Slashdot Mirror
Wireless Freenets
i8u writes ""It's hard to tell whether these things are a threat or an opportunity for ISPs. I'm talking about community wireless networks using inexpensive 802.11b radios and antennas operating in the 2.4 GHz spectrum band, and possibly other license-free bands." "
For the most part, the last mile problem is a condition of artificially-imposed scarcity. The problem is not technological or even technically speaking economic, but political. The telcos (especially ILEC) have been so used to gouging consumers over the last century that they are loathe to abandon outrageous profit margins. We see this with DSL pricing. In my locale, 1.544Mbps/192Kbps ADSL circuit is $60/month. A so-called T1/DS1 uses HDSL, which is in the family of digital subscriber line technologies, but the cheapest offering here (Richmond, VA) is $900 just for the circuit, and another $200 or so for the 'Net connectivity. What accounts for the difference in price? True, a DSx circuit has service-level agreements, line conditioning, et cetera. But does this account for essentially a 20x difference in price? NO! It's simply the fact that the telcos wish to protect their profits. They're so used to protected profits that they're not going to charge even twice average cost -- they're going to charge many, many multiples of average cost. The technology is here, folks. The demand is here. The greedy, avaricious telcos are simply too scared to sacrifice their sacred cow.
No that will kill the ISPs cause NOBODY will pay for metered Internet access.
Yup. That's why you don't see anyone on the 'net who's from Australia.
Oh, wait...
traceroute to cuinfob.cit.cornell.edu (132.236.218.13), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 darthnixon (192.168.0.1) 0.440 ms 0.345 ms 0.335 ms
2 10.17.16.1 (10.17.16.1) 20.747 ms 14.013 ms 20.106 ms
3 syr-ith-7507-1.nyroc.rr.com (24.92.227.57) 26.025 ms 40.027 ms 53.671 ms
4 ith-rtr-mcr2.nyroc.rr.com (24.92.225.149) 20.961 ms 10.138 ms 10.061 ms
5 24.92.225.201 (24.92.225.201) 13.996 ms 11.272 ms 11.920 ms
6 roc-mth-gsr-spp-gsr.nyroc.rr.com (24.92.224.6) 17.750 ms 15.407 ms 16.339 ms
7 12.124.179.33 (12.124.179.33) 22.251 ms 22.191 ms 22.083 ms
8 gbr6-p80.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.123.1.206) 23.629 ms 24.732 ms 37.005 ms
9 ar2-p380.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.123.1.141) 32.146 ms 54.067 ms 25.307 ms
10 gbr2-a30s3.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.127.5.150) 26.722 ms 54.764 ms 24.293 ms
11 gar1-p370.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.123.1.133) 25.471 ms 26.778 ms 23.528 ms
12 12.125.51.210 (12.125.51.210) 28.825 ms 29.871 ms 26.805 ms
13 at-gsr1-nyc-1-0-OC12.appliedtheory.net (169.130.3.30) 35.940 ms 36.067 ms 95.215 ms
14 at-gsr1-syr-3-0-OC12.appliedtheory.net (169.130.3.42) 36.802 ms 38.673 ms 54.242 ms
15 at-gsr2-syr-1-2-cornelluniv-1.appliedtheory.net (169.130.253.6) 61.247 ms 37.135 ms 43.602 ms
16 rhodes1-8540-vl7.cit.cornell.edu (128.253.222.135) 48.555 ms 38.662 ms 41.014 ms
17 cuinfob.cit.cornell.edu (132.236.218.13) 51.246 ms * 30.896 ms
That's from my home machine via an IP Masq firewall to my school's webserver. Hopping from Ithaca, NY to NYC, and all the way back.
PING 128.84.240.250 (128.84.240.250) from 128.84.240.129 : 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 128.84.240.250: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=89.879 msec
64 bytes from 128.84.240.250: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=114.872 msec
64 bytes from 128.84.240.250: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=35.780 msec
64 bytes from 128.84.240.250: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=60.567 msec
64 bytes from 128.84.240.250: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=85.152 msec
64 bytes from 128.84.240.250: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=107.716 msec
64 bytes from 128.84.240.250: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=30.185 msec
64 bytes from 128.84.240.250: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=53.987 msec
64 bytes from 128.84.240.250: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=77.156 msec
64 bytes from 128.84.240.250: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=101.429 msec
64 bytes from 128.84.240.250: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=24.926 msec
64 bytes from 128.84.240.250: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=47.711 msec
--- 128.84.240.250 ping statistics ---
12 packets transmitted, 12 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/mdev = 24.926/69.113/114.872/29.890 ms
That is pinging my Symbol AP from my laptop, with a D-Link DWL-650. No other users on the AP, and it is 5 feet away.
PING 128.84.240.250 (128.84.240.250) from 128.84.240.129 : 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 128.84.240.250: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=89.879 msec
64 bytes from 128.84.240.250: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=114.872 msec
64 bytes from 128.84.240.250: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=35.780 msec
64 bytes from 128.84.240.250: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=60.567 msec
64 bytes from 128.84.240.250: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=85.152 msec
64 bytes from 128.84.240.250: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=107.716 msec
64 bytes from 128.84.240.250: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=30.185 msec
64 bytes from 128.84.240.250: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=53.987 msec
64 bytes from 128.84.240.250: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=77.156 msec
64 bytes from 128.84.240.250: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=101.429 msec
64 bytes from 128.84.240.250: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=24.926 msec
64 bytes from 128.84.240.250: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=47.711 msec
--- 128.84.240.250 ping statistics ---
12 packets transmitted, 12 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/mdev = 24.926/69.113/114.872/29.890 ms
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Stick with your cable modem. WLAN latency is BAD. 80+ milliseconds just to the AP. As opposed to 30 or so to any reasonable endpoint with a good cable modem.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Well, I think you'd find a lot of people aren't having a problem with the "last mile" and getting connectivity. My problem is the last 3 and a half miles between my apartment and the CO meaning I can't get DSL.
A friend lives down the road from me(half a mile, if that), but behind several rows of houses. Even using a directional antenna, is there much chance of communication through brick/cavity block walls? Oh, and throw in plenty of trees and leaves.. Cork City is too hilly!
I guess they could keep buying new NICs but that would get really expensive.
Or they could flash a new MAC into their NIC. A lot of NICs implement that ability so that you can use them in flail-over systems - if the primary nic goes down, you change the nic on the backup one to be the same as the one that went down, and even the DHCP server doesn't see the difference.
--
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Why would it NOT be legal???
Of course, if you're operating an ISP from about your person then you'll need your Dockers Mobile Pants.
Regards, Ralph.
I think they're fun. The University I work at is setting up wireless access all over campus within buildings with normal access points and out-doors with the use of large outdoor antennas. Luckilly, I live a block away. With the use of a nice direrctional antenna, It'll be faster than the cable or DSL we have around here, and even better, free.
