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