Jack Twilley wrote in message ...



It is interesting that your primary concern is to keep your
information secure -- that is indeed a very valid concern. The
approach you describe is the one that was followed at the defense
contractor where I started my career. It works very well for many
many cases and is "the right way" to handle most kinds of classified
information. However, there is a concern which isn't addressed by
your system, which is being a good Internet citizen and preventing
your computer from being used for Evil. You could care less if the
machine gets hacked, but if it gets hacked and used as an open proxy
for delivering spam or as part of a distributed denial of service
attack, your negligence leads directly to the economic losses of
others. That's something worth considering.

In this respect I do what everybody else with any common sense does. I
have Norton Anti-Virus up, running and current and I trash e-mail
attachemnts from folk I don't know as they come thru the gate. If
after that I'm still considered negligent then so be it.



Brian sells stamps, yadda, yadda. I have yet to run into a
Brian transaction or an instance of passing out any other type of
Brian sensitive info which was stymied by doing it offline.

In some ways it's harder to do business offline these days, but just
as you can still use a pulse telephone without Touch-Tone, you can
still use the phone instead of the Internet.

No question about it. I got along just ducky for my first 55 years
without the Internet and I expect to squeek thru a few more years
without some of it's conveniences.



Jack.

Brian w3rv

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: BPL Powers Off
From: (Brian Kelly)
Date: 8/19/2004 8:38 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:


Say you orbit a new, state of the art satellite. How much bandwidth
can it provide to how many customers?

A whole bunch. Even the old birds which have been up for years can
repeat something like 900 TV channels and those are not considered
high-capacity satellites.

That means 900 customers can have 6 MHz of bandwidth each. Or maybe 5400
can
have 1 MHz each.

That's with antique satellites, not with the monster birds being
tossed up these days each of which which has orders of magnitude more
capacity than the TV repeaters.

For the quality of TV programming provided today (with the possible
exclusion of Discovery, History Channel and TLC)

I moved over a year ago and have yet to power up my TV rcvr . . but
now that DVD players are getting dirt cheap and a Blockbusters is only
a few blocks down the street maybe I'll be able to watch TV sans the
electronic air pollution.

they could just use one of the
old ECHO balloon satellites for all they are worth.

Agreed.

73

Steve, K4YZ

w3rv

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:
In article . net,
"Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:


In the beginning of my problems the local power company sent out a
engineer.


A 'professional'...;-)


After about an hour of showing him the racket, discussing the levels and
how
it trashed the signals, he asked "what happens when you disconnect your
antenna". I replied with "the noise goes away". His reply "well there
it
is, just leave the antenna off".


I am...speechless.

Well he was right! 8^P

.....It hurts when I do this, Doc!.....

Some places idea of customer service is to try to convince the customer
that the problem is the customer's fault.

Dan's experience is about as Brazen as I've ever heard of tho'


My next step was a letter to the FCC and
the Public Service Commission.


I hope that when whatever resolution is had, that they will remember
that idiot Engineer.


- mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:
In article . net,
"Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

Some places idea of customer service is to try to convince the customer
that the problem is the customer's fault.

That was the case in Ohio when my 5-watts to a 1/4 wave vertical was getting
into one of Warner Cable's premium movie channels (using 146 MHz) - and
amplified up their line. I called Warner's customer service and complained
that their cable was leaking. The customer service person then informed me
that the problem was my antenna was leaking. I told her that's what antennas
are supposed to do; a letter from the FCC to Warner got the leaks taken care
of.

ak

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:


Say you orbit a new, state of the art satellite. How much bandwidth
can it provide to how many customers?

A whole bunch. Even the old birds which have been up for years can
repeat something like 900 TV channels and those are not considered
high-capacity satellites.

That means 900 customers can have 6 MHz of bandwidth each. Or maybe 5400
can
have 1 MHz each.

That's with antique satellites, not with the monster birds being
tossed up these days each of which which has orders of magnitude more
capacity than the TV repeaters.

Doesn't matter, they're still limited to the RF spectrum. Of which there is
only one. Each fiber is a whole new bunch of unshared spectrum.

When the satellite repeats a channel, it doesn't matter how many
people watch
it. Internet bandwidth is a completely different beast.

Welp, I read recently that several new satellite ISPs have jumped into
that biz so common sense indicates that they have to have unused
bandwidth available in copious supply or they wouldn't have opened
shop. Fact is that the demand for sattelite access is very
cost-limited which automatically keeps the need for bandwidth down to
manageable levels. Sattelite comms will continue to grow in markets
where the users are 'way out in the boonies where cables will never go
and they don't have any options and there are plenty of those. Then
comes the huge and growing market for sattelite mobile comms. And the
consumer market populated by folk who just like working the birds.

All of which says that while it's an answer for some, it's not a
general-purpose answer.

It appears to me that in the limit and ignoring some obvious realities
the Wi-fi vs. Satellite market competition won't be a competition. By
their very natures Wi-fi or some evloutionary form of Wi-fi will grab
the big pieces of the light-duty consumer and business travel markets
and the sattelites will continue to carry the heavy duty business
mobile and remote access comms.

