From jeff at digitalguy.net Tue Oct 1 00:44:47 2002 From: jeff at digitalguy.net (Jeff Lehman) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:41 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] october 2002 meeting postponed ... In-Reply-To: <20020930091358.A31174@botwerks.org>; from sulrich@botwerks.org on Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 09:13:58AM -0500 References: <20020930091358.A31174@botwerks.org> Message-ID: <20021001001055.A27961@sarah.digitalguy.net> steve ulrich (sulrich@botwerks.org) wrote: > > all- > > due to some rather pressing engagements this week i will not be able > to host the meeting this week and the other cisco backups that i had > lined up to cover for me in the event of this are unavailable as well. > The only Tuesday that I get off work is the first Tuesday of the month :( Oh well, I guess you can't please everyone. > my apologies for the snafu this month. > > -- > steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org > PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From poptix at techmonkeys.org Tue Oct 1 18:52:13 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:41 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] october 2002 meeting postponed ... In-Reply-To: <20020930121619.A18803@hexapodia.org>; from adi@hexapodia.org on Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 12:16:19PM -0500 References: <20020930091358.A31174@botwerks.org> <20020930121619.A18803@hexapodia.org> Message-ID: <20021001174122.V3718@techmonkeys.org> On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 12:16:19PM -0500, Andy Isaacson wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 09:13:58AM -0500, steve ulrich wrote: > > andy warner has prepared his RF primer and we're coordinating the > > alternate meeting dates. more on this as it happens. information on > > alternate dates for this month that work for folks would be > > appreciated. > > Tuesday the 10th seems like a good second choice. > Of which month? =) October 2002 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 I assume you meant the 8th, I'm all for the 8th as well, assuming this works out with the Cisco guys for hosting the meeting. > -andy -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From cncole at earthlink.net Tue Oct 1 23:45:39 2002 From: cncole at earthlink.net (Chuck Cole) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:41 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Antenna "boosters", etc Message-ID: <002401c269cc$b801b640$6f01a8c0@HPZT> Jeff asked where I saw these notices, so I thought others might enjoy the references... Fraudulent cell phone antenna boosters described here: http://cellantenna.com/internal_cell_phone_antenna.htm also sold with similarly fraudulent "radiation shields": http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/cellshlds.htm I'm not sure that the ad I saw for lead-lined jeans was a joke... might have been a product for sale! Be careful! The power output of a typical wireless card or cell phone is much more than a million times the natural radiation around "sensitive parts", so maybe TCWUG should make some public service announcements... --- Chuck From poptix at techmonkeys.org Wed Oct 2 15:59:07 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:41 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Antenna "boosters", etc In-Reply-To: <002401c269cc$b801b640$6f01a8c0@HPZT>; from cncole@earthlink.net on Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 11:32:23PM -0500 References: <002401c269cc$b801b640$6f01a8c0@HPZT> Message-ID: <20021002143149.Y3718@techmonkeys.org> On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 11:32:23PM -0500, Chuck Cole wrote: > Jeff asked where I saw these notices, so I thought others might enjoy the > references... > > Fraudulent cell phone antenna boosters described here: > http://cellantenna.com/internal_cell_phone_antenna.htm http://www.kmsp.com/news/watchdog/baillon_buyit/story.asp?content_id=986510 KMSP did a test a while ago in a real testing center, it's amazing what stupid things people will buy. Of course, these _are_ the people holding a device that puts out somewhere between 1/2 watt and 3 watts right next to their brain. > > also sold with similarly fraudulent "radiation shields": > http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/cellshlds.htm > > I'm not sure that the ad I saw for lead-lined jeans was a joke... might have > been a product for sale! Be careful! The power output of a typical > wireless card or cell phone is much more than a million times the natural > radiation around "sensitive parts", so maybe TCWUG should make some public > service announcements... > > --- > Chuck You might be interested in their other stories as well: http://www.kmsp.com/news/watchdog/baillon_buyit/default.asp Including such beauties as the TeleZapper, Ink Jet Refill Kit, and of course the Pro Trim Paint Roller. -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From spencer at autonomous.tv Wed Oct 2 16:34:49 2002 From: spencer at autonomous.tv (SpencerUnderground) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:41 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Moos Install Message-ID: <20021002211547.GM31479@tcopensys.com> Tcwug has been donated gear to do a "semi-permanent" install on Moos Tower. And an agreement has been made to provide enough gear for at least 2 of the 4 planed radios for Moos. The donor is Arnan Services Inc. (the company I work for). The arrangement is straightforward. Arnan provides the gear necesary for the tcwug/ham nodes on Moos and in return has access to the "backup" gear that will be installed as the "semi-permanent" node, the node that we will be installing shortly. This first node is meant mainly to test the waters of the topology and interferance issues. We plan to move quickly to setting up a node that will service the wug/ham on a permanent nature. We currently have gear in inventory that can fill the "semi-permanent" position I speak of. The other gear must be ordered. Ben has suggested using a soekris box with the demark 180mw cards for each side of the building. These units have room for two cards and also have two NIC's on board (sorry no URL http://soekris.com/ it is the net4521). So my question is who would like to help install this gear? And what days/times are good for those interested? We can do this as early as tommorow from a gear standpoint. Thoughts... -- --*--SpencerUnderground--*-- http://autonomous.tv/ spencer@autonomous.tv Key fingerprint = 173B 8760 E59F DBF8 6FD2 68F8 ABA2 AB08 49C7 4754 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20021002/608ff838/attachment.pgp From chrome at real-time.com Wed Oct 2 16:50:10 2002 From: chrome at real-time.com (Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:41 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Moos Install In-Reply-To: <20021002211547.GM31479@tcopensys.com>; from spencer@autonomous.tv on Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 04:15:47PM -0500 References: <20021002211547.GM31479@tcopensys.com> Message-ID: <20021002164441.W31833@real-time.com> > So my question is who would like to help install this gear? And what > days/times are good for those interested? We can do this as early as > tommorow from a gear standpoint. I'd like to see the donated gear brought to a TCWUG meeting (including the soekris box); just so we can drool over the gear and shake someone's hand in thanks for it. :) Carl Soderstrom. -- Systems Administrator Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com From jeff at digitalguy.net Wed Oct 2 22:21:16 2002 From: jeff at digitalguy.net (Jeff Lehman) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:41 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Moos Install In-Reply-To: <20021002211547.GM31479@tcopensys.com>; from spencer@autonomous.tv on Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 04:15:47PM -0500 References: <20021002211547.GM31479@tcopensys.com> Message-ID: <20021002220739.B29943@sarah.digitalguy.net> SpencerUnderground (spencer@autonomous.tv) wrote: > > So my question is who would like to help install this gear? And what > days/times are good for those interested? We can do this as early as > tommorow from a gear standpoint. > > Thoughts... > I'd love to help install it. I'm free sat nights, all day sunday, and wed nights. Hopefully that works :) > -- > --*--SpencerUnderground--*-- > http://autonomous.tv/ spencer@autonomous.tv > Key fingerprint = 173B 8760 E59F DBF8 6FD2 68F8 ABA2 AB08 49C7 4754 > From dieman at ringworld.org Wed Oct 2 23:12:09 2002 From: dieman at ringworld.org (Scott Dier) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:41 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Re: Moos Install In-Reply-To: <20021002211547.GM31479@tcopensys.com> References: <20021002211547.GM31479@tcopensys.com> Message-ID: <1033617344.875.6.camel@runabout> On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 16:15, SpencerUnderground wrote: > So my question is who would like to help install this gear? And what > days/times are good for those interested? We can do this as early as > tommorow from a gear standpoint. Linux or otherwise? What chipset are the demark cards, prism2[.5]? Do we want to use host_ap under linux? I'm pretty knowledgable with linux and the host_ap stuff. I've got a AP here with a prism 2.5 PCI card that I've been using for the last few months that is pretty stable these days. -- Scott Dier KC0OBS http://www.ringworld.org/ From spencer at autonomous.tv Thu Oct 3 00:51:59 2002 From: spencer at autonomous.tv (SpencerUnderground) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:41 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Re: Moos Install In-Reply-To: <1033617344.875.6.camel@runabout> References: <20021002211547.GM31479@tcopensys.com> <1033617344.875.6.camel@runabout> Message-ID: <20021003053932.GR31479@tcopensys.com> On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 10:55:38PM -0500, Scott Dier wrote: >On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 16:15, SpencerUnderground wrote: > >> So my question is who would like to help install this gear? And what >> days/times are good for those interested? We can do this as early as >> tommorow from a gear standpoint. > >Linux or otherwise? What chipset are the demark cards, prism2[.5]? Do >we want to use host_ap under linux? yes http://www.demarctech.com/products/reliawave-rwz/reliawave-rwz-180mw-prism2-5-pcmcia-card.html > >I'm pretty knowledgable with linux and the host_ap stuff. I've got a AP >here with a prism 2.5 PCI card that I've been using for the last few >months that is pretty stable these days. I think host_ap is a great choice. > >-- >Scott Dier KC0OBS http://www.ringworld.org/ > >_______________________________________________ >Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota >http://www.tcwug.org >tcwug-list@tcwug.org >https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list -- --*--SpencerUnderground--*-- http://autonomous.tv/ spencer@autonomous.tv Key fingerprint = 173B 8760 E59F DBF8 6FD2 68F8 ABA2 AB08 49C7 4754 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20021003/7d93ef30/attachment.pgp From dieman at ringworld.org Thu Oct 3 16:10:06 2002 From: dieman at ringworld.org (Scott Dier) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:41 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Note Message-ID: <1033678708.6494.10.camel@runabout> Note and disclaimer since someone didn't care to try and figure this out First: I work for UMN. My mailings to this list have no relationship with UMN and should not be considered any sort of official capacity of UMN. I am doing this purely for hobby at this point and have not been organizing the parts of the UMN facilities issues. In theory, I believe the Gopher Amateur Radio Club is involved officially in this aspect. Secondly: I am not a officer of the Gopher Amateur Radio Club, therefore, I also can't speak in an sort of official capacity on any such topics that require an official response. -- This is not to be mean, however I am recieving some private emails that I will refuse to respond to because I'm definately not the correct person to respond. Thanks! -- Scott Dier KC0OBS http://www.ringworld.org/ From mgenelin at ieee.umn.edu Thu Oct 3 20:48:23 2002 From: mgenelin at ieee.umn.edu (mgenelin@ieee.umn.edu) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:42 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Note In-Reply-To: <1033678708.6494.10.camel@runabout> References: <1033678708.6494.10.camel@runabout> Message-ID: <3212.128.101.171.206.1033695255.squirrel@www.ieee.umn.edu> Hey Scott- No worries here, Scott. I believe that most of us here are involved in TC-WUG because we are hobbiests, and not interested in personal gain. Then again, this statement is not reflective *all* of us. =) Yes, The Gopher Amateur Radio Club (Ben and I) proposed this project to TC-WUG a few months ago. Perhaps the list archives would be a good thing to read for the new comers. =) Regards, ---Matthew Genelin--- President, Gopher Amateur Radio Club at The University of Minnesota > Note and disclaimer since someone didn't care to try and figure this out > First: > > I work for UMN. My mailings to this list have no relationship with UMN > and should not be considered any sort of official capacity of UMN. I am > doing this purely for hobby at this point and have not been organizing > the parts of the UMN facilities issues. In theory, I believe the Gopher > Amateur Radio Club is involved officially in this aspect. > > Secondly: > > I am not a officer of the Gopher Amateur Radio Club, therefore, I also > can't speak in an sort of official capacity on any such topics that > require an official response. > > -- > > This is not to be mean, however I am recieving some private emails that > I will refuse to respond to because I'm definately not the correct > person to respond. > > Thanks! > > -- > Scott Dier KC0OBS http://www.ringworld.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, > Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From cncole at earthlink.net Fri Oct 4 03:05:54 2002 From: cncole at earthlink.net (Chuck Cole) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:42 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] EMF safety clothing - was: Antenna "boosters", etc In-Reply-To: <20021002143149.Y3718@techmonkeys.org> Message-ID: <001d01c26b7a$579d6470$6f01a8c0@HPZT> I was looking for something quite different and found this: http://www.lessemf.com/personal.html Not lead-lined, but... probably essential when doing rooftop work near antenna farms :-) > -----Original Message----- > From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On > Behalf Of Matthew S. Hallacy > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 3:32 PM > To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org > Subject: Re: [TCWUG] Antenna "boosters", etc > > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 11:32:23PM -0500, Chuck Cole wrote: > > Jeff asked where I saw these notices, so I thought others > might enjoy the > > references... > > > > Fraudulent cell phone antenna boosters described here: > > http://cellantenna.com/internal_cell_phone_antenna.htm > > http://www.kmsp.com/news/watchdog/baillon_buyit/story.asp?cont > ent_id=986510 > > KMSP did a test a while ago in a real testing center, it's > amazing what > stupid things people will buy. Of course, these _are_ the > people holding > a device that puts out somewhere between 1/2 watt and 3 watts right > next to their brain. > > > > > also sold with similarly fraudulent "radiation shields": > > http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/cellshlds.htm > > > > I'm not sure that the ad I saw for lead-lined jeans was a > joke... might have > > been a product for sale! Be careful! The power output of a typical > > wireless card or cell phone is much more than a million > times the natural > > radiation around "sensitive parts", so maybe TCWUG should > make some public > > service announcements... > > > > --- > > Chuck > > You might be interested in their other stories as well: > > http://www.kmsp.com/news/watchdog/baillon_buyit/default.asp > > Including such beauties as the TeleZapper, Ink Jet Refill > Kit, and of course > the Pro Trim Paint Roller. > > -- > Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, > BOFH Certified > http://www.poptix.net GPG public > key 0x01938203 > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - > Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > From arif at visi.com Fri Oct 4 15:44:49 2002 From: arif at visi.com (arif) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:42 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] new to town, list, and wireless, looking for recommendations Message-ID: hey folks, I'm fairly new to the twin cities, having just moved here from New York (City), new to this list, and brand new to wireless. I'm planning on setting up wireless access, and i'm looking for some recommendations on access points. I'd initially thought about setting up an access point using an old pentium, and linux, but I'm having second thoughts on that, I'm not totally talked out of it, but I'm certainly getting there, in large part b/c I'm just not sure that I want another box to keep an eye on :) so, I've been looking at various reviews on access points, and I'm looking for something below $150. There's a few that look good, but I was wondering if anyone on this list had first hand experience to share. thanks -arif From austad at signal15.com Fri Oct 4 20:02:31 2002 From: austad at signal15.com (Jay Austad) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:42 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] new to town, list, and wireless, looking for recommendations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <703F4626-D7FC-11D6-B72D-00039395531E@signal15.com> I picked up a Dlink 614+, and it works great. I paid $95 for it on sale, I think they are around $120 now. It has a built in firewall, but if you don't want to use it, just plug the AP into your switch with a crossover cable using one of the 4 internal ports. Then your wireless devices can have an ip on your current network and use your existing dhcp server. Jay On Friday, October 4, 2002, at 03:28 PM, arif wrote: > hey folks, I'm fairly new to the twin cities, having just moved here > from New York (City), new to this list, and brand new to wireless. > I'm planning on setting up wireless access, and i'm looking for some > recommendations on access points. I'd initially thought about setting > up an access point using an old pentium, and linux, but I'm having > second thoughts on that, I'm not totally talked out of it, but I'm > certainly getting there, in large part