Cringely's Bank Shot

Michael A. Lowry writes: "You may remember how Robert Cringely used a couple of directional antennas to get an 802.11b link up across a 10.5 km wide valley. The original Slashdot discussion is here. Well Cringely has done it again. This time, he has set up a passive repeater in an oak tree on a nearby mountaintop to bounce a 2 Mb/s signal around a hill that lies between his house and the acces point in Santa Rosa. Read about it here. Details about the homemade hardware he used can be found here. There's going to be a lot more of this in the near future."

Comments

Off the tree around the hill...

[esw]

...nothing but net.
:-)

~Eric

Re:Off the tree around the hill...

[Anonymous Coward]

well, at least it isn't "nothing but .NET" (although I'm sure Bill would like it that way)

Re:Off the tree around the hill...

[forgetful_ca]

Flamebait? I just screwed up and forgot a BR before the word 'millions'. I was actually attempting to castigate the previous poster..

Tragedy of the commons

[Waffle Iron]

Let's say thousands of people do this in some general area to save a buck or two on broadband. Even with directional antennas, the noise floor could get pretty high. How much bandwidth will any one person have left?

Re:Tragedy of the commons

[Enry]

Then more access points can be put up. But yes, in heavily dense areas, there will be a lot of 2.4Ghz going on.

Re:Tragedy of the commons

[Anixamander]

I can't see folks going to this extent on a widespread basis. If thousands of people in one area do start doing this, it will no doubt become the new Silicon Valley, because it would mean there is a critical mass of sophisticated geeks there.

Make that sophisticated, motivated geeks. I'm sophisticated, but that is way too mch work for me.

Re:Tragedy of the commons

[Fluid Truth]

If you do right, you no longer need to get around the hill. You only need to get to your neighbor.

Re:Tragedy of the commons

[Quizme2000]

Sir, we've made contact with itelligent life...The radio telescope is picking up all sorts of information...Wait a sec, that college kid is bouncing a wireless lan connection of our dish to an access point in China! Damn you Boy.

I remeber reading something about the radio free "Dark Areas" in the US are almost extinct. This is important to those Radio Telescope operators and the super senstive listening device the gov't uses. If you are thinking of experimenting with your wireless equipment be aware of the FCC regulations about interfernce and protected feq. Ingorance of these laws and regulations is not a defence when you get fined thousands of dollars for screwing up local broadcast signals for emergency vechicles. Just don't your know neighbors your responsiable for the weird static they get on cordless phones.

Re:Tragedy of the commons

[Joel Ironstone]

It will be considered theft I expect. If you run a large coil in your field under a high current power line you can steal energy passing overhead. This is very similar and would be treated the same way. In fact i expect the judgments to be harsher because you have to transmit as well.

Re:Tragedy of the commons

[Wyatt Earp]

If you think there aren't many radio free areas left, you've not drove from Rapid City to Walla Walla :)

Re:Tragedy of the commons

[Leinies]

Isn't the FCC going to frown on this sort of thing? 802.11b uses 2.4-GHz band which is unlicensed by the FCC. If people start using this band in ways unintended, regulation will probably be necessary. :(

Kind of like when you were a kid and got some $20 KMart walkie-talkies...

Re:Tragedy of the commons

[haruharaharu]

If you are thinking of experimenting with your wireless equipment be aware of the FCC regulations

That's what 2.4Ghz is for - keep it under 250mw and you're fine.

Re:Tragedy of the commons

[BrookHarty]

That would be like saying your stealing water from the clouds with the rain that falls on your lawn.

Your only stealing if there is an actual loss from your efforts.

Humm, I could see a counter argument thou.

This is like the software industry saying they lost zillion dollars from pirated warez. The priates wouldnt buy the software in the first place.

Re:Tragedy of the commons

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservation of energy, if you take it you're taking it away from someone else.

Re:Tragedy of the commons

[jmv]

Your only stealing if there is an actual loss from your efforts.

If you use a coil to pick up electricity from a high power line, you are in fact stealing power. Otherwise, there would be an energy conservation problem.

Re:Tragedy of the commons

[_Knots]

If I recall correctly, this has been done and actually went to the Supreme Court (here in the US) and was not, in fact, ruled theft.

Granted, the owner of the coil also owned the land over which the high-tension lines passed.

-Knots

Re:Tragedy of the commons

[Mike Hicks]

How much bandwidth will any one person have left?

Heh, a lot more than they have now.

Re:Tragedy of the commons

[Anonymous Coward]

If you use a coil to pick up electricity from a high power line, you are in fact stealing power. Otherwise, there would be an energy conservation problem.

Not necessarily, for example if you already owned the power to begin with you couldn't be stealing it. Ha! I have smashed a law of thermodynamics! Soon the world will bow before my feet!

Re:Tragedy of the commons

[Anonymous Coward]

All of it. I can have 9000 different point to point links all converging at my house as long as I have good designs. I can cross 2 links, having 2 links beam directly throught each other without troubles..

that's the great part of highly directional point to point... you are only using that band in that small section of air between those antennas.

there are only 600 cellular channels. yet the cell companies are able to have billions of phones in use at the same time...

Re:Tragedy of the commons

[Afrosheen]

I wouldn't call using a coil stealing. After all, this is normal loss that's otherwise just bled off into the atmosphere. If the sun was a commodity, would using a solar panel be considered stealing as well? If the gas company had a serious leak nearby and you patched into the leak, it follows the same theory. Kind of a gray area I'd say.

Re:Tragedy of the commons

[Paul Komarek]

I thought the non-license power limit was 100mW. I've seen instructions for a an amplified antenna (250mW nominal) which claim you need a licensed installer. Any idea whose wrong, or what fine point I'm missing?

-Paul Komarek

Re:Tragedy of the commons

[Pooua]

this is normal loss that's otherwise just bled off into the atmosphere

There is a difference between an induction coil and an antennae. The induction coil is magnetically coupled, whereas the antennae is not. The use of induction coils under a high voltage line puts a magnetic drag on the lines that would not otherwise exist.

Re:Tragedy of the commons

[Paul Komarek]

It is against the law, whatever you call it. People have been convicted -- a hippy commune, IIRC. The power companies pay close attention to where the power goes. Anomolies are checked, using trucks and helicopters.

-Paul Komarek

Re:Tragedy of the commons

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe It's just to 'save a couple bucks on broadband' where YOU are, wake up and realize that most of the world would accept the crappy service of their telco behemoth or AT+T@home because they want broadband. But in most places we don't even have THAT choice. Get a clue, the only reason we don't all have fiber to our door is because the absurdly rich few companies that controll your senators and congressmen through huge PAC funds, are too busy making sure they have a big chunk of your money when it does happen, if ever, to worry about actually getting you serviced. They are making money hand over fist, why change things too fast. Better to secure their 'rights' for the future. Most people have no clue why we ever had 'cable' tv in the first place. Do some digging into the history of cable and find out that it was a community effort to bring a signal to people who could not get it over the air. Some small cable companies are still called 'community antennas' although they become private little money machines a long time ago. Our parent's tax dollars 'built' the internet back in the 50's-70's. I don't remember any cable company or phone company saying 'hey thanks, this has been a gold mine for us'. I'm against monopolies, let's let the little guy become the competition. Noise may go up, but that could show the government that they need to free up more bandwith for the people who pay the taxes. Also, technology will adapt to help solve the problems along the way. Maybe you prefer the fully capitolistic model where only the overpaid software engineer working for the software behemoth can afford to have all of his streaming video packets routed directly to his home so he doesn't get any dropped frames (don't laugh, companies have already proposed to have 'preferential' routing for things like video streams) ? The internet worked in the first place because of the idea of 'clouds not strings' . See "www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.11/billnjudy_pr.htm l" for more on that. The only tragedy is that so many 'Silicon Valley types' still can't see beyond their high speed connection.

Re:Tragedy of the commons

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Probably in that case you would use non directional antennas and a mesh topology, and keep the power way down; kinda like a cell phone network, only smaller.

Provided the ISP gives a firewall that each user can tunnel through using VPN software, there shouldn't be any problem there either.

The ISP can traffic shape each individual user if they have to; so sharing wouldn't be harmful.

Wireless is good.

[digitalunity]

I live in an area where if you are outside of a very small boundary, you cannot get high speed bandwidth regarless of what you're willing to pay. Some get satellite, the rest(majority) are forced to suffer with dialup.

This would be a big boon for us. I hope a clever company picks up the ball and runs with this.

Re:Wireless is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still expensive and hard to to do - you need reasonably high towers, and that means maintenance/liablity charges.

Amazing

[smari]

People playing with 802.11 allways manage strange and amazing things... I've done a bit of wardriving in Reykjavík, Iceland, and pinpointed 31 access point.. but hell would I like to do some funky stuff like that directional antenna buisness! :)

What I see

[talonyx]

People want wireless access ANYWHERE.

I want it while I sit on the bus commuting to university. I want it when I'm relaxing at my friend's house. I want it when I'm sitting in my bathroom dumping core.

And no company is going to give this to us.

I want it unmetered. I don't mind paying a flat rate but I'm not going to sit in the dark ages of per minute cell phone charges. That would be useless.

And no company is going to do that, either.

So we all have to be like Cringely....

I already have a WAP in my house, albeit a low power one. Come summertime I might buy an antenna for it so I can get a decent connection when outside in my large property.

Imagine if everybody did this. Imagine if half the houses on your street had a WAP with the SSID set to something like "freewire" or something, seamlessly providing wireless access wherever you go via people's boradband links.

NAN - neighbourhood area network.

Now if only I didn't live in outer suburbia where my neighbours have never heard of the Internet and houses are too far apart to make this worthwhile...

Re:What I see

[I.T.R.A.R.K.]

It's a pretty sad life when you can't even take a shit without seeing what's happening in your favourite chatroom, or checking the latest stock quotes.
I'll bet you never leave the house.

Re:What I see

[anthony_dipierro]

I want it while I sit on the bus commuting to university. I want it when I'm relaxing at my friend's house. I want it when I'm sitting in my bathroom dumping core.

I want it unmetered. I don't mind paying a flat rate but I'm not going to sit in the dark ages of per minute cell phone charges. That would be useless.

Step 1: Buy a cell phone. Step 2: buy a handheld device. Step 3: buy an extra phone line. Step 4: sign up for Nextel's unlimited incoming calls cell phone service. Step 5: have your computer's modem call your cell phone which is hooked up to your handheld device. 5 easy steps (and about $100/month) for unlimited 19.2 "anywhere".

Re:What I see

[Afrosheen]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Nextel is only available in a few areas. Their coverage basically sucks at this point in time. If it were Sprint, that'd be a different story...

Re:What I see

[anthony_dipierro]

Good point. *sound of bubble bursting*

Grain elevators

[client32]

I know this isn't the same, but where I live there is a company getting wireless broadband to rural towns by putting atennas and transmitters on the top of grain elevators. This works out pretty good since the terrane is flat and you can see another elevator from the top of your current one. I don't know how much area they cover, but it seems to be an interesting solution.

Re:Grain elevators

[ChrisKoehler]

By any chance are you talking about Champaign County, Champaign IL?

I live there, some company (Skynet or something?)is doing this for the rural areas.

In the city though (Champaign/Urbana, where UIUC is) we got cable, dsl (why would u get it, cable here is very fast, I can see if the cable co had crappy service, but it is good here), satelite, whatever.

Re:Grain elevators

[stripes]

we got cable, dsl (why would u get it, cable here is very fast, I can see if the cable co had crappy service, but it is good here

While not universal, cable tends not to sell fixed addresses or officially allow servers (which is kind of hard, but not impossible, with floating addresses); on the other hand DSL ISPs frequently (but not always) have (normally as a slightly more expensive option) fixed IP addresses and allow servers.

In my area while I could still get it DSL let me have not only some fixed addresses, but a class C that I (well a friend) had obtained when it was still easy to get portable class C space. After Rythms went bankrupt I couldn't get a new provider that would go to 18k feet (even as IDSL), so I'm on cable. The cable is actually more reliable, and faster, and cheaper. I can't get fixed IP addresses though, and and prohibited from running servers :-(

I would pay extra for fixed addresses and the right to run servers...

Re:Grain elevators

[ChrisKoehler]

well, I can see about the servers and all, but for most people, dsl is useless here when you compare it to the cable in this area.