... is obviously ISPs charging per MB of traffic.
- Tal Cohen
If the entire Internet was on a wireless network.
No, it wouldn't. The lag would be too high, as you have a skip on every wireless hop. If you want to have features like security or, for instance, static IP addresses, it would be even worse, as the extra complexity would have to be handled by servers (or routers or other thing-a-ma-bobs, just not the radios) at every access point.
That way, no one would have to pay a monthly fee for broadband Internet accessThat way, no one would have to pay a monthly fee for broadband Internet access
This would only be possible with a *huge* (think worldwide, actually) movement. So big it would probably collapse under it's own size. Remember there's interference from the different access points, and they are not really standardized on stuff like how to switch a mobile from one node to the next (actually, many do not even *have* the option).
Now, if you could coordinate efforts to standardize "handover" (node switching) and fight interference (these two issues are related, actually, so you'd be better off solving both simultaneously), you'd still have to achieve enough node density, which means more radios, antennas and servers, which raises the cost again.
All in all, I don't think it's going to happen soon. If ever. But for _users_ to be able to access the Net at moderate to good speeds here and there, it beats the hell out of cellular.
--Moo
For the same reason I abandonned my land line for a cell phone, I would be all over this. Why in the world would you want to be locked down to a particular location in order to use a phone or use the Internet?
As devices become smaller and smaller, this is going to be a much bigger deal. Even now, wouldn't it be cool (if it weren't so dorky) to whip out your laptop on the bus and browse web sites while you have nothing better to do?
Wireless Internet? I can't wait!
--
Join my fight against Subway's new cut!
http://spine.cx/subway/
Not neccessarily. An ISP can provide a fast wireless connection on the cheap to a fat pipe that they pay for. For example, an ISP buys a DS3 pipe and provides 802.11b access at $25-35 month. Now they can be as big as a DSL provider (speed wise), without the same infrastructure cost.
On a smaller scale, a T1 shared among 30-80 homes is pretty cheap, and thus a small-town in the boondocks can allow faster internet connections without waiting for Ma Bell to truck DSL out there.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Does 802.11b have QOS provisions? I mean, I wouldn't mind sharing my connection, but if I'm paying for it, I want priority. I know that the further you are from the NAP, the slower your speed, but I wouldn't want my connection to be swamped every time the bus stopped on my street...
Just junk food for thought...
Once you start networking subnets together, you have to have real IP addresses (or put the whole network behind a series of NATs, which is fairly ugly).
You also need to start running a real routing protocol, e.g. RIPv2 for small networks or OSPF for larger ones. Once it gets complex enough, you need BGP to handle multiple exit routes to the Internet, and you're at the level of complexity of a reasonable size corporate network. Certainly doable but would be a significant effort for hobbyists, compared to the reasonable cost of just buying an Internet link.
You could also look into mobile ad hoc networks, which do the routing setup automagically, but they are still in the research stage and mainly aimed at local area networks.
IPv6 is most likely to take off in 2003, when UMTS Release 5 starts being deployed - UMTS is the European 3G mobile phone standard, and mandates that any device that does multimedia must use IPv6 (ordinary phones can just use IPv4 behind a NAT, as they do now with GPRS in Europe). This is one of the key drivers for adoption of IPv6, but it will take a while before IPv6 filters into corporations and the home through the influence of IPv6 phones. Internet-enabled appliances might also be a driver for IPv6 but I'm not sure they'll sell in sufficient numbers.
...), and most OSs (Linux, Solaris 8, FreeBSD, Windows XP, ...), already have IPv6 support, though some vendors are taking time to add the full set of routing protocols on top of IPv6.
Most router vendors (Cisco, Nortel, Ericsson,
For WLANs, IPv4 with NAT will be fine for some time.
Exactly. Those wireless folks are going to need a fat pipe to the Internet, and they're going to need it at a rate that UUNet et al won't touch.
This will be the excuse that will let some rural ISPs afford to upgrade to that T3 they've been wanting, so they can sell a few T1s out of it without crowding it too much.
-
www.nycwireless.net
Insecure? As hell.
True to the nature of hack it together yourself projects from spare parts, duct tape, and super glue.
Tis better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open
Tis better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt --Abraham Lincoln
Not really, since there are a some NICs out there that you can reprogram the MAC addresses.
--
Linux O Muerte!
Well, don't know about DC Metro (where I am also) but I'm pretty sure that the Virginia people will have it made (especially the folks around Hearndon where AOL is). Given that I can't even get asymmetric DSL or cable where I am, there probably wont be as many kind hearted souls with bandwidth to spare... But give me an email and maybe we can coordinate!
-- "I am disrespectful to dirt. Can you not see that I am serious!"
Cool, you gotta free 802.11b network, I hop on and proceed crack a half a dozen sites and then launch a DDoS against /. for good measure.
When the police knock on YOUR door, what do you tell them?
"I wasn't me, honest! I run a free service! No really!"
Nevermind that, what do you say to the Adobe lawyers when the Illustrator sites gets defaced from your net?
This sounds like a very fertile idea (read: Mod Up like you've never Modded before!). Can you go into some more detail? (Perhaps by e-mail?)
Done it before and I'll likely do it again. Toronto is both easy and difficult as the lay of the land means that not even the big phallic tower is a perfect site (ask Look)
I've done this with the street on which I live, letting me surf from my palmtop while I wander (using some very fancy antennae - 180' panels) but when you say "Toronto" you're talking about a greater area than the approx half of a major block that I can reach.
Email and I'll either tell you how to do it or point a directional at you.
M
I'm guessing your DSL is priced based on the assumption that you don't use it 80% (or more) of the day. Can someone confirm?
1) Proxied free access to port 80 outbound only. This way, you get rid of the spammers and slow down the script kiddies. Eventually, someone will end up using it for fraud of some sort, so it'd be good to use a proxy to at least prove that it wasn't you. Your ISP will boot you, but good logs might keep you out of jail.
2) Quasi-free access. A setup like the above that redirects any HTML request to a web page that asks people to sign up. Use the standard list management routine of "give me an email address. I'll send mail with a code. You return that code to me." Link that to a hardware address. Then, give registered hardware addresses access to anywhere. Again, through the proxy to save your butt if they do something bad. That way, you can at least hand the police an email address.
--
Forward, retransmit, or republish anything I say here. Just don't misquote me.
5GHz is NOT going to be released this summer. Th hype is being released this summer. Don't expect REAL products until next year.
They will NOT be cheaper than 802.11b.
Yes, they do allow 54MB/s, but the range suffers drastically.
Absolute statements are never true
Actually there are many cards and OSes that let you change the Mac address. Tulip cards. Intel EtherExpress Pro 100 Almost all cards for a Sun This is a short list of the top of my head. Also, flashing the firmware on a NIC usually changes it's MAC
There is always the "Co-Op" model. An organization could be setup to help "setup" co-ops of people to purchase bandwidth on the internet.