b/c I'm just not sure that I > want another box to keep an eye on :) > > so, I've been looking at various reviews on access points, and I'm > looking for something below $150. There's a few that look good, but I > was wondering if anyone on this list had first hand experience to > share. > > thanks > -arif > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, > Minnesota > http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From mike at scatteredmind.com Fri Oct 4 20:26:12 2002 From: mike at scatteredmind.com (Mike Nielsen) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:42 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] new to town, list, and wireless, looking for recommendations References: Message-ID: <001901c26c0a$9e46d470$49c8c8c8@progressive> Amazon has a deal with SMC running now where you can get a $40 mail in rebate if you buy the SMC 7004AWBR, so including the rebate it is just under $100. That's a really good deal, with a lot of features for the price... you can even get free shipping on it. SMC Wireless 4-Port Cable/DSL Router with Print Server http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005ARK4/qid=1033779534/sr=8 -1/ref=sr_8_1/104-1213345-5748701?v=glance&n=507846 Amazon has such long urls but that should work. There is a link there to the mail in rebate so it can be printed out. I just ordered it myself so I don't know how it works yet, but what I've read it is a good WAP. Maybe someone else on the list can elaborate on it's usage... Regards, -Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "arif" To: Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 3:28 PM Subject: [TCWUG] new to town, list, and wireless, looking for recommendations > hey folks, I'm fairly new to the twin cities, having just moved here > from New York (City), new to this list, and brand new to wireless. I'm > planning on setting up wireless access, and i'm looking for some > recommendations on access points. I'd initially thought about setting > up an access point using an old pentium, and linux, but I'm having > second thoughts on that, I'm not totally talked out of it, but I'm > certainly getting there, in large part b/c I'm just not sure that I > want another box to keep an eye on :) > > so, I've been looking at various reviews on access points, and I'm > looking for something below $150. There's a few that look good, but I > was wondering if anyone on this list had first hand experience to share. > > thanks > -arif > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > From joel at helgeson.com Sat Oct 5 00:39:56 2002 From: joel at helgeson.com (Joel R. Helgeson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:42 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] new to town, list, and wireless, looking for recommendations In-Reply-To: <001901c26c0a$9e46d470$49c8c8c8@progressive> Message-ID: <000601c26c2e$8c9efbc0$2802a8c0@SECURITY> I have the Belkin F5D6230-3 AP + Firewall/Router DSL Gateway & 3 port Ethernet switch. Works great, $100. Lifetime Warranty. -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org] On Behalf Of Mike Nielsen Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 8:00 PM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: Re: [TCWUG] new to town, list, and wireless, looking for recommendations Amazon has a deal with SMC running now where you can get a $40 mail in rebate if you buy the SMC 7004AWBR, so including the rebate it is just under $100. That's a really good deal, with a lot of features for the price... you can even get free shipping on it. SMC Wireless 4-Port Cable/DSL Router with Print Server http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005ARK4/qid=1033779534/ sr=8 -1/ref=sr_8_1/104-1213345-5748701?v=glance&n=507846 Amazon has such long urls but that should work. There is a link there to the mail in rebate so it can be printed out. I just ordered it myself so I don't know how it works yet, but what I've read it is a good WAP. Maybe someone else on the list can elaborate on it's usage... Regards, -Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "arif" To: Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 3:28 PM Subject: [TCWUG] new to town, list, and wireless, looking for recommendations > hey folks, I'm fairly new to the twin cities, having just moved here > from New York (City), new to this list, and brand new to wireless. I'm > planning on setting up wireless access, and i'm looking for some > recommendations on access points. I'd initially thought about setting > up an access point using an old pentium, and linux, but I'm having > second thoughts on that, I'm not totally talked out of it, but I'm > certainly getting there, in large part b/c I'm just not sure that I > want another box to keep an eye on :) > > so, I've been looking at various reviews on access points, and I'm > looking for something below $150. There's a few that look good, but I > was wondering if anyone on this list had first hand experience to share. > > thanks > -arif > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From mgenelin at ieee.umn.edu Sun Oct 6 21:09:03 2002 From: mgenelin at ieee.umn.edu (mgenelin@ieee.umn.edu) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:42 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Fwd: Re:802.11b Message-ID: <1133.209.32.146.93.1033955043.squirrel@www.ieee.umn.edu> FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:35:22 -0500 From: Mos Kaveh To: gene0024@UMN.EDU Cc: moon@ece.umn.edu, harjani@ece.umn.edu, georgios@ece.umn.edu, tewfik@ece.umn.edu, alouini@ece.umn.edu, mos@ece.umn.edu Subject: 802.11b Matt, Thank you for your letter of August 19, 2002 informing me of the activities of the Twin Cities Wireless Users Group and asking me to help with questions regarding propagation at 2.4 GHz, and performance and legal issues related to 802.11b. While I have general knowledge about some of these issues, I don't have the necessary specific expertise you are looking for. I am copying this message to my colleagues Profs. Moon and Harjani (who have founded a local company working on 802.11), and Profs. Giannakis, and Tewfik who also have interests and work in this arena. Perhaps one of them can be of help. In any case, the kinds of issues that you are considering and the backbone system that you are envisioning sound very interesting. I wonder whether we could have one of your meetings on these topics held in the ECE Department so some of us and our students could attend. Please drop by my office to discuss if this is of interest. Best, M. Kaveh M. Kaveh Centennial Professor and Head Department of Electrical and Phone: (612) 625-0720 Computer Engineering Fax: (612) 625-4583 University of Minnesota Email: kaveh@ece.umn.edu 200 Union Street, SE Minneapolis, MN 55455 _ _ __ ---//\/\atthew (|_;enelin--- ---------------------------------------------------------------- - Matthew Genelin (612) 636-2472 (cell) - - Engineering Student (651) 636-1842 (parents) - - University of Minnesota, TC n0ynt@amsat.org - ---------------------------------------------------------------- "A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs, jolted by every pebble in the road." -- Henry Ward Beecher From arif at visi.com Mon Oct 7 11:20:29 2002 From: arif at visi.com (arif) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:42 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] nocat? Message-ID: <4C834FC0-DA0F-11D6-A2A2-0003939CD46E@visi.com> Hey folks, in the process of setting up my node for public access, I've been working on setting up nocat for authorization, and after searching through the tcwug archive, I'm wondering if there's a tc area database that I can connect to, or if folks are just using nocat.net's public server? thanks -arif From mgenelin at ieee.umn.edu Mon Oct 7 13:46:02 2002 From: mgenelin at ieee.umn.edu (mgenelin@ieee.umn.edu) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:42 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Antenna 'boosters', etc Message-ID: <4261.128.101.171.208.1034015516.squirrel@www.ieee.umn.edu> Hey Chuck- The first of the two sources that you have linked below seems to contain misleading, inaccurate information. My first tip as an RF Engineering Student was the claim that you can "increase the effiency of your antenna". They claim that "The increase gain can be from 3dB (100% increase in signal strength) to 9dB (400% increase)." The first part of this statement is accurate: 3dB increase in signal strength, in general, is *about* double the gain. (3dB = 10 * Log10(1.99526) and 1.99526 is about 2, or twice the gain.) The second part, however, is inaccurate. 9dB = 10* Log10(7.94328) or about a gain of 8, not 400% or 4. This means that a one-watt signal would effectively be 8 watts, not 4 watts. This means that our friend mis-calculated something or didn't get his calculator out at all when creating the web page. Perhaps the most tell-tale sign that something is amiss when I am reading web sites on the internet is when I see statements like: "Without getting into the physics of why it does not work,..." Whether the device does or does not work doesn't seem more apparent then the accusations on the web page, and the tests done by the author seem to lack any technical detail. The second link is interesting, as it comes from the Federal Trade Comission. I always looked to the FTC for consumer advice on products, until now. The FTC claims that: "According to the FTC, there is no scientific proof that the so-called shields significantly reduce exposure from electromagnetic emissions." Perhaps this is true, given the current-day consumer-sold RF shields. But that is not to say that we can't create RF shields. The real problem is that consumers want small size, and don't want ugly antennas getting in their way of cell phone usage. Do cell-phones cause cancer? Dr. Dean-Edell last night on the radio dispelled this common belief. There is no scientific evidence either way. Perhaps my RF engineering professor put it best: In the early days of cell phones in Europe, heavy users of early 1 and 5-watt cellphones complained of getting headaches after using the phones for an extended period of time. After some experimentation by the goverment, Europe set it's limit at 1 Watt for hand-held phones with radiators next to your head. In the USA, the FCC set that limit at .5 watts. As a result, most of your cellphones radiate 450 mW = .450 Watts. The FCC also sets the safe RF exposure limits for humans. According to the assignment that we recently handed in, located at: http://www.ece.umn.edu/class/ee4601/4601F02Ass3.pdf (see problem 3) The FCC says the safe exposure limits at 2.2 Ghz in a 24-hour period are 2mW/cm^2. Let's take my cellphone, a voicestream phone, for example: I have a 1.9 Ghz phone, like most other digital phones. The Professor estimated that about 1/3 of the power from the cellphone is disappeated into my head as I use it. That's 450 mW /3 = 150 mW. The antenna on my phone spans the entire length of the phone casing, but I will discount that for now and only talk about the external antenna. The external antenna is 3cm tall by about 1 cm wide. This is 3cm*1cm = 3cm^2. Roughly, I am disappating 150mW/3cm^2 or 50mW/cm^2 into my head. If I can assume that the FCC's guidelines for 2.2 Ghz are close to that of 1.9 Ghz (since they are close in frequency) then I have exceeded the 2mW/cm^2 exposure limit if I use my cellphone for a 24-hour period. But then again, the batteries on my cellphone only last 2 hours max. So, I am exposed to 50mW/cm^2 of power for 2 hours, where the safe limit is based on a 24-hour period. If I only use my phone 2 hours a day before the battery dies I believe I will come just above the daily exposure guideline. I apologise now for getting all technical and stuff here, but I have seen some things go by on the list as of recent that are completely off-base and I haven't had time to reply to all of them until now. Regards, ---Matthew Genelin--- > Jeff asked where I saw these notices, so I thought others might enjoy the references... > > Fraudulent cell phone antenna boosters described here: > http://cellantenna.com/internal_cell_phone_antenna.htm > > also sold with similarly fraudulent "radiation shields": > http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/cellshlds.htm > > I'm not sure that the ad I saw for lead-lined jeans was a joke... might have been a product for sale! Be careful! The power output of a typical wireless card or cell phone is much more than a million times the natural radiation around "sensitive parts", so maybe TCWUG should make some public service announcements... > > > > --- > Chuck > > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From cncole at earthlink.net Mon Oct 7 16:15:00 2002 From: cncole at earthlink.net (Chuck Cole) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:42 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Antenna 'boosters', etc In-Reply-To: <4261.128.101.171.208.1034015516.squirrel@www.ieee.umn.edu> Message-ID: <002001c26e44$e9bbddb0$fa67fea9@HPZT> I think any "misleading info" I quoted is trivia that is below the basic message that these products are fraudulent. The trivia doesn't materially alter the main message and indicates that even a bright but not-so-sharp technician/author in this field can get the message pretty well and publish for public benefit. I think that's more credible than a learned analysis that might prove in calculus that the Poynting vector is unchanged by as much as -240 dB at any point in space. The data seems to come from a reasonably respectable antenna company that took "available info" from a consultant's tests: a credible method. For the purpose, I think it's credible enough and documented enough if someone needs to get numbers for just how absurd and how fraudulent these products are. I can't see much value between +88dBm fraudulent and +91 dBm fraudulent, but I'm no longer a student :-) My interest was just to locate quotable references that show likelihood of fraud in these products. I found more later, but chose not to post them. If the thesis of the product is fraudulent, we don't need precise math or "paralysis by analysis" to get the message. We do need quotable references rather than just declaring ourselves "the experts" without a credible portfolio of results. I agree that the web-site author isn't the most technical person, but his purpose and audience don't need and couldn't handle rigor. I'd be amused by a Maxwell's equations field and radiation analysis, but I doubt that many others would know/care/understand/ or grade papers for it. The whole idea of the antenna boosters is like adding something inside a Faraday cage in order to boost the signal in a building: the physics of radiation and propagation is all wrong. The idea of radiation shields that do not "sufficiently" enclose the phone in E and H domains is similarly absurd as far as radiation shielding goes. The power switch is a good and "sufficient" option, however :-) Whether this 1.9GHz radiation is any kind of problem is another matter, as is how many dB of shield attenuation is enough for various parts of the spectrum. Radiation at 60Hz may be a bigger worry and much tougher to shield! :-) I don't think precision is very useful for these two products: our main point should be to provide public info to educate the masses to the very basic ideas of fraud vs not fraud. Having multiple clear citations may be more important than having stuffy and erudite ones that common folk cannot follow. YMMV. I think you're missing the forest for the trees on this. Opinions are great, but... as you lecture us, keep in mind that some of us here have already graduated and have a few years of experience with RF - and Maxwell's equations. :-) Regards, Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: mgenelin@ieee.umn.edu [mailto:mgenelin@ieee.umn.edu] > > Hey Chuck- > > The first of the two sources that you have linked below seems > to contain > misleading, inaccurate information. My first tip as an RF Engineering > Student was the claim that you can "increase the effiency of your > antenna". They claim that "The increase gain can be from 3dB (100% > increase in signal strength) to 9dB (400% increase)." > > The first part of this statement is accurate: 3dB increase in signal > strength, in general, is *about* double the gain. (3dB = 10 * > Log10(1.99526) and 1.99526 is about 2, or twice the gain.) The second > part, however, is inaccurate. 