Selling Your Wireless Traffic to Passers-By

An anonymous reader submitted a bit about a company called Joltage who wants to make it so that home and business users can make a few bucks by selling their excess bandwidth to people who just happen to be in the neighborhood. Besides the obvious security issues, and the serious lack of coverage once you get out of metropolitan areas, this could be seriously cool.

Comments

License Agreement Problems

[isa-kuruption]

Most broadband providers (cable, dsl...) have license agreements forbidding the reselling of bandwidth to people other than in the household for which the line was subscribed. Therefore, this would be illegal.

Re:License Agreement Problems

[swb]

2. Prohibited by official rules: an illegal pass in football.

ISPs are not an official rulemaking body. The government is. The previous poster's correction stands.

Re:License Agreement Problems

[JanneM]

...unless the contact is 'onerous' or unclear; contract law generally gives greater protection to individuals than to companies, so in some cases, what the customer heard from the sales force, or can 'reasonably expect' can take precedence over the fine print.

IANAL, BTW

/Janne

Re:License Agreement Problems

[swb]

Violation of that contract IS illegal. Sheesh.

When you come down off that crack, realize that a "legal contract" means that the terms of the contract are not in violation of law, it doesn't mean that violation of the terms of the contract opens you to criminal liability.

Contract: You agree to pay me $10 and I agree to provide you with cigarettes. Its legal if you're of smoking age, its illegal if you're not. Violation of the contract -- eg, you don't pay me for the smokes or I don't give you the smokes but take your money is not per se a violation of the law.

You could get sued or the contract party(-ies) could possibly take action in civil court to rememdy the contrac violation, but you cannot go to jail except in very limited circumstances involving deliberate fraud.

Re:License Agreement Problems

[swb]

He's arguing the semantics of the word "illegal" by trying to adapt a meaning use elswhere where it doesn't apply.

The only point he has is the one at the top of his head.

Re:License Agreement Problems

[thogard]

ISP's are selective about who they cut off. Right now AT&T is allowing spamers to use its networks but will cut most of them off.

ISPs tend to not cut off groups that are precived as having a large legal representation.

I still stand by breaking an ISP agreement as not being illegal.

Excess Bandwidth?...

[Jaysyn]

...there is no such thing is there?

Jaysyn

Wireless Network Can Be 100% Safe

[PhysicsGenius]

The IT professionals among us are rightly concerned about software security implementations, especially from a well-known company in Washington State. The even more knowledgeable are concerned about the protocols themselves. This concern is 10 times greater when the network data is whizzing through the air for anyone to intercept. Luckily I've had an idea that may prove fruitful as a first line of defense against tactics such as "war driving".

Despite the catchy slogan, sometimes obscurity can provide a small measure of security. The first step in securing wireless networks should be making the transmissions uninterceptable by hackers. Therefore I would like to invoke the concept of "guided wavefronts". What you do is you provide a contained medium that is impervious to casual break-ins within which the signal can propagate.

The scheme could prove bulky, so I propose that the contained medium should be made of some material that will conduct an electric charge quite well, such as metal. If this is done I suspect the guided wavefront containers could be made as small as 1/8"-1/4" in diameter. Also, there will be a certain amount of secondary leakage because of electromagnetic radiation produced by the contained signal, but making the container out of some kind of shielding matter would solve this issue.

I haven't seen anything like this concept on the market but it seems like a good idea. How come nobody is working on it?

Re:Wireless Network Can Be 100% Safe

[LinuxHam]

I did a walkaround of my property with the laptop, and no usable signal gets past my property line

Problem is, high gain antennas work in *both* directions.. transmit and receive. So while you may not have detected any usable signal with your laptop, I doubt you tested it with the six foot long log periodic, the 60-mile dish, or the 120-mile dish I have. Your neighbors could put pringles cans in their attic (or basement if they have a direct shot to your basement windows) and hit your network.

By using an 18" long commercial version of the pringles can (make and model escape me) on the client side, I was able to add another couple hundred yards of usable distance when hitting a Linksys AP that uses a **PC Card** as its antenna (read as "no external antennas"). WEP will only keep out the "plug and play hackers" but that's it. And even without your network settings, sniffers will get your broadcasts, like ARPs, and see what IP addresses you're using. Best protection there is to setup a subnet of 4 or 8 hosts with a standard default gateway (192.168.1.1) to throw them off so if they try to use a high IP far away from the ones you're using, they'll be out of your subnet. Can't get to the net or your boxes.

