[CIMC-work] (f.y.i.) (wireless Internet/communications primer) Fwd: [Imc-wireless] talk on wireless

[Chris Kaihatsu]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Sheri Herndon <sheri at indymedia.org>
> Date: January 17, 2003 2:36:45 PM CST
> To: imc-wireless at indymedia.org
> Cc: Subject: [Imc-wireless] talk on wireless
>
> SOMECE 2002 
>
> XVIII SIMPOSIO INTERNACIONAL DE COMPUTACION EN LA EDUCACIÓN
>
> A Plenary Presentation
>
> Matching New WiFi Technology With Virtual Private Networks To Create  
> Affordable Universal Internet Access
>
> Digital Divide or Digital Opportunity? 
>
> One thing becomes glaringly apparent when we look at the numbers of  
> people who use the Internet.  This is that there are a still far  
> greater number of people who have not.   If using the Internet  
> increases the quantity of information available, and provides  
> immediate access to information even while lowering its cost, why  
> aren't more people using the Internet? 
>  
> Identifying the Internet
>
> Many people consider the Internet little more than the HTML language-  
> based websites that reside on the World Wide Web (WWW).  But the  
> Internet is far more.  In fact, it is really a suite of digital  
> languages that work together and which we commonly abbreviate as  
> TCP/IP.  Most people simply refer to this as the Internet Protocol, or  
> IP for short. 
>
> The Internet Protocol is a method to exchange, to send and receive all  
> types of information.  It can be used for telephone calls, playing  
> games or watching movies.  The Internet Protocol is a process for  
> combining information into packets, and sending these from one point  
> to another.  It can operate faster, and send more information, because  
> it groups large quantities of information into small packets that are  
> faster to transmit and subsequently less expensive to  
> send.               
>
> Identifying Communications Applications
>
> Before we can understand the true benefits of using the Internet  
> Protocol, we should first recognize that sending and receiving  
> information is a form of communications.  And that there are many  
> forms of communications -- there are many applications too.  In fact,  
> it is more appropriate to consider the Internet as a vehicle for  
> IP-based communications.  Even the term "IP communications  
> applications" brings to mind much more than just websites residing on  
> the WWW. 
>
> Communications is the most universal of all of man's endeavors.   
> Everyone communicates, but not everyone communicates the same way, or  
> even the same information.  Different people have different interests,  
> and want to access or exchange different information.  Before we can  
> discover why people don't use the Internet, we must consider what  
> information interests them, and what it is that they would like to  
> communicate.     
>
> We should always remember that the real benefit derived from the  
> Internet is the lower cost for communications -- and a more rapid  
> exchange of information. Anything we do that degrades this benefit is  
> not only counter-productive, but will necessarily eliminate its  
> adoption by a set of potential users. 
>
> And broadband is the future.  Economists at the Brookings Institution  
> have estimated that widespread high-speed broadband access could  
> increase the US national GDP by $500 billion annually by 2006.
>
> Identifying Communities  
>
> There are basically two types of communities.  One is called a virtual  
> community, and is based on mutual shared interests such as between  
> people working in the same profession or belonging to the same  
> political party, or who may have the same medical infirmity.  The  
> second type is physical; it's the local community where we live.  The  
> Internet provides benefits for both types of communities, but it  
> serves the two communities in different ways.  There's a great  
> necessity to identify and implement processes that serve both types of  
> communities.  We already expend a great effort simply trying to make  
> the Internet convenient for access and use by both.  We strive to  
> lower barriers and provide an easy entrance, an easy gateway.
>
> Identifying Gateways
>
> No matter the effort made to develop services, applications and  
> content, if the Internet is difficult to enter, if passing through the  
> gateway is troublesome, fewer people will seek access or discover  
> value in adopting the use of IP-based communications.  The first and  
> primary barrier therefore is the gateway.  It has always been, and  
> continues to be, the gateway.
>
> The gateway barrier changes with advances in technology.  As  
> technology advances it becomes easier and less expensive to overcome  
> technical barriers.  And so, the original question remains.  Why  
> aren't more people using the Internet?  
