Good point.. But it isn't just a few other models - almost every DVD player I have ever seen has unlock codes via the remote control. If the shop doesn't give you a piece of paper with the unlock codes on it, then you just go to the various sites on the net and look them up. I won't buy a DVD player unless it has the ability to be unlocked - why would I buy something that ends up being limited in that it can't play the discs that I bought when I was living (quite legally) in other countries? Am I expected to buy a new DVD player in each region at the behest of the MPAA? I don't think so...
Interesting idea, but consider this. You should know already what the percentage of tax in a given state is. Will it make a difference to you? Will you purchase in a different state instead? Since the information is given to you at the time of actually making the purchase, it will be too late to change your mind. I'm sorry I can't follow your logic here.
In countries where the sales tax (or value added tax) is included by law (like the all the other countries) take a look at your receipt. Under the total it will list how much of this was tax, both in percentage terms and in currency terms. If you want to know what this component is prior to purchase - well since the tax rate is almost always the same in any given country, you can easily figure it out if it is a big deal to you.
So far you are the first person I've ever heard of that enjoys getting surprised at the cash register. I've also met plenty of Americans who try to defend the system of NOT stating the alcohol content of alcoholic drinks (e.g. beer) on the bottles, whereas to keep the consumer in the dark about how much alcohol they are consuming would be illegal everywhere else, but hey at least you have a warning on the bottle saying that consumption of alcohol could impair your ability to drive a vehicle (really?). My point here is that are you indicating a preference for something that everyone else seems to hate merely because that's the system you grew up with? I always admire countries that are smart enough to look at what other countries are doing and adopt the best practices. With that in mind, don't even get me started on the fact that the US is the last country in the world NOT to use the metric system...
I think a much better idea of a free market is one where buyer and seller must deal with each other in a clear and transparent manner. Corporations will always try tricks to give themselves and advantage over a consumer. Regulation, as long as it is not excessive is often needed to protect some of the consumers interests. Surely even the biggest fans of minimal government would even have to conceed that without some regulation consumers would be taken to the cleaners?
Other countries have free markets as well, and they don't have mail in rebates. And when mail-in rebates are the order of the day, and everyone is doing them, what real choice does the consumer have?
Are there other countries doing this? I must admit I haven't been everywhere, but I've been to a quite a few countries, and usually when something is advertised at a price, that's the price it is. You don't have to "earn" your discount by performing some sort of (irritating) action after the purchase.
So is this done anywhere outside of the US? If I suggested this idea to my friends and neighbours they'd probably look at my like I was crazy.
I mean, let's think about the process. The consumer fills in a form, and mails it to the company. The company then has to fill in another form (known as a cheque, or since it is the US I suppose we'd better call it a check), and post it back to the consumer. The consumer then takes the check and posts it to their bank. Their bank then processes, creates additional paperwork and posts it to the company's bank to verify the signature. Presumably at that point the money transfer is done electronically.
Is there something wrong with this? Are not a lot of resources being consumed unnecessarily? Why do they persist with this stupidity? Why don't governments simply pass laws to encourage retailers and manufacturers to deal in a more straightforward way with consumers?
I find this announcement from Cisco quite puzzelling. It's not really a mesh - more of a star. A true mesh means that each node can talk to many other nodes. In Cisco's proposed solution they have a central node attaching (via 802.11a) to remote nodes in what seems like a star configuration.
In a true mesh topology only one node requires a wired connection, and the traffic can be routed through nodes which attach to this node to nodes further away. If I understand Cisco's idea of a "mesh" the end nodes (the ones in the street lights) etc cannot route anything to any other nodes.
Now the interesting thing is that people have been building mesh networks for a few years now. They take the very inexpensive WRTG54G, and put a linux image on it. From that point on it's a matter of using open source software (available in various shapes and forms) to make this very inexpensive box into a true mesh node.
I think another point which is being lost here is that people (including municipalities) want to roll these things out at low cost. Because nobody wants to pay huge money to access them, and the coverage of an individual node is so small, the cost per access point must be low, and I mean REALLY low (like under $100). Cisco will never provide a solution for these costs - that's just not how they work.
So in the Cisco solution we have to also have a tower, so we can blast out 802.11a signal to all the nodes - also not very desirable. What if we want to cover a few streets and don't have proper line of sight? Suddenly it means multiple towers and escalating costs. A true mesh network hands the signal between adjacent nodes so line of sight isn't always needed to cover an area.
There are people out there rolling out working mesh networks right now, yet we are reading how there is big demand for this "new" technology. Please... Or am I missing something here?