Re:Grain elevators

[stripes]

for most people, dsl is useless here when you compare it to the cable in this area

I can beleve that, most people don't really want to run servers. It is nice to be able to make a choice and do it though.

Re:Grain elevators

[client32]

I am talking about the panhandle of Texas. The company is amaonline (Amarillo Online). The entire panhandle is pretty much farm communities.

Re:Grain elevators

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's nice not having a fixed IP.

When I want to feel slightly more secure in some connection I am about to make, etc., I hang up the modem and redial. I almost always am reassigned a new IP address. Granted it's usually within the same subnet range, but here in a heavily populated area and on a large ISP, it's somewhat effective.

People with a fixed IP leave an indelible trail everywhere they go.

Re:Grain elevators

[Afrosheen]

Sucks to be you guys :) Lubbock has had Cox @Home since ...well...May of 2000.

Re:Grain elevators

[stripes]

When I want to feel slightly more secure in some connection I am about to make, etc., I hang up the modem and redial. I almost always am reassigned a new IP address. Granted it's usually within the same subnet range, but here in a heavily populated area and on a large ISP, it's somewhat effective.

Don't feel too secure, the last ISP I worked for can take a timestamp and an IP address and turn it into an account name in under a second (I had a hand in the software, or at least a light touch, my office mate did pretty much the whole thing). Of corse it normally takes search warrant, and a trip through the abuse department, but the software that does it can find you in under a second (and it is picking you out of millions and millions and millions of calls a day).

I expect all the other dial up ISPs do as well, and maybe even the cable cos...

It will make it harder for anyone that isn't the ISP, and can't convince the ISP to tell them who you are though (unless your talking about browsing the web, and left cookies on...).

Re:Grain elevators

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are talking about Prairie Inet: http://www.prairieinet.net They are based out of Iowa. They have recently setup an access point for Savoy. Unfortunately, it is on a very short grain tower - so I was unable to get the service in Urbana. =(

Re:Grain elevators

[client32]

We have Cox in Amarillo and Canyon. (that is actually what I use) But this wireless stuff off of the grain elevators gets to a lot of small towns that might not even have a local dial up.

Re:Grain elevators

[Afrosheen]

I sorta feel your pain, my brother lives in a rural community in southern IL, and he can't get dsl or anything there because Verizon is worthless. A town 10 miles away has DSL everywhere, and it's actually a smaller town. Such is the fickleness of broadband providers.

If I had the capital I'd invest in FarmNet or something similar. I wonder why nobody has thought about this seriously before. Maybe it's not economically viable, but I can almost guarantee it's cheaper than laying fiber and new cabling for traditional wired broadband.

Re:Grain elevators

[Ben Hutchings]

I got basic cable Internet for £6 ($8) a month on top of my cable TV/phone bill, and I can run servers, and my DHCP-assigned address hasn't changed in the last 6 months. Mind you, that's the 64/32 kbps option, and the cable company (NTL) is rumoured to be going bankrupt at the end of the month...

I'm seriously tempted to try something like this..

[Aexia]

The house my friends and I live in is in a multi-media deadzone.

No cable because we're too isolated and far up a hill.
No satellite access because the house is surrounded by trees and blocks the signal.
DSL doesn't reach out here.
Cell phone coverage exists but is fairly crappy.

I consider it a minor miracle the house gets a phone line.

We don't live in some rural area; we live in a suburb outside Seattle that's fairly dense. Everyone around us gets this stuff but we can't.

Emissions?

[PhotoGuy]

I always saw directional IEEE 802 as very cool. Since you are keeping the same wattage on the emission, are you clear legally (as far as the FCC goes)? It makes sense that you wouldn't be violating anything; rather than radiating it out weakly in all directions, you're focusing that same energy on a tiny spot in the distance. In either case, you're not upsetting the airwaves in general for other people.

Anyone know?

-me

Re:Emissions?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about this specific case, but in general there are FCC restrictions on gain antennas in various services.

For example, with FRS radios it is specifically forbidden to replace the supplied antenna at all, and the supplied antenna cannot be of a gain type. I'm pretty sure that there are similar restrictions on cordless phone antennas.

Re:Emissions?

[afidel]

For the unliscensed use of the ISM band at 2.4Ghz you are not allowed to exceed 1W radiated power. This means that a 100mW radio connected directly to a 24Dbi dish antenna is actually too powerfull. This is ok because most people who use a dish with that kind of gain put it up on a pole. Using even really freaking expensive cable you lose a couple Dbi per meter of cabling.

Re:Emissions?

[Zarquon]

FCC Rules part 15.247 is the reference here. The reason we use DSSS encoding is that FHSS is limited to 0.125 watts in the 2.4 ghz band. 15.246(b)(2). The 5.725 ghz band allows 1 watt in most spread spectrum modes (802.11a/g?)

15.247 (b)(3)(i) allows high-gain directional point-point links. For every 3 db above 6 db gain, you have to reduce your peak output power by 1 db.

Of course, if you get a basic ham license, you can increase this quite a bit. However, you then cannot encrypt your traffic, IIRC.

Re:Emissions?

[threephaseboy]

"a couble Dbi per meter" ??? mabye if you use RG-174
Normal LMR-400 only loses 6.6 dB/100'
2 inch heliax (around $1/ft) would lose less then 1.5dB/100'
Please do some research before posting!

Re:Emissions?

[bcomisky]

Actually when using a directional antenna, the FCC says you can go over 1 watt EIRP. If the antenna is over 6dBi you have to lower the "maximum peak output power of the intentional radiator" by 1dB for every dB your antenna is over 6dBi. Further, for a fixed point to point link, this is reduced to 1dB for every 3dB your antenna is over 6dBi.

You do need to know the cable loss between your radio and your antenna. With your 24 dBi example and 2dB of loss through the cable, and 1 watt EIRP == 30 dBm:

directional antenna over 6dBi (have to reduce output power by (24-6) or 18 dB):
30dBm + 24dBi - 2dB - (24dBi - 6dBi) = 34dBm (== 2.5W EIRP)

same scenario for a fixed point-to-point link (have to reduce power by (24-6)/3 or 6 dBm):
30dBm + 24dBi - 2dB - (24dBi - 6dBi)/3 = 46dBm ( == 40W EIRP!)

A good summary of this info is found here:
The FCC's Part15 Rules and Regulation and 802.11b emissions in the ISM 2.4GHz Band

check it out and double check my math!

Re:Emissions?

[cronik]

Actually, if both ends are using directional antennas and fixed point to point you can get quite a lot more power through the sustem. The rule for fixed p-p is that you need to lower input 1 db for each 3 db gain over 6db

Example:
two systems interconnected with a 21 db dish at each point

Your total radiated power at each end would be 30dbm+(21db-(21db-6db/3)) or 46dbm which is aprox. 39.8 watts Eirp (on each side)

This is not ment to imply that you can break out that old russian amp and crank it up to 40 W of output (that would be putting out WAY to much power{around }) your output after amp should be a bit over 250mW

ps: 30 dbm = 1 W
pps: I know someone posted something close to this but I need to get octave to compile to do the proper calcs (on a 150 mhz laptop (8h))

Re:Emissions?

[Afrosheen]

I've done some cable work in my time, and rj60 quad shielded coax, buried or aerial, has a tendency to lose about 1Db per 55'. A little more robust, inexpensive and extremely resilient. Might be a good thing to use for projects like this.

Violation of TOS

[swordboy]

Cringely mentions that he is indeed violating the DSL provider's TOS but doesn't think that he can be caught. What is to stop the DSL provider from TCP/IP fingerprinting his router and terminating service?

Re:Violation of TOS

[Wildcat J]

Hell, what's to stop the DSL provider from reading the article? ;)

Re:Violation of TOS

[rick446]

Because Cringely doesn't have DSL service. He's piggybacking on someone else's service. So there's no traceability to Cringely unless his middleman says something.

Re:Violation of TOS

[ewhac]

Tell him to get a new DSL provider. Some, like Speakeasy, don't mind this sort of thing at all.

Schwab

Re:Violation of TOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, what's to stop the DSL provider from reading the article? ;)

Cringely isn't breaking the TOS. The person Cringely is connected to is, and Cringely won't release his name.

Re:Violation of TOS

[madmancarman]

I believe the LinkSys cable/DSL routers have offered the capability to change the hardware MAC address on the WAN port through their configuration software. I once heard this was done as a workaround for cable companies that stopped service to costumers using the routhers because they didn't want their users hooking up multiple computers to their cable modems without paying the extra $10 per computer per month. Changing the MAC address would potentially allow you to hop back on their network shortly after shutting you down - you could probably even write a script to access the Linksys's configuration page do it for you.

I'd say at this point that the only way the ISP could really do anything about it would be to require different authentication levels on their network depending on each user's connection (which could be a pain to do) or contact the owners of the mountain to have the repeater removed from the tree. If I were Cringely, I wouldn't have mentioned the specifics of the location, because it wouldn't be very difficult to find, nor to figure out where he lives.

On a slightly unrelated note, considering the potential effects of excessive EM radiation on the body, how safe is this? I know that in this case, all Cringely is doing is repeating a signal, but I'm not so sure that this idea of beaming directional 802.11b radio streams at unaware people sitting in coffee bars is going to be good for people in the long run. I was a physics major in college, but I honestly don't know enough about 802.11 radio waves at 2.4GHz to make any sort of scientific judgement. Can anyone elaborate or speculate?

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Ghandi

Re:Violation of TOS

[Anonymous Coward]

What is to stop the DSL provider from TCP/IP fingerprinting his router and terminating service

You're question assumes some basic level of competence from a DSL ISP. That's a stretch. No, on second thought, that's impossible.

Re:Violation of TOS

[Oliver Defacszio]

In that case, they've obviously picked the right name. Bootleggers!

Re:Violation of TOS

[interiot]

Cringely could probably be identified if someone wanted to try badly enough. For instance, he probably connects to *.pbs.org fairly often, trailed closely by slashdot.org and internet searches for ultra-wide-band related things.

Granted, that'd take a lot of work, but given the extent to which Cringely is encouraging others to emulate him and cause ISP's everywhere (and his ISP in particular, perhaps maybe even) grief, there might be people who would invest the time.

Re:Violation of TOS

[interiot]

eg. If he could be made an example of, and if he would write about being busted in his column, then it would be a commensurate discouragement to others.

Re:Violation of TOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahah... Hohohho. Funny. Seriously, nobody has time to waste like that. You gotta be kidding. Feel that cold breeze on your ass? That's the real world.

Re:Violation of TOS

[ethereal]

You gotta be kidding. Feel that cold breeze on your ass? That's the real world.

Mental note: wear pants tomorrow.

:) characters added to meet lame slashcode line length requirement

Re:Violation of TOS

[spacefrog]

Unless he's using web-based email or talking to his SMTP server through a tunnel, a quick scan of the headers any email he sends should pinpoint the provider he's violating pretty quickly since the SMTP hops along the way are all logging the IP's into the header..

Sooooo......

Send Cringley an email.

Wait for him to respond.

Blackmail him.

Re:Violation of TOS

[Requiem]

Or if they read it on Slashdot. :)

Re:Violation of TOS

[zaffir]

The good ole' "security through obscurity" policy, eh?

Re:Violation of TOS

[discontent]

Ok, little lesson in networking and NAT/PAT. If I use the DSL providers router, throw a NAT/PAT device such as a linux box running IPTables or a Pix firewall behind it, (you do run a firewall right?) there is no way for the ISP to know how many machines I have behind it. They may be able to guess there is more than one based on trend analysis or bandwidth usage but thats just a guess and I doubt they would invoke their TOS against a paying,(they are in business to make money :), user based on a guess.
NAT = Network address translation. Each IP behind the device is mapped to a public IP. Yes, even icmp replies and e-mail headers.
PAT = Port Address Translation (more common). Each outgoing connection is assigned a port on the firewall device. This means that 100 machines would look like one. Again, yes, even mail headers and ICMP.
MAC address: The mac address will never give you the machine that sent the packet unless you are on the same subnet. The source mac is *always* the mac of the last hop. This is how networking works.
So in otherwords. Unless he gets really stupid he will never get caught.

Re:Violation of TOS

[mother_superius]

Or they could just look at the mountain =)

um, ok...another Cringley post.