>  
> The Technology Barrier
>
> Let's explore the technology barrier in greater depth.  Today, most  
> people access the Internet through the Public Switched Telephone  
> Network, or PSTN, which is simply the telephone line.  Many users also  
> access the Internet through their cable television service, and some  
> through direct satellite service.  In fact, there are a variety of  
> methods for accessing the Internet.  Even cellular telephone service  
> providers are deploying new technologies that provide access to the  
> Internet.
>
> The technologies behind all of these methods of access are advancing,  
> and there's no technical reason they cannot continue to do so.  The  
> decision for which type of service to select seems at first appearance  
> to depend on cost.  Of course, this would only be true if all services  
> were equally available, which is not the case.  Lets not forget that  
> government regulates the deployment of these services.  Government,  
> through various mechanisms, chooses who can or cannot deploy Internet  
> access technology.  And poorly funded regulatory agencies in  
> developing countries are often challenged and limited in their action  
> by very powerful incumbent operators.
>
> The Internet, or IP communications, is what we can call a disruptive  
> technology.  It is a disruptive technology because it has the ability  
> to completely replace existing technologies -- to completely replace  
> the large existing communications infrastructures, the networks we use  
> daily.  However, IP communications can be deployed in one of two  
> ways.  It can be slowly integrated into an existing infrastructure  
> network, such as those of the PSTN and cellular service providers, by  
> adding individual components as they become beneficial to the  
> commercial operation, without affecting it's current practices and  
> pricing.  This is not disruptive to an existing service provider.
>
> IP-based technologies can also entirely replace our existing  
> networks.  They can be used to build a completely new and lower cost  
> network.  This could include an accommodation for inter-operability  
> with existing networks, for any who need to continue relying on older  
> methods of access such as the PSTN.  This would immediately make most  
> of our existing communications infrastructure obsolete, and is highly  
> disruptive. 
>
> This returns us to the question of cost.  Should we throw away an  
> existing network even when it's obsolete, simply to lower the cost of  
> access to a level affordable by a greater number of people?   
> Government prefers instead that the deployment of new IP technologies  
> is more measured, and allows existing commercial providers time to  
> catch up with technical advances. 
>
> The Regulatory Barrier
>
> Enter the second barrier, the regulatory barrier.  Notwithstanding the  
> wave of privatization of telecom monopolies worldwide, many government  
> regulatory agencies are poorly trained, poorly conceived, inflexibly  
> locked into old technologies by shortsighted exclusivity clauses  
> signed at the time of privatization, or sometimes even outright  
> corrupt. They continue to restrict deployment of certain new IP-based  
> technologies at the urging of incumbent service providers and at the  
> expense of consumer and national welfare.
>
> The Panamanian regulator has blocked the deployment of VoIP, or Voice  
> over Internet Protocol, at the request of the incumbent voice carrier.  
> The regulation (http://nww1.com/go/1118GIBRAD2A.html) points out that  
> people using IP telephony do harm to Panama by not paying taxes on  
> international phone calls. This regulation is an apparent attempt to  
> uphold an exclusivity contract that Panama signed with Cable &  
> Wireless. Panama is far from alone in trying to regulate IP telephony;  
> a couple dozen other countries do the same.
>
> Consider Guyana, the second lowest income country in the Americas.   
> The Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) helped Government design a  
> project for US$ 22 million that would significantly expand Internet  
> access throughout the country.  This would give a tremendous boost to  
> economic development by enabling cheaper and greater communications  
> between Guyana's 800,000 people, and a similar number of Guyanese  
> residing abroad.  However, the incumbent operator has been blocking  
> the project in order to preserve its monopoly position on the basis of  
> a 40-year exclusivity clause drafted in 1991, before the Internet  
> developed   
> (www.revistainterforum.com/english/articles/072202collins_bid.html).
>
> Our current communications service providers, recognizing that markets  
> are basically protected through processes of government regulation,  
> generally seek to invest in and deploy only those IP technologies that  
> allow a monolithic-type control over a large marketplace.  They're not  
> content to profit from a specific quantity or type of applications,  
> but instead seek control over large swaths of our communications.   
> This is a questionable strategy when considering that communications  
> is the most universal of man's endeavors.