You can't ever think you have radio waves under control. They work in mysterious ways. With an 18" dish, you can pick up a ham satellite on 2.4GHz 30,000km away.

Re:Wireless Network Can Be 100% Safe

[WolfWithoutAClause]

"The scheme could prove bulky, so I propose that the contained medium should be made of some material that will conduct an electric charge quite well, such as metal. If this is done I suspect the guided wavefront containers could be made as small as 1/8"-1/4" in diameter. Also, there will be a certain amount of secondary leakage because of electromagnetic radiation produced by the contained signal, but making the container out of some kind of shielding matter would solve this issue."

That's neat! You should patent it!

One modification I thought of would be if rather than using just ANY electromagnetic radiation, if you aim for frequencies around 500nm or so, you might be able to use the guided wavefront material to keep it in itself! You wouldn't need any shielding, it will just reflect at the interface! It will be practically untappable! And much faster than lower frequencies! Wanna share the patent money? We're gonna be rich!

Re:Wireless Network Can Be 100% Safe

[LinuxHam]

You really got me thinking - thanks

np dude, hth ;)

now if I would only follow my own advice! I run it with no WEP, and full class C on DHCP on the edge of a 1,200-unit condo development. Wireless *whore* :)

Not quite a repeat

[GeorgeH]

Sounds a lot like what the guys at Sputnik are doing.

Re:Not quite a repeat

[jovlinger]

Thanks. I was going to make that point. Now I'm redundant...

Actually, I'll take this opportunity to give props to sputnik. I think this is the first viable open source business model I've seen. They also have a semi-effective lock-in scheme:

(for those too lazy to read about it, sputnik give away their open-source wireless-reseller-in-a-box to anyone who wants to make a few bucks from their wireless bandwidth. They also give away the authenticating client software. So to use your bandwidth I need their snazzed up DHCP client on my laptop. The payment aspect comes in because I have to buy airtime credits from Sputnik, who then tell the reseller that it's ok to let me use their bandwidth.)

You get a bit of lock-in, because both the bandwidth provider and the client need to use the same billing agent. I can of course potentially have several clients (or redesign the client to talk to several billing agents).
This gets really interesting when you mix the ability to do real-time bidding when I have overlapping bandwidth providers.
Also interesting is the mobile aspect of it: transparently jumping networks.

Fun stuff!

are you liable?

[Kizzle]

What happens when someone starts looking up kiddie porn on your connection? Are you liable?

Re:are you liable?

[Raetsel]

I would hope that authorities would be able to discern that you -- even though it was your connection -- were not the cause.

Since Joltage has an authentication & billing system in place, it would be relatively easy to associate a Joltage Provider (the person who's running that particular access point) with the Joltage User (the one who broke the law).

It raises a good question though -- what kind of (browsing | usage) information is Joltage collecting on its' users? What exactly is their software capable of, and (going even further...) is it going to spy on the Joltage "Providers"?

Re:are you liable?

[dattaway]

It would be a interesting way for someone to terrorize a victim. Rather than borrow your jetliner with all your family aboard, the thrifty terrorist can hijack your net connection and send lovely disturbing emails to important people. Your family will miss you for a few days while things are sorted out. Score +1 for the terrorist.

Perhaps in the future when we are more educated from information attacks, bad information will no longer be a threat or a crime.

Re:are you liable?

[gregfortune]

What are you going to do? Claim that you allowed someone else to share your bandwidth, clearly breaking typical service agreements? Might you also mention that you were even making money by doing so? Hrm, guess that's better than going to jail, but at that pointed you're kinda stuck...

legalities

[morgajel]

IANAL, but there are definite TOS issues. Do you think Ameritech, AT&T, charter, etc... are conna let you even THINK about this?

and I quoteth from ameritech, my dsl provider:
"7. CUSTOMER SUPPORT
Basic ADSL Internet Access, as applicable, is a single IP Service intended for use by a single user. You shall not use the Service in a manner that is inconsistent with this intended use. SBCIS will not provide support for the installation or ongoing management of a customer premise router with your Basic DSL Internet service. Primary and Secondary Domain Name Service is not provided as part of the Basic DSL Internet Access Service. "

joltage shoulda checked the bandwidth proveder contracts first. even if they don't cover it now, they have the right to change it whenever they want.