[Rhinobird]

This is getting better than new kernal posts, every new Cringley article is getting put up here.

Re:um, ok...another Cringley post.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait until he starts compiling kernels.

Re:um, ok...another Cringley post.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it sure beats Katz's articles. Andover ought to hire Cringley.

A lot more?

[Telastyn]

A lot more of what? Cringely? Surely.

A lot more homemade hardware and wireless access bouncing? I doubt it. At least proportionately to POIS (Plain Old Internet Service).

I think (read: It is my prediction) that internet access gains will be made mostly in smallish towns, non-business/home urban access, in less developed nations' cities, and in China.

areas 2 and 4 do not need this sort of access because they will use traditional wireless if wireless at all. The majority of China's population lies in the riverlands which has very little line of sight problems.

area 3 will likely not need this sort of solution because (afaik) it is still cheaper to string a wire to a nearby place than to get antenna, especially in places where land ownership isn't totally cost prohibitive.

this leaves small hilly towns, which are by far the minority of the world's population.

Cringely earns the title "hacker"...

[dstone]

...in my book for that stunt. Yeah, he's full of wind and lofty opinions and predictions. But it takes a proper hacker to roll up the sleeves, climb a mountain and a big tree, simply to install a wireless hack.

He da man.

Good Cringely

[SiriusBlack]

You've just admitted in print that your using a WAP11 Linksys transmitter illegally modified to 100 milliwatts, which also causes it to walk all over the spectrum around it. Don't be suprised if you see a white van parked next to your house -- that's the FCC monitoring your transmissions, and in a short while they'll slap you with a $10,000 fine. Yah, you're REAL SMART Cringely!

Re:Good Cringely

[Anonymous Coward]

I still don't understand how the FCC has any jurisdiction, considering that his transmissions don't cross state boundries.

Re:Good Cringely

[Unknown Poltroon]

Cause they've got the lawyers and guns.

Re:Good Cringely

[Anonymous Coward]

I have lawyers and guns as well.

Re:Good Cringely

[Gaijin42]

Federal agencies have juristiction in two instances :

A) The activity in question crosses two states. And you are correct, this does not cross state lines.

B) The regulation in question is in effect for more than one state. AH! FCC interference and broadcast regs are nationwide. Thats why they get jurisdiction.

Re:Good Cringely

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC don't need no white vans, nor a long drive to a site.
Rule(A) is that your device may not interfere with anyone else's device.
If your (FCC approved) device causes ghosts on the neighbors TV, and they complain, then you turn the offending device off.
If you then buy the neighbors Cable TV service, then you can turn it back on.
The FCC receives complaints and sends notices.

By the way, Rule(B) is that your device may not be sensitive to interference from other devices.

Re:Good Cringely

[Ledge]

Actually, I think a boost to 100 mW is still legal.

Re:Good Cringely

[SEE]

B) is true, but only because the Supreme Court has never had the balls or desire to enforce the 10th Amendment since FDR threatened to pack the Court.

Re:Good Cringely

[Jerp]

What Cringely didn't mention is that he also has a modified 10 megawatt directional microwave oven pointing at said parking spots. This keeps most objects infront of his house crisp and/or sparky.

Re:Good Cringely

[madmancarman]

Maybe he shouldn't have modified the WAP Linksys, but there seems to be some gray area in whether this is illegal or not. The 2.4GHZ band is defined as "amateur" by this frequency spectrum chart, so there might be some wiggle room there.

That doesn't necessarily make it legal, though - take a look at some of the recent action by the FCC against people and organizations violating the Communications Act of 1934/1996. The interesting thing is that against individuals, a good deal of the action seemed to focus on pirate radio.

I found this stuff from the FCC interesting, too:

Of those statutes that may govern interception of radio communications, the FCC only has the authority to interpret Section 705 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 605, "Unauthorized Publication of Communications." Section 705 of the Communications Act generally does not prohibit the mere interception of radio communications, although mere interception of radio communications may violate other Federal or State statutes. In other words, if you happen to over hear your neighbor's cordless telephone, you do not violate the Communications Act. Similarly, if you listen to radio transmissions on your scanner, such as emergency service reports, you are not in violation of Section 705. However, a violation of Section 705 would occur if you divulge or publish what you hear or use it for your own or someone else's benefit. An example of using an intercepted call for a beneficial use in violation of Section 705 would be someone listening to accident reports on a police channel and then sending his or her tow truck to the reported accident scene in order to obtain business.(1)

The Communications Act does allow for the divulgence of certain types of radio transmissions, however. The statute specifies that there are no restrictions on the divulgence or use of radio communications that have been transmitted for the use of the general public (i.e. transmissions of a local radio or television broadcast station); or relate to ships, aircraft, vehicles or persons in distress; or are transmitted by amateur radio or citizens band radio operators.

Of course, if you have a lot of free time to kill, you can read the whole Communications Act of 1934, but I don't think there's going to be much on wireless networking in there. I think for now, since Cringely is already a subscriber to the ISP that he's banking off of, he should be fine, especially since the FCC is allowing people to set up Low Power FM stations in their homes. There doesn't really seem to be any precedence to this from the FCC's point of view.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. --Ghandi

Re:Good Cringely

[Z4rd0Z]

You missed the end of the article where he says this whole thing was just an experiment, and he plans to go back to his old service until he can find a way to make it legit.

Re:Good Cringely

[SiriusBlack]

Legal IF you keep it within the 2.4GHz band. The mod he is using makes it walk all over the spectrum, i.e. all the increased power goes into sidebands. Interfering with other bands is most definately NOT legal -- that's why we have FCC certification of devices (including PCs), to make sure they don't interfere with other devices.

Re:Good Cringely

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I checked.. You could push 1 Watt over 2.4 without a problem. It's once you get to something higher (like 10-Watts 8-) ) that the FCC comes knocking on your door.

Re:Good Cringely

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, get something right. Amateur does not mean everyone and their brother ... it refers to Amateur "Ham" Radio operators who are licenced by the FCC. You should also notice on your beloved chart that Hams have primary use of this area. As soon as a complaint is filed, the FCC will be litening ...

Also, check to see if the power allowed is Effective radiated power or not. This is what determines what antennas and power levels of the transmitters are allowed.

Re:Good Cringely

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, radio waves don't respect state lines. Thus there could be a tropo inversion or something and the signal could end up out of state.

So basically the whole idea is, there's no way to contain radio waves, so they're under fed jurisdiction.

Re:Good Cringely

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case "amateur" means the Amateur Radio Service, and you must have a license to operate within Part 97 of the FCC rules.

The 802.11 traffic on 2.4 Ghz fall under Part 15, they can be run without a license. However, they may not cause nor are protected from any forms of interferance. And of course there are also power and possible antenna limitations on Part 15 users.

Need for product durability and stability

[Bonker]

When construction begins in a populated area, utility companies, including telco and cable operators, are responsible for coming out and flagging their under-ground wires, pipes, conduits, repeaters, and switch boxes.

A lot of amature 802.11b hackers are building a utility infrastructure, wether they think they are or not and even if it's for their own private use.

In the VERY near future, wireless devices like this are going to have to become *very* durable to stand up to long-term outdoor use... and I don't mean having a water-tight battery compartment. A lot of the stuff out there... Pringle Can antennas, anyone?... is homerolled hacks.

Things like wireless routers and repeaters, however, need to be designed with things like natural disaster, wild animals, and vandalism in mind.

Ever wonder why public utility stuff is so bulky and hard to get into?

Re:Need for product durability and stability

[Unknown Poltroon]

"need to be designed with things like natural disaster, wild animals, and vandalism in mind.

Ever wonder why public utility stuff is so bulky and hard to get into?"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So obviously the vandalism design is necessary, eh? ;)

Re:Need for product durability and stability

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever wonder why public utility stuff is so bulky and hard to get into?

No, and I'm scared to ask how you would even know.

Re:Need for product durability and stability

[GoRK]

Have you ever seen BreezeCom (now alvarion) radios? They are built like a tank. I dropped one off a tower once (~20ft) onto concrete and it was fine.

The other solution is just to put all your stuff inside an enclosure with whatever NEMA rating your environment requires. Add a heat exchanger and UPS in there and you have a nice sealed up shielded box that's good to contain about any piece of computing equipment you want.

Re:Need for product durability and stability

[Steveftoth]

I worked there for awhile, those radios are awesome. All 2.4 / 5.7 ghz stuff. They really know how to make a bridge and amp system. IF you need to link 2 spots and you can get a LOS, then they are the way to go. You can go miles and miles with their stuff.

You could do it yourself, but why?

Re:Need for product durability and stability

[b1t r0t]

In the VERY near future, wireless devices like this are going to have to become *very* durable to stand up to long-term outdoor use... and I don't mean having a water-tight battery compartment. A lot of the stuff out there... Pringle Can antennas, anyone?... is homerolled hacks.

Did you even read the article before posting? This is a passive repeater. There is no battery compartment. It's just some threaded rod, washers, and some PVC pipe to wrap it all in. He also claims that he's going back to his DSL service until he can find out who "owns that oak tree" and ask permission. He also admits that it may not work as well once the tree starts producing leaves again in the spring.

Although I will admit that now he's told us it's in a tree somewhere near the USGS marker on the top of a specific hill, the chance that it will be "visited" is much higher. Sounds like a future geocaching location to me...

Re:Need for product durability and stability

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Oh no! I know where that USGS marker is! He's near the sheriff's repeating station for the county! *smirk*

Re:Need for product durability and stability

[vtweb]

We did a successful test of a 14.75 mile link
using stock BreezeCom equipment. I hiked up an
800' hill with the Transmitter, antenna, laptop, and
an APC 600 UPS in my backpack!

Extrapolating George Orwell

[heretic108]

Something he may have said if alive today...

"If there is hope, it lies in the spectrum".

With Carnivore boxes being installed in ISPs, and ISP s now under pressure to intervene to clamp down on communications that don't serve the powers that be...

With the Almighty Buck working tirelessly to turn the Internet into one huge shopping mall...

With the Internet Common being inexorably eroded, and the voice of the masses being relentlessly silenced...

It's time to start cutting ISPs out of the loop, so that people (yes - real two-legged, flesh and blood people, not corporations) can take back their power.

To me, wireless anarchy is the next step.
Powered by a grassroots groundswell of brave and resourceful people, cunning enough to stay one step ahead of the Man.

Cringley does it again

[Mr.Intel]

What is sweet is that this is on PBS. I love public TV and I love it more that we get to see free cool stuff like this.

I bet that he isn't the first to do this either. I have a friend who lives accross the street from his ISP and has tried multiple times to get a strand of fiber run to the main switch (he is friends with the owner). Before I moved and lost contact with him he was working on a radio based method of getting 100Mbps using multiplexing and directional antennas. At less than 300 feet it seemed feasible. This was of course before 802.11x and I am sure he has looked into this. The company we worked for there has a few wireless net connections but the microwave setup we were looking at for 100Mbs and even OC-3 speeds was big bucks! About $10,000 for a single site. Are there any cheaper solutions for that kind of speed?

Re:Cringley does it again

[afidel]

802.11a in 2x mode is ~108Mbps wire speed, effective data speed will be about half that. Of course afaik this currently only works at close range (30m or less). I am sure that if he waits a little while someone will have an outdoor product that can do it at more reasonable lengths. This is especially true because the fixed point to point spec for 5.7Ghz allows a much higher max power.

Wireless will scale...if done right

[pridefinger]

I work for a company that will be hosting an access point for an isp. In return we get a reduced rate on the bandwidth that we purchased (DS3). I live not too far from work/the access point and will be given free service (not relevant, but cool anyway :)).

The reason this company's solution just might work is this: They are installing multiple access points at businesses in my area. Each tranceiver (yes, everyone's antennae both receives and transmits the network signal, widening the effective range) that is brought online is assigned to a specific access point. As bandwidth starts to saturate a given access point, a new access point is to be brought online by splitting the cost with a business that will play host. That just may be what is needed to make wireless work, instead of becoming a choked alternative to 56k.

Just maybe it will make high bandwidth available to the poor saps (myself included) that can't get dsl or cable.

-Pride

How is he powering this setup?

[BigBadAssMonkey]

I'm curious as to how he's powering this setup. He never mentions anything about this in the article. I highly doubt he has a 1.5 mile extension cord running from his house.