>
> A new situation that only recently reared its head now threatens to  
> thwart industry strategy in a powerful way.  It was created through  
> the continuing evolution in IP technology.  It's a new wireless-based  
> technology called WiFi, an abbreviation for Wireless Fidelity.  WiFi  
> technology operates in an unregulated band of radio spectrum  
> designated 802.11.  This is an unlicensed band of spectrum, that's  
> shared and available for use by anyone.  Up to now it was most  
> commonly used for personal appliances, such as for a microwave oven,  
> or a cordless home phone, and even the radar "gun" used by law  
> enforcement to read the speed of a moving vehicle.
>
> Unlike today's wired network, a WiFi network requires little more than  
> an Access Point, which is abbreviated as AP.  We all understand that  
> access to a wireless-based service doesn't require an expensive  
> connection to each user -- there's no need for running wires to each  
> building, or for the installation of a satellite dish.  WiFi  
> technology is also far less expensive to deploy than the limited  
> wireless technologies of existing cellular service providers.  And,  
> because in most countries it operates in an unregulated spectrum,  
> anyone can deploy a WiFi Access Point.  Basically, a WiFi access point  
> is nothing less than a broadband network  
> (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/24/nyregion/24FEAT.html? 
> ex=1039158120&ei=1&en=fad7c117f52e2583).
>
> A majority of the existing communications service providers have been  
> weakened by investing many billions of dollars working in several far  
> more expensive and hard to deploy wireless technologies -- which are  
> unable to match either the broadband capacities or low cost of a WiFi  
> network.  In fact, existing communications providers are being forced  
> to write off hundreds of billions of dollars in their network  
> investments, due to a lack of use caused by high prices.  Taxpayers  
> are absorbing these losses, even as the existing service providers  
> revise projections for deploying advanced wireless broadband networks  
> long into an unforeseeable future.
>
> Current regulations hinder deployment of IP communications  
> applications over lower cost WiFi technology.  Still, many of the IP  
> applications anticipated from the technologies of existing  
> communications service providers operate better when operated with the  
> greater bandwidth capacity available through WiFi networks.  This is  
> not to say that current wireless technologies are no longer  
> beneficial.  They are necessary, but clearly insufficient to serve an  
> increasing quantity of diverse communications requirements.
>
> And here's the whole story.  Technology and high investment costs no  
> longer offer a reasonable excuse for the digital divide.  In fact,  
> thanks to continuing advances in WiFi technologies, the digital divide  
> may now be better described as an advocacy divide.  WiFi is simply too  
> easy, and costs too little to deploy.  Independent WiFi networks are  
> already springing up in cities throughout the USA and around the  
> world, as if by magic.  There are more than seventy cities with  
> fledgling WiFi networks that offer free Internet access, and the  
> numbers are growing rapidly.
>
> A draft bill in the US Congress proposes to allocate not less than 255  
> megahertz of contiguous spectrum below 6 gigahertz for unlicensed use  
> by wireless broadband devices.  This a substantial increase in the  
> amount of spectrum currently available in unlicensed spectrum.  The  
> senators proposing this legislation, George Allen (R.-Va.) and Barbara  
> Boxer (D.-Ca.), explained  that current debate in Congress over  
> broadband services focused on two platforms, cable and DSL, and  
> covered only the issue of competition versus deregulation of  
> telecommunications as the best mechanism for encouraging broadband  
> deployment.  The senators draft states, "This debate has reached an  
> unproductive stalemate and fails to consider that other technologies  
> are available that can jump-start consumer-driven investment and  
> demand in broadband services."
>
> The two senators are asking Congress to foster a third option.  Allen  
> and Boxer claim that innovative advances in wireless (WiFi) networks  
> operating in unlicensed radio spectrum offer a new process for  
> delivering data at high speed, and the potential for new business  
> models that can deliver broadband connectivity and services:
>
> "These emerging unlicensed wireless technologies can support the  
> transmission of data at high speeds and at low cost.  This is  
> especially compelling in rural areas where distance is so frequently  
> the enemy of wire-line networks and the primary reason for the high  
> cost of rural broadband deployment."
>
> Example Of A WiFi Network        
>
> Let's look at one example of a WiFi network.  I have chosen the new  
> network in the city Athens, Georgia, in the USA, because it is  
> supported in part by their local government and the local university.   
> Athens is a small city with a little more than 100,000 residents.   