Great...

[Mister Transistor]

New term coinage: War Spamming!

Just what I want - to host a random spammer on my home LAN, and be the tracepoint of whatever this person wants to send out on the net. Seriously, if this "guest" wants to send stuff to deaththreats@whitehouse.gov, I'd be the target of an anal investigation by the NSA and the USSS at the very least.

Re:Great...

[_ph1ux_]

actually I think the apropriate term is:

war mongering!

Seems similar...

[JordanH]

To sputnik, previously covered on here on Slashdot.

I'm not sure of what exactly are the differences between the two. Sputnik seems to have more information on their pages about the architecture, but they could be very similar, from what I'm reading.

If they are similar, this is one industry that's already in need of a shakeout. I imagine the real value of something like this being in availability and different systems don't help that much.

AUP Problems

[Raetsel]

Serious problem... Joltage wants to encourage people by paying them to extend their network. Many of the benefits, none of the work... nice idea.

The problem is that most end-user DSL (and all consumer cablemodem that I've seen!) Acceptable Use Policies explicitly prohibit reselling the service!

I'm signed up with a Washington State DSL ISP that has been incredible --

1. They got me installed when Verizon said I wasn't in a servicable area
2. I have their SO/HO level of service
3. I can run servers
4. I can host my own domain (two, actually!)
5. I can NAT and firewall to my heart's content
6. I don't have to deal with PPPoE (straight bridge config)
7. I get 5 IPs...

   (Can you tell I like this company?)

But even with all this freedom, I am still not allowed to re-sell access. I run an 802.11a access point, and it's NAT'd off on its' own -- anyone can connect... but I am contractually prohibited from profiting from it.

Personally, I don't think Blarg would have kittens over this. They're not "like that." Object, yes... charge me more, yes. Call in the National Guard... no. However, I can see other ISPs (Comcast comes to mind, with their NAT inquisition) that will scream that this is the end of the world.

Re:AUP Problems

[Sc00ter]

"I can host my own domain (two, actually!)"

Couldn't you host as many as you want if you can host a server via name based virtual hosting?

Re:AUP Problems

[56ker]

Yes - but wouldn't the overall quality of your rather excellent service be diminished if customers were allowed to resell bandwidth? It would lead to them getting the same revenue for more bandwidth usage - so they'd have to either cut back somewhere - or increase the prices their customer pays.

Re:AUP Problems

[Restil]

The service I have with nationwide.net specifically ALLOWS (and says so in big letters) reselling of bandwidth. Of course, I'm not paying the $45 a month chump fee either. The service costs me $200 a month. I get 16 static ip addy's and can get more if necessary for a negligible cost.

The problem here is that most people are trying to use the dsl/cable services that simply aren't designed with the intent to be resold. they're charging you assuming you WON'T be reselling the bandwidth, whereas I'm sold the service assuming that I will be, and charged appropriately.

Get the service you want. I'm sure there's someone in your area that will sell it to you, but you'll quit having to look at the bottom level prices to find it.

-Restil

This will Never Fly

[dbretton]

For 1 simple reason: Terms of Service (TOS) Agreements.

If someone picks up my wireless service and uses it for any length of time, there is nothing anyone can do about it.

The user would need to, at the very least, be FORCED to sign (or at least click) a TOS agreement before using the service.

I can see Johnny Cochran now:

If he did not click, you must acquit!

-D

Security issues destroy ideas like this

[treat]

The security issues of allowing random anonymous people access to an internet connection that is in your name are quite overwhelming. Consider the wide range of things that could be done that would bring the full force of the law down upon you. From fraud to illegal images to death threats against well-known individuals. The police would not accept as a defense that you allow people who you don't know access to your network. You will surely be arrested, which means you will probably lose your job - depending on your employer and of course whether you are released on bail. You might get off on a trial, especially if the search of your home and your computers turns up no evidence against you. If you're lucky, you will get your eqipment back in a timely fashion after your acquital. This is if you get acquited - the details of the case, how much the police/FBI want to get you, and whether they find anything else suspicious on your machines will decide this. You don't have to be charged with anything they find for it to be used as evidence against you - something as simple as an archive of every Phrack - or even a single issue - would weigh heavily against you.