Run them as companies that pay dividends to the members. Where I live, most services are provided by co-ops....
Actually, most wireless 802.11 NIC's don't. That functionality is disabled in the card's firmware. My best guess as to why is to prevent users from building their own wireless to wired bridges with cheap ($130 or so) PCMCIA cards, instead of purchasing more expensive purpose-built bridges ($300+).
Yeah, but what if you don't need a Mac running MacOS? You restart the Mac (or it crashes), and everyone loses connectivity. Also, you can't connect external antennas to airport cards (but with Airport 1.3, Lucent Orinoco cards are treated like airport cards, so that would solve that problem).
And the "Mac with an Airport card" that can stand in for a $300 access point will likely cost at least $1000.
-Ryan
I have thought about this as well - but if you are in Mesa, the chance that me and you could get together and connect is pretty well nil. I live up around the 101 and Cave Creek Rd - so, there is Squaw Peak as well as possibly the South Mountain range in the way (depending on where you are at, possibly) - "A" mountain might also be in the way, though unlikely - basically, SP and Camelback mountains would be the big hurdles, unless we could find someone out in Scottsdale (to the west of me, about half a mile - litterally in my back-yard - is a mountain, so nothing to the west)...
But yeah, here is someone else who has thought about setting up a 2.4 GHz or laser link of some sort in Arizona - mainly the Phoenix area - surely there are others?
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
What technologies exist to facilitate the ablitly to provide guest access to everyone within range of my xmitter, and to coordinate other free resources like mine in my area, i.e., to provide roaming, etc., like current cell providers can?
Are you sure you want to open your wireless 'net to all and sundry? Anything that they do is going to be tied back to you - sending death threats to politicians, posting kiddie pr0n, or (God forbid!) posting DECSS.
I've got 802.11b at home, hooked to my cable modem. All my computers (ok, both of my computers and my PDA) can share the broadband anywhere in the house, on the porch, in the garage... but I've got the encryption enabled not because I'm stingey with the bandwidth, but because I don't want some script kiddie three doors down getting me tossed off my ISP/cable company for DOSing Amazon or somesuch.
Don't sweat it. It's not like you are the only one to ever hit "Submit" a tenth of a second before you spot the obvious error in your comment.
Donating it. Do you really think you're using the full potential of your DSL line all the time? Just think if everyone who had DSL set up a Wireless NAP and dedicated half their bandwidth to it. You'd be able to get Internet access all over most metropolitan areas. It wouldn't save you any money, but it'd be damn convenient.
--Bruce
Non gratis rodentus anus
The folks at http://nocat.net/ are working on the security issue with some GPL'd software (http://nocat.net/download/NoCatAuth-0.20.tar.gz) that authenticates in a reasonably secure fashion, without having to trust the local gateway, and assigns three classes of service: Node Owner, Community Member (other node owner), and Guest. Bandwidth allocations and firewall proxies are set based on the class of service.
83chrise.nuf
I'm fairly sure there are enough of us in the DC Metro area to roll out something like this. Perhaps we should start a small web site or a mailing list for a beginning?
Zigbee Central: A Zigbee weblog
"Remember, our house is painted Ecru, yours is Antique Lace!
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Robert Cringely did a couple of articles (here and here) on using 802.11b to get broad-band to his (relatively remote) house. </karma-whore>
On the good-for-ISP side of the equation, it sounds like this could be a very simple solution to the "last mile" problem...
--
150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for slashdot.sig (129323052 bytes).
Yeah, yeah. Sorry.
I previewed my post, decided I wanted to put some of it in bold: "This is extremely cool!" and flubbed it. I feel stupid.
This is extremely cool!
What exactly stops people from setting up a router to talk to other radio routers? Isn't the possibility there to completely remove our dependence altogehter on big companies providing us bandwidth? If I want to talk to you and there are seven people in between us with radio-based routers, why do we need the big telco's at all?
Software is also an issue - 802.11b tries very hard to look like an Ethernet card with a few extra hooks, but the 802.11a stuff wants more of the complex processing done by the CPU, in a WinModem-ish fashion, which says there'll be some major issues getting Linux drivers done for a while unless one of the two maufacturers decides it's worth helping out a lot
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
It's true that the FCC are a bunch of spectrum thieves, who nationalized spectrum in the Roosevelt days to protect the big-money communications companies from competition (even if they made lots of hype about protecting the public's interest in the public's airwaves), and US and European spectrum regulators figured out that the hype about Next Generation Wireless Services could be used to put a big hidden tax on wireless telephony and low-speed data services, which is showing up as huge debts by cellphone companies, just in case any of them weren't getting themselves into debt trouble investing in the fiber bandwidth glut
Fortunately, there's enough unlicensed spectrum to build some reasonable collections of services, but it'll take a lot of coordination. Metricom / Ricochet tried for a while; unfortunately they couldn't make enough money at it, but maybe another generation of providers will succeed, using faster commodity equipment. It's possible to do freenets if you can find a way to coordinate them (tough). But Starbucks is starting to offer commmercial wireless services for $X/month, and so are a few other companies, targeting either the coffeeshop market or the airport market, where there are enough business users with laptops and possibly wireless networks. Not much help if you live in the burbs, but here in San Francisco there's a law requiring a Starbucks on every other block, so if you live in the dot-com live-work loft district, that may be an attractive way to get service. For urban residential areas, where there's enough density for wireless nets to work, it's hard to say whether freenets or businesses will be more successful.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
don't deny child. if you're a geek, you're a geek. but i don't see why you needed to download pr0n in a TGIFridays.
Maybe I'm ignorant, but hear me out.
I remember when the first 1.2 Ghz or so cordless phones came out. It was amazing. I could be about 100 yrs away and get perfectly clear phone conversations. Then EVERYONE started getting them (hell, they cost about $15 now), and maybe it was the new phones I had bought, but the quality got worse and worse...
How will these higher frequency ranges handle more and more users? And while millions of users won't be moving to the 2.4ghz range for data/ISP's, what will happen to their data connections when the masses decide that their current cordless phone is too static-filled and move to the higher range phones? Will this traffic disrupt the data transmissions and cause the wireless equivalent of dial-tone busy signals?
I Network, Therefore I Am by Robert Cringely
Reach Out and Touch Someone by Robert Cringely
More resources from his two articles:
How to Download YouTube Videos
This is actually creating a new network infrastructure; connectivity wouldn't just be through commercially leased connections, but could also be routed over this wireless itself. Since you control the routing, you could allow only certain hosts. However, what wireless lets people do is set up a network without laying down cable. Which then happens to include portable devices, which could roam about networks which trust the user logged into it. The question is how to do this, and securely.