> They have formed  Wireless Athens Group  
> (http://www.nmi.uga.edu/research/wag), abbreviated as WAG, to develop  
> the WiFi network.  The network currently covers a few city blocks  
> downtown, but will soon expand to twenty-four city blocks  
> (http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/07/31/coolsc.wireless.cloud).
>
> Whether from a park bench or an outdoor cafe, a student, office  
> worker, or tourist can access the Internet if they're in range of the  
> small WAG antennas, really nothing more than small boxes mounted on  
> top of nine light poles around the city.  The signals don't penetrate  
> most walls or buildings, so the WiFi network, described as a high  
> bandwidth "cloud," is primarily an outdoor experience.  Signals are  
> sent back to servers at the university, which houses the network hub.   
> The city has provided use of the top of the nine light poles, and a  
> small amount of electric power to operate each antenna. 
>
> This WiFi broadband "cloud" is far more powerful than what cellular  
> service providers offer, and transmits data at a speed of 11 Mbps,  
> which is sufficient for all types of multimedia.  It is accessible  
> 24-hours a day.  Anyone can join or connect to the network, even  
> install a WiFi antenna inside a structure for indoor access.
>
>
> A Cost Comparison
>
> A cellular service provider is unable to deploy a small network  
> because of the type of technology relied upon.  A small part of a  
> larger network designed to cover only several miles might cost 10  
> million dollars.  This is only a small part of a much larger, more  
> expensive network.  
>
> In comparison, a WiFi network not only has a much greater bandwidth  
> capacity, but is also far less expensive.  And as WiFi technology  
> rapidly advances, costs are being reduced regularly.  Here are some  
> current options for a small WiFi network, including equipment, costs  
> and distance of coverage.
>
> In this example, a node represents an Access Point, which is a  
> box-like antenna and supporting equipment.  A large network uses both  
> nodes and less expensive repeaters to extend range of coverage.
>
> Wired Node (low cost)
>
> * Linksys BEFW11S4 (wireless router and hub) ($200), or Agere RG-1000  
> or  
>   RG-1100 (optional, recommended) ($170-$220)
> * ComputerRouter (free or higher)
>
> Total out of pocket cost can be as little as $200 or lower.  However,  
> your range will be limited to a few hundred feet.  To get more range  
> you need an antenna and/or an amplifier.
>
> Wired Node (mid cost)
>
> * Linksys BEFW11S4 (wireless router and hub), or Orinoco RG-1000 
>   (residential gateway) or RG-1100 (broadband gateway) ($170-$220)
> * Cables, adapters (depending on length) ($100)
> * 8 to 15-dBi Omni directional antenna (optional,  
> recommended)($100-$200) * ComputerRouter (free or higher) 
>
> For less than $400 you can set up an access point with an Omni  
> directional antenna.  If mounting the Omni outside, expect to pay  
> another $100-$200 for a lightning arrestor and a mast. 
>
> Wired Node (deluxe)
>
> * Orinoco RG-1000 (residential gateway), RG-1100, or Cisco AP or
>   bridge ($200-$500+)
> * Cables, adapters (depending on length) ($100-$200)
> * Amplifier ($300-$500)
> * 8 to 15-dBi Omni directional antenna ($100-$200) 
> * Mast or guyed antenna (optional, recommended) ($100+)
> * ComputerRouter (free or higher) 
>
> This is a high quality node that can cover a large area, if the  
> antenna is mounted sufficiently high, for only $800-$1,500.  Many if  
> not all amplifiers have integrated lightning protection, so a separate  
> lightning arrestor may not be necessary. This node covers a square  
> mile area, or more in certain circumstances.
>
>
>
> Wired Node (cost no object)
>
> * 3-4+ Orinoco business AP or Cisco AP or bridge ($500-$1,000/ea)
> * 3-4 amps ($300-$500/ea)
> * 3-4, 6-8 sector antennas ($200-$700/ea)
> * 1+ mid-gain Omni directional antenna, e.g. 8-dBi (optional) ($100)  
> * several mid-to-high gain patch or parabolic antennas ($50-$200/ea)
> * High quality self supporting or guyed antenna ($500-$1,000+)
> * Misc. cables (optional, recommended) ($200-$500+)
> * ComputerRouter (free or higher)
>
> This is a truly powerful full IP-capability node costing between  
> $5,000-$10,000+, and capable to serve thousands of users.  