Until this issue is worked out, it does not make sense to make a wireless internet-connected network publicly accessible if you are just an individual.

Re:Security issues destroy ideas like this

[Courageous]

The police would not accept as a defense that you allow people who you don't know access to your network.

What do you mean they wouldn't accept it? Hysterical bogosity. AS IF.

C//

Re:Security issues destroy ideas like this

[treat]

It sure works for internet cafes.

When the police show up at an internet cafe and find out that it is indeed a business that lets random unidentified people use their net connection, it will be obvious what happened. What do you expect to say when they show up at your house? Do you expect to talk the police into just going away when they have in their hands documentation that points the trail directly to you? A large portion of the people the police deal with try a story along the lines of "it wasn't me!" You are going to need some kind of proof that it wasn't you, or you are screwed.

My neighborhood

[crumbz]

I am setting up an 802.11b wireless network in my girlfriend's apartment. When I come over, I can bring out my laptop and access her cable modem connection. We are located on the top floor of a 3-story apartment building at the corner and I bet if I position the antenna right, I can cover 200 other houses and apartments. I would be happy to get a 768kbs DSL line as a backup and sell the service. That is until the cable companies get wise and shut down the NAT on the boxes.

I don't think people feel like paying :)

[LWolenczak]

I don't think people feel like paying... I just noticed this morning, that somebody near by is trying to get dhcp addies from my internal dmz firewall... also seems that their is another ap that has been assoiated with my ap. Welp, once I hunt down this person who broke my wep key, I guess its time to be extra paranoid again.

BTW, its not Illegal to resell your cable/home dsl bandwidth, its just in violation of the contract.

Pay for your own, too ;)

[EvilStein]

The "Sign up as a provider" page has this option:

"Do you want to be a wireless User as well? (A credit card is required.)"

Cool! I can pay my ISP and then pay these people to use the bandwidth that I'm selling to them! ;)

This is ridiculous

[Anomolous Cow Herd]

OK, let's pretend for a moment that reselling your bandwidth isn't in violation of your broadband provider's AUP. Even then, you have to consider that these providers rely on very thin margins to stay in business. They can stay ahead of the game by counting on the fact that not everyone will be utilizing all of their bandwidth at the same time. If you have people reselling all their idle bandwidth to other people, the link at the ISP will be overwhelmed and it will result in bad service for all parties involved. Next step? The only broadband ISP in your town goes out of business. Wow, isn't biting the hand that feeds you great?

I'm disgusted by this overwhelming sense of entitlement displayed by many in the Slashdot readership in the comments sections. Some of you believe that just because you pay a (very reasonable, flat-rate) fee for network access, email and news, you have a license to use all your bandwidth, all the time in any manner that you please. It's just plain bad manners, and I'm sure that it wouldn't have been tolerated in the internet days of yore when bandwidth and system resources were hard to come by.

Hint: the reason that @Home and its descendents won't let you use IPSec or run servers on their network is that it's their network! Either pay more for better service (like a T1) or rip off some other provider's bandwidth.

Re:This is ridiculous

[NewIntellectual]

You hit the nail on the head. What people have today on their cable modems or DSL lines is really PEAK bandwidth capability. Does it really take a genius to see that if every cable or DSL line tried to run at maximum speed that no provider in the world could handle it? It's a matter of statistics. As you noted, all that would happen would be lousy service for everyone (this in fact already happens in areas where cable modem nodes are overly subscribed.)
A useful analogy would be to imagine a bunch of firehoses hooked up to a water pump that can move 100 amount of gallons per minute. Let's say each hose can move 10 gallons of water per minute. People have valves that let them turn it on and off at will. Let's say there are 500 hoses hooked up. This may still provide acceptable water flow on as "as needed basis" if usage is bursty, but turn them all on and you aren't going to get 5000 gallons per minute aggregate water flow: You're going to get what the pump can move, 100 gallons/minute, aggregately. Or in other words, given equal resistance among the hoses, 1/5 gallon of water per minute flowing from each.

Nationwide Hotspots

[sourcehunter]

Are there any hotspots in the entire US outside of NY, LA, Chicago?

I just did a search of the entire US on their site and didn't find ANY.

