WiFi at AirVenture (was:Does your airport WiFi?)

Juan Jimenez wrote:

Just pointing out that Airventure charges to get in is not a justification
for spending money on a WiFi infrastructure to be used just 2 weeks out of
the year.

For that short a timespan, sattelite might be the best way to go.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

George Patterson Wrote:

For that short a timespan, sattelite might be the best way to go.

Can you get broadband service via satellite dish in an RV? Maybe we
could convince someone to put up a hotspot that way.

-R

"Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...

George Patterson Wrote:

For that short a timespan, sattelite might be the best way to go.

Can you get broadband service via satellite dish in an RV? Maybe we
could convince someone to put up a hotspot that way.

-R


Incoming, yes.
Outgoing (unless you want to spend big $$$), you need a landline.

Jay

Jay Beckman wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...

George Patterson Wrote:


For that short a timespan, sattelite might be the best way to go.

Can you get broadband service via satellite dish in an RV? Maybe we
could convince someone to put up a hotspot that way.

-R



Incoming, yes.
Outgoing (unless you want to spend big $$$), you need a landline.

Why is that (not disputing, just ignorant)?

Anyway, I don't think anyone is proposing setting up a server on the hotspot.

In rec.aviation.owning Dave Butler wrote:
Jay Beckman wrote:
Incoming, yes.
Outgoing (unless you want to spend big $$$), you need a landline.

Why is that (not disputing, just ignorant)?

Anyway, I don't think anyone is proposing setting up a server on the hotspot.

I believe that early satellite internet services used the satellite for
inbound traffic and a telephone line for outbound traffic, but if you
look at the web page for services like DirecWay, you'll see that they
uplink using the satellite, too. It's just not very fast (50kbps).

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

Dave Butler wrote:

Anyway, I don't think anyone is proposing setting up a server on the
hotspot.

Actually, I was sort of leaning that way. Setup time for a satellite link is
minimal, compared to a T1 or T3. About 15 years ago, it was common practice in
some places to set up satellite feeds for bank ATMs for the short run until the
bugs could be worked out of the cable setup.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

George Patterson wrote:
Juan Jimenez wrote:


Just pointing out that Airventure charges to get in is not a
justification for spending money on a WiFi infrastructure to be used
just 2 weeks out of the year.


For that short a timespan, sattelite might be the best way to go.

That's what I was thinking, too.

What if someone had DirecWay at home and just brought their dish and receiver
and set it up beside the showers in the N40?

In rec.aviation.owning Dave Butler wrote:
What if someone had DirecWay at home and just brought their dish and receiver
and set it up beside the showers in the N40?

Considering the "home" version of Direcway seems to be 500kbps download
and 50kbps upload, I'm not sure I'd want to share it with a bunch of
other people over a WiFi connection. It would probably be pretty slow.
In addition, the ping times are real long, so it often seems even slower
than the throughput would suggest.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

"Jay Masino" wrote in message
...
Considering the "home" version of Direcway seems to be 500kbps download
and 50kbps upload, I'm not sure I'd want to share it with a bunch of
other people over a WiFi connection. It would probably be pretty slow.

It would be slow no matter how you share it.

In addition, the ping times are real long, so it often seems even slower
than the throughput would suggest.

Ping times shouldn't be more than about 500ms add-on. How many people are
really going to notice a half-second difference in response time?

I certainly would agree that you couldn't share a link that slow (500kpbs
down/50kbps up) with many people before it got completely congested. 10
people all downloading at the same time, and they all might as well be on
dial-up. But I don't see how ping times are an issue. It's not like people
are going to be playing Quake from the North 40.

Pete

In rec.aviation.owning Peter Duniho wrote:
Ping times shouldn't be more than about 500ms add-on. How many people are
really going to notice a half-second difference in response time?

I certainly would agree that you couldn't share a link that slow (500kpbs
down/50kbps up) with many people before it got completely congested. 10
people all downloading at the same time, and they all might as well be on
dial-up. But I don't see how ping times are an issue. It's not like people
are going to be playing Quake from the North 40.

Yea, you might be right. In my head, I've been comparing it to a
satellite link we had between two NASA centers (Goddard and Wallops) and
how using ssh was painful. We even tried running PC Anywhere over it. It
really sucked, and we had 900 kbps in each direction. 525ms ping time.
Of course, both of those apps would be far more sensitive to response time
than a web browser.

--- Jay

--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com