Re:How is he powering this setup?

[rcw-work]

I'm curious as to how he's powering this setup.

It's passive. No power needed. Basically, a wave received from one antenna will travel down a transmission line to an antenna connected at the other end and radiate out (and vice versa) with very little loss.

Re:How is he powering this setup?

[SiriusBlack]

What part of the word "passive" do you not understand? Basically it's two cheap directional antennas hooked up back-to-back to "bend" the directional beam.

Re:How is he powering this setup?

[CoyoteGuy]

hahahahaha

When's the last time you had to plug in an antenna?

Re:How is he powering this setup?

[Lumpy]

Ahem very little loss is awfullly mis leading...

if you attain a 3db loss of signal you lost 50% of that signal. the feedline he uses has at least 3db of loss and you also lose 1-2 db per connector. he is losing a significant amount of signal.

Re:How is he powering this setup?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're kidding right? You obviously know nothing at all about RF and RF electronics. This repeater needs to have some kind of amplification which needs power.

This is what the term Hacker was invented for

[the_rev_matt]

Here's a fine example of someone going out and doing something positive and high profile that takes back the term Hacker and makes it praise instead of critique.

Mo' power, Cringe.

taking things a bit further?

[British]

What about taking 802.11 everywhere a bit further, and putting websites, FTP servers, P2P, etc on the 802.11 hubs? By doing that(within reason), you're not worried about metered access since there's no ISP involved.

Later this month...

[maggard]

Later this month Bob will connect into NASA's Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System using a "Amana Radar Range" microwave oven and 100 meters of Cat 5 cable.

On "This Old Geek hosted by McGyver" Feb 29th (not availiable on all PBS stations, ask your parents for permission first.)

This rocks

[maniac11]

I like this kind of stuff very much...

All it will take is a few crafty geeks in a given area to subvert the control of the major telco/cable providers. Start stitching community WiFis togehter and the all their infrastructure will be pretty much useless. A neighborhood can spring for a link to the backbone together. Kinda brings real live, flesh-and-blood community back to the 'net, eh?

Cringely Icon, Please

[ekrout]

We'd like a Cringely icon, please, to go along with his own section.

You can perform a simple search to see just how many times his material has been posted as a new story on the front of Slashdot.

He's not a God, but he's damn close. His articles are almost always interesting and sometimes he even manages to produce original ideas that are quite captivating.

I don't think I'm the first one to suggest this, either...

Re:Cringely Icon, Please

[Enry]

I'd certainly rather have him pontificating on /. than Katz. At least Cringley knows that Afghans can't view Divx movies on their C-64s.

Re:Cringely Icon, Please

[CoyoteGuy]

OMG I almost busted a gut laughing that time.

I would be lucky if my damn C-64 didn't eat every fricken tape you jammed into it.

Re:Cringely Icon, Please

[Rick the Red]

He's not a god, alright. He's not even real. "Robert X. Cringely" was the nom de plume of a series of writers at InfoWorld before the current bozo snagged it and stuck his photo on it. Back in the day Cringely was an industry-insider gossip spewing silhouette with an underaged girrlfriend named Pammy, and was far more interesting to read.

Re:Cringely Icon, Please

[jhesse]

Still is.
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/02/02/1 1/ 020211opcringely.xml

(note the (R) by his name)

They'd still rather have his money...

[aquarian]

Enough said. As long as he's not taxing their network, what interest would they have in shutting him down?

Re:They'd still rather have his money...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Enough said. As long as he's not taxing their network, what interest would they have in shutting him down?

One person doing this, OK.

What about the others who'll try now that they've read how it's done? Now they have an incentive, and if they have any imagination, they won't wait for matters to get to that point before at least talking to him about it.

oops

[IAgreeWithThisPost]

I misread the title. I thought it said "Cringley's money shot"

More Pr0n on slashdot please..

Doesn't work

[SiriusBlack]

Has Cringely read this article which basically says the hack he's using to increase his Linksys WAP11 power output DOES NOT WORK?

Re:Doesn't work

[John Jorsett]

I imagine that his mods predate the article.

Re:Doesn't work

[Anonymous Coward]

Has SiriusBlack read cringley's article or original one, or followups, none of which no where say he's increasing the power of his Linksys ?

Re:Doesn't work

[SiriusBlack]

Did YOU read the following paragraph from Cringely's original article, moron?

From the treetop, I could log-in to my home network and also into Sonic.net. Using both double yagis at the same time did increase total signal strength and made the installation stronger, too, since I could attach both yagis to the tree and to each other with large cable ties. The complete system, for those taking notes, involved a Linksys WAP11 access point at my house that had been reprogrammed to operate at a full 100 milliwatts. Connected to the Linksys was a Cushcraft 21 dB parabolic mesh dish antenna. The dish was aimed at the ganged jagis attached to the oak tree on Bennett Mountain, which were aimed in turn into the Sonic.net 802.11b coverage area in downtown Santa Rosa, approximately five miles away.

Re:Doesn't work

[Da_Biz]

Wouldn't it be possible to build filters to absorb the "intermod" that's leaking on to adjacent frequencies?

I suspect that no self-respecting hacker/engineer would a) want to actually transmit this sort of interference or b) want to raise the ire of the FCC, as hams do have an understandable penchant for locating and attempting to end the source of the interference.

Re:Doesn't work

[ZxCv]

So you are either saying that he's lying (about his success with the Linksys) or he's just a complete moron. Which is it?

How flat is flat?

[fm6]

I want it unmetered. I don't mind paying a flat rate but I'm not going to sit in the dark ages of per minute cell phone charges. That would be useless.

Well, yeah, I would never make much use of any system that had me constantly thinking, "can I afford to stay on another 10 minutes"? Back when CompuServe worked that way, I'd get an acid stomach every time I signed on.

But face it, the all-you-can-eat model doesn't work. Bandwidth aint free, and if you give people unlimited access to it, they'll take advantage of you.

That's why ISPs have started capping bandwith. They have to pay for it. If they can't recover their bandwidth costs from you in connect-time charges, then they just have to find ways to limit the amount of bandwidth they provide.

Which is why Cringley will probably will probably get a stern warning from his wireless provider. They're charging him on the assumption that he's an occasional user, not somebody pumping megabits up and down all day.

What would be ideal is a scheme where the connect-time is flat-rate, but every packet past your pre-paid allotment costs. People (like Cringely) who have greater needs would end up negotiating slightly higher monthly fees with a higher allotment. Casual users would get off cheaper. And the ISPs could forget about all the weird rules designed to root out re-sellers and heavy users.

Re:How flat is flat?

[talonyx]

By that you mean I would have some kind of limit, say 300 megabytes per month download?

I could deal with that, but it's still kind of lame. Why is bandwidth so expensive anyway?

Re:How flat is flat?

[Gaijin42]

Why is bandwidth expensive :

A) Because the fiber cost several hundred million dollars to lay down. The ownser of the companies that laid the fiber would like to recoup their investment (and eventually make a profit) before they die.

B) Bandwidth is a limited commodity. There are only so many bits that can travel at any given moment. Most of the time we are not at maximum capacity on a large scale, but occasionally it happens (9/11 when everyone in the world was going to cnn every 30 seconds). However locally, or regionally you can get a bottleneck quite often.

Supply is exceeded by demand, so the price goes up until people dont want to pay anymore.

Re:How flat is flat?

[mcramer]

Bandwidth is a limited commodity. There are only so many bits that can travel at any given moment.

But, like airplane seats and hotel rooms, unsold bandwidth is a 100% loss. Bandwidth that went unsold yesterday can not be sold tomorrow. The trick is always selling all of the inventory at as good a price as you can get for it.

Supply is exceeded by demand, so the price goes up until people dont want to pay anymore.

But not all the time. There are plenty of hours every week in which huge amounts of bandwidth lays idle. That's money down the drain. Sure, giving away bandwidth for next to nothing is stupid on a Thursday afternoon. That's prime-net-time. But really, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to plop down in Starbucks on Saturday night at 7:30 and surf to my heart's content. It's not like anyone ELSE is using it. I'm not saying I should be able to steal it, but I shouldn't have to pay an arm and a leg for it either.

Re:How flat is flat?

[Anonymous Coward]

scarcity and supply/demand are 2 good reasons. Another good reason is a lack of competition.
Many areas don't have access to consumer-priced broadband.
Many areas have a hobson choice of one supplier.
There are some areas where cable and DSL co-exist, but very few consumers are able to shop around for a broadband connection.

Re:How flat is flat?

[mwillis]

This is how my DSL provider works. I get 5 Gigs free downloads per month, but if I use their proxy, that doesn't count towards my total. If I go over 5 gigs per month (which is about 170mb per day), I pay what my ISP pays for additional bandwidth: $10 per additional GB.

I have never gone over the 5 gigs.

Re:How flat is flat?

[talonyx]

I suppose being a bandwidth provider is a good market to be in right now.... :-)

Re:How flat is flat?

[fm6]

You already have that kind of limit. If your ISP doesn't have official caps, they're certainly keeping an eye on heavy users. I'm talking about paying by the packet. A base allotment just expresses the fact that bandwidth is cheaper if buy it in bulk, instead of a packet at a time.

Bandwidth isn't expensive, but it's not free either. It's a commodity, like vegetables. Imagine how long produce vendors would stay in business if they charged people by consumption/month instead of by radishes consumed.

Re:How flat is flat?

[stripes]

But, like airplane seats and hotel rooms, unsold bandwidth is a 100% loss. Bandwidth that went unsold yesterday can not be sold tomorrow. The trick is always selling all of the inventory at as good a price as you can get for it.

Exactly, that's why I'm a big fan of paying the big bucks for guaranteed bandwidth, and flat rateing all the rest. Of corse I don't know any ISPs that really do that...

Re:How flat is flat?

[SpaceLifeForm]

If you had referred to parsley instead of radishes, I might have understood your point.

Anyway, bandwidth is not a true commodity in the sense that you can easily find another supplier within minutes.

Re:How flat is flat?

[afidel]

Well not sure about broadband but dialup makes quite a bit for the providers. When we were looking at a dialup solution for our lage company (35K+ ppl) to replace our 800 service (@6 cents a minute) we went with another dialup @2.5 cents a minute because multiplying our total avg minutes used per month times that was way less than even $10/month * number of accounts.

Re:How flat is flat?

[vannevar]

Ugh. This is the heart of the industrial age Voodoo-Econo-EVIL that keeps the Big Bandwidth Era at bay. The hangup on "always selling all of the inventory at as good a price" simply doesn't apply here. That thinking is like the corpse of 19th century economics cuffed to the leg of the 21st century entrepreneurs trying to swim the channel between dialup and infinite bandwidth.

Very unlike industrial age planes, trains, and automobiles, the capacity of the fiber is a VARIABLE ... it grows or shrinks with different devices on the end points. So how much "bandwidth inventory" is there on a fiber? You CANNOT know, because there is so much more innovation to complete in this arena. You can only pretend to know, in order to cook up a spreadsheet that Proves Your Presupposition, by putting some device or another on the ends of the fibers and pretending like that is a constant that won't change in 18 months.

Let's take it another step. Since we know that the capacity of fiber is only limited by the performance of the end devices and we know that devices will continue to improve into the foreseeable future, we must concede that the capacity of the fiber we put in the ground is at least 100X more than we are able to deliver today. That's a future 100X LOSS! Therefore, improving the Internet is the stupidest investment in the world. Is this really the way you want to model the future of communications? I don't think so. Let's not pretend like we are all beholden to some immutable universal law of capacity utilization. We have CHOICES on how to account for all these things. Nineteenth century economics may have kludged us through the twentieth century world of planes, trains, and automobiles, but we're in the quantum world now; and that is going to require some Quantum Economics. Just because you can't conceive of what that looks like, yet, doesn't mean it's any less true.

What we need are MBA's who are as able and willing to innovate as technologists. Instead, as a general rule, they march into the lab with textbook models from P&G in hand and a set of nineteenth century rules etched into their neurons. The economics of communications will either be completely re-written over the next few years, or we truly risk be permanent AOL doom by John Perry Barlow's Death From Above.

Re:How flat is flat?

[jareds]

First, I don't understand how this relates to the post you replied to. That post basically argued that companies should try harder to sell unutilized bandwidth (perhaps by making it cheaper at off-peak times). Failing to sell something that someone is willing to buy is practically like losing money. I can't imagine why you would have a problem with companies selling off-peak bandwith at cheaper rates.

