I think the issue would not be the hardware, but the provider.  All the same, the accessibility of OSE to different tech levels is something to provoke thought.

 Mr. Haynes:
   
    Tell me more about that.  Why do you think the problem is more provider than hardware?  I'm not saying you're wrong, but that is not at all consistent with what I've learned in my inquiries.
   
    Perhaps my own case could be used as an example, though it is far from unique.
   
   
    I live in a small twisting river valley with a road on each river bank.  The sides of the valley are reasonably steep and, for the most part heavily wooded.  The area is what I call "deep suburbs" -- lot sizes from 1 to 200 acres with most in the 30-40 acre range.  Due to the terrain most line of sight is under 1000' and usually partially or entirely obstructed by heavy foliage. There are about 30 families living on the valley floor and the lower slopes.  There is no broadband in the valley, though the ridge tops are served -- here and there, by both DSL and Cable.
   
    Both local providers are entirely willing to provide service to addresses on the ridge tops where they already have presence but are unable to justify the very high cost of coming down into the valley for just 20-30 subscribers.  Some of the people on the valley floor actually own land which extends to broadband served addresses but their houses are several thousand feet from those points.
   
  
     As I see it, there is no impediment to provision of service, the providers are willing.  The problem is distribution hardware.  I've looked into copper, fiber, and wimax.  All are prohibitively expensive under the circumstances.
    
     A device such as I describe could be installed in manageable increments of cost and effort, and could be scaled up over time.  These devices could be nailed to trees, cable tied to fences, or hung on the sides of barns extending the service from on or more points where broadband is available -- in my case a couple of dozen points on the ridge tops plus one at each end of the valley -- to the area where it isn't. 
    
  What am I missing?  

  Jason,
 
  Thanks very much for your suggestions but I find your comments very discouraging.
 
  I've done a lot of research into most of what you mention (though not the mini-pci radio cards, that is interesting).  Maybe we have different ideas of what "cheap hardware that can go long distances" means.  I got a quote for the necessary gear to serve 5 families and it ran in the neighborhood of $14,000 without non-electronic hardware and assumed that a single base transmitter would have line of site to all 5 (no way...) .  In extrapolating from that information I figured something like $4000/household.
 
  A standard and documented assembly of off-the-shelf parts is an interesting idea, maybe there's something there.

 
 Electronic communication is tricky.  I'm not trying to be difficult here, but how does your most recent statement differ from: 

Your problem isn't hardware, people buy tractors all the time. Maybe you're just waiting for some entrepreneur to come and set up a tractor dealership (machine tool supplier/wind turbine manufacturer/CNC Mill manufacturer).  They're everywhere, have you checked to see if there's one in your area?

It is a hardware problem in the sense that no provider can serve this area because equipiment cost is too high to justify the service.  This is the same reason big combine manufacturers don't make little combines any more.  Not enough purchasers to pay for the production costs.  In my view this is one of the key problems OSE is meant to solve, but maybe I'm off track there?

I think there is an interesting question here - what is the ACTUAL VALUE of broadband?

@Jason, I have changed our CSS to have all in-message links underlined.

I, predictably, am not entirely convinced.  I am, slowly of course, working my way through the links you provided and I thank you for them.  The nano bridge is very interesting but seems to be only available in high frequencies which are almost certain to need clear line of sight without foliage cover.  The XAGYL FLR9G30 is promising, but not yet available and is only the card.  The RouterBoard products don't seem to have any low frequency devices....

But, perhaps I will eventually find a combination of parts which can be modified and assembled into something like the necessary tool, more or less as I described above.  But, it looks like it will be a one-off, possibly sub-optimal, device which will be unavailable and unrepeatable for others. 

I can't understand the attitude, but perhaps the trouble is that I have over-estimated the size of the problem I'm trying to solve.  I had believed that this problem would be a very common one among those living in deep suburban, rural, and remote areas and that there would be a large overlap between people in those areas and those interested in, for example, building or buying low cost - high reliabity construction and agricultural equipment. 

Maybe I'm just plain wrong about that.  I'll drop this for now since I have, and had, no intention of asking the community at large to solve my particular problem.  I had, rather, believed that the problem was widespread and that by initiating discussion I could play some small part in solving it.