The only problem I see with the existing solutions based on the WRTG54G is that it isn't an outdoor device. What we need is for someone to design a little box with very lower power consumption that can handle outdoor environments, and still keep it as low cost...
Let's not forget one very simple difference here.
When you flew to London, you were probably asked this information by the IMMIGRATION authorities. The information they asked for was most likely limited to an address where you would be staying. This is often found on the landing cards for most countries.
The difference here is that the information was being asked for by the airline, and not an immigration official. It was being asked for before he even stepped onto the plane, and a more detailed itinerary was being requested, for each place he was going to stay, and the names of the people he was staying with.
I'm sure you can see - this is not the same thing.
Ok, so now you are probably more confused than when you started. People are bombarding you with stuff like "use different channels", "why not cable each AP" etc. Your basic idea is to avoid ethernet cables to the APs and personally I think this is a good idea, as you may find you have to stick extra APs in all sorts of out-of-the-way places to cover black spots. I'll continue this post on the assumption that you are going to stick with this plan and use radio to feed the APs rather than cable.
(note: your biggest issue in this is going to be which access points to use - more on this later)
Different channels? - This WOULD be an issue if you were cabling each AP to a network behind. But since your APs must talk to each other then ALL your APs must be on the same channel. Now I'll have to start with a couple of disclaimers before everyone jumps on me. This means that your overall bandwidth will be reduced. In an office environment this type of scenario of having many APs sharing the same bandwidth is not acceptable. HOWEVER in your case most of your traffic is going to the internet, and your pipe to the internet is limited anyway. Therefore this isn't a big issue for you. There is an alternative design where you use one set of APs on one channel for your feeder network, and a different set on a different channel for your access network. This doubles the amount you have to spend on APs, and won't make a huge difference in your setup anyway (more later when I talk about APs and their limitations).
Now when your APs talk to each other they are using bridging mode. Many manufactures support bridging mode. When clients talk to the AP they are using what I'll call client access mode. Pretty much all the manufactures support this (naturally). So fine, everything sounds good right?
Well if you really read the fine print (assuming it even exists on the website of the manufacturer) you'll see that there are almost no manufacturers that support both bridging mode and client access mode AT THE SAME TIME IN THE SAME AP. Usually the vendor will propose a design where one AP handles the bridging to the central AP, and this AP is then connected via an ethernet cable to the back of a second AP which provides the client access on a different channel.
But there is good news, there are some APs that can do both modes at the same time.
They are (as far as I know - happy to be corrected here): Cisco 350 (and probably the more expensive ones), a HP model (can't remember the model number), the Apple Airport Extreme, and the Meshbook.
The Cisco 350 is a little pricey but will give you better range due to the fact that it can output the full 100mW. It also supports power over ethernet natively (not an issue in your config though), and is available in a rugged outdoor version. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/wireless/ps 458/index.html
I'm not familiar with the HP one, so I won't talk about it here.
The apple airport extreme is very interesting because of its low cost. It is the only AP in the low end price range which can do client access and bridging at the same time. You'll have to use an external antenna with it because the internal antenna will not be powerful enough for your needs. It won't output the same power as the Cisco though. If cost is an issue this is the one you want, though with the Cisco you may end up with less access points and therefore save money. http://www.apple.com/airport/
Something that is very interesting is the meshbook at http://www.meshbook.com it is an AP running linux and some open source software which solves a lot of the problems of community networks. When you use a Cisco or Apple AP you are going to be able to use only a single exit point to the internet, but the meshbook is much smarter and a collection of these in a network together will be able to load share to multiple exit points. This way you could get two feeds in at either end of the complex, and if you placed a few extra meshbooks into the design for
I'm sold on the Environizer, but the RS website says the version they sell is 120VAC only. Does anyone know where I could buy this in Switzerland? Perhaps it is sold under a different product name? I did a search with google but could not find anything.
Any help would be most appreciated.
What you are describing is possible! There is an open source project called "Open AP". This is a tiny linux image and runs on the access point. Problems such as load sharing multiple connections, multipoint-to-multipoint bridging etc are solved! Read this for more info and some further links:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/59/28972.html
Also, there is now a smaller version of the meshbox called the meshbook -
http://www.meshbook.com
Slashdot Mirror
Good point.. But it isn't just a few other models - almost every DVD player I have ever seen has unlock codes via the remote control. If the shop doesn't give you a piece of paper with the unlock codes on it, then you just go to the various sites on the net and look them up. I won't buy a DVD player unless it has the ability to be unlocked - why would I buy something that ends up being limited in that it can't play the discs that I bought when I was living (quite legally) in other countries? Am I expected to buy a new DVD player in each region at the behest of the MPAA? I don't think so...