I am on San Diego RoadRunner. I play Counter-strike and get pings around 40ms to the server most times. The worst I get is around 230 when I play on a server in Belgium. RR here is very good, but I cant wait till next month when my new home is done and I can have a static IP via DSL
.sigs suck, thus nothing here.
Not to say that most people don't ignore this rule (I've been a party to several myself), but if whole neighborhoods (minus the one sharepoint subscriber) started cancelling their DSL, the telcos would start enforcing.
Guvegrra?
How do they know you're NATing anything, btw?
/. replies to our request, it sends its reply to port 42000. So if you see a box that has a large number of connections all going to crazy high numbered ports on the same box, it is likely that this box is doing NAT. It would likely be much harder to prove definitively that this is NAT rather than just a lot of random network connections, but it might be possible.
Detecting NAT is fairly easy I would think. Proving that it is NAT is probably much harder. See, the way nat works is thus (simple explanation, probably not 100% accurate) The client computer makes a request to the Gateway box for a page at slashdot.org port 80. So the gateway sends out a request originating at a random port in a given range (my box defaults to 40000-60000) for our example we will use 42000. So when
I can use as much of mine all the time (and have). I also have a friend on road runner cable who has been using full bandwidth for about 3~4 months running a popular server. I think its just that they plan most people will use relatively little bandwidth.
If not now, when?
802.11b freenets are great and I by all means encourage more people to open them up and run them (I have a little one running), but they are hardly a realistic threat to ISPs. The simple fact is that WiFi just doesn't have enough range and penetration to make significant coverage economically feasible ad-hoc. It takes a lot of placements to get decent coverage, particularly when leaves, many walls, and most other obstructions attenuate the signal a great deal. Hell, look at all the money Metricom had to pump into getting decent coverage (different tech, but similar range issues).
If you look at the major freenet networks (such as SFLan and BAWUG here in San Francisco or others), their actual coverage is really quite tiny. Sure, you can find a good number more by war driving around the city, but that hardly gets to the point that were making a dent in the ISP revenue stream. While I'm optimistic on their expanding and the radios improving, what percentage of SF residents realistically would have usuable signal strength in their homes in 1, 2, even 3 years out?
If you do decide to run a freenet, get an external antenna with some decent gain, though WAP antenna connectors have to be proprietary, most are just reversed DNC or the like. You get a pretty shocking increase in range and penetration even with a 3db omni and a lot less sensitivity to the wireless card's orientation (which is all to often flat and sub-optimal for pickup). A lot of the freenet spec out relatively expensive hardware (< $1K for SFLan), but a little antenna hacking can get most any WAP to reach out for semi-decent range.
Regards, RJS
If the entire Internet was on a wireless network. That way, no one would have to pay a monthly fee for broadband Internet access.
Let's start our own network...
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
For you goat-phobes:. 4G_Band.index
http://www.lns.com/papers/FCCPart15_and_the_ISM_2
Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
Remember that back in the Fidonet days, we Sysops had to pay for uplinks to other Fidonet nodes that were long distance from our BBS or our link to FidoNet. It wasn't always free. I would always absorb most of the fees since doing the BBS thing was a hobby, and that was just part of the deal.
I want to setup a wireless LAN myself, and wouldn't mind paying a small amount to an ISP. However, that can only go so far with limited use.
karma whoring was the last thing on my mind... I still am curious what people's thoughts are on this subject... time to browse the rest of the messages I suppose
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
Now, many examples of this were given, and I mean MANY, but I recall the instructor mentioning that while he sees this as a solution, that he wants a less painful one that can result in the eventual free use of network access (including voice and video).
The thing is... when people see a medium as unlimited (in this case network bandwidth [access]) they tend to use it very inefficiently. "Sure, let me download these 2 Gig files and see 'if I like them'". Woah! You may have great access, but you will negatively effect others on the network (both source and destination). Plus what about the hardware serving up you binary delights? We all have experienced the horror of 100's of emails that say little more than "Me too!" while 'helpfully' quoting the entire history of the mail message in the rest of the body. The same thing happens in other aspects. Voice? People stay on the line while they pinch a loaf or watch TV, video?... they get bored and go cook a snack while keeping the connection open. Or they just download every bit of info they need and basically 'Cache the Net'... or rather Store the Net.
So, how do you provide free access in a non draconian manner without sacrificing the very access you desire to bestow. "Sure, I got that 'thar inter-net thingy, but it is slower than my great-grandpappy's bowel movements and just as reliable too!" Well, enough of that... anyway, I look forward to any comments on this (links are always welcome).
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
As the proprietor of a wireless ISP, I can say we have a difficult time keeping our own towers from interfering from each other. Even though 802.11 has 11 channels, only 3 of them can co-exist peacefully. Luckily we have an RF engineer on staff, who with the right antennas and network design can eliminate these problems, or work around them. With lots of these "mom and pop" freenets, they will definitely interfere with each other. Also with a large number in an area, and all broadcasting the "world" SSID, you may roam to another access point with a different subnet and loose connectivity.
You can in fact change the mac address of most newer cards, although it's probably not a good idea since mac addresses are registered with IEEE. I believe it can be done with ifconfig on most 3com cards. I'll have to find the links....
I was actually just researching this in my area and found out that this network is slowly making it's way to my house. Right now a lot of the Portland area is covered as shown by this link. Check out the map it's pretty cool.
...../......
This could give the term 'mom & pop ISP' a whole new meaning. A few problems, though...
1) If you have several access points in a neighborhood, you may have trouble with RF interference, as these have to share a limited range of the bandwidth spectrum
2) IP routing... In addition to the access point, you'd need to set up some sort of IP address translation. Most everyone's going to use the same 192.168.xxx.xxx address space, so two access points in the same neighborhood can result in two users with the same IP... not a problem, until one of them picks up his laptop and walks across the street, whereupon his connection switches to the other access point. These things operate using the same kind of technology as a cell phone. You switch access points like you switch cell towers as you move.
The best solution I can see is for neighborhood groups to organize and cooperate between whoever sets up the access points. People with the technical know-how to get around these issues are uncommon, even among the general high-tech population. Luckily, it's pretty easy to learn the ins & outs of wireless. Unfortunately, it's NOT so easy to learn the ins & outs of cooperation.
These people looked deep into my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined.
That would prevent them from using the network's resources, but they could still make the radio band of the wireless network unusable.
Somehow I'm guessing law enforcement could get involved at that point.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
You probably can give it away legally. They might not like that, but the contract you signed probably didn't say that you couldn't set up a firewall and run 128 computers behind your firewall. Whether they belong to you or to someone else is irrelevent.
You might have a wee bit of a problem with people abusing your network though.
---
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
The comparison with NT is the entire point of the sig.
---
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
Err...I suppose until the whole network was up. For a while, there will be some pretty isolated areas outside of radio range.