Thanks for your input. 

Let me make a few points here. First, I see the amount of documentation we need to generate for the GVCS as about equal to one small book for each machine, which contains all the details and knowlege in it. I can also see 'projects' which are not actual machines but simply compilations of methods and industry knowledge. I think this particular topic/problem is a very important one which needs to be solved and documented. Long range wireless communications using low cost hardware needs to be opened up to the general public.

Second, one of OSE's goals is local scale communities, production, and independence. Local networks are going to be an important part of this. We need a network independent of the internet. Perhaps over a period of time after it becomes large enough, it could for a second, distributed, internet.

Third, your solution isn't going to be a one-off. While I've focused on 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz for reasons I will state, there are 900 MHz and lower radio cards available. As an example, UBNT has 900 MHz, 700 MHz, and even 400 MHz radios available (note: only 900 MHz is legal for most areas). Just slap one in a routerboard and get a 900 MHz antenna. However, you aren't limited to them. I highly encourage you to start your search for hardware suppliers here, which includes radios, antennas, and cables.

Here are some drawbacks of using 900 MHz however:
* The small allocated unlicensed bandwidth creates a couple problems. First, interference is an issue. 900 MHz signals can travel through buildings, trees, around geographical features, etc. So if you've got someone in any proximity to you, they might interfere with you. And you can't always just switch to another channel, because there are so few. Baby monitors, etc, also cause these problems.
* The smaller bandwidth also means lower data rates. You can't have 20 MHz channels.
* NLOS links are not optimal. They are much more likely to have spotty performance, and it can change over time with the seasons and weather conditions.
* You'll need larger antennas.
* 900 MHz signals can't necessarily go as far. Yes there is less 'pathloss', however, contrary to what may seem obvious, you can get longer range communications out of higher frequencies. The reason for that is, while the pathloss may increase by 6 dB, the same sized antennas will have 6 dB more gain on each end. This results in a net additional 6 dB in your link budget. So a high frequency point to point link will perform better than a lower frequency one (ie, use 5.8 GHz for point to point links). You can make 900 MHz go far with big antennas of course.
* There is an added benefit of using high-frequencies and highly directional antennas. You are less likely to get any interference because you are essentially transmitting and receiving with 'pencil beams'. A highly directional antenna will not pick up interference unless it is directly within the pencil beam. Also, people will be physically unable to snoop on your link if you've got tight beams. This is why it is beneficial to use high gain antennas and turn down your radio's power even for shorter links - less interference, more security. It also allows a much higher density of wireless links in a neighborhood because everything isn't going everywhere.
* 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz is standard! Point your high gain antennas at various targets to get free wifi at a distance :)

I do understand that it may not be possible to get a line of sight connection. All I'm saying is, for the reasons I listed above, it is worth putting some extra effort in to make it happen. Perhaps a 20, 30, or 40 ft tower is is doable. Perhaps 2 or 3 hops might be feasible.

Here are some good resources you can use to do a site-survey and plan out your link:
http://www.ligowave.com/linkcalc/
http://www.cplus.org/rmw/english1.html

Though going back and noticing you mention 1000 ft of range, perhaps everything I'm saying is overkill? :)

Finally, I'd highly recommend you thoroughly document everything you're doing. Your problem, path of education and resources to arrive at what solution works, designing the system, acquiring the hardware, implementing it, and reporting back performance and success. This is all important and valuable information.

By the way, just so you can see some 900 MHz gear for sale:
http://www.wlanparts.com/product/NBM9/NanoBridge-M-900MHz-Outdoor-MIMO-900MHz-with-Offset-Dish.html
http://www.wlanparts.com/product/XR9/Ubiquiti-XR9-XtremeRange9-900MHz-Mini-PCI-Radio.html
http://www.wlanparts.com/c=Gb1ujf98ie1oMuHOeCmSWZ35k/category/wlan.antennas_900mhz/

That sounds pretty cool-- few people can put 'rocket science' under the hobbies heading on surveys.

I do agree, most people that have difficulty getting wireless, probably have difficulty getting computers that benefit from it.