There are 5 in NY, three (including the "Joltage Headquarters") are OFF. So Joltage won't even provide its own service to people?

I found ONE in LA and ONE in Chicago. Both are off.

None in Atlanta, GA, Washington, DC, St. Louis, MO, Charlotte, NC.

They really need to improve their search feature. How do I know if I want to sign up if I can't get an acurate picture of coverage?

Yeah, let me pay you 25 USD/month for NOTHING. RIGHT.

Terms of Service

[sourcehunter]

I skimmed the TOS and found some interesting notes.

You may be asked from time to time to provide marketing support as a condition for your continued participation in the Joltage Network. Such marketing support may include posting postcards, signage, stickers etc. on your premises and including Joltage's logo on your marketing material.

So, if I'm a business, and I have setup a Joltage system, I can be required to put their logo in my marketing propoganda if I want to remain a Joltage "service provider"? Yuck.

Re:Slashdot naievete strikes again

[einhverfr]

GIVING STUFF AWAY FOR FREE IS NOT A VALID BUSINESS MODEL

I completely agree. Which is why Microsoft is making a serious mistake by giving away Internet Explorer. I mean, really! They re JUST GIVING IT AWAY FOR FREE! Sure, they might underprice their competitors, but really, where is that going to get you? They will have to charge more for their other products and services by subsidising that development.

(Sorta similar about what they say about Red Hat).

Actually, the main problem here would be if you resell or give away excess bandwidth, what ends up happening is that the ISP has to rent more bandwidth, thus driving up your costs. Don't forget that bandwidth is extremely expensive, and the only reason why you don't have to pay for it is because you are not using it all constantly, so the same bandwith gets sold over and over.

The problem is not one of business model but of economics of scarce resources.

What if we have a T1?

[Mustang Matt]

I can resell my bandwidth!

It's a business T1. I can do whatever I want with it.

Nobody will pay for excess wireless bandwidth

[mrneutron]

...because you can get it for free, with exponetially more coverage than this scheme offers.

Crank up Netstumbler (http://www.netstumbler.com) on your laptop, and drive around. You'll be amazed at how many open networks you find; at least 2/3rds don't even use WEP encryption. The Linksys wireless AP is now less than $200: they're everywhere (and most are running on the default config, and offer a DHCP IP address with no questions asked).

Re:Slashdot naievete strikes again

[torqer]

It's not giving stuff away for free. I'd suggest some reading before posting. Anyways...

You allow their customers to access you net connection. They watch the traffic from your node. And pay you a percentage of the revenue (50%).

The long and the short of their business model is: 1) Customers want the net. 2)Customers use your connection for access. 3) Joltage lists your node to get customers to use it. 4) Joltage pays you a percentage for this use. 5) Joltage takes the other percentage.

This is a valid business practice. Where or not there is a large enough market for it is another question. None of this has anything to do with "giving stuff away for free." Nor does it mention anywhere "free bandwidth"

Local Dialup

[LoudMusic]

All the difficulties and problems aside ...

Wireless would be really cool in this situation, but not everyone has that option in their laptops. What we all do have is a 56k modem. If there was a system that allowed subscribers to dial in to businesses and be forwarded to a modem bank and routed out through their Internet connection, I think they'd have something. It would have to be 'user proof' and streamlined. If all the user had to do was dial a 1800 number, and that got them connected to a local number with 56k access, I think it would have a chance. Everything would have to be transparent to the user though.

Buying a bunch of modems would be so much more expensive than a simple wireless setup though (from what I can tell ...)

~LoudMusic

Ultimately...

[Restil]

The best option if this is a service people would actually desire, is to convince the majority of neighborhoods to wire themselves up with high speed ethernet, making each subdivision one high speed local area network, then feed a few T1 lines into the area for upstream (add more as needed) and split the costs over the entire neighborhood. Then have wireless access points scattered throughout. then simply exchange services with other neighborhoods. They're allowed to access yours if you're allowed to access theirs, and you could cover an entire city this way with wireless and it costs nobody anything extra, so long as the user has their home wired SOMEWHERE.

-Restil

Abuse & Con Issues?

[d_force]

This may have been posted already, but...

1) I envision providers figuring out the "Joltage" protocol and generating "fake" sales, just to get more money from the company. (Similar to the initial craze of advertising websites that tried to "pay" you for leaving their banner ads open on your desktop... people hacked it and initally got more money.. until the company's business model imploded.)