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
True. There will be some areas that are out of reach. Of course, Sysops were paying for the line for us to dial in on too.
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
Could this be like the old days of Fidonet where we were able to transmit email without having to pay access fees?
If we establish local 802.11b networks that connect to each other in every neighborhood, then we won't need ISPs. Of course, someone will have to pay for the bandwidth to the internet backbone eventually, right?
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
Read about it in Wired.
If Slashdot is where the spelling-challenged go when they die, I'm in heaven.
1- Last mile connection has always been a problem for telcos because they aren't profitable. it is the service that is profitable (so the cost of the last maile has to be subsidised)
2- Therefore this can only mean good news for big telcos and ISPs
3- Oh, but what if a lot of amateurs just setup a bunch of these and it's free and people don't have to pay for it, are the telco's and ISP's screwed then?
4- Nope. the problem with spread spectrum and other no-license-required frequencies is that, well, no license is required, meaning there's no control over it and eventually they get saturated. so all a telco or ISP has to do is install plenty of these cheap antenas when enough people are using it for it to matter, make sure that those antenas are a tad more powerful than the amateur ones and presto. you took over. ever seen what spread spectrum looks like in El Salvador (and no, San Salvador is not some ugly middle of the jungle place like most americans think)? Caracas? Rio de Janeiro?
5- Once this is done, the demand for this either crashes (due to poor connection quality because of interference), or the big companies steal all the customers....at a price.
hmm just re-read the post and kinda sounds like a troll. that wasn't the intent. sorry.
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
Of course, inadvertently open AP's are free beer, while the ones in the article are free speech. ;)
Just for kicks, do a google search on "war driving."
This sig is xenon coated, and will glow red when in the presence of aliens
70Mbps sounds sweet, but I would be worried about limited range at that high a frequency. Here at work we have done extensive testing with 2.4 GHz transmitters and the most range you can get without a high gain antenna is about 1 mile LOS (at about 1 W). Complicating it is the fact that a leaf is about the size of one wavelength, so trees tend to cause a lot of loss. Have any links with some info?
In the US, which is the backdrop for most of this stuff, most ISPs charge for monthly access by a flat rate. For example, if you go here, you can play with Speakeasy.net's packages and see that it costs anywhere from $60 per month to $300 per month... however, you'll notice it lists no per-usage fee. So more traffic actually means less money, since most US broad-band ISPs are unmetered, and charge a flat fee per month.
--
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Make a guess as to what type of DSL these people are likely to have. Chances are, it's unmetered Internet access, which is basically what residential users have access to, and increased usage would hurt ISPs.
--
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
The big assumption here is that people will be willing to go back to the original type of network in terms of reliability, latency, etc. Having a tree of 'Charlies' pass your packet from California to New York will involve a significant delay, assuming the packet TTL is large enough to make the trip in the first place. Forget interactive sessions. UUCP message delivery used to take days. A wireless web would be somewhat faster, but you're still probably looking at several minutes or even hours to pass an email from coast to coast.
Um. Some people already "building their own wireless to wired bridges" with cheap ($99) Airport cards. A Mac with an Airport card stands in for a $300 hub very nicely while still operating as a workstation (although it will not handle quite as many simultanious connections, IIRC).
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Yes you can.
The first case I heard about somebody using 802.11b for wide area connections, it was done with airport cards.
Granted, it is a hardware hack that requires you to know what you are doing, but it can be done.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
That's what we do. We were one of the first on the list for DSL from our local telco.(The funny thing is that our next door neighbor was put on the list first, but b/c of his last name, they haven't gotten around to him yet.) Since it doesn't look like they'll get to him anytime soon, we just created a wireless hop between the houses, I've got an antenna outside my window and so does our neighbor, happy surfing for both of us, plus he chips in for the monthly bill and everyone's happy.
In the words of Homer Simpson... "Mmmmm... beer."
In the words of Homer Simpson... "Mmmmm... beer."
suppose i'm interested in helping out, r there any how-to's anywhere? :p
it is me
I would see this as an oportunity for the telco's and the high bandwidth providers. For example, if I establish a 802.11b network in my apartment building (or TPO if I want) and they provide me with an uplink to the internet, only one, and very high bandwidth. It would simplify thier lives, remove thier need for customer support people, because they would only be dealing with me, and if I had a software problem I wouldn't take up two hours of thier tech support crew's time. They would be able to increase thier profits, as they aren't making any money on DSL just give up on that, and sell me bandwidth in T3 increments, right to my apartment building. They should be excited about this possibility to push network complexity out of thier domain.
Spring is here. Don't believe me, look outside!
They wouldn't have to buy new NICs, ifconfig conveniently allows you to change your MAC address.
-antipop
That would prevent them from using the network's resources, but they could still make the radio band of the wireless network unusable.
So the access point owner would only allow known MACs on his network. Combined with encryption and further access controls, that should keep strangers out. But then, of course, one fascinating aspect is gone: The network isn't public anymore.
How does a wireless network handle people who are out to destroy other users' experience? It's not like you can unplug someone from a wireless network.
Warez make you blur the distinction between singular and pural, and are thus bad.
Roll out some more free wireless, so I can quit paying 300$ a month for it!!!! We got our wireless T1 a week ago, and it's not half bad. We have a Breezecom SA-10 going point to point between two office buildings. www.breezecom.com Of course, the day before we were suppose to get it installed (a month ago), Lightning hit the main transmitter, and destroyed all their equipment. :O
ISPs can sell DSL or T1 service to these guys. I would love to have that account.
sulli
RTFJ.
802.11 works great. It generates traffic, right? So ISPs should be delighted that it's out there, because it will lead to more users on more high-capacity lines in more locations. I sell DSL for a living and would be thrilled to have freenets buying my service (AS LONG AS THEY PAY THE BILLS). Where's the downside? I don't see it.
sulli
RTFJ.
Now if someone starts spamming or DOSing from your account, and you get booted off your service, that will also be your problem. You are responsible for whatever goes down that wire.
(Full disclosure: I work for an ISP offering DSL service; our TOS behave this way, and I'm sure your ISP's do as well.)
sulli
RTFJ.
My DSL provider gives me 7 IP addresses - what's stopping me from assigning 6 of those via DHCP to whoever happens to use my wireless network?
Okay, so I've got some spare bandwidth on my DSL line. If I throw down $300 for a wireless base station, what are my legal liabilities if I provide free access to anyone who wants to use it?
The so called netherbot went and killed my bot.