Second, the complaints you make do not show a problem with economics, even if they are true. You allege that people are making bad business decisions, but if your points are correct, neoclassical economic theory would agree that these decisions are bad.

Very unlike industrial age planes, trains, and automobiles, the capacity of the fiber is a VARIABLE ... it grows or shrinks with different devices on the end points. So how much "bandwidth inventory" is there on a fiber? You CANNOT know, because there is so much more innovation to complete in this arena. You can only pretend to know, in order to cook up a spreadsheet that Proves Your Presupposition, by putting some device or another on the ends of the fibers and pretending like that is a constant that won't change in 18 months.

If I understand your point correctly, you claim that people aren't taking into account that the bandwidth of fiber will improve, and that said improvement will not require replacing the fiber. I don't understand why you think that economic theory requires you not to take that into account. That simply isn't the case. You'd have to be an idiot not to realize that technological improvement will allow you to get increasing bandwidth out of your investment.

Let's take it another step. Since we know that the capacity of fiber is only limited by the performance of the end devices and we know that devices will continue to improve into the foreseeable future, we must concede that the capacity of the fiber we put in the ground is at least 100X more than we are able to deliver today. That's a future 100X LOSS! Therefore, improving the Internet is the stupidest investment in the world. Is this really the way you want to model the future of communications? I don't think so. Let's not pretend like we are all beholden to some immutable universal law of capacity utilization. We have CHOICES on how to account for all these things. Nineteenth century economics may have kludged us through the twentieth century world of planes, trains, and automobiles, but we're in the quantum world now; and that is going to require some Quantum Economics. Just because you can't conceive of what that looks like, yet, doesn't mean it's any less true.

I'm afraid I have trouble understanding this paragraph. Specifically, I don't understand why you think that anyone would think that they shouldn't invest in technology because it might be improved.

What we need are MBA's who are as able and willing to innovate as technologists. Instead, as a general rule, they march into the lab with textbook models from P&G in hand and a set of nineteenth century rules etched into their neurons. The economics of communications will either be completely re-written over the next few years, or we truly risk be permanent AOL doom by John Perry Barlow's Death From Above.

John Perry Barlow's article alleges that demand for upstream bandwidth is being underestimated because media executives are obsessed with control. It's probably true that said demand is underestimated, though less so now than in 1995 when he wrote that, but we don't need "Quantum Economics" to tell us that underestimating demand leads to poor business decisions.

Re:How flat is flat?

[vannevar]

You say you don't understand; you believe I am wrong, even if my assertions are true; and you have trouble understanding concepts that are either new, or outside your comfort bubble. Basically, all flame-bait and no value.

End Of Line. PLEASE MODERATE.

Re:How flat is flat?

[mccabem]

Bullshit.

There's an incredible amount of dark fiber strung all across the USA. (No idea of elsewhere, but Europe seems to be well wired.) Sunk cost. A glut.

(See: Qwest, Global Crossing, Level 3, PSINet, AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, SBC, Bell South, Williams, Teleglobe and Cable & Wireless)

That said, there are a huge number of people wired to the internet right now via SOME method. There are quite a few hooked up via some broadband method. There's very obviously a huge potential consumer market here for broadband. If those owners of dark fiber ever want to recoup said costs they have got to figure out a way to GET US TO USE IT.

See:
www.cwt.vt.edu
www.its.bldrdoc.gov/meetings/art/art00/slides00/ bo s/bos_s.pdf
www.business2.com/webguide/0,1660,65069,FF.html

So why isn't this happening with today's existing infrastructure?

See: lame duck ILEC's and greedy-fucker media conglomerates.

Re:How flat is flat?

[jareds]

you have trouble understanding concepts that are either new, or outside your comfort bubble. Basically, all flame-bait and no value.

End Of Line. PLEASE MODERATE.

With all due respect, you should at least consider the possibility that your argument could be more clear. Immediately ending a discussion because someone needs clarification is rude, and would seem to indicate an unwillingness to subject your point to debate.

you believe I am wrong, even if my assertions are true;

The argument I was trying to make outlined relatively clearly:

• Second, the complaints you make do not show a problem with economics, even if they are true. You allege that people are making bad business decisions, but if your points are correct, neoclassical economic theory would agree that these decisions are bad.

However, unlike you, I'm willing to clarify. You argue that we need a new form of economics. Your argument is that currently business decisions are being made that are obviously bad, that these decisions are supported by economics, and therefore economics is bad. I am agreeing that at least some bad decisions probably are being made, but I can in any case just stipulate that all your points about bad decisions are true, because I am arguing that these bad decisions are not supported by economics. If they aren't, we don't need "Quantum Economics." This is all I am trying to argue.

My first claim, that your post had no relation to its parent, was just dumb. Sorry.

I see now that you interpreted the statement in the parent about 100% loss incorrectly, and attributed it to 19th-century economics. When that post said the "unsold bandwidth is a 100% loss," that didn't literally mean that it would be recorded as a loss on the balance sheet, any more than I could claim a $100,000 business loss on my taxes if I try to sell a banana for that amount, but it goes unsold and becomes spoiled and I throw it away. Now THAT would be voodoo economics :) All I lose is the cost of producing the banana. There is nothing in economics that says otherwise. However, you seem to think that there is, because you say that multiplying the bandwidth must multiply the loss (that is, you say that economics says that). By analogy, suppose I had a device that produced 10 bananas per minute ex nihilio. If I can upgrade the machine for $1000 to produce a million bananas per minute, I would do so as a rational economic agent as long I can recoup the $1000. The value of excess bananas that might spoil is of no concern. I believe the burden is on you to show why any economics, even from the 19th century, would have me do otherwise.

I hope this accurately represented your argument.

Re:I'm seriously tempted to try something like thi

[danielrose]

No satellite access because the house is surrounded by trees and blocks the signal.

Enter the chainsaw! Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

More snack food

[gnatware]

In the 70's it was Cap'n Crunch, now it's Pringles. Odds are P&G will soon be modifying the design of their "snack" packaging to make sure that 2.4 GHz waves can't use 'em.

Re:More snack food

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this up, it's funny.

If you didn't get it, look here and here.

Summer Project

[thesupermikey]

My local ISP started doing 802.11b access last year. The issue is that my house is about 1.5 miles of range. When I get home from school this summer I might try building some of these so I can get some good bandwidth. Only thing is I don think there is a corn field high enough for the repeaters.

us vs the 'crats

[Shotgun]

There's going to be a lot more of this in the near future.

Not once the bureaucrats find out about what he's up to.

And I must say that in this case they would probably be correct. Can't have everyone walking around polluting the EM spectrum.

Re:us vs the 'crats

[Tassach]

And I must say that in this case they would probably be correct. Can't have everyone walking around polluting the EM spectrum.

The beaurcrats have already given this technology their blessing: anyone is free to use the 2.4GHz spectrum block in any way they see fit, so long as they do not radiate more than 1 Watt of power. Cringley's setup is well under the 1W cap, and is therefore perfectly legal. The fact that he's using directional antennas actually decreases the chance that he's going to cause interference with anyone else.

Re:us vs the 'crats

[Pooua]

The beaurcrats have already given this technology their blessing

A more worrisome problem, one that Cringley mentioned, is the land use. My brief Google search found a reference to some BLM (Bureau of Land Use) stuff, including a reference that specifically says that development on Bennett and Taylor Mountains must be carefully restricted.

http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/City_Hall/City_Council/ Documents/1999/ccm990302.htm

Still 10 years to my access

[blackdropbear]

Now all I have to do is grow the tree to bounce the signal off.

from the article:

[Dr. Awktagon]

(this is from somebody that emailed Cringe)

I set one up this morning. I put a two year-old two Mbps AP with an 18dBi directional antenna on top of our downtown San Jose WiPoP, and pointed it at the Starbucks, Rock 'N Tacos, Spiedo restaurant, and the Campbell Cigar shop below. It works great. I got 1.2 Mbps inside these places with my WiFi card. I didn't have to ask Starbucks, nor offer to pay them anything!"

Does anyone else smell the start of a new type of stupid law, one that says you can't beam otherwise permitted radio waves into buildings?

Re:from the article:

[ethereal]

That would be great - no cell phones in theatres, concert halls, my home, etc. Tough to enforce, what with the Sun spewing out RF as well, but I can dream :)

WTF is the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

This stuff has been going on for years. Talk to any Ham Radio operator... especially ones who've been doing it since the 60's.

Rick H

Re:I'm seriously tempted to try something like thi

[david duncan scott]

Everyone around us gets this stuff but we can't.

Say, didn't you sit in front of me in algebra?

I hate to rain on Mr Cringely's parade, but...

[supernova87a]

This is precisely why we need the FCC to regulate people's use of this equipment.

Did Bob Cringely ask a single person living in downtown what they thought of his terrific internet access plan? What about the those people who use approved wireless equipment (phones, wireless networking) and now have to deal with the background noise coming from his souped up repeater?

Wait, I'm sure he did a thorough study of his setup to make sure that it didn't interfere with transmissions by public safety agencies, right? He called up the fire dept, police dept., and rescue squads to make sure that his network access wasn't leaking onto their radio channels?

Yeah, right.

What stopped him from using a 10 watt transmitter, so that the connection would be even faster? It's nice to see people being creative and getting themselves great internet access, but I'll thank you to stay out of my neighborhood, please. Follow the rules and don't subject other people to your homebrewed technology. Internet access isn't *that* important. If it is, move somewhere where you can get it.

Re:I hate to rain on Mr Cringely's parade, but...

[gmhowell]

I thought that even his boosted signal was low enough to be considered unregulated. At that point, there is no FCC guidelines concerning interference. Were he using a 10 watt transmitter, he WOULD be regulated because he might interfere.

The danger of using anything in the unregulated area is that you might get hosed by other unregulated users. If you need the reliability/durability/security, you have to pay for it.

Re:I hate to rain on Mr Cringely's parade, but...

[prockcore]

You're the type of person who calls the cops on the local pirate radio station, aren't you?

Re: I hate to rain on Mr Cringely's parade, but...

[InitZero]

For those moderators not paying attention, the parent post is an obvious troll.

This is precisely why we need the FCC to regulate people's use of this equipment.

Cringely's setup is regulated by the FCC and is within FCC specifications. There is nothing illegal (as far as the FCC is concerned) here.

Did Bob Cringely ask a single person living in downtown what they thought of his terrific internet access plan?

Why would he? Does the neighborhood get a vote every time someone turns on a cell phone? What about when a ham radio operator fires up his 1,500 watt amp? What about when someone turns on a microwave oven?

What about the those people who use approved wireless equipment (phones, wireless networking) and now have to deal with the background noise

Cringely was using an FCC type-accepted device well within its specifications. Did you miss that part of his article?

coming from his souped up repeater?

His 'souped up repeater', as you call it, is a couple of antennas back to back. It's passive. His antennas don't put out power, they just focus the energy. With 18db of gain, his 100mw signal is still under five effective watts.

Wait, I'm sure he did a thorough study of his setup to make sure that it didn't interfere with transmissions by public safety agencies, right?

Dude, take a basic radio class. He isn't changing the operational frequency. He isn't using an illegal amp that might cause out of band splatter. His third order distortion won't be affected by a passive antenna. There is harmless.

What stopped him from using a 10 watt transmitter, so that the connection would be even faster?

If he had a ham radio license, he could legally run up to 1,500 watts of power, operate an active repeater and use whatever antenna array he wanted all in the same frequency range he is using now. As an added bonus, he still wouldn't have to fill out any paperwork, get any government approval or take a poll of his neighbors.

Follow the rules and don't subject other people to your homebrewed technology.

Once again, other than unlawful use of a tree for the purposes of geekness, I he hasn't broken any rules.

If you want to learn something about radio (and, trust me, you're really ignorant now), why not surf on over to the American Radio Relay League. They represent hams across the world. They have some very good teaching materials. If you study hard, maybe you can even get a ham license. It really is pretty nifty.

InitZero

Re:I hate to rain on Mr Cringely's parade, but...

[Mike Hicks]

*shrug* I really doubt the FCC is going to worry too much about 2.4GHz stuff. It's a largely unregulated band. So many devices use that frequency range, so some really bad things would happen if it changed.

