Chuck Cole wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tom Poe [mailto:tompoe at fngi.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 1:34 AM >> To: Chuck Cole >> Cc: TCWUG-List; wilson at visi.com >> Subject: Re: [tcwug-list] Neighborhood mesh networking >> >> >> Open-Mesh is a group of volunteers dedicated to community-owned WiFi, >> not owned or controlled by any one corporate entity. >> https://www.open-mesh.com/store/categories.php?category=Who-is-%22Open%252dMesh%22%3F >> > > > > I assume that's true, but it seems quite irrelevant for TCWUG except the coincidence that it has the same no control or out-of > control nonentity form. By that definition of org, TCWUG could not qualify for or get corporate support or donations, so it's all > out-of-pocket, and a very limited uphill struggle. Seems like a grand loser for TCWUG activities. Maybe fine in a venue of its > own, but seems very wrong for the basic purpose of TCWUG, a "user group". Otherwise, it's just a black hole that consumes all time > and doesn't seem to have any predictable quality benefits. My cell phone gives me high speed internet access over national scale, > and for free. Volunteers will have power outages and ISP downtime, so the average "availability state" of such a mesh would be > "irregular" on good days. I see no benefit at all for my interests. A Minneapolis mesh probably wouldn't provide regular > connections to in Apple Valley, Stillwater, Plymouth or Owatonna and between those points. > > I still believe making mesh or similar large scale utility activities is a good way to kill any interest in TCWUG. Certainly kills > mine: > > 1) I'm not interested in mesh or public utilities. > > 2) at no time would there be predictable "homogeneous regular mesh" connectivity over the greater TC area. > > 3) Always heterogeneous over significant areas, but operational specs probably based upon homogeneity. > > 4) special topic developer interest seems OT for TCWUG "user group" interests. > > 5) doesn't mitigate any stated present deficiency or an unstated one I am aware of. > > 6) probably not "plug and play" security or setup > > 7) probably not a replacement for a personal ISP connection, because of no assured connection state or security or bandwidth. > > 8) seems like wishful "thinking", minus any specs for assured availabilities. > > > > Chuck > > > Chuck: Where's your disclaimer? This is definitely a corporate telco line if I ever heard one. I suspect the archives will speak loud and clear as to why this group has waned over the years, with folks like you spewing garbage. The boys at open-mesh.com, as you well know, are the founders of the Rooftop Project at MIT. Hopefully, the few list members that have seen your messages, understand where you're coming from, and would want to know why your most recent response includes the list and someone named Wilson at visi.com. Tom