PERL(?) CAM
Broken Hearts are for Assholes. - Frank Zappa
It will happen... why do you think the broadcasters are licking their chops at the possibilities of digital TV? With digital TV broadcasting everywhere in the US by 2006, the broadcasters will be able to either broadcast a single HDTV feed OR split their spectrum up to provide 4 "regular" NTSC SDTV feeds OR use their spectrum for other uses. The broadcast industry is very happy with their new digital TV broadcast spectrum for obvious reasons... :-)
Anyone doing this in Arizona? I have been thinking along these lines myself. As a matter of fact I have been involved with the City of Mesa's initiative called "Electronic Streets" which is trying to encourage broadband in the last mile..... I would like to slap some fiber/copper from house to house, and in areas where you would have to cut streets etc, run wireless.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Does anyone know if their is an initiative to do a freenet in the DC metro area. With all the high tech workers here it would be a natual place to roll out a fairly massive one. If anybody has info on this I would be interested in joining and putting up an AP in my area. .
I couldn't fail to disagree with you any less.
It's hard to tell whether these things are a threat or an opportunity for ISPs.
Hmmm... devices that allow many numbers of people share the cable/adsl bandwidth being charged to one household means increased
traffic and decreased customer accounts for
the ISP in question.
Call me crazy, but I imagine the ISP's will see this as a threat.
"And like that
802.11 works great. It generates traffic, right? So ISPs should be delighted that it's out there, because it will lead to more users on more high-capacity lines in more locations. I sell DSL for a living and would be thrilled to have freenets buying my service (AS LONG AS THEY PAY THE BILLS). Where's the downside? I don't see it.
I have a cable modem in Florida on RoadRunner. I pay $45 a month (or so) for it. I regularly get download speeds of 250 kiloBYTES per second and up. Do you know how many people could share this one connection for normal internet use? A lot!
Without a freenet setup, those people would have to pay for access. Therefore my [as of yet theoretical] freenet is taking money directly away from ISP's.
"And like that
Pretty tangential, but between high freq wireless nets and the NASA solar plane (plus a battery to let it fly all night), we can skip the last mile entirely. Kinda like satellite, but no pointing dishes to the minute in az/el and 600ms pings, lower cost to launch, easier to maintain.
:-)
IANA[EE] so I couldn't even guess the power requirement to transmit the 70,000 ft (14 mi) from endurance altitude to earth. It sure would help folks like me in low-density/poor LOS areas of the country.
(I know, common application, but I didn't see it mentioned in this thread yet
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Solution #1: QOS
I just started playing with the Quality of Service stuff in linux, & you could set it up so that traffic to/from the wireless net was at the bottom of the dogpile priority wise, and assuming that you are paying a fixed amount per month, it's not a problem.
Solution #2: Why connect to the backbone?
If both stations are on the wireless network, why does the traffic need to hit the internet backbone? This was how the internet started: Bob wants to talk to Sue, but Sue is too far away so Charlie helps out. (Ok, so it's a tree of Charlies that help out, but u get the picture.)
They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
If you have a clear line of sight and a amplifier/directional antennae you can get your little wireless cards to go for miles. That serves as a good way to link different nets, but there are some other good ways to connect you and your friends at higher speed.
- Get an unused pair of copper from the phone copany that connects you and your friend, get two old ADSL modems off of ebay, and hook it all up for a cheap, reasonably fast link. You can also do the same with just bulk copper wire you run yourself (or so I hear, never tried it). String a few of these together and you could get your own psuedo-backbone for your town and add wireless access points off of it in different locations.
- If you are really old school, you can do the 300/1200bd HAM packet-radio thing. Pretty good distances, but not much good for anything except checking a couple text emails.
Anyone got any other good ideas?
Uninnovate - Only the finest in engineering.
The downside is that instead of having 19 people using 19 DSL lines at 5% capacity, the Telcos will 19 users of ONE DSL line at 95% capacity.
Which senario makes the TELCO more money?
This is a great idea. If anyone wants to do this in NYC Im willing to help out. If you know of this happening already post it. Inquiring minds want to know.
this isnt a sig, you cant put a sig on a computer.
rrdejay
Gone but not... ummm
This is all very interesting, but how are these people providing internet access? Last time I checked internet access wasn't free.
Why doesn't someone buy out an old radio station, and deliver streaming mp3's through wireless networking, via shoutcast and the like (legal difficulties aside). Seriously, though, with enough juice, couldn't a radio station deliver Internet access to a large area the way an Airport(TM) delivers network access to your living room?
Emacs: for people who just never know when to
Amateur Radio operators have already been doing this for a couple of decades now via packet radio. The nice thing about 802.11b is that it is much. much faster than the 9600 baud wireless connections that alot of Amateurs use.
If an idea like this ever gets big, I think that we will see alot more 'Community involvement' Like there was on the old bbses. Distance could be a problem with the links, but the Amatuers have showed us that you can get over these obstacles with nodes or even running a TCP/IP Gateway that other authorized users on that specific node can use to get on the internet if they need long-distance communications.
- Dan I.
I think I posted this kinda already.
Earlier when there was talk about these networks I suggested GNUTELLA.
Look it up, I don't feel like it.
Get your Unix fortune now!
If I give two of my friends access to my 'LAN,' each would allow the other access to their 'LAN.' However, if my two friends disliked each other, they could conceivably launch DOS attacks from each others' connections, while being perfectly kind to me.
Another situation is this: a guy with a questionable background is nice to you, and you hesitantly give him access. He's well behaved enough, you never get complaints about him. But soon his friends come over, and get into your network, and they are constantly DDoSing your ISP and the FBI, both of which are currently trying to track down where it's coming from.
Now, your plan is still far better than allowing any stranger access; with a bit of work it could potentially work. Although things never seem to scale wonderfully; people seem to find ways to abuse just about anything.
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
suwain_2
My concern, aside from the obvious security issues, is bandwidth. Sure, my cable modem is fast, but what about when 40 people all try using it? I'd most likely end up setting a firewall/router up to give priority to anything coming from the internal LAN, which would mean that the 'guests' would, at times, have practically no bandwidth to use. And if no one ever has any bandwidth, no one will care that they can get wireless access, which makes this whole (otherwise very interesting) idea useless.
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
suwain_2
look what you've got on 2.4 GHz already... Oh yeah I forgot - Bluetooth too. Though maybe tha's less dangerous, as no one is building Bluetooth equipment yet.
- 802.11b. And maybe lots of it in some places. You can only have so many overlapping networks before performance degrades.
- 2.4Ghz cordless phones. By FCC regs, these can transmit as much power as an 802.11b card, so it only takes a few of them in your neighbourhood to start running over your wireless LAN.
- Cordless anything. Keyboards, mice, gamepads...and funny, what are these usually right next to... your 802.11b card!
- Microwaves. Which can pump out a shit-load of power and noise into the 2.4GHz band
- Other industrial ISM-band equipment
While you can boost performance by using a high-gain directional antenna and putting it up high (like the top of your house) the legal limits on trnasmitted power are still really low - like 1 W RMS (according to the article - I thought it was 1mW RMS, but my memory is bad). I toyed briefly with the idea of setting up an 802.11b antenna on the top of my new house as I work fairly close to where I line and it would just be, you know, cool. But it's expensive and the only way to really get decent range is to use a number of cells (and I don't have the capital to build out a city-wide network) or crank the power, which is fine by me, but technically illegal.Anyway, I don't really have enough spare time to hand-roll and antenna like these freenet guys, so I was thinking about buying one from HyperLink Technologies, but then I'm too cheap to do that.
