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

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

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

TaxSrv wrote:

The entire convention has been grossing around $9 million, including
exhibitor fees and advertising. However, gross is irrelevant, as this
is really a business venture. Whether net access is worth the cost is
a matter of whether it will bring in additional attendees, as you
implied in another post. While AirVentrure makes money, overall EAA
has been losing money in recent years, so maybe even relatively small
costs are carefully considered.


The last time I looked at the public numbers the EAA and the foundation
each netted about a million on a five million gross for Airventure.
It's a big large portion of the annual revenue for both organizations.

I think you'll find that board member or not, you'll be excluded from
much of the financial reporting. Ask the present board members if
they can account for all of Tommy's salary and "benefits", or better
said, if Tommy will account for the $400,000 in expense money above
his salary.

Dig down deep before you enter this world.



On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:29:23 -0700, "RST Engineering"
wrote:

Well, sir, since I'm running for the board that will spend all this
largesse, why don't you educate me on the matter.

My numbers show a $20M income from all sources.

My expenses show a $17M outflow (including all EAA payroll for the whole
year).

Net to the EAA is about $3M a year from the flyin.

That makes for one HELL of a lot of bratwurst in the differential.





Jim




"TaxSrv" wrote in message
news
"Jon A." wrote:
...
A real lowball! How about the "camping" fees. If 70% are members,
10K relates to 450 people a day. Let's assume that everyone is a
member and stays 1 day. 200,000 X 20 = 4,000,000. My guess is that
it's around $15 million in admission, camping and the rest.

The entire convention has been grossing around $9 million, including
exhibitor fees and advertising. However, gross is irrelevant, as this
is really a business venture. Whether net access is worth the cost is
a matter of whether it will bring in additional attendees, as you
implied in another post. While AirVentrure makes money, overall EAA
has been losing money in recent years, so maybe even relatively small
costs are carefully considered.

Fred F.

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.

Juan Jimenez wrote:

Personally, I bring my own brand, Wake Up The Dead.

I like Disobedient Donkey (AKA "bad ass"). I gave serious thought to raiding my
401K to set up a franchise. Of course, what I don't know about retail would fill
several books.

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

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:41:06 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

The Linksys WRT54G wireless access point/router supports (at least it does
if you get the Sveasoft firmware, and believe me, you don't want it
without it) a mode where each WAP can relay traffic for all the other WAPs
in its range, so you can chain a bunch of them together wirelessly with
only one connected to the cable/dsl/fat pipe. You can also turn up the
power on them and increase the range.

Ha. We tried the "repeater" method at the hotel, in an effort to adequately
cover two 3-story buildings.

It turned out to be incredibly unstable. All it would take was a 2 second
power outage, and the repeater "lost its mind" and would not recover -- a

That's why they make UPSs.
My tower gets hit by lightening about three times a year. The last
time, the lights went out, The alarms on the UPSs sounded, the network
rebooted (probably went down from the voltage spike - It's hard wired)
and other than the couple second pause on the network everything kept
running. Other than being slow, wireless should be just as reliable
even using repeaters. There are repeaters and there are the WAPs.
which are quite different animals and I don't know which you tried.

I have the wireless equipment but it was just too slow for my
application. Backing up a 100 or so gig with four computers at even
100 Base T is agonizingly slow. OTOH defragging a computer with 500
plus Gig in EIDE drive capacity total in three drives plus two 200 Gig
SATA drives in a spanned and stripped array seems to take forever.

completely untenable solution in a commercial application. Other times it
would lose its connection for no apparent reason at all, and have to be
"rebooted" from scratch -- a time consuming, aggravating affair.

It sounds to me like you had an interfering signal, or some bad
noise. Even another system near by can some times do it.

A friend has/had 2.4 gig phones, a 2.4 Gig X-10 web cam and a 2.4 Gig
wireless network. He found the phone would trash the network and the
signal from the web cam. Those in turn would trash the signal from
the phone. He now has 5 gig phones and the rest of the system is
happy.

With wireless, I'm waiting until they get the speed up for my network.
For Internet connections you don't need anything faster than 10 Base T
and most wireless networks far surpass that with 802.11g being almost
as fast as 100 Base T in most installations. With 4 large computers
and over two terabytes of storage, I'm now on a gigabit network. That
means the drive I/O is the limiting factor on most file transfers.
Even the SATA RAID isn't that fast.

But wireless is getting there. although I'd suggest using a name
other than default for D-Link, or Linksys for ... well...LinkSys :-))
which I'd bet over 60 to 70% of the users are doing and they are doing
it without encryption enabled..

Good Luck,

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Our solution was a separate DSL line and network in both buildings. A bit
more expensive, but rock-solid.

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

"Jay Masino" wrote in message
...
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.

Exactly.

I'd expect ssh to be a worst-case scenario, since you're getting echo from
the other end. Highly noticeable to the user.

PC Anywhere should be less noticeable, since throughput is more important
than ping time, but the interactive nature would still allow the user to
notice an increase in ping time.

For more conventional stuff, like email, web browsing, and (of course )
newsgroups, I would expect the user to have very little perception, if any,
of the increase in ping time. The user is already used to the "provide
input, wait a little while for the response" in those scenarios.

Of course, even for the more interactive tasks, the user can run ahead of
the link. The *perception* will be of a slow link, but in reality, there
will only be a half-second delay for each operation.

I would guess that if the choice is between no link, and a link with a 500
ms lag in it, many people would choose the latter. Me, one of the things I
like about vacations is getting away from the computer.

Pete