2) What's the "Joltage" policy when it comes to customer abuse of the network?

Breach of contract costs $100,000

[yerricde]

So then reselling bandwidth is a breach of contract, at which point the ISP cuts your access off.

Not only that, but if the contract included a software rental license, it might say something to the effect: "Any material breach of this contract by the Subscriber terminates the Client Software License, and any further use of the Client Software constitutes copyright infringement" to the tune of a fine up to $100,000 in the U.S. (The software backup law 17 USC 117 does not apply to rentals.)

Re:Breach of contract costs $100,000

[watanabe]

I'm not a lawyer, but I have steered my company through a number of legal discussions since the dotcom bust, and I'd say that this will never stand up in court. In breach of contract situations, Courts do not generally award damages greater than the actual cost of those damages. This makes it likely that you'll never, ever go to court on this stuff, unless the ISP is stupid enough to try and actually sue you.

The cost of the legal fees to go to court over this compared to the negative press, and the likely size of the judgment would mean they're never going to actually go to court with a small time "provide bandwidth to my street" type of person; they'll just cut off your service.

A contract is nice, but it's just a piece of paper. The courts decide what's reasonable. People and companies decide what they're willing to pay to find out what the courts will say about what's reasonable.

Re: Domains on DSL

[Raetsel]

Sure, I could set up a server to host many domains.

What I was referring to, though, was Blarg's "Primary or Secondary DNS for two domains" service that comes with my account. (I'm using Verizon's 768/128 line rate -- that's the fastest I can get at my distance.)

Re: Bandwidth usage

[Raetsel]

Absolutely.

I didn't figure I really had to go into details, but I will now.

1. My wireless access point doesn't get much use. I've noticed exactly ONE other person use it in the nearly 6 months it has been available. Their traffic was IM (ICQ) and HTTP, mainly hitting MSN and Hotmail. It lasted about 2 weeks, then disappeared. I figure it was someone visiting in a nearby apartment.

2. I don't advertise its' availability, and I have no intentions of installing a high-gain antenna. If you stumble upon it, fine -- it's 802.11a (54 Mbit, Intel mfg.), which a lot of people don't have equipment for. If you do have equipment (and it manages to be compatible -- 802.11a is known for not playing 'nice'), you'll get a DHCP offer in the 10.n.n.n range. Have a ball; I'm altruistic like that.

3. I do watch its' usage -- both destination addresses and traffic types. If it spikes, I'll just install traffic-shaping on the firewall.

In short, I like my ISP. I get the usage I want from them, and I'm not going to do anything to drive them out of business. I know the realities, I'm not going to try and bend the laws of "business physics."

improve the business model

[xtp]

The idea of grassroots bandwidth by-the-people
and for-the-people is certainly democratic and
appealing in a 60s kind of way. But, commenters
are correct in that there are contractual issues
with underprovisioned and over-lawyerd ISPs,
and this vision of wireless utopia is a pipedream.

That said, I and other professionals who travel
would pay for predictable and reliable service
in airports and hotels. I sincerely hope that
Sputnik or Instant802 or Joltage or someone else
who have done the system integration plus the
authentication and proper billing systems win
a contract with one of the major ISPs, probably
a cellular provider, to build out and operate
this kind of service.

Paying for access to phantom bandwidth will not
attract a self-sustaining customer base. Free
access to phantom bandwidth is not a self-sustaining business model. Fix the biz
and and things could get started. It's not the
same as universal bandwidth everywhere, even
though that is a very worthwhile goal. But that
goal cannot be reached in one step. A self-sustaining business is the necessary first
step.

It's time to start thinking bigger

[Crag]

I saw a few comments at threshold 4 saying this would be against the Acceptable Use Policy of a lot of providers, and that it would be better to get dedicated bandwidth (a T1) to do this.

Well, how about it? How much is a T1 these days? Could this pay for itself, or even compete with DSL?

I'm used to seeing full T1s sell for around $1k a month. I would have to recover around $1000 to be breaking even. I'm in downtown Seattle, so I think if this idea took off I'd have a rich pool of potential drive-by customers, but I'd also have a lot of coffee house and bar customers. There are about a dozen bars and coffee houses within 2000 feet of my apartment.