Specialized tool in the toolbox for where other methods don't go.

And all this with the monster volume of *really* broadband military
sattelite comms sharing the RF spectrum with the commercials.

Compare that to what is
available in a single fiber. Also remember that once the duct is in
place, pulling another fiber isn't that expensive, and that new
technologies permit more bandwidth in existing fibers.

What "ducts"?? There aren't any ducts running into farms and vacation
lodges out in the boonies. They'll have the last mile problem for
years to come. Until the phone companies replace their twisted-pair
wiring with cable, fiber optic and otherwise.

I meant ducts that carry it to within a mile of the customer.

Many people in this country live twenty and more miles from anything
even vaguely resembling a cable. Wi-fi is never gonna reach them.

You'd be surprised at some of the boonie places that have Wi-Fi.

Ducts that go
across the country, etc. Satellites can't create another RF spectrum.

What's a "duct" anyway?

A pipe you can pull cable(s) and/or fiber(s) through. Usually installed along
various rights-of-way, such as interstate highways.

How many of those are running all over North
Dakota and Idaho??

More than you might suspect.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Jack Twilley
writes:

"N2EY" == n2ey writes:

[...]

N2EY One caveat!

N2EY A lot of folks are setting up their own little wireless
N2EY networks. The stuff is becoming cheaper than the cable it
N2EY replaces!

And for good reason. In my new location, I'm terrified to drill
through the walls (it's an old *solid* house that predates cheap
sheetrock by decades) but I've no trouble using wireless.

There's also the portability issue.

N2EY But not enough folks understand the need to encrypt. Without
N2EY good encryption of your network, anybody can drive by with a
N2EY lapper and access your network - and your hard drives, etc. Your
N2EY internet firewall won't help because your network thinks the
N2EY invader is *inside* your network, not outside. You need for the
N2EY network itself to be encrypted.

If someone truly sets up their network in this manner, they are truly
running a serious risk, as you describe. I've just moved, so I have
to reinstall my network, and it will actually be set up with two
wireless access points: one for the "inside", which will be
MAC-restricted and locked down with WEP (until my operating system
fully supports TKIP in which case I'll go up to that protocol), and
one which is "outside" for any and all comers to sit in the nearby
park and reach the internet. No traffic goes to the inside from the
outside, and both sides can see the internet, so life is good.

Are WEP and TKIP sufficiently secure?

N2EY Where's my RJ-45 plugs?

Put some time and effort into understanding exactly how to make it all
work properly, and you'll find that you need fewer RJ-45 plugs.

HAW! Well said!

N2EY 73 de Jim, N2EY

Oh, and I get that you're not talking about setting up your own
network in the encryption-free manner in which you describe.

No way! If I ever do go wireless, it'll be encrypted for sure!

I'm just
trying to show that there are many good ways to make wireless work
such that you can be friendly to your neighbors while protecting your
assets.

Jack.
(one of those paranoid computer security types)

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean nobody's out to get you...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"N2EY" == n2ey writes:

[... wireless is cheap and portable but needs to be secured ...]

Jack If someone truly sets up their network in this manner, they are
Jack truly running a serious risk, as you describe. I've just moved,
Jack so I have to reinstall my network, and it will actually be set
Jack up with two wireless access points: one for the "inside", which
Jack will be MAC-restricted and locked down with WEP (until my
Jack operating system fully supports TKIP in which case I'll go up to
Jack that protocol), and one which is "outside" for any and all
Jack comers to sit in the nearby park and reach the internet. No
Jack traffic goes to the inside from the outside, and both sides can
Jack see the internet, so life is good.

N2EY Are WEP and TKIP sufficiently secure?

For my purposes, they are. WEP is known to be breakable, and TKIP
hasn't yet been properly tested, but those are the link-level
encrypted layers. 95% of what I do is done through a VNC session
tunneled through SSH -- the combination of WEP/TKIP and SSH is such
that I'm comfortable typing my GPG passphrase over the link.

Jack.
- --
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFBKoi+GPFSfAB/ezgRAsx9AKDK6xFnjYZ8U27Pg28NiU9/R0YGzQCgzKc9
Roj2Viq0ikK3biziUqByKSE=
=jRtj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:


That means 900 customers can have 6 MHz of bandwidth each. Or maybe 5400
can
have 1 MHz each.

That's with antique satellites, not with the monster birds being
tossed up these days each of which which has orders of magnitude more
capacity than the TV repeaters.

Doesn't matter, they're still limited to the RF spectrum. Of which there is
only one.

There's only one RF spectrum but that doesn't mean that a given
frequency can only have one user. Digital comms satellite operating
frequencies are shared via a bunch of schemes.

Each fiber is a whole new bunch of unshared spectrum.