However, the FCC still has restrictions. I think there's a limit to how much transmitting power you can use (or, at least, a limit to how much is detectable a certain distance away).

Other than placing a repeater on property that is not his own, I don't see anything wrong here. Cringely is just pretending that he's sitting downtown at a coffee shop. He's paying for the bandwidth he's using.

Anyway, I think 802.11 is a very liberating technology. Provided that people who set up such networks follow some sort of standard (which probably hasn't been built yet, but it probably will be before too long), this could really be a big step in the evolution of the Internet.

For the last several years, it's been commercialized to the extreme. There are people who just want to use it to connect to others, and experiment with the technology.

Oh well, I suppose I'm just an idealistic bastard...

Re:I hate to rain on Mr Cringely's parade, but...

[PhotoGuy]

Ummmm, see my earlier post. I think he *is* obeying all laws, rules, regulations. If you're only emitting 1 watt in the 2.4ghz band, you're allowed to directionally focus it, etc..

If he were amplifying it beyond limits, and publishing an article about it, it would be the height of stupidity, and he'd likely be charged. He's not that stupid.

At first, when I first read him, I was worried cringely was a Chaos Manor Wannabe (and why anybody would want to be another Chaos Manor, would escape me), but this guy actually has pretty good insight and cool articles.

-me

Re:I hate to rain on Mr Cringely's parade, but...

[b1t r0t]

What about the those people who use approved wireless equipment (phones, wireless networking) and now have to deal with the background noise coming from his souped up repeater?

Sigh, another person who didn't read the article. The repeater is a passive repeater, a threaded rod, some washers, and some PVC pipe to seal it up in. The only thing "souped up" was his base station. Which is still at his house. On the other side of the hills.

Re:I hate to rain on Mr Cringely's parade, but...

[SiriusBlack]

supernova87a is trying to make the same point I was; his choice of the term "souped up repeater" was a mistake. The only objectionable part of this scheme is the Linksys WAP11 mod, which according to this article After the "100mW Hack" was applied, we notice a drastic difference. Instead of taking a mere 22MHz, it gobbles up the entire band. Not only did this kill throughput on other AP's in our tests, it entered into the ham band on the left of the dial, and MMDS on the right of the dial. If the WAP11 was moved from channel 6 to channel 1 or 11, this would make the problem even worse. Also, nasty spurs and harmonics were detected in random locations from 1.4GHz to 2.8GHz...
Besides violating FCC regulations, a lot of the WAP11's power is wasted when it is scattered all over the band. Idealy, we would want as much energy as possible in our main carrier.

The point being, the modified WAP11 is walking all over the spectrum, interfering with ham and MMDS! Also, if bi-directional communication is your goal, increasing transmit power on one end accomplishes nothing! The 802.11 transmitter on the other end is still low power; it does you no good if it can receive your signal but you can't receive it's signal!

Re: I hate to rain on Mr Cringely's parade, but...

[SiriusBlack]

According to this article the linksys mod is "violating FCC regulations". Granted, the principle "No harm, no foul" probably applies here, meaning if nobody notices the interference, it's probably ok. But the point is that Cringely never bothered to check if it was interfering, did he?

Re:I hate to rain on Mr Cringely's parade, but...

[SiriusBlack]

According to this article he's not "obeying all laws, rules, regulations" and his signal is not staying within the 2.4GHz band. Granted, if nobody notices the interference and complains, this is a big "so what"

Re:I hate to rain on Mr Cringely's parade, but...

[Pooua]

You're the type of person who calls the cops on the local pirate radio station, aren't you?

You would rather he call the fire department, after burning it down?

Re: I hate to rain on Mr Cringely's parade, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, the guy is an idiot, and would not be able to tell a network analyzer from a capuccino machine.

All the folks who keep posting that the 100mW hack does not work are technically correct: The correct fix would be a little 6-10db amp on the output of the Linksys, giving nice, clean power out to that 18db dish. Anyone have a source?

Re: I hate to rain on Mr Cringely's parade, but...

[InitZero]

The correct fix would be a little 6-10db amp on the output of the Linksys, giving nice, clean power out to that 18db dish. Anyone have a source?

My suggestion would be Down East Microwave . They have lots of quality hardware. They say they won't sell 2.4 gHz stuff to non-hams but if you know enough to use the hardware, you can probably bluff your way along.

A 21dB pre-amp (for the RX end) is just $85 (and totally legal for anyone to use). If you are not a ham and want to break federal laws, check out their 2.3-2.4 linear amp. With one watt drive, it'll put out 15 watts. They make an amp that will put out 120 watts but it requires 10-20 watts of drive.

Trust me, folks, if you know a bit about electronics and want to do cool radio stuff, get a ham license. It'll cost you less than $20 (plus the cost of a book if you want to study first). In coolness alone, you'll be paid back many times over.

InitZero

Re:I hate to rain on Mr Cringely's parade, but...

[mother_superius]

follow the rules actually, he did follow "the rules". You can broadcast at low amplitude. Just because they're your rules don't mean anyone cares jack shit.

My own very project

[Xerion]

30 feet of copper wire - $25
25 square feet of aluminum foil - $15
2 buckets of used RadioShack parts - $50
1.2Kbps direct link to my local CounterStrike server - Priceless

Latency

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm impressed that 802.11b can handle that kind of latency...I would have expected that they'd have pushed things as close as they could to the limit.

It certainly wasn't anticipated by the designers.

I'd imagine that this wouldn't work with some chipsets.

Re:Latency

[barawn]

He's only going about a few km or so. At that distance, you're
talking a distance-imposed latency of, oh, microsecond-ish.
(3 nanos/meter, 1000 meters/km, 3 microseconds/km).

Latency due to packet switching, "traffic jams", etc. are going
to far exceed that. After all, wireless travels at speed-of-light-ish,
which is actually faster than having wire run to your house.

I'm not saying there isn't additional latency due to the protocol -
it's just that I guarantee that the latency of wireless at 1 m
vs. the latency at wireless at 1 km, with sufficient signal
strength, is only gonna be about 3 micros longer. Note the
"sufficient signal strength". Check to see if you're dropping tons
of packets or something - your signal strength might be horrible.

Re:Latency

[MikeDataLink]

I'm sorry. That's exactly what I was getting at. I was in a hurry when typing that reply. Yes, signal strength tends to be very bad ad those distances, hence cause large latency and packet loss.

Mike

Re:I'm seriously tempted to try something like thi

[NickisGod.com]

I do believe you need to move.

Karma...zing!

When the ISPs all start blocking P2P....

[Mr. Neutron]

Ultimately the Internet is going to become useless, taken over by AOL/Time-Warner and a handful of other major providers, all in control of Big Media. At that time, we'll need to set up our own nationwide, underground, wireless IP network. And it's ideas like this that are going to make it work. Here's how:

We start with neighborhood wireless LANs. A few WAPs on the block, and forthcoming wireless technology will allow the WAPs to uplink to one another. It's not all that different from the old BBS, except that it's over the airwaves, rather than over the phone, the bandwidth is about 1000x better, and it's completely public.

Then we get some Cringely-esque techniques in place to route between different neighborhood LANs. Set an IP router in front of several microwave links to other IP routers, each in a nearby town/neighborhood. This would be like a wireless version of the old FidoNet.

If we can get the whole nation connected, we can then have P2P-paradise that the Media companies can't touch. Well, except that bandwidth would suck, and it would be able to scale for anything. Only, I'm looking at 5 or 10 years down the road, after technology has taken a few leaps forward.

And, you could have access to this network virtually anywhere you can take an 802.11 device. And don't get me started on the Voice-over-IP possibilities.

That would *rule*.

Re:When the ISPs all start blocking P2P....

[_Knots]

Alright, wireless anarchy is very very cool to talk about, but raises some serious problems.

1) Routing tables could potentially grow HUGE to handle loops within the system.

2) I think (am I wrong?) that a system would require point-to-multipoint or at least WAP-to-WAP, which IIRC 802.11b was bad at.

2.1) Either that or we need two or more 802.11b repeaters on anybody's internal network. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it's more complicated, since one (or more) would have to be able to touch somebody else's WAP. Is there some combination of AdHoc and AP modes that the 802.11 system can operate in?

3) How do you assign an IP address? No DHCP servers, can't be static... messy, no?

4) Suddenly route-advertising and route-discovery would have to become standard features on all WAPs.

That said... it sounds really cool and I'm thinking of solar-powered UPS-backed PC/104 with PCMCIA 802.11 cards being put up around a community ("For $small we can all share internet access and be online anywhere in {area}"). Maybe just a dream.

-Knots

Re:When the ISPs all start blocking P2P....

[Mr. Neutron]

Knowing what little I do about IP, I can try to address some of the problems:

Q1) Routing tables could potentially grow HUGE to handle loops within the system.

A1)We would probably need to develop some sort of massively hierarchical routing scheme. Several levels of domains, subdomains, sub-subdomains, and so forth. Using IPv6 wouldn't hurt. Make the domains geographically-oriented. Incorporate AI into route calculations.

2) I think (am I wrong?) that a system would require point-to-multipoint or at least WAP-to-WAP, which IIRC 802.11b was bad at.

Q2.1) Either that or we need two or more 802.11b repeaters on anybody's internal network. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it's more complicated, since one (or more) would have to be able to touch somebody else's WAP. Is there some combination of AdHoc and AP modes that the 802.11 system can operate in?

A2) Since I know even less about MAC-level networking, I'm not sure I have a better answer than "technology will improve."

Q3) How do you assign an IP address? No DHCP servers, can't be static... messy, no?

A3) WAPs can serve as perfectly good DHCP servers. The DHCP servers know what IPv6 address block to use from their sub-subdomain info, which would be culled from the IPv6 router in the LAN (see A1).

Q4) Suddenly route-advertising and route-discovery would have to become standard features on all WAPs.

A4) No, just on the level-3 routers. The WAPs are only concerned with MAC-level connectivity, whereas each (multi-WAP) LAN would contain one IPv6 router to the greater network (for now, let's call it the "CringelyNet.") It would be like in my apartment, where I have multiple 100bT hubs, uplinked to one another, but only one router to the outside world. The hubs don't know anything about IP routing, but as long as there is MAC-level connectivity to the *router*, everyone in the LAN can get to the outside.

Re:When the ISPs all start blocking P2P....

[_Knots]

Massively heirarchical routing schemes sound cool, but how are we going to enforce these in a truly anarchistic system? We can't trust The Technology, because I for one (and I'd imagine others) want perfect control over their equipment.

Yes, WAPs can do DHCP. That's cool for the internal network (I do something similar at my house but instead of a WAP it's my old router computer) - I hand out 192.168.*.* addresses to my internal LAN and do bridging out to my publicly assigned IP address. Now there's the problem. In a truly peer-to-peer system, how does anybody's router get a valid external IP address? GARP is one way, but that would be *a lot* of returns. Maybe pick random IPv6, ARP it, repeat until one's found that's clear... so we have an address, cool.

Ok, so we have an address. If we are to have this system use anything like the internet routing protocols, such randomly distributed IPs are going to be slightly painful, I'd think... either everybody ends up broadcasting EVERYBODY's packets (ala Gnutella where it's just TTL that prevents infinite loops) or we do some kind of multi-WAP routing. If the latter, our routing tables grow enormous unless we have good heirarhical control over the network. But without "ultrapeers" or somesuch (servers), we don't.

For an average setup I'd imagine there'd only be one WAP. Ok, this setup runs GNUTELLA style and rebroadcasts everything, docking TTL by one. Somebody down the street picks it up.

Eventually we either get to a MASQed internet connection and the packets are pulled off the wireless network (while still maybe propagating across other links and maybe being resent there... doesn't make websites happy when they see what looks like a DDoS) and routed or we end up being sent over some kind soul's tight-beam 802.11 connection (or other) [this person is running a multi-WAP setup and has the huge routing tables] to another part of the OpenNetwork and the routing mayhem begins again.

Imagine a very simple network composed of a small city in which three people have outside links - one a cable modem, one a DSL line, and one a 802.11 tight-beam relay to an adjacent city. Now, one random house in this city sends out a packet. Their neighbors ALL pick it up and retransmit it. Eventually it finds its way to ALL the ways off the local WLAN (DSL, CM, TB) and follows ALL those routes AT ONCE. So all packets get cloned 3 times then passed on to the general internet and... multiply by a huge number of users.. it's a DDoS without intending one.