Anyway, sounds like fun. Anyone building one in Toronto?
No! You can't do that, if you regulate by processor serial numbers, then you have a log of what anyone does. It would be much better to do it anonymously. I mean, how many people change their processor that often?
The problem is not technological or even technically speaking economic, but political
Agreed. Very insightful posting - thank you. In my case (living near Toronto, Canada), I'm paying approx $45/CDN per month for cable. DSL is priced about the same. Both are regulated by the gov't. Otherwise, I'm sure the prices would be much higher.
The 'last mile' took ages to implement in the area where I live. DSL wasn't available to most people around me (except myself, because I live across the street from a Bell station). DSL STILL remains out of bounds for some western downtown locations, for example, where I used to work. In this area, the solution was that a company came into the building, purchased a T1, and re-sold bandwidth to everyone else in the building from that pipe. Otherwise, best you could get for a small company was ISDN.
I agree that this limit was likely artificial. In a large city, there should be little that would prevent bandwidth-sharing by wireless.
We have a company around here, Look Communications, which offered an alternative to cable and DSL. I believe it's microwave, and those who managed to get it loved it. Sadly, they ran out of money, and could no longer afford to put up their 'stations' for new customers. They ARE, however, supporting their existing customers, and are not out of business.
If consumers were to take over at this point, and set up the wireless stations themselves, it should be easy to provide bandwidth for all, anywhere in the city. Perhaps a large-ish 10.x.x.x network, where each 'station' ran a DHCP server for 250 machines, and somehow broadcasted gateways (P2P fashion?) would work, with enough tweaking.
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
I always felt that the Internet was meant to be free. I understand that there are organizations out there who have invested a lot of money laying out fibre and such, and they deserve a hand for helping us get to where we are today, but in the end the Internet was always meant to be a forum where everyone has equal rights to voice themselves, and to hear what others have to say.
I'm not against bandwidth providers. What I am against is the high prices (or difficulty in getting bandwidth) which keeps so many off the 'net. Perhaps this is a solution to the 'last mile' problem, where we end up tearing up city streets everywhere to lay out new cables all of the time.
If the technology is there, I'm all for consumers taking over control of bandwidth. Let us set up our own networks. With our own networks in place, we will be able to escape things like government censorship, corporate control, and hopefully, telecom monopolies.
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
Companies don't lay down backbones as a public service, they do it to sell bandwith and make money.
I agree, but you obviously didn't read my post. The Internet was not created for the benefit of these companies. I recognize their right to exist and to make money, but I do not recognize their rights to control content, or to control who can view that content.
The Internet was created as a research tool. It was intended to connect people together. These companies did not create the internet. They provided us with a great service in connecting us to the internet in the past, but laying out a backbone is not an excuse to run a monopoly. Hence, these companies are, in many (not all) cases, abusing their power over users, and it is suggested that they may be outgrowing their usefulness.
I suggested that the community create their own networks. Ones that are run by the community, with free access for all. Inevitably you have to connect to another network, but that's the name of the game when it comes to the Internet, since there is no single global network which connects to everybody. Rather, everybody connects to somebody else, and eventually a path is formed.
Obviously the community can't create a cross-country backbone overnight, but get enough people together and it should be possible to first connect within the cities, and then eventually to expand outwards once the network gains power.
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
Pick up some ARRL antenna manuals and see if you don't get some ideas.
--
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
There are a bunch of problems that will have to be solved before this can really work in the real world. They are:
- The "hidden transmitter" problem. If the system uses anything like a collision-detection system, two units which can't hear each other can repeatedly disrupt each other's attempts to reach a third one which can hear both of them. You've got to have some kind of arbitration or polling system to deal with this, and only polling works well at high densities.
- Access to limited resources. Having 5 MBPS access to somebody's AP is nice, but if you've got 10 people trying to work through the associated 768 kbps DSL to the internet, you've got a serious congestion problem.
- Allocation of resources. If someone's DSL provider charges by the unit of traffic, who's going to pay the extra fees to keep the AP open to the public?
- The solution to some of those issues is to route traffic over the air from AP to AP instead of going through the wired network, but that only works if you're not too many hops from "home".
Some of these issues have been faced by hams with their pioneering work with packet radio, but it's all got to be adapted and re-implemented to suit the medium.--
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
At the moment, it's only a hobby to go throw up an antenna, etc. But we have to remember that for the most part, unless you can get it quite widespread, easy to use and secure, the vast majority (read: the people needed to make this thing fly) aren't going to use it, in favour of something that they can set up (or get a cable guy to set up) or just AOL. And the only people using it outdoors are the techno-savant (read: geeks).
Now on the other hand, this could be quite easily adapted for handheld devices in more business-related centres or universities, where you can set up an antenna set to a specific drive that offers not internet but information partaining to a specific area. The amount a university could save (in the long run as books become more electronic) by simply placing an antenna in every building with building-relevant info and access to the LAN rather than building a huge central library is quite a bit.
With a little work, this could also get applied to the tourism industry (read: walking tours - $10.00. Includes handheld guide rental).
Now yes, this is probably better suited to the more advanced technologies appearing in the near future, but this is here now, and the experience that we gain from it could be extremely useful in applying wireless public networks when the masses are finally converted.
- Relativistic? That's barely Newtonian!
...of the early internet? Sadly, how long is it going to be before these links are flooded with bulk mailers, and w4r3z repositories?
I think the problem they see is users actually using their bandwidth. Right now, they expect you to only use a small portion of your bandwidth, if you use what they "say" they're giving you then they're going to have to allocate more bandwidth per geographical region. And I'm sure AT&T @Home would just love to upgrade their systems to handle more load with only a minimal increase in users. That's why they try and make users who DO use 85% of their bandwidth look like evil people who rip off everyone else. Sort of like the airlines overbooking flights, they'd rather underestimate the load than overestimate.
My knowledge of 802.11b is not as good as some other things, but would it be feasible to setup some kind of DHCP like gateway system for the local free net? And for anyone who wants a server, the local admins give them some static number?
Just a thought...
----------
By the way, I sold my Lucent wireless LAN for a 3Com HomeConnect one. I'm finding the connection isn't as strong, but the setup is way easier (my Lucent had a nasty habit of fighting with my DHCP server. There were packets being run constantly.) Do I merely have to take a screwdriver to the thing and solder a piece of metal to the antenna, or what?
(Whether or not that's desirable or not is another matter.)
And BTW I don't normally reply to myself, it only occurred to me after submitting. Never mind.
