Re: OT: Wireless Internet

["Patricia M. Godfrey" priscamg@xxxxxxxx]

Brian.Henderson@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> Wireless is definitely an improvement over CAT cable (in terms of
> convenience anyway). But I have too many signal strength problems with
> my wireless system.
Yes, because such things as thick masonry walls, metal columns in
tall buildings, etc, can interfere with a wireless signal. It's
great in a one-story wooden (or fiberboard, which is what most of
the new houses going up hereabouts seem to be made of) bungalow;
not so hot in a 100-year-old urban apartment building.

I'd rather have a non-wireless but easy to deploy
> household LAN. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way. On the
> other hand, it may just be that there aren't ENOUGH people who feel that
> way.
The question is, are there enough people willing to pay enough
for someone to make mucho dinero from it? If so, it may happen.
On the other hand, if someone is already raking in the silver
from existing monopolies or duopolies, those parties won't let it
happen.
> Wireless DOES have its advantages, especially for the increasingly
> laptop/iphone equipped population.
But the security issues abound with wireless. We also, I think,
need to be precise about "wireless." It means two quite different
things: 1) using short range radio signals to get on either an
internal network or, through that, the Internet, using a Wireless
Access Point or similar tech; and 2) using long-range, cellular
radio signals to access the Internet and voice communications.

--
Patricia M. Godfrey
priscamg@xxxxxxxx