9dB = 10* Log10(7.94328) or > about a gain of > 8, not 400% or 4. This means that a one-watt signal would > effectively be 8 > watts, not 4 watts. This means that our friend mis-calculated > something or > didn't get his calculator out at all when creating the web page. > > Perhaps the most tell-tale sign that something is amiss when > I am reading > web sites on the internet is when I see statements like: > > "Without getting into the physics of why it does not work,..." > > Whether the device does or does not work doesn't seem more > apparent then > the accusations on the web page, and the tests done by the > author seem to > lack any technical detail. > > The second link is interesting, as it comes from the Federal Trade > Comission. I always looked to the FTC for consumer advice on products, > until now. The FTC claims that: > > "According to the FTC, there is no scientific proof that the so-called > shields significantly reduce exposure from electromagnetic emissions." > > Perhaps this is true, given the current-day consumer-sold RF > shields. But > that is not to say that we can't create RF shields. The real > problem is > that consumers want small size, and don't want ugly antennas > getting in > their way of cell phone usage. > > Do cell-phones cause cancer? Dr. Dean-Edell last night on the radio > dispelled this common belief. There is no scientific evidence > either way. > Perhaps my RF engineering professor put it best: > > In the early days of cell phones in Europe, heavy users of early 1 and > 5-watt cellphones complained of getting headaches after using > the phones > for an extended period of time. After some experimentation by the > goverment, Europe set it's limit at 1 Watt for hand-held phones with > radiators next to your head. In the USA, the FCC set that limit at .5 > watts. As a result, most of your cellphones radiate 450 mW = > .450 Watts. > > The FCC also sets the safe RF exposure limits for humans. > According to the > assignment that we recently handed in, located at: > > http://www.ece.umn.edu/class/ee4601/4601F02Ass3.pdf > > (see problem 3) The FCC says the safe exposure limits at 2.2 Ghz in a > 24-hour period are 2mW/cm^2. Let's take my cellphone, a > voicestream phone, > for example: > > I have a 1.9 Ghz phone, like most other digital phones. The Professor > estimated that about 1/3 of the power from the cellphone is > disappeated > into my head as I use it. That's 450 mW /3 = 150 mW. The antenna on my > phone spans the entire length of the phone casing, but I will discount > that for now and only talk about the external antenna. The external > antenna is 3cm tall by about 1 cm wide. This is 3cm*1cm = 3cm^2. > > Roughly, I am disappating 150mW/3cm^2 or 50mW/cm^2 into my > head. If I can > assume that the FCC's guidelines for 2.2 Ghz are close to > that of 1.9 Ghz > (since they are close in frequency) then I have exceeded the 2mW/cm^2 > exposure limit if I use my cellphone for a 24-hour period. > > But then again, the batteries on my cellphone only last 2 > hours max. So, I > am exposed to 50mW/cm^2 of power for 2 hours, where the safe limit is > based on a 24-hour period. If I only use my phone 2 hours a > day before the > battery dies I believe I will come just above the daily exposure > guideline. > > I apologise now for getting all technical and stuff here, but > I have seen > some things go by on the list as of recent that are > completely off-base > and I haven't had time to reply to all of them until now. > > Regards, > ---Matthew Genelin--- > > > > > Jeff asked where I saw these notices, so I thought others > might enjoy > the references... > > > > Fraudulent cell phone antenna boosters described here: > > http://cellantenna.com/internal_cell_phone_antenna.htm > > > > also sold with similarly fraudulent "radiation shields": > > http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/cellshlds.htm > > > > I'm not sure that the ad I saw for lead-lined jeans was a > joke... might > have been a product for sale! Be careful! The power output of a > typical wireless card or cell phone is much more than a > million times the > natural radiation around "sensitive parts", so maybe TCWUG should make > some public service announcements... > > > > > > > > --- > > Chuck From jay at implex.net Mon Oct 7 16:32:23 2002 From: jay at implex.net (Jay Gustafson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:42 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Antenna 'boosters', etc References: <4261.128.101.171.208.1034015516.squirrel@www.ieee.umn.edu> Message-ID: <3DA1FBDC.3A9FE23F@implex.net> This subject line may be a bit off topic for this list, however safe RF exposure limits is some what of a pet peeve with me so I'll chime in any way. Although I can agree with the math and over all fact of the calculations below I have to disagree with the assumption that FCC guidelines on safe RF emissions near a persons body are adequate. There is nothing to say that even 150mW is truly safe when pressed up against human tissue. I'm not trying to dismiss what the FCC says is safe, I'm just saying that as time goes on we learn more about the effects of RF against human tissue. Also keep in mind that the FCC has to consider what impact it would have on the cellular industry if they lowered the safe limit. It has been proven that RF heats human body tissue. The effects are accumulative over time just like defrosting food in a microwave on low power will eventually cook the food if you run it long enough. Obviously a microwave has considerably more power than your cell phone, but you get the idea. Also, what is safe for one person may not be safe for another. Just like some people have a higher tolerance to certain cancer causing substances (like smoking) some people may have higher (or lower) tolerances to RF. I predict that eventually cell phones of today will be found unsafe to use so close to the human body. Until then I plan use best efforts to lower my exposure by limiting my talk time, and using my hands-free head set - I urge my friends to do the same. Jay Gustafson > > The first of the two sources that you have linked below seems to contain > misleading, inaccurate information. My first tip as an RF Engineering > Student was the claim that you can "increase the effiency of your > antenna". They claim that "The increase gain can be from 3dB (100% > increase in signal strength) to 9dB (400% increase)." > > The first part of this statement is accurate: 3dB increase in signal > strength, in general, is *about* double the gain. (3dB = 10 * > Log10(1.99526) and 1.99526 is about 2, or twice the gain.) The second > part, however, is inaccurate. 9dB = 10* Log10(7.94328) or about a gain of > 8, not 400% or 4. This means that a one-watt signal would effectively be 8 > watts, not 4 watts. This means that our friend mis-calculated something or > didn't get his calculator out at all when creating the web page. > > Perhaps the most tell-tale sign that something is amiss when I am reading > web sites on the internet is when I see statements like: > > "Without getting into the physics of why it does not work,..." > > Whether the device does or does not work doesn't seem more apparent then > the accusations on the web page, and the tests done by the author seem to > lack any technical detail. > > The second link is interesting, as it comes from the Federal Trade > Comission. I always looked to the FTC for consumer advice on products, > until now. The FTC claims that: > > "According to the FTC, there is no scientific proof that the so-called > shields significantly reduce exposure from electromagnetic emissions." > > Perhaps this is true, given the current-day consumer-sold RF shields. But > that is not to say that we can't create RF shields. The real problem is > that consumers want small size, and don't want ugly antennas getting in > their way of cell phone usage. > > Do cell-phones cause cancer? Dr. Dean-Edell last night on the radio > dispelled this common belief. There is no scientific evidence either way. > Perhaps my RF engineering professor put it best: > > In the early days of cell phones in Europe, heavy users of early 1 and > 5-watt cellphones complained of getting headaches after using the phones > for an extended period of time. After some experimentation by the > goverment, Europe set it's limit at 1 Watt for hand-held phones with > radiators next to your head. In the USA, the FCC set that limit at .5 > watts. As a result, most of your cellphones radiate 450 mW = .450 Watts. > > The FCC also sets the safe RF exposure limits for humans. According to the > assignment that we recently handed in, located at: > > http://www.ece.umn.edu/class/ee4601/4601F02Ass3.pdf > > (see problem 3) The FCC says the safe exposure limits at 2.2 Ghz in a > 24-hour period are 2mW/cm^2. Let's take my cellphone, a voicestream phone, > for example: > > I have a 1.9 Ghz phone, like most other digital phones. The Professor > estimated that about 1/3 of the power from the cellphone is disappeated > into my head as I use it. That's 450 mW /3 = 150 mW. The antenna on my > phone spans the entire length of the phone casing, but I will discount > that for now and only talk about the external antenna. The external > antenna is 3cm tall by about 1 cm wide. This is 3cm*1cm = 3cm^2. > > Roughly, I am disappating 150mW/3cm^2 or 50mW/cm^2 into my head. If I can > assume that the FCC's guidelines for 2.2 Ghz are close to that of 1.9 Ghz > (since they are close in frequency) then I have exceeded the 2mW/cm^2 > exposure limit if I use my cellphone for a 24-hour period. > > But then again, the batteries on my cellphone only last 2 hours max. So, I > am exposed to 50mW/cm^2 of power for 2 hours, where the safe limit is > based on a 24-hour period. If I only use my phone 2 hours a day before the > battery dies I believe I will come just above the daily exposure > guideline. > > I apologise now for getting all technical and stuff here, but I have seen > some things go by on the list as of recent that are completely off-base > and I haven't had time to reply to all of them until now. From cncole at earthlink.net Mon Oct 7 16:49:08 2002 From: cncole at earthlink.net (Chuck Cole) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:42 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Antenna 'boosters', etc In-Reply-To: <3DA1FBDC.3A9FE23F@implex.net> Message-ID: <002e01c26e4a$5fb9c2c0$fa67fea9@HPZT> > -----Original Message----- > From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On > Behalf Of Jay Gustafson > > This subject line may be a bit off topic for this list... The list hasn't been restricted to 802.11b <= 100mW, has it? That would make 5GHz off topic, etc. Maybe we need to restrict the topics to commercially available 802.11b stuff and its applications. That might not restrict 'boosters' and radiation shields, however :-) Chuck From dante+tcwug at plethora.net Mon Oct 7 17:26:05 2002 From: dante+tcwug at plethora.net (Daniel Taylor) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:42 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Antenna 'boosters', etc In-Reply-To: <3DA1FBDC.3A9FE23F@implex.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Jay Gustafson wrote: > This subject line may be a bit off topic for this list, however safe RF exposure > limits is some what of a pet peeve with me so I'll chime in any way. > > Although I can agree with the math and over all fact of the calculations below I > have to disagree with the assumption that FCC guidelines on safe RF emissions near > a persons body are adequate. There is nothing to say that even 150mW is truly > safe when pressed up against human tissue. I'm not trying to dismiss what the FCC > says is safe, I'm just saying that as time goes on we learn more about the effects > of RF against human tissue. Also keep in mind that the FCC has to consider what > impact it would have on the cellular industry if they lowered the safe limit. Note that the cellular industry is _far_ from the only industry that would be effected. Broadcast media, aviation, and police forces all broadcast EM radiation at levels that can fall within the regulations. > > It has been proven that RF heats human body tissue. The effects are accumulative > over time just like defrosting food in a microwave on low power will eventually > cook the food if you run it long enough. This is unmitigated bullshit. Food being thawed/cooked in a microwave has no metabolism, and cannot redistribute/lose the heat being added except by conduction. Your body is heated more, and subjected to more damaging EM radiation lounging on the beach for an hour than by using a cellphone for a month. And don't you _dare_ take a sauna if you are worried about "cooking" your innards. > Obviously a microwave has considerably > more power than your cell phone, but you get the idea. Also, what is safe for one > person may not be safe for another. Just like some people have a higher tolerance > to certain cancer causing substances (like smoking) some people may have higher > (or lower) tolerances to RF. > > I predict that eventually cell phones of today will be found unsafe to use so > close to the human body. Until then I plan use best efforts to lower my exposure > by limiting my talk time, and using my hands-free head set - I urge my friends to > do the same. > I predict that eventually people will learn to make analysis based on proper analogies and real data, instead of wild supposition and alarmist logical leaps. I can conceive of potential interactions, but I have yet to hear of any scientific research that actually tried to identify any possible _mechanisms_ for the RF from a cellphone to be a problem. In my mind this makes the larger volume of the available research on the topic suspect. It is relatively simple to set up an experiment where you beam RF frequencies at a sample representative of the tissue you are interested in and examine the transmitted and scattered frequencies for signs of interaction. Instead I read about experiments where they beam rats to see if they act differently, or survey level studies of cellphone users. These studies are hardly precise enough to detect subtle biological effects within a short time, and are often subject to additional factors that are left unaccounted for by the researchers. The problems attributed to IR and lower RF radiation are often subtle enough to require more rigor than that required to prove or disprove cold fusion. -- Daniel Taylor dante@plethora.net And Carthage must be destroyed! From spencer at autonomous.tv Mon Oct 7 22:58:46 2002 From: spencer at autonomous.tv (SpencerUnderground) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:43 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Install Moos [hurdle] Message-ID: <20021008033445.GA18901@tcopensys.com> Skipped content of type multipart/mixed-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20021007/c8683162/attachment.pgp From hick0088 at tc.umn.edu Mon Oct 7 23:23:03 2002 From: hick0088 at tc.umn.edu (Mike Hicks) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:43 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Antenna 'boosters', etc In-Reply-To: <002e01c26e4a$5fb9c2c0$fa67fea9@HPZT> References: <002e01c26e4a$5fb9c2c0$fa67fea9@HPZT> Message-ID: <1034050336.1893.474.camel@3po.thodt.net> On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 16:41, Chuck Cole wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On > > Behalf Of Jay Gustafson > > > > This subject line may be a bit off topic for this list... > > The list hasn't been restricted to 802.11b <= 100mW, has it? That would > make 5GHz off topic, etc. Maybe we need to restrict the topics to > commercially available 802.11b stuff and its applications. That might not > restrict 'boosters' and radiation shields, however :-) Heh, well, `wireless' is a big topic. I suppose it should be said that the group focuses on wireless technologies intended for digitally transmitting data (as opposed to voice or video) at high speed. It wouldn't be right for the group to become a place for every cell-phone toting Joe Blow to hang out in, but I imagine there will be times when questions about radios, TVs, and other things will come up, even if they don't really fit into what the group usually talks about. -- _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ If it ain't broke, you're / \/ \(_)| ' // ._\ / - \(_)/ ./| ' /(__ not trying. \_||_/|_||_|_\\___/ \_-_/|_|\__\|_|_\ __) [ Mike Hicks | http://umn.edu/~hick0088/ | mailto:hick0088@tc.umn.edu ] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20021007/398c64b7/attachment.pgp From tanner at real-time.com Mon Oct 7 23:57:37 2002 From: tanner at real-time.com (Bob Tanner) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:43 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Install Moos [hurdle] In-Reply-To: <20021008033445.GA18901@tcopensys.com>; from spencer@autonomous.tv on Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 10:34:45PM -0500 References: <20021008033445.GA18901@tcopensys.com> Message-ID: <20021007235441.M10798@real-time.com> Quoting SpencerUnderground (spencer@autonomous.tv): > I reported last week we had a donor for some equiptment to install on > Moos Tower. Well, we still do. However, there is a hurdle that we must > overcome. Can you or someone from the Radio Club eloborate on why they wouldn't sign it? Since the TCWUG is just a group of people, who just share a common interest, who is going to sign on the dotted line? Is the group really ready and willing to accept the following points: Item 6 is a little draconian. If I read this right, something breaks, TCWUG would be responsible to fix it. Where does the money come from? Item 9 is another draconian measure. Hail storm comes through, TCWUG would be responsible for fixing/replacing the equipment. What is the value of the equipment? Item 10 requires more money. Item 14 isn't part of what is trying to be done here for personal, family and household purposes? I know I'd like to use it for personal usage. Personally, I would not sign this lease. Since TCWUG has no funds, I would not want to have to fork out the (personal) cash if any of the above lease items need to be invoked. -- Bob Tanner | Phone : (952)943-8700 http://www.mn-linux.org, Minnesota, Linux | Fax : (952)943-8500 http://www.tcwug.org, Minnesota, Wireless | Coding isn't a crime. Key fingerprint = AB15 0BDF BCDE 4369 5B42 1973 7CF1 A709 2CC1 B288 From poptix at techmonkeys.org Tue Oct 8 01:24:40 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:43 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Install Moos [hurdle] In-Reply-To: <20021008033445.GA18901@tcopensys.com> References: <20021008033445.GA18901@tcopensys.com> Message-ID: <20021008061442.GM15765@techmonkeys.org> On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 10:34:45PM -0500, SpencerUnderground wrote: > Arnan Services Inc. is a corporation. They are willing to lease the > equiptment to the Ham club at no cost ever. They only want a signed > agreement between the Ham club and Arnan. Ben has spoken with the > President of the Ham club and they have decided not to sign the > agreement. > > I have attached a pdf of the document for everyone to review. Arnan is > willing to be flexible about alot of things, but they must get a signed > agreement in order to relinquish control of the equipment. They are > willing to provide a fair amount of the equiptment necessary to really > "kick-off" the Moos Tower/TCWUG wireless project. I wouldn't have signed it either, it basicly says: 1. Arnan owns the equipment, no matter what 2. Gopher Amateur Radio Club is responsible for keeping the equipment in working, insured, and in good condition, no matter what. (including repair costs if it fails) 3. Arnan can take it back whenever they want to 4. If God decides that he doesn't like the equipment, and lightning strikes, GARC is responsible for replacing it, out of their own pockets. Unfortunately this sounds like Arnan is interested in getting a wireless unit on Moos for their own business reasons, and want the GARC to maintain/ repair it as needed, out of their own pockets. Why pay for tower space on Moos when you can (try to) get the radio club to put it there, maintain it, and upgrade it for a one-time cost of equipment? -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20021008/23e6bdb9/attachment.pgp From joel at helgeson.com Tue Oct 8 07:04:16 2002 From: joel at helgeson.com (Joel R. Helgeson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:43 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] october 2002 meeting postponed ... In-Reply-To: <20021001174122.V3718@techmonkeys.org> Message-ID: <000001c26ec1$2ebcbde0$2802a8c0@SECURITY> So, are we on for tonight? Tuesday, October 08, 2002 at 6:30 PM at the Cisco offices? If I show up, I hope not to be alone? Joel -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org] On Behalf Of Matthew S. Hallacy Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 6:41 PM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: Re: [TCWUG] october 2002 meeting postponed ... On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 12:16:19PM -0500, Andy Isaacson wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 09:13:58AM -0500, steve ulrich wrote: > > andy warner has prepared his RF primer and we're coordinating the > > alternate meeting dates. more on this as it happens. information on > > alternate dates for this month that work for folks would be > > appreciated. > > Tuesday the 10th seems like a good second choice. > Of which month? =) October 2002 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 I assume you meant the 8th, I'm all for the 8th as well, assuming this works out with the Cisco guys for hosting the meeting. > -andy -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From bgilbertson at ieee.org Tue Oct 8 08:26:00 2002 From: bgilbertson at ieee.org (Bob Gilbertson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:43 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Antenna 'boosters', etc References: <4261.128.101.171.208.1034015516.squirrel@www.ieee.umn.edu> <3DA1FBDC.3A9FE23F@implex.net> Message-ID: <3DA2D9F1.5010008@ieee.org> Jay Gustafson wrote: > > It has been proven that RF heats human body tissue. The effects are accumulative > over time just like defrosting food in a microwave on low power will eventually > cook the food if you run it long enough. Obviously a microwave has considerably > more power than your cell phone, but you get the idea. Also, what is safe for one > person may not be safe for another. Just like some people have a higher tolerance > to certain cancer causing substances (like smoking) some people may have higher > (or lower) tolerances to RF. First sentence is true. Rest is speculative. Research has done for many years on this topic, and as I understand it here is what is known: 1. Ionizing radiation is bad. Examples are cosmic rays and X-rays, where the photons have sufficient energy (E=hf) to break chemical bonds in molecules. Area well explored, little to no controversy. 