I'd like to see actual technical response to the technical points I cited about mesh networks...  add latency to the list

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcwug-list-bounces at tcwug.org
> [mailto:tcwug-list-bounces at tcwug.org]On Behalf Of Chuck Cole
> > >
> > > ...    Volunteers will have power outages and ISP downtime, so the average "availability state" of such a mesh would be
> > > "irregular" on good days.    A Minneapolis mesh probably wouldn't provide regular
> > > connections to / in Apple Valley, Stillwater, Plymouth or Owatonna and between those points.
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.

BS: most of that was clear and specific technical and other requirement data.  None of the specifics have been commented upon.

I'm not opposed to something I don't need, but is this "disorganized mesh network" real or just a quasi-feasible fantasy?



Chuck