Maybe some kind of RIP protocol would be needed combined with some form of localized onionrouting? So if I maintain a router to another city / the internet / wherever, I publish such information via RIP to everybody in the local community over the WLAN (broadcast to our internal MAC addresses, harvested via ARP caching?). As the broadcast propagates, additional payload is added to the packet - effectively a traceroute. So then the clients, if they wish to use my uplink, sourceroute their packets via the reverse of the shortest chain - so packets do not get cloned because other recieving WAPs drop them. I think that works...

Sounds like a great project to get thinking on / researching.

Thanks for the responses, Mr. Neutron!

-Knots

Re:When the ISPs all start blocking P2P....

[jpmkm]

VoIP with an underground wireless network would be awesome. Just thing of not having a telephone bill. This is just the next step after being able to buy our own phones instead of lease them from the phone company.

Watch out for falling objects....

[d-ude]

...when your co-workers are installing 802.11b equipment above you. Here's a link to a page I put up that has a video clip of what almost happened to us when a wrench was dropped from 150ft. on a tower.

The Unwired

Re:Watch out for falling objects....

[Anonymous Coward]

After watching the video, two things occur to me.
1) Do not walk under ladders (or other tall things).
2) wearing a hard hat might be a good idea especially when walking under people working 150 feet above you.

Re:I'm seriously tempted to try something like thi

[/dev/trash]

Cut the trees down....or stopping whining

Who owns the oak tree?

[cheese_boy]

So, having proved the concept, I am going to go back to my slightly less offensive bootleg DSL connection until I can find out who owns that oak tree and make my new installation legit.

I was going to suggest getting a plat book from the Sonoma county extension office. But I called them, and they don't do plat books... (Maybe plat books are just a midwestern thing. I'm used to most every farmer having a plat book that shows who owns which acreage.)

So it looks like for Cringely to find out who owns that part of Bennett Mountain he's going to have to go to the Recorder or Assessor's office and find it on a map there.

Is this legal?

[Skuld-Chan]

I mean the FCC imposes all kinds of restrictions on data for me over hf and vhf (300 and 9600 baud respectively). And I know for other commercial bands there are restrictions on anetenna height, and power output.

So what does the fcc actually say on highly modified 802.11 equipment? What about using modified type acceptance equipment? Seriously - I'm curious :).

Re:Is this legal?

[Pooua]

So what does the fcc actually say on highly modified 802.11 equipment?

If you really want to know, here is a good explanation: http://www.lns.com/papers/FCCPart15_and_the_ISM_2. 4G_Band.index

No

[SiriusBlack]

Cringley is admitting to violating FCC regulations, tresspassing, and theft of service -- all of which are crimes. Of them, the FCC violations will get him into the most trouble. The FCC doesn't like to crack down on people, but when they do, it's generally a minimum of a $10,000 fine.

Re:No

[Pooua]

Cringley is admitting to violating FCC regulations, tresspassing, and theft of service

What FCC law do you believe Cringley violated? I don't see that he broke any FCC rule or law.

Cringley also made it clear that he has paid for all the bandwidth he is using. Indeed, he has been paying for service that he hasn't been using.

Tresspassing is a possibility, but the land could have been public.

I think the most likely legal violation would be building a structure without a permit, or something similar. The Bureau of Land Use would have more to say.

Re:Do not mod down, mod up!

[Anonymous Coward]

idiot. you don't mod down posts from school.

This is a passive device

[John Jorsett]

In this particular case, the repeater is passive, so no batteries or electronics to protect, just some metal and cabling.

Re:This is a passive device

[nadie]

Exactly.

But how, exactly, does that work? Cringely doesn't give a lot of details on how he constructed his Passive Repeater. Is it just a couple of directional antennas hocked together with a piece of coax?

Time to do a bit more research

Metal object in a tree atop a mountain

[ErikTheRed]

One word - lightning.

Re:Metal object in a tree atop a mountain

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't that metal have to be grounded to present potential to lightning?

Re:Metal object in a tree atop a mountain

[monkeyfarm]

Odds are in Santa Rosa you'll get an earthquake before lightning... It's been years since I've seen a big lightning storm in the Bay Area.

You get together and create a coherent network....

[Colin Smith]

Rather than competing, all you have to do is co-operate.

http://www.freenetworks.org/

The more the merrier. :)

Re:Do not mod down, mod up!

[Anonymous Coward]

LESBIANS

Bad laptop antenna's + repeater

[j3110]

I've done some work myself on making a passive repeater for other purposes. I've found that even duct-taping a copper circle of one wave length onto my usb wireless adapter for my laptop will improve link quality more than 10% when you go through a few obstacles. I've been lazy, but if you want to do something pretty cool build a directional antenna (any with good gain) and run the cable to a copper circle of length 11.168cm(Ch 6) (don't connect the ends to each other, just to the coaxial cable). This should give you much better gain and distance on your laptop :) you could build the double quad antenna (double the wave length in length, looks like and you connect the coax to the center such that it ends up being two stacked quads), and it would give you at least 3db gain more than a single quad and be omnidirectional so you can move your laptop around :) There are lots of documentation on how to build these antenna's. Build a couple and connect them to each other and viola, you've got a passive repeater.

Re:Bad laptop antenna's + repeater

[nadie]

Do you have any links or plans on this kind of thing? It sounds like just what we need!

Re:Bad laptop antenna's + repeater

[j3110]

cvarc.org
how to build a full wave directional wire antenna (my favorite kind... I used to build a lot of them when I was 15-18 Very good for ham, cb, FM, and TV (built one for a friend to pick up the super bowl for his party))
softcom.net
Javascript calculator for the lengths of the wire

other than that, you just hook a couple antennas together and all is well. There aren't any links to the copper ring antenna or the double quad design that I'm aware of. I kinda made those from my head and bits of other designs and techniques(horizontal stacking free.fr is has pictures of double quads (stacked quads) for UHF, 2.4Ghz is only 6 inches in its longest direction.). If you want detailed instructions just email me and I'll forward you what I've sent to the other guy who asked. If there are more than 5 who care, I'll actually take pictures and put it on a web-page.

If you build quads and need a refelctor (the big metal piece behind them in the pictures) use a cd that is about 1" behind it. You can use that in conjunction with a satelite dish, and it's much better than the coffee can satelite feed that I've seen around :)

And if you are just crazy, you can build an antenna array like this with stacking : bigskyspaces.com

every time you double the number of antenna's you use, you get 3db more gain. 2=3db 4=6db 8=9db etc. also keep in mind that the antenna's in the wireless devices are about -9 db, so just about anything you do will make them better. I bet wrapping wire around it would improve it. It isn't even concievable that linksys even tried to make an antenna for the PCMCIA cards and the USB adapters. They are so terrible, that a spoon would probably have worked better. The WAP's on the other hand are good dipole antenna's. This makes the radiation pattern circle the antenna. If you aren't on the same level as the WAP, you'ld be better off pointing one antenna to the side. Of course I modified mine to be a quad, and my USB (only externally) so that I could get 75-85% signal strength through two floors (up to my bedroom).

It's definatly an addictive hobby.

Catch up at the back there.

[Colin Smith]

http://www.freenetworks.org/

Re:I'm seriously tempted to try something like thi

[ethereal]

Why don't you put the satellite dish outside the band of trees, or up in one? Take a lesson from Cringely on that one :)

+Cringley -Katz

[Ledge]

How bout /. gets some negotiations going to swap Katz for Cringely with PBS. Sounds like a hell of a trade. At least I can get through an entire Cringely article without getting the dry heaves.

Re:+Cringley -Katz

[zoid.com]

Amen....

Has anybody read a Katz article? I've gotton to the point of looking to see if he wrote it and then skipping over it if he did. Ahhhhhh....I have become comfortably numb...

Re:I'm seriously tempted to try something like thi

[Aexia]

It's a really huge tree on someone else's property. The house is surrounded by trees. Besides, we're renting the house.

And moving ain't much of an option because we're getting a pretty damn good deal on rent. Housing this cheap is hard to find this close to Seattle.

Tracing...

[wowbagger]

I can think of one way the ISP could track him:

1) send emails to his pbs.org mail address that will generate a reply (ether by nasty scripting tricks, or simply asking him to respond...)
2) Look at the IP address of the reply.

If he does it from his home, they have the IP of his buddy. End game.

Second trick - look around in the specified neighborhood for a transmitter at 2.6GHz. Sniff with Snort.

It reminds me of an old saying: "If you are breaking the the rules, be QUIET about it."

Cringely has good info -- deserves the referrals

[behindthewall]

I don't care if Bob does get mentioned here frequently. The guy can think, isn't afraid to speculate, and hacks any system, technical, political, business, PBS, to the best of his ability.

He's a hacker in the true spirit. Cringely is dead. Long live Cringely.

Are you my neighbor?

[TuxMelvin]

Seriously, I had the same problem until about a year ago, when I finally got cable. But I know people just a mile away who are stuck in the exact same situation you are. It's ridiculous, and it's a very populated area too.

10.5km bah - try 14.6km's at 11Mbps

[CRC'99]

I'm part of the crew at www.wireless.org.au - and we've been doing some distance testing on standard 11Mbps 802.11 equipment.

We successfully negotiated a link at 11Mbps over 14.6km and are trying to go for 36.5km when time allows.

check out the quick post at http://www.wireless.org.au/stories.php?story=02/02 /07/4863496 regarding this.

Finish you're sentence, please

[SiriusBlack]

He's not a God, but he's damn close to a blithering idiot! Granted, he looks good by comparison Pournelle, Dvorak, or Katz, but he still a shameless self-promoter tring to make a quick buck by pretending to understand technology he's actually clueless about. AND I'll beleive this "bank shot" actually works when I see it in operation myself. 2.4GHz is the resonant frequency of water (that's why it's the frequency used by microwave ovens) in other words, ANY moisture in the area effectively absorbs any power radiated. 2.4GHz simply DOES NOT WORK RELIABLY for outdoor communication; that's why the band is still available.

Now we're in the 21st century, so...

[LM741N]

What is taking so long to get wireless internet access to everyone? Ham radio operators have been communicating via packet radio for years, and even exchange their own TV video over UHF. As a wireless engineer, I'm really frustrated that I can't get rid of these darned cables. The technology exists to do it, but the political and business will does not. Expensive satellite connnections seem to be the only option. I'm glad to see some grass roots movement in the right direction.

Re:Is Open Source the answer?

[Dastardly]

I think the big advantage is the likelyhood of hitting more homes at a lower cost than DSL. I would not expect fixed wireless prices to be lower, but I would expect them to be the same and the companies much more profitable and interested in covering greater areas.

Latency

[MikeDataLink]

I've found the latency of wireless to be horrible at long distances like this. Just my .02....

I visited http://www.shortskirtgirls.com/. Have you?

Hacking vs. Lobbying

[Dan Crash]

I had the same thought when I first read Cringely's article, but you're missing something here. The hold the media companies have on us isn't through hardware, it's through Congress.

As long laws like the DMCA (or the future SSSCA) are around, there are no "safe" alternatives. Illegal is illegal, and anything large scale will be shut down.

The thing is, if we had the clout to get rid of the DMCA, we wouldn't *need* to build an alternative way.

If we want free networks, the infrastructure we really need to hack is Congress.

Gigahertz Pringles cans

[Nonesuch]

In the 70's it was Cap'n Crunch, now it's Pringles. Odds are P&G will soon be modifying the design of their "snack" packaging to make sure that 2.4 GHz waves can't use 'em.

I've been stockpiling the $1.19 WiFi antennas, but am running out of room for the dozens of little wave-shaped shipping protection cushions that I find in each can.

The cashier told me you're supposed to eat them, but I think he's just out to get me after I 'accidentally' tried to pay with the copper slugs leftover from waveguide construction. Hey, at 6AM after a long night of wardriving, it's an easy mistake to make.

Re:You get together and create a coherent network.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Key is not cooperation! /co-llrrlxplx:wq

Re:You get together and create a coherent network.

[Anonymous Coward]

/co-^Mllrrlxplx:wq

Sorry I fucked that up!

Someone take the aerial hostage!