2. High level RF can cause heating effects. Body will eliminate heat same as normal metabolism heat is eliminated. Problem areas are where body has poor thermal dissipation such as eyes (cataracts). Area explored, not much controversy. 3. Low level RF causing subtle changes. Some effects being considered are alignment of polar molecules within cells lining up with EM field, molecules crossing cell membranes due to additional photon energy and interation of RF and nervous system. Looking for slight statistical variations from the norm (whatever that is). Some even consider the 50-60 Hz H-field as RF. Some variables complicating research: a. What type of effect is being looked for? b. Frequency, power level, modulation, time duration of RF c. Type of tissue and statistical variations of. Area not well explored, much controversy, test results difficult to duplicate. A google search turned up many hits, here are a few: http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/publicfeature/aug00/prad.html http://ssec.org.au/emraa/rf/biologicaleffects.htm http://www.land-sbg.gv.at/celltower/english/Proceedings%20(13)%20Marinelli.pdf 73, Bob From ben at nerp.net Tue Oct 8 08:30:24 2002 From: ben at nerp.net (Ben Kochie) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:43 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] october 2002 meeting postponed ... In-Reply-To: <000001c26ec1$2ebcbde0$2802a8c0@SECURITY> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 tonight would be great. would give us a chance to talk about moos, and possibly other sites to connect to moos. I have a large number of data points pluged into radio mobile, ready to show to the group. - -ben "Unix is user friendly, Its just picky about its friends." On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Joel R. Helgeson wrote: > So, are we on for tonight? Tuesday, October 08, 2002 at 6:30 PM at the > Cisco offices? If I show up, I hope not to be alone? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9otqYflzKmtpiQEMRAh/MAJ9NBEOHblJZWo2KT+MR1EtX3MO3mwCeL8lg eAyo4jAgcNTQsJhC6Hj0tF0= =sZDy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ben at nerp.net Tue Oct 8 08:52:03 2002 From: ben at nerp.net (Ben Kochie) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:43 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Install Moos [hurdle] In-Reply-To: <20021007235441.M10798@real-time.com> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 thanks for taking a look at it. you sumed up our problems with the agreement. The ham club is a really small group, and we have only slightly more funding than TCWUG, mostly because I gave the group $20 for dues ;) I would like to see equipment and/or money donated to the club. we are a registered U student organization, and a registered non-profit org. so anyone donating can recive tax write-offs. the main reasons I was given for why there needs to be a lease involved, is that Arnan does not want the equipment donated, and taken home/pocketed by club members. I can understand this, but setting up a lease agreement is not the way to do it. I'm willing to cough up a few hundred $ to purchase some of the equipment. I am thinking about picking up outdoor enclosures, antenna masts, LMR-400, and associated LMR-400 tools. I may also order a soekris SBC so that I can start testing and setting up my hostAP linux distro. the soekris board is $277 for a single unit, or $270 for 2-4 units. so if anyone wants to go in on an order, let me know. maybe we can get enough orders to get the 5-24 discount. - -ben "Unix is user friendly, Its just picky about its friends." On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Bob Tanner wrote: > Quoting SpencerUnderground (spencer@autonomous.tv): > > I reported last week we had a donor for some equiptment to install on > > Moos Tower. Well, we still do. However, there is a hurdle that we must > > overcome. > > Can you or someone from the Radio Club eloborate on why they wouldn't sign it? > > Since the TCWUG is just a group of people, who just share a common interest, who > is going to sign on the dotted line? > > Is the group really ready and willing to accept the following points: > > Item 6 is a little draconian. If I read this right, something breaks, TCWUG > would be responsible to fix it. Where does the money come from? > > Item 9 is another draconian measure. Hail storm comes through, TCWUG would be > responsible for fixing/replacing the equipment. What is the value of the > equipment? > > Item 10 requires more money. > > Item 14 isn't part of what is trying to be done here for personal, family and > household purposes? I know I'd like to use it for personal usage. > > Personally, I would not sign this lease. Since TCWUG has no funds, I would not > want to have to fork out the (personal) cash if any of the above lease items > need to be invoked. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9ouAWflzKmtpiQEMRAgRyAJ9LaNy55ggjQ5xyOZ4Wm8D0CZ/d5gCffLD0 kyHaXcl0T64izhHXBmeD8DY= =9ga8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From andyw at pobox.com Tue Oct 8 10:08:20 2002 From: andyw at pobox.com (Andy Warner) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:43 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] october 2002 meeting postponed ... In-Reply-To: ; from ben@nerp.net on Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 08:16:06AM -0500 References: <000001c26ec1$2ebcbde0$2802a8c0@SECURITY> Message-ID: <20021008094437.L19599@florence.linkmargin.com> Ben Kochie wrote: > tonight would be great. would give us a chance to talk about moos, and > possibly other sites to connect to moos. I have a large number of data > points pluged into radio mobile, ready to show to the group. I can't make tonight, so if there is a meeting, there won't be any RF primer talk. -- andyw@pobox.com Andy Warner Voice: (612) 801-8549 Fax: (208) 575-5634 From poptix at techmonkeys.org Tue Oct 8 10:32:21 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:43 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] october 2002 meeting postponed ... In-Reply-To: <20021008094437.L19599@florence.linkmargin.com> References: <000001c26ec1$2ebcbde0$2802a8c0@SECURITY> <20021008094437.L19599@florence.linkmargin.com> Message-ID: <20021008151638.GN15765@techmonkeys.org> On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 09:44:37AM -0500, Andy Warner wrote: > Ben Kochie wrote: > > tonight would be great. would give us a chance to talk about moos, and > > possibly other sites to connect to moos. I have a large number of data > > points pluged into radio mobile, ready to show to the group. > > I can't make tonight, so if there is a meeting, there won't > be any RF primer talk. Steve Ulrich was on IRC lastnight, and stated that tonight will not work, he did offer the idea of this weekend, but I'll wait for him to speak up before commenting. It should be noted, the TCLUG installfest is Sat, Oct 12 11am-5pm > -- > andyw@pobox.com > > Andy Warner Voice: (612) 801-8549 Fax: (208) 575-5634 -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From sulrich at botwerks.org Tue Oct 8 12:50:50 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:44 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] october 2002 meeting postponed ... In-Reply-To: <20021008151638.GN15765@techmonkeys.org> References: <000001c26ec1$2ebcbde0$2802a8c0@SECURITY> <20021008094437.L19599@florence.linkmargin.com> <20021008151638.GN15765@techmonkeys.org> Message-ID: <20021008173555.GA90170@botwerks.org> to follow up on this. my profuse apologies for this. i would like to have the meeting this month and i'm unable to do it this tuesday. next tuesday would work since it looks like we'd have significant overlap with the installfest. i can do pretty much any night next week with the exception of wednesday. it sounds like weeknights are problematic for folks would saturday meetings on weekends alternating the TCLUG meetings work? my apologies for this snafu i've just been traveling much more than normal for work lately. when last we saw our hero (Tuesday, Oct 08, 2002), Matthew S. Hallacy was madly tapping out: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 09:44:37AM -0500, Andy Warner wrote: > > Ben Kochie wrote: > > > tonight would be great. would give us a chance to talk about > > > moos, and possibly other sites to connect to moos. I have a > > > large number of data points pluged into radio mobile, ready to > > > show to the group. > > > > I can't make tonight, so if there is a meeting, there won't be any > > RF primer talk. > > Steve Ulrich was on IRC lastnight, and stated that tonight will not > work, he did offer the idea of this weekend, but I'll wait for him > to speak up before commenting. > > It should be noted, the TCLUG installfest is Sat, Oct 12 11am-5pm > { snipped - misc .signatures } -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From mgenelin at ieee.umn.edu Tue Oct 8 14:42:28 2002 From: mgenelin at ieee.umn.edu (mgenelin@ieee.umn.edu) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:44 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Install Moos [hurdle] In-Reply-To: References: <20021007235441.M10798@real-time.com> Message-ID: <4441.128.101.171.204.1034104075.squirrel@www.ieee.umn.edu> Hey Ben- I am uncertain if we can actually get the tax write-offs for donors. That's a Ham-Radio-Club-Lawyer-Question. I believe we need to pay a $200.00 / year fee for the privilage of giving away tax write-off's. If that's the case, let's make sure we get our $200.00 (or whatever fee) a year write-off's worth! =) Regards, ---Matthew Genelin--- > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > thanks for taking a look at it. you sumed up our problems with the > agreement. The ham club is a really small group, and we have only > slightly more funding than TCWUG, mostly because I gave the group $20 > for dues ;) > > I would like to see equipment and/or money donated to the club. we are > a registered U student organization, and a registered non-profit org. > so anyone donating can recive tax write-offs. the main reasons I was > given for why there needs to be a lease involved, is that Arnan does not > want the equipment donated, and taken home/pocketed by club members. I > can understand this, but setting up a lease agreement is not the way to > do it. > > I'm willing to cough up a few hundred $ to purchase some of the > equipment. I am thinking about picking up outdoor enclosures, antenna > masts, LMR-400, and associated LMR-400 tools. I may also order a > soekris SBC so that I can start testing and setting up my hostAP linux > distro. > > the soekris board is $277 for a single unit, or $270 for 2-4 units. so > if anyone wants to go in on an order, let me know. maybe we can get > enough orders to get the 5-24 discount. > > - -ben > > "Unix is user friendly, Its just picky about its friends." > > On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Bob Tanner wrote: > >> Quoting SpencerUnderground (spencer@autonomous.tv): >> > I reported last week we had a donor for some equiptment to install >> on Moos Tower. Well, we still do. However, there is a hurdle that we >> must overcome. >> >> Can you or someone from the Radio Club eloborate on why they wouldn't >> sign it? >> >> Since the TCWUG is just a group of people, who just share a common >> interest, who is going to sign on the dotted line? >> >> Is the group really ready and willing to accept the following points: >> >> Item 6 is a little draconian. If I read this right, something breaks, >> TCWUG would be responsible to fix it. Where does the money come from? >> >> Item 9 is another draconian measure. Hail storm comes through, TCWUG >> would be responsible for fixing/replacing the equipment. What is the >> value of the equipment? >> >> Item 10 requires more money. >> >> Item 14 isn't part of what is trying to be done here for personal, >> family and household purposes? I know I'd like to use it for personal >> usage. >> >> Personally, I would not sign this lease. Since TCWUG has no funds, I >> would not want to have to fork out the (personal) cash if any of the >> above lease items need to be invoked. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org > > iD8DBQE9ouAWflzKmtpiQEMRAgRyAJ9LaNy55ggjQ5xyOZ4Wm8D0CZ/d5gCffLD0 > kyHaXcl0T64izhHXBmeD8DY= > =9ga8 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, > Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From cncole at earthlink.net Tue Oct 8 15:35:34 2002 From: cncole at earthlink.net (Chuck Cole) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:44 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Install Moos [hurdle] In-Reply-To: <4441.128.101.171.204.1034104075.squirrel@www.ieee.umn.edu> Message-ID: <002201c26f08$e20dc550$fa67fea9@HPZT> FYI.. The HAM club probably is an IRS 501c3 type "not-for-profit" corp. Those are "for educational and scientific purposes" and are both tax exempt themselves and their donors get deductions. Note that donors are NOT allowed write-offs for giving to some of the other IRS types of not-for-profit corporations (eg, not for 501c6 which is what many of the local professional associations are.. like a lobbying group or labor union that looks out for actual monetary gain for members. A 501c6 does not pay tax itself, but donations are not exempt. IEEE is a complex but clean 501c3, but many others are not even close). Something sounds wrong about $200/yr fees for a 501c3 because neither the state of MN renewal nor IRS Fed renewal has fees and there's nothing more to deductions per se. Insurance might be another prudent matter, and that would have annual costs. The earlier worry that some HAM club member would run off with donated equipment should not be a worry because the HAM club stands to lose their non-profit status (maybe more) and get booted if that were allowed to happen and they got caught. The idea and terms of that lease are truly silly or truly "not for community benefit". There are ways to play this "management stuff" to advantage for TCWUG - like a can't lose poker game - but it must be done with a view toward winning and not just reacting. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On > Behalf Of mgenelin@ieee.umn.edu > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 2:08 PM > To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org > Cc: ben@nerp.net > Subject: Re: [TCWUG] Install Moos [hurdle] > > > Hey Ben- > > I am uncertain if we can actually get the tax write-offs for donors. > That's a Ham-Radio-Club-Lawyer-Question. I believe we need to pay a > $200.00 / year fee for the privilage of giving away tax > write-off's. If > that's the case, let's make sure we get our $200.00 (or > whatever fee) a > year write-off's worth! =) > > Regards, > ---Matthew Genelin--- > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > thanks for taking a look at it. you sumed up our problems with the > > agreement. The ham club is a really small group, and we have only > > slightly more funding than TCWUG, mostly because I gave the > group $20 > > for dues ;) > > > > I would like to see equipment and/or money donated to the > club. we are > > a registered U student organization, and a registered > non-profit org. > > so anyone donating can recive tax write-offs. the main > reasons I was > > given for why there needs to be a lease involved, is that > Arnan does not > > want the equipment donated, and taken home/pocketed by club > members. I > > can understand this, but setting up a lease agreement is > not the way to > > do it. > > > > I'm willing to cough up a few hundred $ to purchase some of the > > equipment. I am thinking about picking up outdoor > enclosures, antenna > > masts, LMR-400, and associated LMR-400 tools. I may also order a > > soekris SBC so that I can start testing and setting up my > hostAP linux > > distro. > > > > the soekris board is $277 for a single unit, or $270 for > 2-4 units. so > > if anyone wants to go in on an order, let me know. maybe we can get > > enough orders to get the 5-24 discount. > > > > - -ben > > > > "Unix is user friendly, Its just picky about its friends." > > > > On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Bob Tanner wrote: > > > >> Quoting SpencerUnderground (spencer@autonomous.tv): > >> > I reported last week we had a donor for some equiptment > to install > >> on Moos Tower. Well, we still do. However, there is a > hurdle that we > >> must overcome. > >> > >> Can you or someone from the Radio Club eloborate on why > they wouldn't > >> sign it? > >> > >> Since the TCWUG is just a group of people, who just share a common > >> interest, who is going to sign on the dotted line? > >> > >> Is the group really ready and willing to accept the > following points: > >> > >> Item 6 is a little draconian. If I read this right, > something breaks, > >> TCWUG would be responsible to fix it. Where does the money > come from? > >> > >> Item 9 is another draconian measure. Hail storm comes > through, TCWUG > >> would be responsible for fixing/replacing the equipment. > What is the > >> value of the equipment? > >> > >> Item 10 requires more money. > >> > >> Item 14 isn't part of what is trying to be done here for personal, > >> family and household purposes? I know I'd like to use it > for personal > >> usage. > >> > >> Personally, I would not sign this lease. Since TCWUG has > no funds, I > >> would not want to have to fork out the (personal) cash if > any of the > >> above lease items need to be invoked. > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) > > Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org > > > > iD8DBQE9ouAWflzKmtpiQEMRAgRyAJ9LaNy55ggjQ5xyOZ4Wm8D0CZ/d5gCffLD0 > > kyHaXcl0T64izhHXBmeD8DY= > > =9ga8 > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - > Minneapolis/St. Paul, > > Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org > > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > > > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - > Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > From joel at helgeson.com Tue Oct 8 19:54:55 2002 From: joel at helgeson.com (Joel R. Helgeson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:44 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] october 2002 meeting postponed ... In-Reply-To: <20021008173555.GA90170@botwerks.org> Message-ID: <000001c26f2c$6f57bba0$2802a8c0@SECURITY> I say lets just simply forego the meeting this month? Reconvene next month at the same appointed time. Don't get me wrong, I would like to meet - it just doesn't look like it's going to be feasible. Opinions? Joel -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org] On Behalf Of steve ulrich Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 12:36 PM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: Re: [TCWUG] october 2002 meeting postponed ... to follow up on this. my profuse apologies for this. i would like to have the meeting this month and i'm unable to do it this tuesday. next tuesday would work since it looks like we'd have significant overlap with the installfest. i can do pretty much any night next week with the exception of wednesday. it sounds like weeknights are problematic for folks would saturday meetings on weekends alternating the TCLUG meetings work? my apologies for this snafu i've just been traveling much more than normal for work lately. when last we saw our hero (Tuesday, Oct 08, 2002), Matthew S. Hallacy was madly tapping out: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 09:44:37AM -0500, Andy Warner wrote: > > Ben Kochie wrote: > > > tonight would be great. would give us a chance to talk about > > > moos, and possibly other sites to connect to moos. I have a > > > large number of data points pluged into radio mobile, ready to > > > show to the group. > > > > I can't make tonight, so if there is a meeting, there won't be any > > RF primer talk. > > Steve Ulrich was on IRC lastnight, and stated that tonight will not > work, he did offer the idea of this weekend, but I'll wait for him > to speak up before commenting. > > It should be noted, the TCLUG installfest is Sat, Oct 12 11am-5pm > { snipped - misc .signatures } -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From cheath at interlinkcom.com Tue Oct 8 22:15:37 2002 From: cheath at interlinkcom.com (Chandler Heath) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:44 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Install Moos [hurdle] Message-ID: After reading the "Lease" the equipment to be provided shows 10dB Omni and 500mW amplifier. Does the Ham Club assume responsibility for proper use? The use of a 500mW amp with an Omni is questionable. Chandler -----Original Message----- From: SpencerUnderground To: Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Cc: Renee Ladd; W Braun Sent: 10/7/2002 10:34 PM Subject: [TCWUG] Install Moos [hurdle] I reported last week we had a donor for some equiptment to install on Moos Tower. Well, we still do. However, there is a hurdle that we must overcome. Arnan Services Inc. is a corporation. They are willing to lease the equiptment to the Ham club at no cost ever. They only want a signed agreement between the Ham club and Arnan. Ben has spoken with the President of the Ham club and they have decided not to sign the agreement. I have attached a pdf of the document for everyone to review. Arnan is willing to be flexible about alot of things, but they must get a signed agreement in order to relinquish control of the equipment. They are willing to provide a fair amount of the equiptment necessary to really "kick-off" the Moos Tower/TCWUG wireless project. I truly hope that this issue will not prevent the group from expeditiously realizing some of its goals. -- --*--SpencerUnderground--*-- http://autonomous.tv/ spencer@autonomous.tv Key fingerprint = 173B 8760 E59F DBF8 6FD2 68F8 ABA2 AB08 49C7 4754 <> ________________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com ________________________________________________________________________ From jeff at digitalguy.net Tue Oct 8 22:16:55 2002 From: jeff at digitalguy.net (Jeff Lehman) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:44 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] october 2002 meeting postponed ... In-Reply-To: <000001c26f2c$6f57bba0$2802a8c0@SECURITY>; from joel@helgeson.com on Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 07:40:14PM -0500 References: <20021008173555.GA90170@botwerks.org> <000001c26f2c$6f57bba0$2802a8c0@SECURITY> Message-ID: <20021008215816.F13888@sarah.digitalguy.net> Joel R. Helgeson (joel@helgeson.com) wrote: > I say lets just simply forego the meeting this month? Reconvene next > month at the same appointed time. Don't get me wrong, I would like to > meet - it just doesn't look like it's going to be feasible. > > Opinions? > > Joel > Sounds good to me and if the first Tuesday doesn't work for ppl lets choose another time now so i can get it off of work since i work the evening shift :) Jeff From ben at nerp.net Tue Oct 8 23:20:40 2002 From: ben at nerp.net (Ben Kochie) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:44 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Moos Network: thread 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 you're right about that.. the maximum output allowed by the FCC on ISM basicaly turns out to be an 8dB antenna with 500mW of power. unless we shed that 2dB with feed line, it would be over the limit. on the topic of equipment.. I'm working on securing other sources for the gear.. so hold-off on worrying/buying. :) if anyone would like to email me GPS data for locations suitable for connecting to moos I am compiling a Radio Mobile network map. If you do not know if it is possible for a site you have in mind, that's fine too. Just send me Log/Lat, or street addresses.. and estimated height of building/antenna location. - -ben "Unix is user friendly, Its just picky about its friends." On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Chandler Heath wrote: > After reading the "Lease" the equipment to be provided shows 10dB Omni and > 500mW amplifier. Does the Ham Club assume responsibility for proper use? The > use of a 500mW amp with an Omni is questionable. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9o6x1flzKmtpiQEMRAqP/AJ9TPflCU2JSu+usL/yTAZRCQlugBQCgjcDz x3MKfYQ8QSyv5tLEsy1NZkc= =rz57 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dieman at ringworld.org Tue Oct 8 23:22:38 2002 From: dieman at ringworld.org (Scott Dier) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:44 2005 Subject: [Fwd: FW: [TCWUG] Install Moos [hurdle]] Message-ID: <1034092363.726.967.camel@runabout> I've got better things to do than handle this in private. -- Scott Dier KC0OBS http://www.ringworld.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Chuck Cole" Subject: FW: [TCWUG] Install Moos [hurdle] Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 02:36:35 -0500 Size: 5156 Url: http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20021008/a6d90ba6/attachment.mht From DJWILLENBRIN at stthomas.edu Wed Oct 9 00:44:04 2002 From: DJWILLENBRIN at stthomas.edu (Willenbring, Daniel J.) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:44 2005 Subject: [Fwd: FW: [TCWUG] Install Moos [hurdle]] Message-ID: Perhaps people shouldn't take this project/future of the organization/etc. quite so seriously. It's fine and dandy to post your views to the list; make your opinions known to everyone. I don't really see the need to berate others with the above-mentioned opinions or views (especially in cases where they don't want to hear it) over private e-mail, telephone, voicemail or whatever the case. (And the 'HA! I told you so!' is quite unnecessary as far as I'm concerned.) If there is a concern, or point to be made, it would seem logical to post it to the list. The group as a whole (or more importantly, those few people who keep the club going) will embrace it, reject it, or something in-between. +----------------------------------+ | Dan Willenbring dan@omitted.net | +----- http://www.omitted.net -----+ -----Original Message----- From: Scott Dier To: tcwug Sent: 10/8/02 10:52 AM Subject: [Fwd: FW: [TCWUG] Install Moos [hurdle]] I've got better things to do than handle this in private. -- Scott Dier KC0OBS http://www.ringworld.org/ <> From sulrich at botwerks.org Wed Oct 9 08:48:06 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:44 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] nocat? In-Reply-To: <4C834FC0-DA0F-11D6-A2A2-0003939CD46E@visi.com> References: <4C834FC0-DA0F-11D6-A2A2-0003939CD46E@visi.com> Message-ID: <20021009134056.GA99708@botwerks.org> arif- i've played around with nocat a fair amount and there has been some discussion on this list historically regarding the creation of a common authentication mechanism based upon nocat. personally i'm a big fan of radius for such applications and i would be happy to host a radius server and i believe karl had a server which could be used for authentication as well. interested parties can bring it up at the next meeting and perhaps propose something for the group to use. when last we saw our hero (Monday, Oct 07, 2002), arif was madly tapping out: > Hey folks, in the process of setting up my node for public access, > I've been working on setting up nocat for authorization, and after > searching through the tcwug archive, I'm wondering if there's a tc > area database that I can connect to, or if folks are just using > nocat.net's public server? > -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From sulrich at botwerks.org Wed Oct 9 09:17:02 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:44 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Install Moos [hurdle] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20021009140131.GB99708@botwerks.org> setting aside the issues associated with the terms of the lease and such. i would like to applaud arnan for stepping up to the plate and being willing to engage the ham club and tcwug in what i think is ultimately a very generous offer. being pragmatic about things i don't think that there's anything in the terms of the lease offered by arnan that is draconian - this is standard lease stuff, which includes holding the leasee responsible for the state of the goods given that they don't really hold title to the gear in question. i don't think that it's fair for arnan to lease the gear (at zero cost) and expect them to pay for the gear to be fixed if something happens to it. unfortunately - i believe we've run into the the hurdle that i think we all saw coming wrt a loose knit group of individuals having an interest in a particular technology and no formal mechanisms to engage organizations (read: businesses) that would like to do something good, like arnan. despite the best held intentions of the parties involved, there are times when the needs of both cannot be addressed. in all fairness i doubt we (tcwug specifically) are in a position to engage anybody in such a dialog until we formalize (legally) our organization. as an aside - it would likely behoove us (tcwug) to come to a good working arrangement with the gopher radio club to address these matters in the best (overlapping) interests of the 2 groups. when last we saw our hero (Tuesday, Oct 08, 2002), Chandler Heath was madly tapping out: > After reading the "Lease" the equipment to be provided shows 10dB > Omni and 500mW amplifier. Does the Ham Club assume responsibility > for proper use? The use of a 500mW amp with an Omni is questionable. > > Chandler > { snipped - misc previous correspondence } -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From chrome at real-time.com Wed Oct 9 10:12:19 2002 From: chrome at real-time.com (Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:44 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] nocat? In-Reply-To: <20021009134056.GA99708@botwerks.org>; from sulrich@botwerks.org on Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 08:40:56AM -0500 References: <4C834FC0-DA0F-11D6-A2A2-0003939CD46E@visi.com> <20021009134056.GA99708@botwerks.org> Message-ID: <20021009094208.B13013@real-time.com> > personally i'm a big fan of radius for such applications and i would > be happy to host a radius server and i believe karl had a server which > could be used for authentication as well. yep. http://killdeer.tcwug.org/ it's there to participate in whatever authentication scheme we come up with. Carl. -- Systems Administrator Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com From cncole at earthlink.net Wed Oct 9 13:05:06 2002 From: cncole at earthlink.net (Chuck Cole) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:45 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Install Moos [hurdle] In-Reply-To: <20021009140131.GB99708@botwerks.org> Message-ID: <004c01c26fbc$6ea50b00$fa67fea9@HPZT> I'm glad to see someone else seriously considering the organizational status of TCWUG and the facts that we cannot have projects or own or manage equipment unless and until we are a non-profit org of our own. I'm concerned however that an arrangement with the Gopher HAM Club may not be so good either: it may be more temporary than TCWUG may want. If equipment is given to the HAM club, it is theirs, not ours. If it's a student club, then there's nobody with continuity, and they could decide to limit usage or scrap out the equipment if there are no interested student leaders for WiFi that semester. Student enthusiasm is great, but usually peaks in the sophomore year and fades away afterwards. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On > Behalf Of steve ulrich > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:02 AM > To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org > Cc: 'SpencerUnderground '; 'Renee Ladd '; 'W Braun ' > Subject: Re: [TCWUG] Install Moos [hurdle] > > > > setting aside the issues associated with the terms of the lease and > such. i would like to applaud arnan for stepping up to the plate and > being willing to engage the ham club and tcwug in what i think is > ultimately a very generous offer. being pragmatic about things i > don't think that there's anything in the terms of the lease offered by > arnan that is draconian - this is standard lease stuff, which > includes holding the leasee responsible for the state of the goods > given that they don't really hold title to the gear in question. > > i don't think that it's fair for arnan to lease the gear (at zero > cost) and expect them to pay for the gear to be fixed if something > happens to it. > > unfortunately - i believe we've run into the the hurdle that i think > we all saw coming wrt a loose knit group of individuals having an > interest in a particular technology and no formal mechanisms to engage > organizations (read: businesses) that would like to do something good, > like arnan. > > despite the best held intentions of the parties involved, there are > times when the needs of both cannot be addressed. in all fairness i > doubt we (tcwug specifically) are in a position to engage anybody in > such a dialog until we formalize (legally) our organization. > > as an aside - it would likely behoove us (tcwug) to come to a good > working arrangement with the gopher radio club to address these > matters in the best (overlapping) interests of the 2 groups. > From ben at nerp.net Wed Oct 9 14:27:14 2002 From: ben at nerp.net (Ben Kochie) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:45 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Install Moos [hurdle] In-Reply-To: <004c01c26fbc$6ea50b00$fa67fea9@HPZT> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Goper amature radio club is a student organization, but because we are a ham club, we have several active alumni members. I am the person who is doing almost all of the work to get the equipment on moos tower. I personaly want the equipment to be up there and operating for a very long time. I am also NOT a student. I work for the Supercomputing Institute on campus. Like I said in an earlier mail, I have found other possible sources for equipment, which do not involv strings attached, or commercial interestes. I have volunteered to assist a campus department with my free time to help their wireless infrastructure in exchange for some equipment. Right now I would like people to concentrate on finding other locations to connect to moos tower. Tall buildings, water towers, etc. - -ben "Unix is user friendly, Its just picky about its friends." On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Chuck Cole wrote: > I'm concerned however that an arrangement with the Gopher HAM Club may not > be so good either: it may be more temporary than TCWUG may want. If > equipment is given to the HAM club, it is theirs, not ours. If it's a > student club, then there's nobody with continuity, and they could decide to > limit usage or scrap out the equipment if there are no interested student > leaders for WiFi that semester. Student enthusiasm is great, but usually > peaks in the sophomore year and fades away afterwards. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9pIFbflzKmtpiQEMRAoT5AJ9XliZRHiPVTC5r39fuFZLQh/DdnwCcDFKH c3Nrzezucvd8HN7bdmosHCE= =ebmf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From cncole at earthlink.net Wed Oct 9 16:25:43 2002 From: cncole at earthlink.net (Chuck Cole) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:45 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Install Moos [hurdle] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005d01c26fd4$e60a2690$fa67fea9@HPZT> Glad to hear that your personally controlled project might have some continuity, Ben! You could get that support for other sites by teamwork with the other HAM repeater groups in town. Honeywell and 3M have or had groups and sites, and some of the independent HAM clubs do also. They also have continuity and might have good depth in experience. A HAM group in Burnsville has had a water tower site for the last fifteen years or so. Let us know when/if/how TCWUG has input on deals, terms, techie issues involving us, or our usage. Meanwhile, it's off topic for TCWUG isn't it? Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On > Behalf Of Ben Kochie > > The Goper amature radio club is a student organization, but > because we are > a ham club, we have several active alumni members. I am the > person who is > doing almost all of the work to get the equipment on moos tower. I > personaly want the equipment to be up there and operating for > a very long > time. I am also NOT a student. I work for the > Supercomputing Institute > on campus. > > Like I said in an earlier mail, I have found other possible > sources for > equipment, which do not involv strings attached, or > commercial interestes. > I have volunteered to assist a campus department with my free time to > help their wireless infrastructure in exchange for some equipment. > > Right now I would like people to concentrate on finding other > locations to > connect to moos tower. Tall buildings, water towers, etc. > > - -ben > > From ben at nerp.net Thu Oct 10 00:00:13 2002 From: ben at nerp.net (Ben Kochie) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:45 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] outdoor enclosures Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 hey, i'm looking around for pricing on outdoor enclosures, I found one at demarctech.com for $50, but it's not big enough for the equipment I want. should be completely water proof, and be able to be either pole, or flush mounted. metal or plastic, i don't really care. I need 10" x 8" x 2" - -ben "Unix is user friendly, Its just picky about its friends." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9pDieflzKmtpiQEMRAjypAJ42+DIw6k9zgjc9Ny+e6azjGM+jZgCeIDIb p1ELQt2xr+Dbqphl3OeoXkg= =ENdd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tanner at real-time.com Thu Oct 10 00:24:04 2002 From: tanner at real-time.com (Bob Tanner) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:45 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] outdoor enclosures In-Reply-To: ; from ben@nerp.net on Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 09:09:30AM -0500 References: Message-ID: <20021010000700.L12655@real-time.com> Quoting Ben Kochie (ben@nerp.net): > hey, i'm looking around for pricing on outdoor enclosures, I found one at > demarctech.com for $50, but it's not big enough for the equipment I want. > should be completely water proof, and be able to be either pole, or flush > mounted. metal or plastic, i don't really care. > > I need 10" x 8" x 2" http://www.pelican.com ? -- Bob Tanner | Phone : (952)943-8700 http://www.mn-linux.org, Minnesota, Linux | Fax : (952)943-8500 http://www.tcwug.org, Minnesota, Wireless | Coding isn't a crime. Key fingerprint = AB15 0BDF BCDE 4369 5B42 1973 7CF1 A709 2CC1 B288 From cncole at earthlink.net Thu Oct 10 01:04:47 2002 From: cncole at earthlink.net (Chuck Cole) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:45 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] outdoor enclosures In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <008001c27021$3bb710c0$fa67fea9@HPZT> Axman frequently has some. Most electrical supply places stock the classic gasketed-door NEMA boxes, and Hoffman (local?) makes some fine ones, including stainless steel. MEMA standard sizes include smaller and bigger things than what you need. > -----Original Message----- > From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On > Behalf Of Ben Kochie > > hey, i'm looking around for pricing on outdoor enclosures, I > found one at > demarctech.com for $50, but it's not big enough for the > equipment I want. > should be completely water proof, and be able to be either > pole, or flush > mounted. metal or plastic, i don't really care. > > I need 10" x 8" x 2" > > - -ben > From sulrich at botwerks.org Thu Oct 10 06:13:50 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:45 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] october 2002 meeting postponed ... In-Reply-To: <20021008215816.F13888@sarah.digitalguy.net> References: <20021008173555.GA90170@botwerks.org> <000001c26f2c$6f57bba0$2802a8c0@SECURITY> <20021008215816.F13888@sarah.digitalguy.net> Message-ID: <20021009141915.GA99984@botwerks.org> i'm in the process of firming up plans for the november meeting - i'll have more details within the day. might i suggest an interim meeting for interested parties - perhaps over beers and pizza at a location conducive to discussion within the next week? when last we saw our hero (Tuesday, Oct 08, 2002), Jeff Lehman was madly tapping out: > Joel R. Helgeson (joel@helgeson.com) wrote: > > I say lets just simply forego the meeting this month? Reconvene next > > month at the same appointed time. Don't get me wrong, I would like to > > meet - it just doesn't look like it's going to be feasible. > > > > Opinions? > > > > Joel > > > > Sounds good to me and if the first Tuesday doesn't work for ppl lets > choose another time now so i can get it off of work since i work the > evening shift :) -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From arif at visi.com Thu Oct 10 10:20:42 2002 From: arif at visi.com (arif) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:45 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] nocat? In-Reply-To: <20021009094208.B13013@real-time.com> Message-ID: Cool, that sounds great. I look forward to the next meeting which will also be my first ;) -arif On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 09:42 AM, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote: >> personally i'm a big fan of radius for such applications and i would >> be happy to host a radius server and i believe karl had a server which >> could be used for authentication as well. > > yep. > http://killdeer.tcwug.org/ > > it's there to participate in whatever authentication scheme we come up > with. > > Carl. > -- > Systems Administrator > Real-Time Enterprises > www.real-time.com > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, > Minnesota > http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > From MBurkel at zambasolutions.com Fri Oct 11 17:32:02 2002 From: MBurkel at zambasolutions.com (Martin Burkel) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:45 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] TCWUG UserId request Message-ID: Matthew, I would like to join the TCWUG. I currently have an access point close to Loring Park. My email address is mburkel@gozamba.com and make my password 'tommy'. Thanks. Marty From mgenelin at ieee.umn.edu Sun Oct 13 02:57:15 2002 From: mgenelin at ieee.umn.edu (mgenelin@ieee.umn.edu) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:45 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Install Moos [hurdle] In-Reply-To: <004c01c26fbc$6ea50b00$fa67fea9@HPZT> References: <20021009140131.GB99708@botwerks.org> <004c01c26fbc$6ea50b00$fa67fea9@HPZT> Message-ID: <1062.209.32.146.93.1034494752.squirrel@www.ieee.umn.edu> Hey Chuck- I see your side here. But consider one thing here: The ham club has been around since 1919. We have a number of alumni members that keep the club going in lean student-enrollment years. The Ham club's 83 years in existance sorta daunts the 2+ years of TC-WUG. =) Regards, ---Matthew Genelin--- > I'm concerned however that an arrangement with the Gopher HAM Club may > not be so good either: it may be more temporary than TCWUG may want. If > equipment is given to the HAM club, it is theirs, not ours. If it's a > student club, then there's nobody with continuity, and they could decide > to limit usage or scrap out the equipment if there are no interested > student leaders for WiFi that semester. Student enthusiasm is great, > but usually peaks in the sophomore year and fades away afterwards. > > Chuck > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On >> Behalf Of steve ulrich >> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:02 AM >> To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org >> Cc: 'SpencerUnderground '; 'Renee Ladd '; 'W Braun ' >> Subject: Re: [TCWUG] Install Moos [hurdle] >> >> >> >> setting aside the issues associated with the terms of the lease and >> such. i would like to applaud arnan for stepping up to the plate and >> being willing to engage the ham club and tcwug in what i think is >> ultimately a very generous offer. being pragmatic about things i >> don't think that there's anything in the terms of the lease offered by >> arnan that is draconian - this is standard lease stuff, which >> includes holding the leasee responsible for the state of the goods >> given that they don't really hold title to the gear in question. >> >> i don't think that it's fair for arnan to lease the gear (at zero >> cost) and expect them to pay for the gear to be fixed if something >> happens to it. >> >> unfortunately - i believe we've run into the the hurdle that i think >> we all saw coming wrt a loose knit group of individuals having an >> interest in a particular technology and no formal mechanisms to engage >> organizations (read: businesses) that would like to do something good, >> like arnan. >> >> despite the best held intentions of the parties involved, there are >> times when the needs of both cannot be addressed. in all fairness i >> doubt we (tcwug specifically) are in a position to engage anybody in >> such a dialog until we formalize (legally) our organization. >> >> as an aside - it would likely behoove us (tcwug) to come to a good >> working arrangement with the gopher radio club to address these >> matters in the best (overlapping) interests of the 2 groups. >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, > Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From spencer at autonomous.tv Sun Oct 13 11:52:05 2002 From: spencer at autonomous.tv (SpencerUnderground) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:45 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Install Moos [hurdle] In-Reply-To: <1062.209.32.146.93.1034494752.squirrel@www.ieee.umn.edu> References: <20021009140131.GB99708@botwerks.org> <004c01c26fbc$6ea50b00$fa67fea9@HPZT> <1062.209.32.146.93.1034494752.squirrel@www.ieee.umn.edu> Message-ID: <20021013164038.GC6094@tcopensys.com> On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 02:39:12AM -0500, mgenelin@ieee.umn.edu wrote: >Hey Chuck- > >I see your side here. But consider one thing here: The ham club has been >around since 1919. We have a number of alumni members that keep the club >going in lean student-enrollment years. The Ham club's 83 years in >existance sorta daunts the 2+ years of TC-WUG. =) FYI. We are just approaching the 1 year mark :) > >Regards, >---Matthew Genelin--- > > >> I'm concerned however that an arrangement with the Gopher HAM Club may >> not be so good either: it may be more temporary than TCWUG may want. If >> equipment is given to the HAM club, it is theirs, not ours. If it's a >> student club, then there's nobody with continuity, and they could decide >> to limit usage or scrap out the equipment if there are no interested >> student leaders for WiFi that semester. Student enthusiasm is great, >> but usually peaks in the sophomore year and fades away afterwards. >> >> Chuck >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On >>> Behalf Of steve ulrich >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:02 AM >>> To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org >>> Cc: 'SpencerUnderground '; 'Renee Ladd '; 'W Braun ' >>> Subject: Re: [TCWUG] Install Moos [hurdle] >>> >>> >>> >>> setting aside the issues associated with the terms of the lease and >>> such. i would like to applaud arnan for stepping up to the plate and >>> being willing to engage the ham club and tcwug in what i think is >>> ultimately a very generous offer. being pragmatic about things i >>> don't think that there's anything in the terms of the lease offered by >>> arnan that is draconian - this is standard lease stuff, which >>> includes holding the leasee responsible for the state of the goods >>> given that they don't really hold title to the gear in question. >>> >>> i don't think that it's fair for arnan to lease the gear (at zero >>> cost) and expect them to pay for the gear to be fixed if something >>> happens to it. >>> >>> unfortunately - i believe we've run into the the hurdle that i think >>> we all saw coming wrt a loose knit group of individuals having an >>> interest in a particular technology and no formal mechanisms to engage >>> organizations (read: businesses) that would like to do something good, >>> like arnan. >>> >>> despite the best held intentions of the parties involved, there are >>> times when the needs of both cannot be addressed. in all fairness i >>> doubt we (tcwug specifically) are in a position to engage anybody in >>> such a dialog until we formalize (legally) our organization. >>> >>> as an aside - it would likely behoove us (tcwug) to come to a good >>> working arrangement with the gopher radio club to address these >>> matters in the best (overlapping) interests of the 2 groups. >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, >> Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org >> tcwug-list@tcwug.org >> https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > > > >_______________________________________________ >Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota >http://www.tcwug.org >tcwug-list@tcwug.org >https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list -- --*--SpencerUnderground--*-- http://autonomous.tv/ spencer@autonomous.tv Key fingerprint = 173B 8760 E59F DBF8 6FD2 68F8 ABA2 AB08 49C7 4754 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20021013/622acaa3/attachment.pgp From joel at helgeson.com Sun Oct 13 18:39:26 2002 From: joel at helgeson.com (Joel R. Helgeson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:45 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Network Security Training In-Reply-To: <000001c22b6b$a9d77540$027dd8d8@SECURITY> Message-ID: <000001c27310$5c5b3f30$2802a8c0@SECURITY> Once again I will be presenting my Network Security Training on Tuesday, October 15 at 8:30am. This training is being offered to all the TCWUG & TCLUG communities for free. We only have openings in the morning session. We had to cancel the afternoon session. Attendees of the previous sessions have found them to be very valuable and well worth the time. This security workshop is great for Network Managers, Administrators, CIO?s or anyone who wants to learn more about network security and how hackers hack networks. I will be demonstrating live hacking techniques in this class. If you'd like to attend, please email me at joelh@symetriq.com or just show up. Thank you all, Joel R. Helgeson -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org] On Behalf Of Joel R. Helgeson Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 2:22 PM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: [TCWUG] Network Security Training Hello my friends, This Tuesday, July 16th I will be teaching two half-day workshops on the subject of network security. These workshops generally tend to get pretty full, however, I still have 4 slots open for the morning session (starts at 8), and 5 slots for the afternoon session (starting at 1). The cost for the workshop is generally $75 but I am waving this registration fee for my friends in the Twin Cities Wireless Users Group. This security workshop is great for Network Managers, Administrators, CIO?s or anyone who wants to learn more about network security and how hackers hack networks. Please read the brochure that is attached to this message for details. If you?re interested in attending, please call or email my administrative assistant, her contact info is on the flyer, or email me at joelh@symetriq.com with your Name, Phone#, Company Name & Email. If you register through Heidi, please let her know that you are with the TCWUG to get in for free. Space is limited! Regards, Joel R. Helgeson Director of?Networking & Security Services SymetriQ Corporation, www.symetriq.com 8500 Normandale Lake Boulevard, Suite 1670 Bloomington, Minnesota 55437-3813 Office: (952) 921-8869 Cell: (651) 270-7521 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2002-10-15 - Free Security Techknow Session.