>
> The options for a wired access point, or node, as shown above indicate  
> that the cost for a ten square mile WiFi network "cloud" is  
> approximately US$ 150,000 or more. This is sufficient to cover many  
> metropolitan areas, and is affordable by many municipal governments.
>
> Benefits For Education
>
> I know many at this point may be questioning what this has to do with  
> education.  But it has in fact everything to do with education.
>
> IP-based applications for education are dramatically enhanced when  
> deployed over WiFi broadband networks.
>
> WiFi networks are basically local-loop networks providing last-mile  
> connectivity.  Local-loop networks are where individuals, schools,  
> businesses, hospitals, libraries and governments connect to the  
> Internet.  In essence, they are community networks; they both serve  
> and operate within the local community.  Education applications can  
> reside on the local network and empower a community like never  
> before.  The community becomes capable to direct and determine its own  
> requirements and processes, maintain and strengthen local standards,  
> enhance collaboration between individuals and institutions, and  
> develop an economy capable to compete with other communities. 
>
> Rising education levels also require increased economic opportunities,  
> or communities suffer what is called a "brain drain," where the most  
> educated of its young choose to relocate to regions offering greater  
> economic opportunities.  A community-based local-loop WiFi network  
> will attract both internal and external investment.  As a new virtual  
> space, it causes the formation of new businesses that provide new  
> services; a WiFi network creates new markets and fosters new  
> innovations and ideas. 
>
> As an example, local schools with access to broadband can control the  
> dissemination of their own local initiatives.  Students can practice  
> all media forms and processes through actual hands-on experience.   
> Local television and radio stations can distribute, even produce,  
> unique media content.  WiFi empowers local citizens and institutions,  
> which in turn creates the necessary impetus for widespread acceptance  
> and use throughout the community.  This is not about investment, but  
> about saving money while bettering the local community.
>
> WiFi network deployment is not simply a development issue, but also  
> affects government processes.  IP-based communications provide for  
> better interaction between government and citizens, and allow  
> government to enhance and increase services without raising operating  
> costs.  A WiFi network protects local merchants from the loss of sales  
> to e-commerce sites outside of the community, just as it insures local  
> sales taxes remain for use in the community itself.  There's no longer  
> a need to lose sales, money, or even children, to major commercial  
> centers around the world.
>
> The technology is here now, and the cost has been reduced to a level  
> affordable by local governments and organizations.  It simply requires  
> the will.  Many municipal governments can already afford the  
> investment for a WiFi broadband network -- which will eliminate the  
> digital divide within communities. 
>
> There already exist within each community the natural stakeholders  
> that can help, including universities and schools, hospitals and  
> commercial organizations.              
>
> An example of a natural stakeholder would be any user already  
> suffering high costs for a bundle of communications services.  A WiFi  
> network can provide local hospitals, schools, government offices,  
> emergency services, utilities, and everyone, with low cost 24-hour  
> access to full broadband services -- seamlessly bundled into a single  
> low cost community platform.  This powerful network can deliver movies  
> and telephone service, allows instant interaction with organizations  
> and government, and provides for equitable participation in e-commerce  
> -- it equally benefits all citizens within a community.  A WiFi  
> network dramatically lowers the cost for communications and media.
>
> E-Mexico provides another example for opportunity.  Its current plans  
> are to provide Internet access through thousands of local community  
> centers and schools.  If deployed in the traditional manner, each  
> computer will need it's own dialup connection -- a slower, less  
> powerful and more costly type of access point that, even when  
> connected to a desktop network, can serve no more than a few computers  
> at one time.  A single WiFi access point can provide service to  
> thousands of users, and at a much lower individual cost.  The Mexican  
> government might wish to review and study current proposals under  
> consideration by the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC)  
> regarding unlicensed radio frequencies, they're deployment and use  
> (http://www.fcc.gov/sptf).
>
> Equally important, WiFi provides the opportunity for a whole new class  
> of productive and cost effective IP applications.  Ubiquitous web  
> computing becomes affordable through WiFi broadband networks.  And  
> imagine the effect on street crime when secure e-payments are possible  
> from any access device. 
>
> Educators should embrace the opportunity to provide leadership.  This  
> is an education issue.   
