Taling in the Dark

Ok, so it's "Talking in the dark":
/* In an emergency, our communications systems always seem to break down. Does WiFi technology promise a better way? */
Yeah, but only if you use that still unratified 802.3pm (for perpetual motion-derived power supply) connection. When the power's out, (nearly) all communications are going to fail after a short period of time.
This sounds like "WiFi is so wonderful, let's see if we can't apply it to ." Oh, wait, "Mesh will solve everything!". If there's no power, there's no WiFi, and any mesh can be overloaded even if there is power. Oh, but "VOIP is Yet Another Magical Technology!", that'll solve everything! Put them all together and it's unstoppable.
Sigh.
Note that I'm not saying our communications technologies shouldn't be more robust, but throwing the latest buzzwords at them isn't the solution. If Naw'lins taught us anything, it's that however long a disruption you are prepared for, you underestimated the scope of the problem and the length of the disruption.
Hey, I know, how about nanotechnology, that's a sure winner. 8*}

You left out FRS and GMRS radios. I wonder when someone will propose using mesh technology with cell phones. Personally, I'm partial to nuclear powered home reactors, for ummm... emergency purposes.
The basic problem with Mesh and WiFi is that the connection between the wireless network and the internet is where it will fail. That's what happened in New Orleans. Many of the cell sites, which were located high and dry on top of buildings and hills had power and were working. The backhaul to the CO (central office) was what failed and fell apart. You would think that cell phones could communicate with each other through a single isolated cell site. Unfortunately, without authentication from the central billing system, the site is effectively useless.
The basic requirement is for "infrastructure-less" communications. Mesh only provides a different type (or style) of infrastructure.
This article on the topic was written by Andy Seybold who methinks knows more about the communications biz and technology than the NY Times.

Please excuse my poor typing .
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

VOIP via GMRS is forbidden by regulation. Connection of a GMRS radio via the telephone system is in violation of regulations.

Heh. I was going to say I'd still be up and communicating - off-grid home and WiFi network - but I guess I'd have to ship my backup generator over to the neighbor's base station :-)

Yeah, and all of the infrastructure that's bringing him his internet as well, which could well be multiple points of failure.
Makes DirecPC look good, but last I checked they still weren't ready for prime time. Oh well, in an emergency, do you really need full Internet, or is voice good enough? Ham radio licenses are easy enough to come by...
is the backup generator I've been on for the last week. Nothing that baby can't handle! 8*)

Nope. That's the easy part. Sure they are. I've been on DirecPC for two years (well, it hasn't been _called_ DirecPC in that long - it's DirecWay). I am now. However, last week after my deal to tap into the local cable fell through, I shipped my receiver to the neighbor - and let her pay for the power - and we're sharing it via wireless.

Well, maybe I'll take another look at it, but everytime I delve into the applicable newsgroup I find that if it works for you it works well and you are happy with it, but if it doesn't work there's nothing you can do to make it work, and Hughes can't make it work, and you might as well give up. Or maybe it's fixed in the next release, but that's essentially the same thing.
Again, maybe that's changed, but I'm reluctant to do another iteration on it just because I can. 8*|

It really depends what you want out of it. If you want Broadband - DirecWay isn't it! If you are OK with ISDN-like speeds (large downloads are much faster, but latency makes web browsing about ISDN-like) you're fine. What we always say on a.satellite.direcpc is that if you have _any_ other alternative, you should probably use it.
imo, there are no real oustanding problems with the service as a whole. There _are_ issues, particularly with Hughes support, that would seem to track to bad hardware on some of the satellites. Hughes has a real tendency to deny that you're having a problem. Those who've managed to get moved to another transponder find it fixes those problems. If you do get it, don't let them put you on SatMex5. I wouldn't - even though I'm reasonably happy with the service :-)