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 91410 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20021013/6df3e43a/2002-10-15-FreeSecurityTechknowSession.pdf From hick0088 at tc.umn.edu Mon Oct 14 15:06:18 2002 From: hick0088 at tc.umn.edu (Mike Hicks) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:46 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Access Point management Message-ID: <1034625550.14531.39.camel@3po.thodt.net> Has anyone come up with a good way of managing access points strewn all across a building through their console ports? I suppose the easiest thing to do is just carry a laptop or a PDA around and connect it to the APs, but it would obviously be really nice to do centralized management. It looks to me like one of the simpler ways to do it would be to have each AP have an RS-232<->RS-422 adapter on it, then get a multiport serial card that can speak RS-422 (or get a -232 card and twice as many converters), and put it in a management PC somewhere. Of course, each media converter runs on the order of $60, multiport serial cards run in the hundreds of dollars, and cable doesn't seem to be all that cheap (though I suppose you could probably run the signal over Cat5 in a pinch..) So, I guess you could do a dozen APs for the price of a decent laptop, but considering the low speeds used with serial consoles and the infrequent need to use them, are there any good tricks for doing this cheaper? -- _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ Is it true cannibals don't / \/ \(_)| ' // ._\ / - \(_)/ ./| ' /(__ eat clowns because they \_||_/|_||_|_\\___/ \_-_/|_|\__\|_|_\ __) taste funny? [ Mike Hicks | http://umn.edu/~hick0088/ | mailto:hick0088@tc.umn.edu ] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20021014/d70fde39/attachment.pgp From natecars at real-time.com Mon Oct 14 17:30:09 2002 From: natecars at real-time.com (Nate Carlson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:46 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Access Point management In-Reply-To: <1034625550.14531.39.camel@3po.thodt.net> Message-ID: On 14 Oct 2002, Mike Hicks wrote: > Has anyone come up with a good way of managing access points strewn > all across a building through their console ports? I suppose the > easiest thing to do is just carry a laptop or a PDA around and connect > it to the APs, but it would obviously be really nice to do centralized > management. > > It looks to me like one of the simpler ways to do it would be to have > each AP have an RS-232<->RS-422 adapter on it, then get a multiport > serial card that can speak RS-422 (or get a -232 card and twice as > many converters), and put it in a management PC somewhere. > > Of course, each media converter runs on the order of $60, multiport > serial cards run in the hundreds of dollars, and cable doesn't seem to > be all that cheap (though I suppose you could probably run the signal > over Cat5 in a pinch..) > > So, I guess you could do a dozen APs for the price of a decent laptop, > but considering the low speeds used with serial consoles and the > infrequent need to use them, are there any good tricks for doing this > cheaper? Not exactly the answer you're looking for, but you can always get it set up and manage it via SNMP/SSH/whatever your specific vendor supports.. -- Nate Carlson | Phone : (952)943-8700 http://www.real-time.com | Fax : (952)943-8500 From sulrich at botwerks.org Tue Oct 15 07:12:03 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:46 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] meeting for november and informal meeting this weekend Message-ID: <20021015065441.A28733@botwerks.org> all- i've been able to come to terms with some scheduling snafus and would like to outline the following suggested meeting times. for the month of november there are some hiccoughs for the meeting on the first tuesday of the month. hence i'm suggesting that (and i've made arrangements to support) the meeting be held on the second tuesday in november (nov-12, 2002). to address some of the near term items i'm suggesting that we get together this saturday afternoon at location close to downtown with wireless access. i'm working out the details associated with getting a room at one of the dunn bros. which also has wireless acces. more on this as i get the details. -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From mgenelin at ieee.umn.edu Tue Oct 15 18:53:05 2002 From: mgenelin at ieee.umn.edu (mgenelin@ieee.umn.edu) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:46 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Install Moos [hurdle] - what 'availability' does TCWUG get? In-Reply-To: <003d01c27492$ce36cba0$fa67fea9@HPZT> References: <2138.209.32.146.93.1034625076.squirrel@www.ieee.umn.edu> <003d01c27492$ce36cba0$fa67fea9@HPZT> Message-ID: <1213.128.101.171.205.1034725118.squirrel@www.ieee.umn.edu> Hey Chuck (and gang)-- It's obvious to me that a number of months ago when Ben and I pitched this project to the TC-WUG group, noone ever explained the underlaying ideas on the mailing list. So, for those who don't show at the meetings it's easy to get lost. (See: me.) So -- would someone like to summarlize the base idea and goals of where the project started? Perhaps Ben? Perhaps Steve? I apologise for leaving the list-readers (e.g. myself) out in the cold when we began the project. It must be mighty confusing (See: Chuck) for people who are reading the project activities half way into the project. Again, my sincerest apologies for all the confusion. Regards, ---Matthew Genelin--- President, Gopher Amateur Radio Club at The University of Minnesota > Thanks for your lengthy reply. That clarifies much, but also indicates > the exact problems I was trying to inquire about. I, and probably most > in TCWUG, still have no idea what "availability" we will get, if any or > anything. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mgenelin@ieee.umn.edu [mailto:mgenelin@ieee.umn.edu] >> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:51 PM > >> > I don't think we're "5x9" yet: you don't seem to understand >> > "requirements" or "qualifications" for a multi-site community net as >> TCWUG folk have described it: > >> When Ben and I approached the group, TC-WUG didn't know what >> they wanted to do either. (Perhaps this is still the case?) Some >> members argued for >> hot sport deployment. Others wanted free internet access, and >> didn't care >> how they got it. Others wanted to setup a backbone. Finally, Ben and I >> wanted to see TC-WUG doing something real, rather then just >> blathering on >> an internet email list. =) > > Given the directional chaos in TCWUG, you and Ben have done a truly > excellent job. > > However.. > >> So, here we are. Ben has done some great work in pushing this project >> through both the ham and TC-WUG clubs. Perhaps I need to re-state the >> goal(s) here: >> >> 1. The ham club wants to use this as a promotional tool. > > Noble goal, but not a TCWUG goal. > >> We thought that by >> partnering with >> the TC-WUG we could give TC-WUG a project to do. > > TCWUG is not able to "partner" yet, and I don't think the HAM club has > presented a written partnership proposal to deal with ownership, > bandwidth control, and voting issues. > >> This is a >> _direction_ to >> head in for TC-WUG, and not the only thing that TC-WUG can be >> doing. (I >> hope that there are plenty of other projects going on in >> TC-WUG land right >> now!) > > I doubt that TCWUG has any project you don't see here, so yours is it > for now. > >> The ham club only has one goal in mind: To recruit >> students to our >> club. > > Making HAMS probably is not a goal for TCWUG folk. > >> If students want to join TC-WUG, that's awesome too. By >> joining both >> clubs together we can create an awesome project for both to do. > > Problem: TCWUGs who are not UMN folk probably can't join that HAM group > or have any say so in it, however. > >> 2. The original goal of the project was to do point-to-point >> linking from >> Moos Tower. The idea was to have coverage in the various >> communities on >> the east bank campus: Dinkeytown, Stadium Village and the Superblock >> areas. This way, students who live off-campus can join the >> ham club and >> use the wireless bridge. > > Where would that leave TCWUG folk in competing for bandwidth utilization > and allocation? Doesn't sound like a winner for TCWUG. > > Joining is required for use? How would TCWUG folk "join" something? > Note: the Alumni Association (UMAA) no longer permits non-UMN members as > "friends of the U" as they once did, and some may not have graduated yet > either. > > >> While Ben and I work out the technical and legal details of the >> equipment, > the goal may change, but the original goal >> stays the same. > > I'd bet there's LOTS more than just legalities of equipment in order to > connect and share the UMN data and net access you mentioned. Not real > clear that you and Ben are looking at enough of the issues in your goals > yet. > > >> 3. We wanted to give TC-WUG a direction to head in. It seemed >> to me that >> in recent months (April 2002 - July 2002) the TC-WUG mailing >> list turned >> into an "email etiquette" course more then a wireless >> discussion group. We >> wanted to excite the minds of the bright people on the list >> that are into >> wireless and RF technologies. > > Again a noble goal, but providing a means for students to access the > campus isn't a link bandwidth utilization objective for TCWUGs who can't > use it at all. > > FYI, I quit the UMAA internet ISP service last year after many years > because of the poor bandwidth availability that actual members got. > >> > a) The UMN HAM club has done QSL cards and field days for a >> long time, >> but probably has never allowed non-members a voice.. >> Huh? Those seem like fighting words there, Chuck. > > Think first: My original words were more complete and clear: the HAM > club hasn't yet begun to permit actual non-UMN-member participation, and > hasn't yet begun to own and manage off-site equipment, so the HAM club > has less relevant history for a community WiFi project than TCWUG does. > My point was that QSLs and such are probably the only elements of > history that the HAM club has that go back to 1919 or whenever. Your 2 > meter repeater stuff doesn't go that far, your transistor usage doesn't > go that far, and WiFi doesn't go that far. The HAM club hasn't begun > the things I'd expect to be necessary for a real project with TCWUG yet. > Using TCWUG excitement and volunteers to get a UMN student facility may > not be the best TCWUG partnership, but may be entertaining for some for > now. > >> Correct, this is the first time that the ham club has setup an 802.11b >> wireless network of any kind. But it's not the first time that we have >> experimented with new digital modes. > > Understood: HAM clubs always experiment. My comment was directed at > LONG TERM installations off-campus, not short-term experimental ones and > not the on-campus ones. > >> We actively >> work with the Minnesota Repeater Council, another ham group >> in town and a >> favorite part of the hobby for me. > > THAT's what TCWUG should develop partnership with! That's what the > Gopher Club can help with! WiFi that the MRC could support fully is > what TCWUG would be interested in.. . That probably would require HAM > licensing for some aspects of participation in an MRC WiFi net, but I > doubt that MRC would be doing much that only UMN students could use. > >> Many of our members are >> involved with >> other ham clubs... > > Good! That's where the GARC role as TCWUG partner can be most > productive, IMHO. Available bandwidth on Moos would be nice too! > >> So -- we _do_ have experience working with other groups and >> have had a lot >> of fun working on projects and volunteering for activities >> with and for >> other people. > > I'm sure of that, but.. Nothing written, nothing permanent for > OFF-CAMPUS = near or at zero for that kind of thing. > > . "Could [we] be open to a peer-level TC-WUG >> partnership and >> Wi-Fi"? I believe *we* approached *you*. As a matter of fact, I *know* >> that *we* approached *you* since I was there pitching this to >> the group >> with Ben a few months ago. > > No: I heard words and see more words written, but have yet to see the > Gopher Club actually write or DO something that amounts to sharing > equipment and bandwidth in a real way with TCWUG. What you outline > seems like GARC holding out its hand for donations from us and for GARC > purposes alone: GARC hasn't put in writing yet just what TCWUG might get > by donating time and equipment to GARC. > >> > d) the UMN HAM club alumni and board doesn't seem to have TCWUG's >> interests as top priorities... only a few people there do. > >> Huh? I didn't know that the Gopher Amateur Radio Club had a "board". >> Perhaps this is something I'll have to chat with the rest of the gang >> about. You'd think I would know about a "board" being the >> president of the >> Gopher Amateur Radio Club. =) > > If GARC is a real non-profit thing, it has legal and other > accountabilities to UMN and to the state of MN and to IRS. Otherwise, > it's wholly owned by UMN, and under UMN insurance, etc. In either case, > there's an official governing body and reporting of annual finances > under some set of laws. As Pres, you should know when or how (or > whether) GARC is legal. How to make a long-term agreement would be > described in those top-level and next level legal papers (Articles of > Inc and ByLaws - or equiv). > >> >> Since you have elevated yourself to be the email spokesperson >> for TC-WUG... > > Speaking out of curiosity and constructive intent ONLY. Knowledgeable > but NOT "elevating". > The web site needs some FAQs or equiv. I would help with that if asked > by the leaders. > >> what exactly _are_ the "TC-WUG's interests"? > > No idea. Only looking to see what's visible here, whatever it may be. > If it becomes a real group with a stated mission, I might be interested > or might not. Depends on what the mission may be. So far it's just a > rag-tag online technical forum and that's OK. We should recognize when > or whether or how it becomes more. > > >> If the only interests are "I >> want free internet access" I think you are hanging out with the wrong >> group. =) > > We're no more sure what kind of access or availability that hanging out > with GARC will get for non-members either :-) > > >> "Clearly presented" must mean that Chuck wants something in writing. >> Perhaps we can discuss "writing things down" at the next >> TC-WUG meeting, >> if everyone really wants to get all-formal-like-that-and-stuff. > > > Right in the following sense :-) > > A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on. > -Samuel > Goldwyn > > (note that GARC may not be legally able to execute written agreements > with off-campus groups!) > > Regards, and thanks much for helping to clarify! This clarifying effort > should help GARC also. > What you and Ben want to do may not be legally possible for GARC to do > with any TCWUG access. > > Chuck From sulrich at botwerks.org Thu Oct 17 10:45:34 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:46 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Re: [Fwd: Physical Cloud Proposal] In-Reply-To: <3DAE3430.88C4F4A9@nkras.dsl.visi.com> References: <3DAE3430.88C4F4A9@nkras.dsl.visi.com> Message-ID: <20021017102623.A31944@botwerks.org> neal - it sounds like you're pushing for a coordinated hotspot deployment. i think that the goal behind moos is to create a mesh of backbone elements that can be used in the fashion that you discussed at the meeting where matt and ben proposed the moos tower deployment. i don't know that we need to place any emphasis on network security beyond securing the network elements themselves and any authentication infrastructure. folks need to secure their own traffic (ss{l,h}, ipsec, etc). when last we saw our hero (Wednesday, Oct 16, 2002), Neal was madly tapping out: > > Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 21:26:45 -0500 > From: Neal > X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 (Macintosh; U; PPC) > To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org > Subject: Physical Cloud Proposal > > I thought this whole exercise was to create a cloud in the Twin > Cities, where wireless users would have the ability to communicate > between hotspots in disparate geographic areas. The Moos Tower > Project appears to be following a centralized base station concept: > low power mobiles uplinking to a centralized, higher elevation > receiver, which answers by downlinking to the same mobile by a > centralized, higher elevation transmitter. > > There obviously are more legal and engineering issues than first > thought. > > I propose an alternative: using whatever bandwidth is available to > individual members, whether it be xDSL, ISDN, or dial-up modems, we > can link hotspots together. Depending on the topology of the > network, sites may be major nodes with routing capabilities, minor > nodes with hubs or switches, or leaf nodes at end points of the > physical cloud. > > Secure, encrypted transmission protocols would be an eventual > necessity. All traffic adhere to contractual agreements with > upstream providers. Between private parties, i.e. node to node > wireline links, there would be no such limitations. > > I can elaborate on this idea at the next formal meeting if you want > me to. > -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From sulrich at botwerks.org Thu Oct 17 12:41:06 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:46 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] informal meeting saturday (oct-18, 2002) Message-ID: <20021017121602.A32065@botwerks.org> all - ( i'll follow up with some parties unicast since the server seems to be ) ( having problems as of late. ) i've reserved the table in back at the university avenue dunn brothers for our informal meeting this saturday @ 5:00 PM. this location has wireless internet access which should be handy. contact information for this dunn bros. is as follows. 530 University Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55414 612-331-5195 dunnbros10@dunnbros.com map - [1] there should be parking available on the street nearby and in the small lot behind the coffee shop iirc. the table is in my name - if there are any questions please don't hesitate to drop a line. references ---------- [1] - http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?size=big&mapdata=afbX8DbyAocy%2bPj%2bRP9K%2fiPK3U6cXSe4%2bNFfHaenQF%2felvd0o1kLYj7pmzz4wxvIAYNfo59Gns0aq1hDubPc51aExsiew9BVrxlo8N1DUzAEcQIL7hvd9xMjQW1HECDjwYrJa0RN2lafoWzqXqzsWAMzyV5uNUjewx9R8yR%2bCmfYGBNApp7rFsF7Mw5STkfWsBYm6EzxG7eMbN4auXnNZrI%2fvaHiKU4Q4ujW5wuNvVN%2fJEAIVm4b%2bdrA%2fSr5GEfLMXJxZsdd9WlcxpGiMf84uIMDlAAhoSn7ERY%2fHV01Z7VDK%2fv8HmQolefHbg1ErUP2Xk7ema7duqS4AVG4MsoJd6Jq%2fiBkiM3GMgIh9OPTmnf1RgLV%2bPfD8%2fvVfbGKg0bldr7nLDf71qg%3d -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From austad at signal15.com Mon Oct 21 17:50:05 2002 From: austad at signal15.com (Jay Austad) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:46 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] 802.11 phones Message-ID: <7907BB22-E546-11D6-BAED-00039395531E@signal15.com> I posted a message sort of related to this to the TCLUG list (hasn't made it yet though). But, I figure this is a better place to ask a more specific question. Where can I get 802.11 based cordless phones? Symbol Technologies has their NetVision Series, which looks cool, but I can't find a vendor that sells them, except for the most expensive phone which is $508. I know there are other vendors out there that make these, as Cisco told me about a few when I was demoing one of their IP phone systems. And some of the handsets were fairly cheap too. Does anyone know where I can find more info on these or pick some up? I'm planning on using these with Asterisk (http://www.asteriskpbx.com) for my phone system in my house. Jay From sulrich at botwerks.org Tue Oct 22 10:26:05 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:46 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] meeting notes - 19-oct-2002 Message-ID: <20021022102250.A11430@botwerks.org> all- a collection of nots and such from this saturday. hopefully i've covered the items that were discussed. i apologize for any errors or omissions - if there are some - please bring them up. meeting notes- (dunn bros. university location) - 19-oct-2002 @ 5:00pm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- we had some new faces. notably some folks from the tc freenet and some list lurkers who were interested in the activities of the group, some of whom had a fair amount of nonprofit experience. the meeting was fairly brief - about an 1-1/2 and provided folks with an opportunity to suck down some coffee at the same time. it's hoped that we can have more of these informal meetings to discuss outstanding issues. group legal status ------------------ most of the discussion surrounded the creation of a legal entity for the group - to facilitate donation, of hardware, time, money etc. to advance the group. we actually have a fair number of resources at our disposal to facilitate the creation of a non-profit organization. - minnesota council of nonprofits (mncn)- these folks have some really good information available online. - [1] i mention this one first because the quantity and quality of the content is first rate. - MAP - management assistance program for nonprofits has a lot of information available online. these folks also have legal services which can help the group through the legal hurdles for a nominal fee. i also got the name of a recommended tax exemption attorney. i'll see what i can get from them for information and suggestions. i would encourage folks interested in forming an entity to review the information available at the link for the mncn since there's a lot of good points that are brought up regarding whether or not you need to form a legal entity, etc. given several of the concerns that have been raised as of late regarding the ability to partner with other groups, accept donations, get access to rooftops, etc. this is an item that bears speedy resolution. it was suggested that an organizing committee be set up to address this matter in an expedited fashion. this is likely a key topic for discussion on our next formal meeting. group activities ---------------- in addition to the discussion regarding the legal side of things there was a fair amount of discussion surrounding the feasability of creating an overlay network within the twin cities. there are some significant challenges associated with the the overlay network creation. these are not insurmountable just significant and it may take some time for folks to get something appealing and useful. for this reason there was some interest in establishing a group to work on the problem of coordinated hotspots to address the needs of such a network. i.e. - authentication, cookie cutter configurations, documentation to support this. this gets back to our SIG discussion from a couple months back, but it facilitates doing something of user value in the near term while working on the infrastructure side of things. mailing lists ------------- given some of the challenges that the list server has been experiencing and as an outgrowth of the discussion at the meeting there has been a mailing list setup to discuss network creation specific matters (of the hotspot or overlay network ilk). more information and subscription information is available online.