of the growth of internet-connected low-resource devices. I actually develop products on a platform which has a complete TCP/IP stack (including web server and SNMP) running in less than 128KB (yes K not M) of memory. These and other similar small platforms are going to be the basis of the 'things' half of the internet of things, all of which are going to have C code at their base.
To handle people with disabilities, we have machines which mark an identical ballot using a special voting-machine like device. This allows those who can't mark a paper ballot to vote, yet still results in an auditable, paper, ballot.
Personally, I think we need to abolish electronic voting in any form which doesn't result in an auditable, verifyable, paper, ballot for each voter.
Having been the victim of tax identity theft two years in a row, you'd think those computers could be programmed in a way to detect say, multiple refunds going to the same bank account, or the same IP address submitting thousands of returns and shut these thieves down....or *gasp* even perhaps verify the data which is on a return before sending a refund check... You know, to stop the $5 BILLION in tax refund fraud every year....
At one spot in the store, I stopped and picked up a device I hadn't seen for years, and thankfully haven't had to touch one for much longer than that. And then realized that many of my younger networking peers wouldn't have a clue what the heck it was.
What was it you ask? A thicknet (10Base5) ethernet transciever.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we all hybrid descendants of the Cyclons and humans which fled the Twelve Colonies?
I personally use insteon for most everything, other than those things which seem better for m-wave - in my case, I use m-wave for door locks, thermostats, etc., which are somewhat slim picking on the insteon side. I like how the insteon works for power control, and m-wave seems way expensive and weird for that stuff.
I haven't yet purchased it so I can't say how it works, but I'm about ready to spring for a Elk M-1 panel in combination with a ISY-994i with their new (beta) m-wave radio. Looks like it should work great.
This helps future-proof the house.
I'd also consider/ensure the following:
1) Make sure there is a NEUTRAL at EVERY electrical box, including switches. Makes things lots easier. I've also gotten in the habit of using an additional conductor from the lightswitch to the light in case I decide to install a fan or similar.
2) Have the electrical contractor use the biggest box that will fit in the wall space. None of these cheap 2" deep things. 22 cubic inches is the size for a single gang box. They are roughly 3.5" deep (the width of a 2x4 wall stud). This is to accomodate the much larger volume of a home-automation switch and/or outlet.
3) Consider truss construction in spaces you'll have to run lots of wires through - it solves the issue with too many holes weakening the structure.
4) Take the advice of others on the thread, and do go ahead and install boxes with conduits on at least each wall. The conduits should be at least 3/4" - 1" would be better. If you've got a dropped ceiling or similar, they just need to be stubbed out into the ceiling/attic area. If you're enclosing, then they need to be run to a central closet or similar.
5) Don't forget satellite, cameras, etc. etc. etc. - run boxes/conduits for them as well.
6) In bedrooms, think about where the bed might be placed and make sure you have outlets on both sides of each bed position. In the master, if you know where the bed is going to be placed, consider adding nightstand height switches and/or boxes for automation controllers, cell chargers, etc.
I probably could keep coming up with other ideas, but that are the main ones...
Because of the work I do I have a collection of test gear I've accumulated over the years. The things which get the most use? The variable DC power supplies, the multimeters, and yes, the oscilloscope.
The oscilloscope occupies the spot right above where the target sits most of the time. I find it to be very useful to troubleshoot digital realm issues, including things which one would seem to think a logic analyzer would be perfect for. If I'm having a hard time getting two things to talk, say over an I2C bus, I reach for the scope first, since I can see whether or not the lines are toggling as expected. And if they're at the right voltages, and so on. I can also tell if the clock edges are correct and similar. This accounts for like 99% of the problems I run into that I need an external test instrument for.
Yes, I do have various logic analyzers. Two USB ones, a big one I'm about to sell on ebay, and a few more specialized ones (serial protocol analyzer, USB protocol analyzer). Most of the time they sit in their cases on the shelf.
-forrest
There's a jules verne short story called "in the year 2889" which is a very interesting read as well.. . I'd say in many ways he was describing 2013, not 2889...
Definitely worth the 5-10 minutes to read.
http://www.lp.org/platform
After all, a square company wouldn't know anything about circles....
Some links which will help you find people who are doing this already, and are more than willing to help you start down this path follows. Believe it or not, most operators in the WISP industry are pretty friendly and more than willing to help a new wisp get started with advice and the like.
www.wispa.org - The Industry Association for WISPS.
Animal Farm Users Group
Broadband Heroes Whitepaper
Wireless Cowboys Blog
I'm sure there are others. I'd start by reading what I can, probably joining the (free) email lists on a couple of the sites above, and asking questions. Everyone in the industry was a newbie sometime, and most of us remember what it was like to start out, often with about as much knowledge as you have.
Try this: P2P is like carrying something out of the store. Whether or not the action of carrying something out of a store is legal depends on various other things, and very few of them have to do with the actual method of conveying the object out of the store. Yes, P2P can be used for theft, but so can a shopping basket.
Great... replying to my own comment. I also meant to mention that It comes pre-loaded with OpenOffice so it's pretty much ready to go if your boss does slides in a way that is compatible with Openoffice.
The EEE PC is the right tool for the job... Cheap, and does powerpoint like a dream.
How much energy?
For me, I don't expect my usage to be any different at all with or without daylight savings time.
The thermostat setback time doesn't get changed summer to winter - it's pretty much always on MST time since that's when I care about it. And, even if it was an hour earlier/later, I can't see how it would make much difference... Sure, it's harder to heat against the temperature in the morning since it is colder in the early a.m. than late p.m., but I suspect we're talking pennies a day here.
Lighting isn't going to be different at all...