>
> The Next Great Leap
>
> Although WiFi technology reduces network cost to a level affordable by  
> many municipalities, there's one final ingredient necessary to create  
> a complete impetus for individual adoption.  This addresses the  
> obvious need for communities to achieve a minimum degree of control  
> over their own applications, content and services.
> There are two choices for hosting content and applications.  They can  
> either reside on a local network, or on a commercial platform from  
> outside of the community.  Microsoft's .Net provides an example.  It's  
> a giant, monolithic, programmed platform seeking to serve everyone,  
> and offering an impressive number of products, vendors and  
> applications -- but it is cost prohibitive for small, local,  
> developing country vendors to participate on such a platform.  Because  
> community involvement is in developing markets the vital driving force  
> behind Internet adoption, local businesses and institutions must be  
> capable to participate equitably.
>
> The importance for deploying a programmed platform over a WiFi network  
> cannot be too well emphasized.  This platform should take the form of  
> a "public access" Virtual Private Network (VPN).  None currently  
> exist.  However, a public access VPN is the most appropriate  
> applications/content platform for a community-based WiFi broadband  
> network.  It would allow residents to choose between local services,  
> or to browse the World Wide Web (WWW).  With a public access VPN,  
> local government would still have online travel and trade promotions  
> accessible from anywhere around the world, but could limit access to  
> certain services to legal residents, such as to make payments and to  
> transfer information or documents.
>
> A public access VPN is a community platform for ubiquitous broadband  
> IP communications, including voice, media, education, e-commerce, web  
> computing, e-government, health, and more.  It provides an ideal  
> method for micro, small and medium-sized businesses and organizations  
> to participate in e-commerce. 
>
> It can save time, lower processing costs, speed revenue collection,  
> reduce inappropriate activity, and speed both the dissemination and  
> collection of information.  Government would be able to offer new  
> intelligent services at little or no additional investment.
>
> The development of VPN's may be left up to large commercial market  
> players, interested in strategic development of proprietary  
> technologies that lock in customers for many years into the future.   
> How long will it then take to establish standards so that any website  
> can offer IP communications applications interoperable and seamless?   
> In other words, where and from whom, do the applications like IM, or  
> voice/text mail, or VoIP, or others, originate?  They may go on  
> websites one day, but only when and if standards make EVERYTHING  
> ubiquitous (even websites and their services).  And, how do you bring  
> the cost for websites down, if not hosted on a public access  
> platform?  And who will provide the common marketplace for local  
> websites?  How else can they compete... why else would they go  
> online... shouldn't every company be able to do so no matter its  
> size? 
>
> A public access VPN can be designed using open source architecture.   
> There is no need for public agencies to engage in the production of  
> VPN's themselves -- this may and should be left to the private  
> sector.  But for the Internet to be useful, VPN's that are accessible  
> to everyone at a low cost must be developed, and public funding will  
> be a critical element. 
>
> There is no more important an open-source programming need today.   
> This would not only lower costs, but also create new businesses to  
> provide innovative applications, content and services.  Students would  
> gain the opportunity to learn programming and software-writing  
> skills.   
> More importantly, a public access VPN will provide equitability  
> between communities, and a strong reason to use the Internet.  A  
> public access VPN for WiFi broadband networks would allow local  
> organizations within each community to compete effectively against  
> services offered through large national and international commercial  
> platforms.  And it will not only lower the cost for local websites,  
> but also provide the community a method for an orderly provisioning of  
> the various applications, content and services it desires to  
> deploy.     
>
>
> Alan Levy
> Executive Vice President, Municipal Networks
>
>
> air4wan� |WiFi Group
>    "Building the future now"
>
>
> alanlevy at air4wan.com
> Tel. 713-781-7820
>
>
> .............
> The author gratefully acknowledges valuable comments by
> Francisco J. Proenza, FAO Investment Centre Economist.
>
> --
>
>
>
> In sum, we are an army of dreamers, and therefore invincible.  How can  
> we fail to win, with this imagination overturning everything. 
>
> -- Subcomandante Marcos
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-wireless mailing list
> Imc-wireless at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-wireless
>



________________________________________
Save lives -- bring the troops home now!




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 45543 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-chicago-working/attachments/20040227/c85df8d8/attachment-0001.bin