There is absolutely no reason to panic.
This is a real chance to get us an ISP-less network that is relatively immune to attacks to the service provider. It is quite public-though, and easy to monitor; together with applications such as FreeNet which automatically encrypt communications and decentralize data storage from individual nodes, this could provide a nice extension of the Internet into ubiquitous, free (as in speech & beer) network coverage. At least when there are enough participating nodes.
There is absolutely no reason to panic.
I think this is one of the best applications for wireless (at this point in time.) Someone in the neighborhood gets a cable or DSL line, and everybody else surfs for free (or chips in.) As long as you tunnel over SSH and you trust your neighbors, and don't tell the ISP, what could be better? If I didn't live in an old-folks neighborhood, I'd be doing this right now.
-- Never hit a man with glasses. Hit him with a baseball bat.
The problem is going to be corporate-sponsored litigation against freenets.
The argument has been made that these freenets should operate with the same purpose as the telephone infrastructure, and as such, such a freenet must abide by the quality of service regulations that are imposed on a local telco. Of course, such freenets aren't yet designed to take over the local telephone company, but they do take away from their profits.
The FCC, which is in bed with the local telcos, has a solution. Limit the capabilities of consumer-grade wireless networking equipment, and where not possible, ensure that the spectrum isn't adequate for true public use.
Just you wait, this is going to get a lot of Washington lobbys all fired up. It's already begun.
http://www.mobilian.com/documents/2.4GHz_and_5GHz_ WLAN.pdf
this is a good document outlining 5ghz and 2.4
I'm in Portland, Oregon and have met half a dozen nieghbors who are interested, since putting a node up a month ago. As a rule, they are completely aware of the telco/cable overcharges and extremely interested in taking action that thwarts current controlled telecommunications. These face to face meetings, combined with telecommunications tech seem to me to be the beginnings of a force for telecomm political action. I believe that many "public access" cable franchise agreements could be used to provide point to point. In Portland the franchise has provisions for growth which in the last franchise were explicitly not restricted to "TV" In Minneapolis the access center put conduit under a rare river crossing & leveraged this into data service agreements. Take a look at your local franchise.
I think there are still a lot issues that need to be worked out before we can really have complete wireless networking capabilities. Removing centralized control and going in for ad hoc networks give rise to several issues at the medium access and physical layers that are not observed in wired networks. There seems to be a significant drop in capacity of such networks when the user population increases. My (limited) knowledge of these problems stem from this (The Capacity of Wireless Networks) paper and work related to it.
Currently it's pretty easy to set up a wireless network in your home that would enable you to stand outside your house and connect to the internet through your mobile device. What technologies exist to facilitate the ablitly to provide guest access to everyone within range of my xmitter, and to coordinate other free resources like mine in my area, i.e., to provide roaming, etc., like current cell providers can?
This type of network could potentially compete with commercial wireless ventures, eh?
I for one would be willing to shell out some dough to do this if enough of my neighbors (relatively speaking) did so.
-doug
You could also use the 5Ghz to link several smaller 2.4ghz networks together and try to split the bandwith nicly....
I wish the web was like gnutella, infact, what's beeing talked about in this thread is such a thing, I think ? while if it wasn't it should be, because that's where it's all at. Given: The limitation of a 2.4 ghz eathernet is 300 feet through walls, 1000 feet Line of site. situation: I live in a house, which has the nearest house is 400 feet away, and the closest person within verizons limitation(15,000 feet, those bastards, dsl is capable of 50,000) is 4 houses away, with no house more than 300 feet from the other. Although i can not make it directly to the house with dsl using a wireless eathernet, if i use my "Peers" as channels of trafic i can leap from wireless station to wirelessstaiton. One otherthing, i live on the high point for a 5 or 6 mile radius... maybe i should put up a small tower (just to reach the tree line) then put an omni directional antena, and use some form of brodcasting (like ricochette), and be able to reach someone i know with a T1, and then redistribute it to my neighborhood with a small surcharge....
my bad, but proccessor serial numbers still aply, they just require a client app that peals it off and sends it out. if it wasn't this thread i talked about that in it was in another, click my user number doohicky link and it'll show you whatever i've posted
I get your point/feeling. The issue i was trying to look at was what would have to be done to convince the blank (whoever might try to force me to shut down my network) that the network configuration would allow for apropriate actions to be taken should it be found a user is doing something inapropriate. THis may be holding someone accountable, it may be simply the ability to disable them
remember, at one point they talked like that about the interenet. Another thread mentioned ip conflicts. the best way i see around this is distribution based on mac address, which never ever ever changes unless you change the adapter. If you do this, then the federalies could impliment some kind of forced registration. I also mentioned incryption and permissions in something else i mentioned.-In order to get rid of disreputible people and big pains, you do some form of encryption and accont control, and lock these people out. They won't be able to access the network unless they have the permissions, and if they try they will only affect the local access point (1) and no more. I know youll talk about accounts being traded, but as soon as someone is spoted just lock them out and if it was realy a big issue you could lock the mac address out- in which case they would have to buy a new nic every time. Or even more complex, a client app that gets the proccessor serial number, and logs it, and requires that information to get on. the truth is there is always a solution.
Don't forget that 5ghz wireless is being released later this summer, and it's suposidly going to be cheap. It's capable of 70 something mbs, even if they do limit it to only 50 something. This will make 2.4ghz wireless even more economical by driving the prices down, not to mention if you wanted to you could spike up to 5ghz and do larger relay networks with higher capacity.
As they said in Lord of the flys,
Shut up piggy!
What I mean is this, content really shouldn't be so regulated. Regulations requires regulators. Whose going to regulate this material? Not people looking out for the good of humanity, not ever people filled with moral rightousness.
The regulaters will be people who have a vested intrest in denying people information. Why deny information? Becuase the want you to have to pay for it. Now this in it self isn't a bad idea, it cost money for content and information to become avalible. The providers deserve compensation so they can provide more content. The problem is when the providers spend their energy thinking of ways to get consumers to pay for the same content multipule times.
Look at music, you buy a cd and it breaks. Do they gvie you another cd? Of course not. You bought it you broke it. You bought a cd, not the right to the song for the end of time right? Now take that cd and copy it, and give it to your sister. You can't do that, your own the cd lisence, not your sister. According to the provider you own the cd, but can't do just anything with it. On top of all that, they made cds so weak unless you treat it like a removed kidney it'll become scratched up withen a year, causing you to buy another copy.
Providers of content have become concered with making you pay as much as possible for content and give you the least about of freedom and flexiblilty. Thats why if a new freenet is construted its should be designed to make is as hard to as possible to regulate and monitor. The only restrain is that a user should be able to screen out content his or she doesn't want.
just raise their prices, so no, I dun believe it will affect the ISPs anymore than this has already, I mean the most of whats around anymore anyway is the (semi-)big guys.