Happy New Year!!

[RogersGina]

Hey guys,

I wanted to wish you all a Happy New Year! I hope you all had a great holiday with your friends and families. I'm glad we've had a chance to connect more as a group in 2012 and I'm looking forward to an even better 2013. 

What do you want to see in the community in 2013? Anything suggestions? 

Gina

[skinorth]

@Gdkitty:

there is no bridged mode on the RocketHub Ericsson W35 available at the web-based management interface. Besides, I have never experienced any functional issues with the W35 that would make it necessary to bridge the device.

There is what is called a "half-bridged" mode on the RocketHub Netcomm units.  I am not sure what that means.

I have experimented with attaching an external Linksys WRT54G router to the W35 with Tomato firmware, with its own IP subnet.  This was to measure data usage which the Tomato firmware allows you to do.

Right now I am thinking of adding a commercial grade Cisco WiFi Access Point to do the WiFi, basically just because I have the AP available, and it is much more powerful than any consumer-grade devices.

In general, I think that the mobile side has issues mostly with DNS on the Netcomms and with cellular RF signal strength, which can be resolved through the use of external antennas for most of the devices provided by Rogers.

I am currently drafting something on DNS which would be applicable to any type of Internet access.  I will post it in the near future.  In order to make it more easily digestible, I will be segmenting it into several sequential postings.  Let's see how that works.

skinorth

[Gdkitty]

Hey Gina!

Just curious, if you have made the change that we are able to do edits past the normal cutoff already or not?  I think this is a good idea.. and was going to start working on some rough drafts on here... but didnt want to post, then NOT be able to edit them afterwards 😛

[Chris]

Happy New Year!

I've been thinking about the guides type section.. Rogers already has a section as such on their website. Yes it's hard to find and yes it incomplete. Should maybe we think about how to improve it maybe make our own contributions or work with that team to do so?

[RogersGina]

@gdkitty - I haven't changed the edit length yet but I will look into it today

@chris - the team that creates and process those FAQs goes through a long internal process so I don't think it's best to loop in with them. Although, I can send them feedback if you find an error or page that needs updating 🙂

Thx!

[Chris]

Ahh yes the politics of the workplace... Yeah best to stay away from the internal process.. Plus they'd never be down with my recommendation to not use Rogers DNS.

[RogersGina]

@gdkitty - may have spoken too soon. Looks like I can only modify the edit length for all users and I can't isolate to just the Community Leaders. I'm looking into a work around.

The other method to edit would be to use the 'notify moderator' button on the post and ask the mods to edit the post according to your changes - I know it's not ideal. Another way would be to copy/paste in the reply with the correct post and ask the mods to remove the original...

[Gdkitty]

Ok, ill hold off for a bit before posting, while you look into it.

The way, at least i was initialy was thinking of doing it, would be to have each TYPE of hardware for the gateway thread, be its own reply, to break it up.  It would get REAL messy, if doing it via reply and removing the original, etc. 😞

If i did it all in one thread, just formatted.. it would work i guess.

[skinorth]

@All:

I have been considering the issue of editing.  Here is a possible way to handle that issue.  Please note that I have several objectives in the approach I am suggesting here:

1. the author retains direct access to, and control of, a "master copy" of the text ;

2. there are no functional changes or additions required to the current structure of the Forum, other than how we treat the eventual  final posting of this "Technical Guidance and Information" posting in the target area of the Forum.  I would hope we could create the previously mentioned concept of a "read-only" posting;

3. this approach allows the analysis and review of any proposed posting, and the refinement and subsequent editing of that proposed posting by the initiating poster, who will in the end retains sole "ownership" and editorial control of the posting;

4. this approach is intended to allow us to exercise individual creativity combined with group comment and input to the material to produce the most positive result for us all;

5. the end result of the process would be released/posted to the Forum at large when concensus was achieved amongst us on text of the actual posting.

Assuming I was the creator and initiator of a new proposed posting, I had determined for myself that I would try and rough out a draft of a "contribution" but do so on my own computer/laptop using an editing tool like Wordpad.

I would then maintain my own "master copy" of the Posting on my computer, and when I was satisfied enough with it, I would use cut/paste techniques to enter it into the "Post Message" screen on this Forum.  At that point I would be expecting it to be read, evaluated and critiqued.

I was hoping that you guys would then make postings to the thread with your comments and suggestions.  I was planning on waiting a suitable period of time, probably only several days, expecting that there would have been some number of comments posted by you, the reviewers and entered into the thread.

Assuming that the general tone of the comments was favourable, I would then go back to my "master copy" and make any required edits to that file.  Again, assuming a positive reception of the original posting, I would then repost the entire updated/edited contribution to the original thread for more review and comment.  Da capo al fine.

Eventually, the finalized contribution would be re-Posted, but in the target area of the general Forum.

Please let me know what you think of the above process and rationale.

skinorth