Illegal house extension demolished

[IMM]

Well their spokesman on TV mentioned the greenbelt as one of their main obstacles.

[Mike Pellatt]

And latency. A major issue if you want to run a VPN (Virtual Private Network) into another location. Satellite is, by all accounts, useless for this application.

And then there's the gamers.....1

[geoff]

In message , IMM writes

Just look at e.g. the Alps, there are loads of homes far higher than Snowdon or even Ben Nevis. I remember getting to the top of Faulhorn in Switzerland years ago only to find that there was a hotel built at the top of that !

It might help if you were e.g. a factory worker or a dustman

[Andy Hall]

That does rather depend on the technology used. I have a wireless internet connection in the 3.6 - 4.2GHz band based on Alvarion (Breezecom) equipment. The wireless part of the connection is very reliable under all weather conditions, even though I am towards the edge of the service area and not in an ideal location. The terrestrial part of the network is certainly no worse than for other ISP connections that I have used, and again is quite reliable.

Different methods of security are used to WEP in 802.11, but in any case with a public internet connection, security should not be assumed. If that is required to any worthwhile level then it should be implemented as a VPN or equivalent solution at the IP level not below. So wireless connections can be criticised for security risk, but in reality this is only the case because the inventors set out to do something that doesn't belong at their level in the stack.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[Andy Hall]

That depends on the technology used. My wireless internet connection (3.6-4.2GHz) shows pretty respectable latency to the router at the base station - below 20mS for most of the time. Some of the terrestrial connections beyond it are not much better.

It can be, but not typically at the kind of latencies involved in this type of connection or even WiFi.

Jitter can be an issue for certain traffic types.

It isn't really intended for interactive operation, but is fine for bulk data transfer. Encryption can be made to work over satellite quite successfully.

Quite. These people seem to want to bitch the most about the odd millisecond or two of latency and yet want to pay little or nothing for the connection. In my view they should be surcharged for a higher class of service.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[Bob Eager]

How interesting....not that I got it from there...it's much older than that.

[IMM]

Maxie, they are not likely to live in executive homes, except the emergency plumber of course.

[David]

In article , David Hearn writes

It isn't true, John's been told that before but the statement fits his argument so he continues to use it

[Cynic]

That depends upon the equipment. If the satellite router is capable of intelligently buffering data and ACK spoofing, the throughput of a large file download is identical to a low latency link. The same is true if the machines at each end have a data window size larger than 2 X path delay X data rate - which I'm sure would soon happen if the demand were high enough.

So long as that is taken care of, the biggest hit due to path delay is in the initial connection delay, which can be several seconds per TCP/IP connection.

There are no special problems associated with UDP connections, so streaming audio and video are just as good across a satellite link.

A satellite link can have a megabyte of data *in transit*.

Anyway, a wide area wireless network does not have to be satellite based. We already have good coverage for mobile phones. Another idea that has been suggested often would be to have a few high-altitude airships to act as transponders instead of satellites. The economics are far more favourable than satellite, and such a project would technically be very feasable. Even staying with satellites, we could use a network of low orbiting satellites instead of geo-synchronous satellites. The technology would be more complex, but the latency would be lower.

[IMM]

Maxie, don't you ever watch the news on TV?

[geoff]

In message , IMM writes

Has dear John taken to calling everyone Maxie or has his self abuse reached the stage where he needs some new glasses?

Just wondering ...

[IMM]

Maxie, it was by a Vauxhall spokesman. You obviously don't live in Luton now, which is totally understandable.

[nss]

't there any better photos/plans/sketches than this?

Despite what is being claimed, this 'structure' might not actually have required any building regs or planning approval.

-- nss

By the sound of things this 'illegal structure' had to actually be demolished, unlike some 'legal structures' which seemed to fall-down of their own accord!

It remains to be seen, I suspect, whether or not, this so-called 'illegal structure' was actually illegal or not. I suspect that it was perfectly legal.

-- nss

[IMM]

When they announce no more car to be built at Luton.

[Andy Hall]

Can you indicate a URL that confirms the reason for the plant closure?

The only ones that I can find (e.g. BBC news site) indicate that it was because of a fall in demand fo rthe Vectra....

If there were more to it than that , there would be a record somewhere. .andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[nss]

Without a doubt old chap.

-- nss

[nss]

Only, perhaps, if they had been notified .........

-- nss

[David]

In article , IMM writes

I think it's a bit of wishful thinking on your part John

[IMM]

Maxie, I want cars to be made in Luton.

[geoff]

In message , [e-mail] writes

What did you expect?