[wackybrit]

A free cookie to whoever finds the aerial, steals it, takes pictures of it and sends a ransom note to Cringley. Come on, you know you want to. A great project for a bored geek in his area.. FAME AND FORTUNE AWAIT!

Re:Someone take the aerial hostage!

[amlutias]

not only that, but lawn gnome style: pictures of it in red square, big ben, etc. they could be photoshopped, for the lazy.

Re:Someone take the aerial hostage!

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I live about 5 miles from there.

I'll go hiking for it tonight, get my cookie ready.

Plus while I'm there I can follow the antennas LOS and find out which house in Cringley's and then drop in.

Re:Someone take the aerial hostage!

[mother_superius]

cookie dependant on the ransom note saying something different that "4ll y0ur b453 4r3 b3l0ng t0 u5", I hope.

wireless isp to wireless lan?

[Anonymous Coward]

i've just set up with a local wireless isp in arcata, california (yay!). i have no trouble getting a signal where i am -- my question is wheather i can use one-or-fewer thingies (eg wireless access point, unpowered repeater) to bridge from the wireless isp to a wireless lan.

currently my transciever is an old aironet uc4800.
it can't bridge wireless networks. apple and linksys claim their products can't, but admit they haven't tried. anyone actually done this?

filters tradeoff

[ChrisCampbell47]

Wouldn't it be possible to build filters to absorb the "intermod" that's leaking on to adjacent frequencies?

Not really. Any filter at any frequency (even audio frequencies) is going to have tradeoffs in the passband where there will be some distortion. Normally things like phase distortion get severe when you're trying to do something this tight.

Think of it this way. Say your 802.11b carrier is 2 MHz wide (I have no idea if that's what it really is) and is centered at 2.400 GHz. If you want to filter out everything but that carrier, you want your filter to A) block every thing below 2.399 GHz, B) block everything above 2.401 GHz and C) pass everything in between. And you want the rolloff (think cliffs) at those edge frequencies to be steep. Well, guess what: that's really really hard to do -- it's like you're asking the RF circuitry to reach waaaaay out to 2.4 GHz and then pick out a little 2 MHz slot. That's strictly military-grade stuff :)

The real problem with the whole Linksys mod is that you're driving the power amp into saturation, and THAT's what causes all that intermod to poke up. All RF amps can push X watts going full blast, but you need to "back off" a certain amount in order to get a clean signal through and not produce intermod. Typical backoffs are in the range of 2-7 dB. So Linksys builds a 100mW amp but intends to only use 25mW of that, for a backoff of 6 dB.

Why is it everytime Cringely has a new article...

[dido]

...the PBS site goes down? It usually takes a week after he writes something new before I can see it. Is it because www.pbs.org is some dinky old server that takes a week to get up again after a slashdotting? Lately Slashdot's been linking to every article he writes, so of course, everyone's gonna try to look at it. This behavior has been consisten since I started reading Cringely's articles regularly last year.

Eeeeewww!

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the most gross, disgusting, vile, nasty-ass thing I have ever seen in my life!

Except for this.

Wireless could be the way out of bandwidth hell...

[retro128]

I myself live in a bandwidth black hole which I just happen to be in the center of. So, I actually started researching and buying gear to hook into work's T1, which is about 4.8 miles away. The gear I decided on was two Orinoco (or WaveLAN as they used to be called) cards with Linux boxes to match to keep costs down (besides, Linux makes for a great wireless router). My antennas are 24dBi gain Hyperlink parabolic grid antennas. I already have the cards working in my Linux installations and am ready to hook up the antennas soon. The only tricky part is that my path to work is slightly obscured so I'm hoping I have enough power and gain to be able to punch though. Hopefully the bandwidth gods will look favorably upon me. I've never had a high speed connect at home (and probably never will if this doesn't work :/)

One of the coolest projects I found while researching this was the HPWREN project at UCSD. Check out their pictures, it's hella cool. In a nutshell they are running a 45Mbps (802.11a) wireless backbone across the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve using mostly off-the-shelf equipment, for the purpose of hooking together the facilities strewn across it. They even have remote cameras hooked in that can be remotely controlled through the network, and other testing stations that send data back to them in realtime.
I dropped an email to the project lead and I asked him what kind of gear they used. He said they used a Western Multiplex Tsunami for their backend, Hyperlink for their antennas and WaveLAN and Cisco Aironet for their PCMCIA cards (you can now see how I constructed my parts list :)) I also asked how he got around mountains and such.
Well, in certain places they have powered relay stations. Naturally I wondered how they were powered, and he said some of them they could get electricity to, but others they actually have solar panels powering the relays. Damn. For you real hackers he mentioned there was a parts list for the solar power array somewhere on the website, but I never bothered to try and find it.

I've noticed some arguments regarding amplifying 802.11, and thought I'd help clear it up. FCC Part 15.247 governs the unlicensed ISM (Industrial, Scientific, Medical) band, and dictates that you can amplify the signal up to 1 watt (1000mw) This gets tricky when you start using directional antennas >6dBi gain though. You may find more detailed info here..

Who owns what?

[Christopher B. Brown]

No, you are not "in fact stealing power."

You are only "in fact stealing power" if the land does not "in fact" belong to you.

On the other hand, if you own the land, it is entirely possible that what you're 'stealing' is the current that someone volunteered to put over your property. Which might not be stealing at all.

Re:Who owns what?

[waterbug]

Generally untrue. Almost all property that has utility lines/pipes/wires/tunnels running on/over/through it has "easements" in the title for exactly that purpose.

These easements were put in either when the property was annexed by whatever local authority conquered the indigenous populations, or else seized by eminent domain later on.

"Ownership" of land in the conventional sense means "residual ownership," i.e. what's left after lenders, government entities, etc. have had their (legally entitled) cut at it.

Check your title report. Unless you live in a very rural area, I'll bet you a dozen Krispy Kremes that you've got utility easements in there.

What do you me HE's at it again?

[damieng]

Infoworld's "I Cringely" column has been written by different people under that pseudonym. Do we know who is actually doing this?

One of the previous columnists - Mark Stephens - has been using the names for books (Accidental Empires) and tv (Nerds series). There have been at least two more Bob Cringely's since him in Infoworld.

More info at: http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/summer96/0088.htm l

[)amien

AAAREARRRAEARRAGGAGAGGHHGHH!RRGHGH!G!!G!G!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES!!
IT'S "LINE OF ***SIGHT***"
NOT "LINE-OF-SITE"!!!!!

Maybe he wants to visit "Web sights" with his line-of-site gizmo?

Sight: http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=line+of+sight&d b=*

Site:
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=line+of+site& db =*

JHFC already!

Better solution

[waferhead]

Great hack, Robert.

Rhomboid(sp?) antennae can get up to 27db of gain (34?), and for 2.4 Ghz could be made a reasonable size. These are ideal for fixed installations, and the s/n can't be beat. They are as directional as it gets, and simple to build.

(Fot the uninitiated, 10db == 100x power
as in, parabolic has a theoreticasl 18db gain, so a rhomboid would have 9-10db (or 85-100x) more "goodness" for both transmit and receive, and no added noise. S/N ratio is golden...)

For Cringely, this might boost him enough to be able to literally use the bounce off the tree itself...

(Off to find my book on antennae design)

Re:Better solution

[waferhead]

Correction: It's a rhombic. It is usually set us as a wideband more or less omni antannae, and *still* has 27 db of gain. It can be tuned to a specific freq, and made HIGHLY directional with FAR more gain. Any QST readers have a back of the envelope design for 2.4 ghz tuned dual rhombic, max directionality? This tuned setup would be rather large (30 feet or so)but it would be the RF equivalent of having Gods ear and Gods voice... on 10-100 mW of power.

Re:+Cringley -Katz - Portman = never happen

[lww]

If I were running PBS, the only way you'd stick me with Katz would be if you included Natalie Portman...

AAARRRGGHHH! please stop propagating bull$#!t

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm tired of the "Excessive EM" argument. Are you gonna get cancer from that cell phone to your ear? it's probably about 30 times as powerfull as the transmitter for your wireless router. Are there cops and firefighters dropping dead from brain tumors allover the USA? No? Well hell, We've been putting 5 WATT TRANSMITTERS next to our heads on a daily basis for YEARS. The DSSS signals of 802.11b are so weak you need those VERY directional antennas to reach out and get the signal. Is the sun burning holes in your body as you walk down the street? No, of course not, but would you look at it through a telescope? of course not. Please people, this is science, not voodoo. Stop the madness (and the sillyness)
Andy Reilly

The Packet as Commodity

[fm6]

If you had referred to parsley instead of radishes, I might have understood your point.

I don't know about you, but I consume more radishes than parsley.

Anyway, bandwidth is not a true commodity in the sense that you can easily find another supplier within minutes.

Good point. But that's only true on the consumer level. And in theory, you're able to bypass the local data monopoly, just as you can in some states for power. Of course, "free market" power didn't work out either...

But when ISPs buy bandwith, the more or less buy it as a commodity, and they have to pass on that commodity cost.

If you're suggesting that local providers use the monopoly or near-monopoly status to keep prices up -- well, there's certainly plenty of precedent for that. I remember being terribly excited when ISDN started rolling out in the late '80s, with data rates ten times that of existing modems. But of course the telecoms that owned ISDN didn't even understand the concept of "commodity", so few found ISDN worth the expense and trouble.

But I'm not sure I see the same thinking behind current ISP policies. They do want heavy users to pay more -- but why shouldn't they? I just wish they'd find a more realistic way to measure usage.

What really scares me is that more and more ISP are writing off low-end users as unprofitable. If the Internet is to ever live up to its potential, it has to be totally pervasive.

There's a PBS Cringely and an Infoworld one.

[mahlen]

(From http://computernewsdaily.com/live/Latest/209_07289 7_114210_8316.html.)

Readers of both ``I, Cringely'' and InfoWorld may wonder why, if Cringely no longer writes for InfoWorld, there's still a Notes from the Field written by Robert X. Cringely.

Stevens-as-Cringely was fired from InfoWorld in 1995 but continued to use the pseudonym. He was in post-production on ``Triumph of the Nerds'' with PBS, in which his identification as Cringely was everywhere.

InfoWorld sued him, demanding he stop using the name. He counter-sued InfoWorld. The result: He's now able to use the name under a license agreement, and InfoWorld has someone else doing the column under the name.

But, as he insists on his Web site, there's only ``one true Cringely.''

So what's next for cringley?

[baggers]

Is he going to try bouncing his DSL off the moon?[SETI League]

Nothing New.....

[Raptor-X]

I worked for an ISP which provided wireless services to a local community as well as 3 other remote communities. We had wireless shots ranging from across the street to ~26KM hops to moutain repeater sites using Lucent's wireless hardware (2.4Ghz).... and this was 2 years ago! We used a range of directional parabolic antennas and dishes with a tower we built (that was interesting) for our main repeater site. Lucent reps even came up from Atlanta to have a look at our setup which they remarked wasn't exactly what they had in mind when they first developed their wireless hardware!

The main problem we had back then and it probably still stands was weather & interference. Everything would work well in the spring, summer, and fall, but winter would play havoc with our gear. We quickly learned how to properly weather seal our connections to avoid moisture forming within cable connectors. Another problem is the inherent drawbacks of using 2.4Ghz freqencies in nasty weather such as hard rain or snow. 2.4Ghz RF waves in these conditions do not play nicely. The other main problem we experienced on our mountain repeater sites was simply snow. On our 26K site, we had no direct power hookup and therefore had to construct an array of car batteries and solar panels to power this site. Again this worked fine during the nicer seasons but during winter, there is a lot less sun light and the snow would pile up *very* high, blocking the solar panels. We would then have to drive as far as we could up the mountain and use snowmobiles the rest of the way to be able to fix any problems (not much fun).

Some of these issues may have been avoided by using different (much more expensive) hardware but when you are trying to make a profit it didn't seem justifiable.

So, the biggest beef I have with wireless is the unpredictability compared to conventional cable connections (Coax, CAT5, fibre) for broadband use. As the technology matures - as it's doing - and for use with short distances it's becoming more of a viable alternative.

Just my 0.02.

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the big deal? Amateur Radio operators have been doing fun stuff like this for years. In fact, we're even licensed to operate on 2.4 Ghz with upto 1,500 watts!

So I don't see what everyone is getting so excited about. It's old school to us...