[geeks] Interesting ATI/AMD news

[Lionel Peterson]

>From: Charles Shannon Hendrix <shannon at widomaker.com>
>Date: 2006/07/31 Mon AM 10:55:44 CDT
>To: The Geeks List <geeks at sunhelp.org>
>Subject: Re: [geeks] Interesting ATI/AMD news

>Sun, 30 Jul 2006 @ 08:25 -0500, Lionel Peterson said:
>
>> I think the issues are that:
>> 
>> a) License towers require permits
>
>Not all of them.  For example, one local public Wifi network just asked
>the city for use of some utility poles, and the city said yes.
>
>No license needed.
>
>Most of them seem to use private buildings by permission, which may or
>not may greasing the wheels with cash.

I was thinking more of an Antenna Tower, like a Cellphone Tower, but point taken.

>> b) Offering a service to the public requires a license
>
>That's news to an awful lot of public Wifi services... :)

I note your ":)", but my point was that to organize a large, city-wide deployment would most-likely require a *business* license, not a radio license... If you are organizing an "at a loss" service, of course, that requires no business license...

>Maybe it has something to do with range, but honestly: very few public
>Wifi hot spots are very formal, and most would not exist if they
>complied with what you and others are saying here.  They could not
>afford the time or hassle to provide it.

Public WiFi is akin to a public bulletin board, I was thinking of something more akin to a road-side billboard (not a perfect analogy, but I think it is good enough ;^), not a Barbasol Shaving Cream-like series of NoCat WRT54GLs across a town...