Interesting idea, but consider this. You should know already what the percentage of tax in a given state is. Will it make a difference to you? Will you purchase in a different state instead? Since the information is given to you at the time of actually making the purchase, it will be too late to change your mind. I'm sorry I can't follow your logic here.
In countries where the sales tax (or value added tax) is included by law (like the all the other countries) take a look at your receipt. Under the total it will list how much of this was tax, both in percentage terms and in currency terms. If you want to know what this component is prior to purchase - well since the tax rate is almost always the same in any given country, you can easily figure it out if it is a big deal to you.
So far you are the first person I've ever heard of that enjoys getting surprised at the cash register. I've also met plenty of Americans who try to defend the system of NOT stating the alcohol content of alcoholic drinks (e.g. beer) on the bottles, whereas to keep the consumer in the dark about how much alcohol they are consuming would be illegal everywhere else, but hey at least you have a warning on the bottle saying that consumption of alcohol could impair your ability to drive a vehicle (really?). My point here is that are you indicating a preference for something that everyone else seems to hate merely because that's the system you grew up with? I always admire countries that are smart enough to look at what other countries are doing and adopt the best practices. With that in mind, don't even get me started on the fact that the US is the last country in the world NOT to use the metric system...
I think a much better idea of a free market is one where buyer and seller must deal with each other in a clear and transparent manner. Corporations will always try tricks to give themselves and advantage over a consumer. Regulation, as long as it is not excessive is often needed to protect some of the consumers interests. Surely even the biggest fans of minimal government would even have to conceed that without some regulation consumers would be taken to the cleaners? Other countries have free markets as well, and they don't have mail in rebates. And when mail-in rebates are the order of the day, and everyone is doing them, what real choice does the consumer have?
Are there other countries doing this? I must admit I haven't been everywhere, but I've been to a quite a few countries, and usually when something is advertised at a price, that's the price it is. You don't have to "earn" your discount by performing some sort of (irritating) action after the purchase.
So is this done anywhere outside of the US? If I suggested this idea to my friends and neighbours they'd probably look at my like I was crazy.
I mean, let's think about the process. The consumer fills in a form, and mails it to the company. The company then has to fill in another form (known as a cheque, or since it is the US I suppose we'd better call it a check), and post it back to the consumer. The consumer then takes the check and posts it to their bank. Their bank then processes, creates additional paperwork and posts it to the company's bank to verify the signature. Presumably at that point the money transfer is done electronically.
Is there something wrong with this? Are not a lot of resources being consumed unnecessarily? Why do they persist with this stupidity? Why don't governments simply pass laws to encourage retailers and manufacturers to deal in a more straightforward way with consumers?
Or am I missing something here?
I find this announcement from Cisco quite puzzelling. It's not really a mesh - more of a star. A true mesh means that each node can talk to many other nodes. In Cisco's proposed solution they have a central node attaching (via 802.11a) to remote nodes in what seems like a star configuration.
In a true mesh topology only one node requires a wired connection, and the traffic can be routed through nodes which attach to this node to nodes further away. If I understand Cisco's idea of a "mesh" the end nodes (the ones in the street lights) etc cannot route anything to any other nodes.
Now the interesting thing is that people have been building mesh networks for a few years now. They take the very inexpensive WRTG54G, and put a linux image on it. From that point on it's a matter of using open source software (available in various shapes and forms) to make this very inexpensive box into a true mesh node.
I think another point which is being lost here is that people (including municipalities) want to roll these things out at low cost. Because nobody wants to pay huge money to access them, and the coverage of an individual node is so small, the cost per access point must be low, and I mean REALLY low (like under $100). Cisco will never provide a solution for these costs - that's just not how they work.
So in the Cisco solution we have to also have a tower, so we can blast out 802.11a signal to all the nodes - also not very desirable. What if we want to cover a few streets and don't have proper line of sight? Suddenly it means multiple towers and escalating costs. A true mesh network hands the signal between adjacent nodes so line of sight isn't always needed to cover an area.
There are people out there rolling out working mesh networks right now, yet we are reading how there is big demand for this "new" technology. Please... Or am I missing something here?
The only problem I see with the existing solutions based on the WRTG54G is that it isn't an outdoor device. What we need is for someone to design a little box with very lower power consumption that can handle outdoor environments, and still keep it as low cost...