The Joltage site is a little sketchy about financial details, but their hourly rate is $2. They also say that the "hot spot" (me in this case) gets half of the revenue. That means I'd have to accumulate 1000 hours a month combined to recoup the $1000 a month I'd be paying for my T1. If 20 users consistantly used my net for 2.5 hours per business day (of which there are aprox 20 in a month), it would work. Is this realistic?

Right now I don't think it is. All the customers who might be interested already have solutions in place. The only way this could take off would be if they signed up people who already have bandwidth they can give away and who won't suffer if noone uses them. There are a few internet caffes around here who might be interested since they already have net AND they already re-sell it to their existing customers. The overhead would be a little lower for them and it could attract more customers. This project looks tenuous at best.

I wish them luck.

Re:Breaking a contract can be a crime

[swb]

If, if, if. Without DMCA, Copyright, ad nauseum it could still be a crime "if" the right conditions were met, not the least of which includes fraudulent intent.

Simply violating a contract isn't in and of itself a violation of the law. If you insist on dragging all kinds of other laws into the mix or specific contractual situations you're not arguing that violating the terms of a contract is illegal generally, but that breaking a specific kind of contract in a specific way is illegal -- which it always has been.

I doubt there has been a moment in civilized history when there hasn't been some law put on the books putting the force of law behind specific types of contracts in order to make breaking them undesirable. It may be good intent -- ie, one party has to risk a lot when entering the contract -- or it may be dubious intent -- UCITA, copyright, etc.

But the entire *point* of a contract is to outline an agreement in the absence of some other overriding rule of law. You and I don't need a contract governing whether or not you can come take my TV -- there's a law saying you can't. But there is no law governing on what terms I might willingly *give* you my TV, which is why you and I would negotiate a contract to do so.

More trouble then it's worth

[interstellar_donkey]

I keep my WAP open and very public. Number one because it's cool, and number two because it keeps me on my toes security wise.

At best I get 2-3 people connecting in a given day. Even if the location was heavily advertised, I doubt I'd see more then 10.

The money I'd make through this would'nt be worth the time and energy to collect income, the system resources on my machine to keep proper accounting, or the loss of helping to build free wireless networks.

I keep my WAP open so folks at the the bar down the street can get online. I wish everyone had that attidude.

Tunnel-based solution to security/business issues

[billstewart]

Your real problems aren't likely to be police* - they're likely to be ISPs dealing with complaints about spamming and about file/warez servers run on your network. The obvious way to protect the access-point provider from this while also protecting the roaming user from eavesdropping is to support tunnels back to a wireless access service provider's host location. That way, the service provider can do billing (if that's how you want to run it) and can do a contract with the cable modem company or DSL providers to avoid the AUPs-against-resale problems (so the cable company gets, say, $5/month to support roaming users), and the service provider gets a hook to manage any abuse issues like spamming or evil-content servers rather than the access point user being stuck with them.

* If you're somebody the police would like to entrap, *then* they might go engaging in suspicious activities on your wireless network as an excuse to get a warrant, but most people in that situation know enough to be worried....

Drive-by-spamming has been the common term

[billstewart]

"Drive-by-spamming" has been the common term for this - because it is an obvious risk.

Allowed on my $50/month DSL line

[Adam J. Richter]

I am not a lawyer, so don't rely on this as legal advice.

Generally, my experience with DSL providers has been that they do not prohibit this kind of sharing. Indeed Covad's sales staff touts this kind of unrestrictedness as selling point. (I called Covad's sales line to confirm this a while ago.)

This is not so surprising when you consider that the places where wireless service is expected to be most useful are "hot spots" where people gather and sit down, such as resturaunts, coffee shops, retailers, and various waiting areas, typically places that are likely not to order broadband otherwise.

It is difficult to prove a negative. So, maybe those who believe their acceptable use policy prohibits this should provide relevant excerpts. It would be interesting to see if those AUP's also, with the same stretch of interpretation, prohibit attaching a wireless access point, using Network Address Translation to connect more than one computer, or using the connection for work.

By the way, my impression is that DSL people seem to be more positively disposed toward this sort of thing than the cable modem providers.

Disclaimer and plug: I am involved in LANRoamer, a GPL'ed wireless roaming network that allows people to get paid for providing wireless service. The back end is also GPL-compatible open source.