Obviously fiber optics is the better choice vs. the satellites *IF*
the cable is in the neighborhood where service is needed. Big if.
It'll be years before optics cables are run into crossroads burgs and
made available for their use as neighborhood Wi-Fi feeds. I've watched
optics cables being run through places like Malvern. Took a tech
working in an air-conditioned mobile lab a full day to make and test a
single 1 1/2 inch splice. Which did not incxlude a repeater. Takes one
helluva lot of revenue traffic to justify those kinds of installation
outlays and that's why optics is a non-answer today except as
long-haul and/or enormous volume data pipes. Fiber optics cables are
cheaper and can provide more bandwidth than the old AT&T & Ma Bell
microwave systems and that's about as far as they've taken the optics
cables so far.

In the meanwhile back at the ranch the sattelites are already up and
running . .

What "ducts"?? There aren't any ducts running into farms and vacation
lodges out in the boonies. They'll have the last mile problem for
years to come. Until the phone companies replace their twisted-pair
wiring with cable, fiber optic and otherwise.

I meant ducts that carry it to within a mile of the customer.

Many people in this country live twenty and more miles from anything
even vaguely resembling a cable. Wi-fi is never gonna reach them.

You'd be surprised at some of the boonie places that have Wi-Fi.

Like that remote village in Nepal which gets it's broadband feed from
a satellite . . ?

What's a "duct" anyway?

A pipe you can pull cable(s) and/or fiber(s) through. Usually installed along
various rights-of-way, such as interstate highways.

How many of those are running all over North
Dakota and Idaho??

More than you might suspect.

I doubt it. Where's the map?


73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

That means 900 customers can have 6 MHz of bandwidth each. Or maybe 5400
can
have 1 MHz each.

That's with antique satellites, not with the monster birds being
tossed up these days each of which which has orders of magnitude more
capacity than the TV repeaters.

Doesn't matter, they're still limited to the RF spectrum. Of which there is
only one.

There's only one RF spectrum but that doesn't mean that a given
frequency can only have one user. Digital comms satellite operating
frequencies are shared via a bunch of schemes.

To a certain extent. But ultimately there's a very definite limit. You can't
put geostationary satellites just anyplace in the sky, either.

End result is that the total capacity of satellite retransmission is limited.
There's also the transmission delay.

Each fiber is a whole new bunch of unshared spectrum.

Obviously fiber optics is the better choice vs. the satellites *IF*
the cable is in the neighborhood where service is needed. Big if.

Yep. But for bazillions of folks, it is.

It'll be years before optics cables are run into crossroads burgs and
made available for their use as neighborhood Wi-Fi feeds. I've watched
optics cables being run through places like Malvern. Took a tech
working in an air-conditioned mobile lab a full day to make and test a
single 1 1/2 inch splice.

When was this? Things have improved somewhat.

Which did not incxlude a repeater. Takes one
helluva lot of revenue traffic to justify those kinds of installation
outlays and that's why optics is a non-answer today except as
long-haul and/or enormous volume data pipes. Fiber optics cables are
cheaper and can provide more bandwidth than the old AT&T & Ma Bell
microwave systems and that's about as far as they've taken the optics
cables so far.

In the meanwhile back at the ranch the sattelites are already up and
running . .

Sure. And they'll play a role.

But as a general-purpose solution, fiber will dominate. In fact, it already
does. Satellite broadband comms will always be a supplement.

What "ducts"?? There aren't any ducts running into farms and vacation
lodges out in the boonies. They'll have the last mile problem for
years to come. Until the phone companies replace their twisted-pair
wiring with cable, fiber optic and otherwise.

I meant ducts that carry it to within a mile of the customer.

Many people in this country live twenty and more miles from anything
even vaguely resembling a cable. Wi-fi is never gonna reach them.

You'd be surprised at some of the boonie places that have Wi-Fi.

Like that remote village in Nepal which gets it's broadband feed from
a satellite . . ?

Sure!

What's a "duct" anyway?

A pipe you can pull cable(s) and/or fiber(s) through. Usually installed
along various rights-of-way, such as interstate highways.

How many of those are running all over North
Dakota and Idaho??

More than you might suspect.

I doubt it. Where's the map?

Not allowed to tell ya!

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Jack Twilley
writes:

"N2EY" == n2ey writes:

[... wireless is cheap and portable but needs to be secured ...]

Jack If someone truly sets up their network in this manner, they are
Jack truly running a serious risk, as you describe. I've just moved,
Jack so I have to reinstall my network, and it will actually be set
Jack up with two wireless access points: one for the "inside", which
Jack will be MAC-restricted and locked down with WEP (until my
Jack operating system fully supports TKIP in which case I'll go up to
Jack that protocol), and one which is "outside" for any and all
Jack comers to sit in the nearby park and reach the internet. No
Jack traffic goes to the inside from the outside, and both sides can
Jack see the internet, so life is good.

N2EY Are WEP and TKIP sufficiently secure?

For my purposes, they are. WEP is known to be breakable, and TKIP
hasn't yet been properly tested, but those are the link-level
encrypted layers. 95% of what I do is done through a VNC session
tunneled through SSH -- the combination of WEP/TKIP and SSH is such
that I'm comfortable typing my GPG passphrase over the link.


Thanks for the advice, Jack. Will keep it in mind if I ever go to wireless
networking.

73 de Jim, N2EY