Just my two cents' worth.
Let's not forget one very simple difference here. When you flew to London, you were probably asked this information by the IMMIGRATION authorities. The information they asked for was most likely limited to an address where you would be staying. This is often found on the landing cards for most countries. The difference here is that the information was being asked for by the airline, and not an immigration official. It was being asked for before he even stepped onto the plane, and a more detailed itinerary was being requested, for each place he was going to stay, and the names of the people he was staying with. I'm sure you can see - this is not the same thing.
Anyone looking for the tsunami videos can also now find them on edonkey/emule:a ryinsanity.org.wmv
a nity.org.wmv
n sanity.org.wmv
i nsanity.org.avi
tsunami_asia_261204_patong_beach___from_contempor
tsunami_asia_261204_phuket___from_contemporaryins
tsunami_asia_261204_srilanka___from_contemporaryi
tsunami_asia_261204_zeebeving___from_contemporary
Ok, so now you are probably more confused than when you started. People are bombarding you with stuff like "use different channels", "why not cable each AP" etc. Your basic idea is to avoid ethernet cables to the APs and personally I think this is a good idea, as you may find you have to stick extra APs in all sorts of out-of-the-way places to cover black spots. I'll continue this post on the assumption that you are going to stick with this plan and use radio to feed the APs rather than cable.
(note: your biggest issue in this is going to be which access points to use - more on this later)
Different channels? - This WOULD be an issue if you were cabling each AP to a network behind. But since your APs must talk to each other then ALL your APs must be on the same channel. Now I'll have to start with a couple of disclaimers before everyone jumps on me. This means that your overall bandwidth will be reduced. In an office environment this type of scenario of having many APs sharing the same bandwidth is not acceptable. HOWEVER in your case most of your traffic is going to the internet, and your pipe to the internet is limited anyway. Therefore this isn't a big issue for you. There is an alternative design where you use one set of APs on one channel for your feeder network, and a different set on a different channel for your access network. This doubles the amount you have to spend on APs, and won't make a huge difference in your setup anyway (more later when I talk about APs and their limitations).
Now when your APs talk to each other they are using bridging mode. Many manufactures support bridging mode. When clients talk to the AP they are using what I'll call client access mode. Pretty much all the manufactures support this (naturally). So fine, everything sounds good right?
Well if you really read the fine print (assuming it even exists on the website of the manufacturer) you'll see that there are almost no manufacturers that support both bridging mode and client access mode AT THE SAME TIME IN THE SAME AP. Usually the vendor will propose a design where one AP handles the bridging to the central AP, and this AP is then connected via an ethernet cable to the back of a second AP which provides the client access on a different channel.
But there is good news, there are some APs that can do both modes at the same time.
They are (as far as I know - happy to be corrected here): Cisco 350 (and probably the more expensive ones), a HP model (can't remember the model number), the Apple Airport Extreme, and the Meshbook.
The Cisco 350 is a little pricey but will give you better range due to the fact that it can output the full 100mW. It also supports power over ethernet natively (not an issue in your config though), and is available in a rugged outdoor version. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/wireless/ps 458/index.html
I'm not familiar with the HP one, so I won't talk about it here.
The apple airport extreme is very interesting because of its low cost. It is the only AP in the low end price range which can do client access and bridging at the same time. You'll have to use an external antenna with it because the internal antenna will not be powerful enough for your needs. It won't output the same power as the Cisco though. If cost is an issue this is the one you want, though with the Cisco you may end up with less access points and therefore save money. http://www.apple.com/airport/
Something that is very interesting is the meshbook at http://www.meshbook.com it is an AP running linux and some open source software which solves a lot of the problems of community networks. When you use a Cisco or Apple AP you are going to be able to use only a single exit point to the internet, but the meshbook is much smarter and a collection of these in a network together will be able to load share to multiple exit points. This way you could get two feeds in at either end of the complex, and if you placed a few extra meshbooks into the design for
I'm sold on the Environizer, but the RS website says the version they sell is 120VAC only. Does anyone know where I could buy this in Switzerland? Perhaps it is sold under a different product name? I did a search with google but could not find anything. Any help would be most appreciated.
What you are describing is possible! There is an open source project called "Open AP". This is a tiny linux image and runs on the access point. Problems such as load sharing multiple connections, multipoint-to-multipoint bridging etc are solved! Read this for more info and some further links: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/59/28972.html
Also, there is now a smaller version of the meshbox called the meshbook -
http://www.meshbook.com