[2] the lists are currently hosted on the tc-unwired.net domain which will be turned over to whatever entity the group takes form in. questions? drop a line. references ---------- [1] - http://www.mncn.org/info_start.htm [2] - http://lists.tc-unwired.net/mailman/listinfo -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From spencer at autonomous.tv Tue Oct 22 15:31:04 2002 From: spencer at autonomous.tv (SpencerUnderground) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:46 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] 802.11 phones In-Reply-To: <7907BB22-E546-11D6-BAED-00039395531E@signal15.com> References: <7907BB22-E546-11D6-BAED-00039395531E@signal15.com> Message-ID: <20021022202413.GL20306@tcopensys.com> Check the BAWUG archives. There has been some discussion about his latley. I'd post a link put I usually just hit 'd' after I browse the list. On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 05:43:09PM -0500, Jay Austad wrote: >I posted a message sort of related to this to the TCLUG list (hasn't >made it yet though). But, I figure this is a better place to ask a >more specific question. Where can I get 802.11 based cordless phones? >Symbol Technologies has their NetVision Series, which looks cool, but I >can't find a vendor that sells them, except for the most expensive >phone which is $508. > >I know there are other vendors out there that make these, as Cisco told >me about a few when I was demoing one of their IP phone systems. And >some of the handsets were fairly cheap too. Does anyone know where I >can find more info on these or pick some up? > >I'm planning on using these with Asterisk (http://www.asteriskpbx.com) >for my phone system in my house. > >Jay > >_______________________________________________ >Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, >Minnesota >http://www.tcwug.org >tcwug-list@tcwug.org >https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list -- --*--SpencerUnderground--*-- http://autonomous.tv/ spencer@autonomous.tv Key fingerprint = 173B 8760 E59F DBF8 6FD2 68F8 ABA2 AB08 49C7 4754 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20021022/093ee251/attachment.pgp From poptix at techmonkeys.org Mon Oct 28 18:51:29 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:37:28 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Access Point management In-Reply-To: <1034625550.14531.39.camel@3po.thodt.net> References: <1034625550.14531.39.camel@3po.thodt.net> Message-ID: <20021014202243.GA1164@techmonkeys.org> On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 02:59:10PM -0500, Mike Hicks wrote: > Has anyone come up with a good way of managing access points strewn all > across a building through their console ports? I suppose the easiest > thing to do is just carry a laptop or a PDA around and connect it to the > APs, but it would obviously be really nice to do centralized management. > Infrared serial dongle (no software required) along with a laptop sounds like it would work well for this, or just lug around a laptop and a long-ish serial cable (depends on where exactly the AP's are, and how [un]accessable they are. > -- > _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ Is it true cannibals don't > / \/ \(_)| ' // ._\ / - \(_)/ ./| ' /(__ eat clowns because they > \_||_/|_||_|_\\___/ \_-_/|_|\__\|_|_\ __) taste funny? > [ Mike Hicks | http://umn.edu/~hick0088/ | mailto:hick0088@tc.umn.edu ] -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20021028/a4cf7b35/attachment.pgp From sulrich at botwerks.org Mon Oct 28 22:19:17 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:37:28 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Access Point management In-Reply-To: <1034625550.14531.39.camel@3po.thodt.net> References: <1034625550.14531.39.camel@3po.thodt.net> Message-ID: <20021014203339.GA69769@botwerks.org> given that most APs aren't necessarily always within reach of a serial interface most of them are addressable on the the network. is there some specific reason that you don't want to manage yours over the network? for the number of times that you need to hook up to an AP via the serial cable i can't imagine that lugging a laptop around is all that difficult. when last we saw our hero (Monday, Oct 14, 2002), Mike Hicks was madly tapping out: > Has anyone come up with a good way of managing access points strewn > all across a building through their console ports? I suppose the > easiest thing to do is just carry a laptop or a PDA around and > connect it to the APs, but it would obviously be really nice to do > centralized management. > > It looks to me like one of the simpler ways to do it would be to > have each AP have an RS-232<->RS-422 adapter on it, then get a > multiport serial card that can speak RS-422 (or get a -232 card and > twice as many converters), and put it in a management PC somewhere. > > Of course, each media converter runs on the order of $60, multiport > serial cards run in the hundreds of dollars, and cable doesn't seem > to be all that cheap (though I suppose you could probably run the > signal over Cat5 in a pinch..) > > So, I guess you could do a dozen APs for the price of a decent > laptop, but considering the low speeds used with serial consoles and > the infrequent need to use them, are there any good tricks for doing > this cheaper? -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 230 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20021028/80c8e7f6/attachment.pgp From barken at rohan.sdsu.edu Tue Oct 29 13:56:40 2002 From: barken at rohan.sdsu.edu (Lee Barken) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:37:28 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Hello from the San Diego Wireless Users Group! Message-ID: *warm hello's* from SDWUG! we read your article with great interest... http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/4383485.htm If anybody happens to be visiting in San Diego around the 3rd Tuesday of any month... please be sure to stop by an SDWUG meeting and say hi! http://www.sdwug.org Keep up the Great Work! -Lee From jacob.behm at bisinc.net Wed Oct 30 13:16:00 2002 From: jacob.behm at bisinc.net (Jacob Behm) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:37:28 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Access Point management Message-ID: <368D67626F94DC42890180F75B1E97C77F739D@newman.bisinc.net> So you know Ezra Moore. Ezra and I are working on a wireless Coffee Shop empire. I think he told you about it. I've been reading your posts for over a year. It's good to know that you're a brother. PS. I'd go to the monthly meetings if they weren't Tuesday nights. I have school and service meeting. Jacob Behm -----Original Message----- From: steve ulrich [mailto:sulrich@botwerks.org] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:34 PM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: Re: [TCWUG] Access Point management given that most APs aren't necessarily always within reach of a serial interface most of them are addressable on the the network. is there some specific reason that you don't want to manage yours over the network? for the number of times that you need to hook up to an AP via the serial cable i can't imagine that lugging a laptop around is all that difficult. when last we saw our hero (Monday, Oct 14, 2002), Mike Hicks was madly tapping out: > Has anyone come up with a good way of managing access points strewn > all across a building through their console ports? I suppose the > easiest thing to do is just carry a laptop or a PDA around and > connect it to the APs, but it would obviously be really nice to do > centralized management. > > It looks to me like one of the simpler ways to do it would be to > have each AP have an RS-232<->RS-422 adapter on it, then get a > multiport serial card that can speak RS-422 (or get a -232 card and > twice as many converters), and put it in a management PC somewhere. > > Of course, each media converter runs on the order of $60, multiport > serial cards run in the hundreds of dollars, and cable doesn't seem > to be all that cheap (though I suppose you could probably run the > signal over Cat5 in a pinch..) > > So, I guess you could do a dozen APs for the price of a decent > laptop, but considering the low speeds used with serial consoles and > the infrequent need to use them, are there any good tricks for doing > this cheaper? -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From poster at bitstream.net Thu Oct 31 14:24:10 2002 From: poster at bitstream.net (Jacob Behm) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:37:29 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Access Point management In-Reply-To: <368D67626F94DC42890180F75B1E97C77F739D@newman.bisinc.net> Message-ID: <368D67626F94DC42890180F75B1E97C736AD65@newman.bisinc.net> This was a terrible mistake. Not meant for the list. Please disregard. Sorry. -----Original Message----- From: Jacob Behm Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 9:43 AM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: RE: [TCWUG] Access Point management So you know Ezra Moore. Ezra and I are working on a wireless Coffee Shop empire. I think he told you about it. I've been reading your posts for over a year. It's good to know that you're a brother. PS. I'd go to the monthly meetings if they weren't Tuesday nights. I have school and service meeting. Jacob Behm -----Original Message----- From: steve ulrich [mailto:sulrich@botwerks.org] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:34 PM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: Re: [TCWUG] Access Point management given that most APs aren't necessarily always within reach of a serial interface most of them are addressable on the the network. is there some specific reason that you don't want to manage yours over the network? for the number of times that you need to hook up to an AP via the serial cable i can't imagine that lugging a laptop around is all that difficult. when last we saw our hero (Monday, Oct 14, 2002), Mike Hicks was madly tapping out: > Has anyone come up with a good way of managing access points strewn > all across a building through their console ports? I suppose the > easiest thing to do is just carry a laptop or a PDA around and > connect it to the APs, but it would obviously be really nice to do > centralized management. > > It looks to me like one of the simpler ways to do it would be to > have each AP have an RS-232<->RS-422 adapter on it, then get a > multiport serial card that can speak RS-422 (or get a -232 card and > twice as many converters), and put it in a management PC somewhere. > > Of course, each media converter runs on the order of $60, multiport > serial cards run in the hundreds of dollars, and cable doesn't seem > to be all that cheap (though I suppose you could probably run the > signal over Cat5 in a pinch..) > > So, I guess you could do a dozen APs for the price of a decent > laptop, but considering the low speeds used with serial consoles and > the infrequent need to use them, are there any good tricks for doing > this cheaper? -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From ben at mnfilm.org Thu Oct 31 17:52:24 2002 From: ben at mnfilm.org (Ben Nelson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:37:29 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Duluth wireless Message-ID: Has anyone heard of these guys? Thoughts? http://www.superiorbroadband.com/coverage_aread.htm Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20021031/30d737d0/attachment.htm From poptix at techmonkeys.org Thu Oct 31 18:32:08 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:37:29 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Duluth wireless In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20021101000927.GA10791@techmonkeys.org> On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 11:22:35AM -0600, Ben Nelson wrote: > Has anyone heard of these guys? Thoughts? Never *heard* of them, I did pick up their wireless network in the duluith area though. http://www.poptix.net/duluth.png the area is very busy, 2.4ghz-wise. > > http://www.superiorbroadband.com/coverage_aread.htm > > Ben -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From mgenelin at ieee.umn.edu Thu Oct 31 20:44:39 2002 From: mgenelin at ieee.umn.edu (mgenelin@ieee.umn.edu) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:37:29 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] TCWUG UserId request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2024.128.101.171.205.1036110950.squirrel@www.ieee.umn.edu> Hey Marty! Awesome to hear that you want to join the ranks of the geekiest network in town! I am uncertain which "Matthew" you are looking for. The best way to join TCWUG is come to a meeting! Since TCWUG is just an informal group of folks', everyone is welcome. Watch the list here for meeting times / dates / places. Regards, ---Matthew Genelin--- > Matthew, > > I would like to join the TCWUG. I currently have an access point close > to Loring Park. > My email address is mburkel@gozamba.com and make my password 'tommy'. > Thanks. > > Marty > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, > Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From poptix at techmonkeys.org Thu Oct 31 22:12:02 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:37:29 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] TCWUG UserId request In-Reply-To: <2024.128.101.171.205.1036110950.squirrel@www.ieee.umn.edu> References: <2024.128.101.171.205.1036110950.squirrel@www.ieee.umn.edu> Message-ID: <20021101030659.GC10791@techmonkeys.org> It was meant for me, regarding maps.tcwug.org I assume, I've replied privately. On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 06:35:50PM -0600, mgenelin@ieee.umn.edu wrote: > Hey Marty! > > Awesome to hear that you want to join the ranks of the geekiest network in > town! I am uncertain which "Matthew" you are looking for. > > The best way to join TCWUG is come to a meeting! Since TCWUG is just an > informal group of folks', everyone is welcome. Watch the list here for > meeting times / dates / places. > > Regards, > ---Matthew Genelin--- > > > > Matthew, > > > > I would like to join the TCWUG. I currently have an access point close > > to Loring Park. > > My email address is mburkel@gozamba.com and make my password 'tommy'. > > Thanks. > > > > Marty -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From jack at jacku.com Thu Oct 31 23:39:20 2002 From: jack at jacku.com (Jack Ungerleider) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:37:29 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Duluth wireless In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200210312223.44527.jack@jacku.com> On Thursday 31 October 2002 11:22, Ben Nelson wrote: > Has anyone heard of these guys? Thoughts? > > http://www.superiorbroadband.com/coverage_aread.htm > > Ben I've heard of them. The guy who started that is also one of the owners of the Browsers N'Etc Cafe on Superior street. They started the wireless stuff in 1999 with some APs & antennas in the downtown area and Canal Park. The guy who ran the Twin Ports LUG, Todd Ide, was one of their network engineers for a long time. When I last ran into him he had left Superior Broadband for something else. They were positioning themselves to serve those sections of Duluth that weren't going to get DSL service due to the difficulty and cost of putting in adequate equipment in the older CO's "on the hill". The only choice for residential broadband in that area was Charter Pipeline (cable). As far as business high-speed internet you had T1 and Frame Relay via Qwest and CP Internet (usually). When I left there in the spring of 2000 they had clients along Superior street and at least one of the hotels in Canal Park. They struck a deal to put an antenna system on the top of the hotel. They were doing the same kind of thing to move up Superior Street and the London Road commercial district. They'd trade service for "real estate" and get what I guess are repeater type antenna systems on taller buildings. Note: All of this is vague memories of discussions with Todd and Dave Anderson, the owner. -- Jack Ungerleider jack@jacku.com