Slashdot Mirror
War Car Offers Wi-Fi
NetGyver writes "news.com has an interesting
story about public hot-spot operators that use a weapon in protest against the growth of commercial Wi-Fi networks: Michael Oh's "war car."
The 1997 Saturn has enough Wi-Fi equipment installed on its bumper and rooftop to create a 150-foot wireless network, said Oh, who helps run a free wireless network covering two Boston city blocks and is one of hundreds of so-called public hot-spot operators who believe Wi-Fi networks and the Internet access they offer should remain free."
so do we draw chalkmarks on the car or what ?
COuld someone send one to my university campus near the dorms :)
Who the fuck is protesting "the growth of commercial Wi-Fi networks"?
At most they are protesting that they have to pay to sit at Starbucks and log on to their network.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
i thought for sure i saw this story on slashdot before... perhaps it was somewhere else... And why a saturn? that's like putting a v12 turbo-charger in a VW bug...
-=Errors always defy logic.=-
"...Wi-Fi networks and the Internet access they offer should remain free." But they aren't free now! People that hook on to unsecured Wi-Fi networks are stealing, plain and simple.
So if this car got into an accident.. would that be a Denial of Service attack?
Why doesn't he start putting up 'free' phone booths in protest against the 'evil' spread of
commercial payphones?
I know you guys all love Free software and everything, but it's simple economics... if people really want something (WiFi) and are willing to pay for it, a commercial entity will provide it. It's really interesting that Slashdot loves to carp about how other countries have such wonderful wireless networks and America
is supposedly in the stoneage, and then they bitch and moan about how wireless networks are everywhere, its just you have to actually pay to use them!
(P.S.--> If you use a 'free' college wireless network like I do everyday, just remember: it's not 'free' unless you don't pay any tuition to go to school.... think about it)
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
It looks like he has some sort of tubular antenna on there, wouldn't an omnidirectional be a better choice?
Maybe that antenna is the one for the fixed wireless service (which is is probably violating FCC laws by using mobile), and the 802.11 antenna is the thing on top of that?
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
mine can still carry a two bikes and a canoe on the roof rack for my honeymoon tomorrow. ;-)
isn' this a little off topic? it would be better as a news story submition..
-=Errors always defy logic.=-
OK so the Tech Superpowers guys are so full of crap that it's not funny... the "company's" main product has always been Hype and this is just more of the same... a few months ago they were talking about how they were going to have hundreds of nodes wired up on no time... they have (count them) TWO. I think they are just bitter that Starbucks didn't hire them to provide wifi....
also i notice that he's parked on newbury street... the meters are 25 cents for 20 minutes, so even free, renegade WiFi costs at least 75 cents per hour.
he's trying to put a hole in their business model? and try proving it should be free? is this guy on crack?
no hole, because it's only within 1500' of his base, and he's not parked outside the starbucks all the time.
and to prove a business should offer it for free? how much money did he spend? how much time did he spend? what business is going to invest that for a guaranteed no return?
don't get me wrong, i think businesses would do well to offer value-add services like wireless internet inside their stores free-of-charge just like they do restrooms. I think starbuck's plan will go the way of the pay-toilet. but this guy is going about demonstrating it the wrong way.
the crack monkies are definitely among us..
http://kered.org
Then the user is left without the choice unless someone else nearby also happens to be giving it away, which is unlikely, as there would be no benefit in his being there in the first place if a free Wi-Fi alternative already existed in the area.
Thus he proves the the business model against which he's rallying is perfectly sound, as it provides consistent 'net access to all subscribing patrons. Yes, unlike the war car, their pay network is there when the customers need it.
Okey dokey.
Not every neighborhood is chock full of good citizens who are willing to share their bandwidth with anyone within range who happens to have a laptop. There's nothing inherently wrong with or immoral about a business model based upon selling Internet access. Those who want to set up public access Wi-Fi networks that will serve their local few hundred meters are welcome to it, but I fail to see the point in blasting ISPs for actually daring to charge for the services they provide.
Sometimes stuff costs money. Sometimes people are willing to pay for that stuff, and thus they reap whatever benefits are available to them. Those who are not willing to pay for stuff have the option of seeking alternatives to stuff, circumventing the fee model for stuff, or simply doing without stuff.
and pay for my ISP's uplink so we can provide WiFi for free? Let's see, a dozen T1s (we have the routers) would run under $10,000 a month. And *still* only provide full utilization to 1.5 11mbps WiFi users.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
According to Warchalking.org, Schlotzky's Deli in some locations offers free WiFi. Personally, I would like more free sites. Usually when I am away, not even hotels have it in the locations I have gone/need to go. There is a coffee shop here in Columbus that has free WiFi. Stauf's. They not only have GREAT coffee, but you can sit in front of their store OUTSIDE using the WiFi. If you don't have a card, they will even loan you one. Honestly, I realize bandwidth costs money, but some of the hotels and restaurants already have access for themselves and don't even push the envelope with their use. I guess you can say it's sort of like if the hotels only had bathrooms for thier employees, but the guests had to go across the street. That said, if I found a open node, I would not use it unless they had a sign saying it was cool. Kind of like when I went to a training place and the trainer said thay if we needed to hook our laptops to their network it was cool and they had a tone of DHCP addresses and open ports. Nice.
Gorkman
I want a beowulf cluster of these ... on my next traffic jam. Let's quake!
------- The last Sig. got fired.
If this is such a great business model, and has no real revenue stream (that I can see, anyway), who picks up the tab for the parking meters/tickets?
Sounds to me like this guy just spent a WHACK of cash to outfit a car with WI-FI, plus a couple of bucks in parking, to thumb his nose at Starbuck$ and rip off bandwidth from neighbouring businesses.
Why did Starbuck$ not make a comment? Why bother... the guy (or his car) is not going to be there tomorrow.
$0.02 (CDN)
So if this car got into an accident...would that be a Denial of Service attack?
In other news today, three RIAA chauffeurs were placed under investigation for apparently ramming other cars off the road. "We were trying to protect our copyrights," claimed Hillary Rosen, head of the RIAA. "Just as VHS is like the Boston Strangler, these criminals are like Ted Bundy in his Volkswagon."
May we never see th
No wonder the gangsters always say they put someone on "ice[.bx]" when they kill them. I'm sorry that was bad :)
s200.org - visit it (me), love it (me).
I know you guys all love Free software and everything, but it's simple economics... if people really want something (WiFi) and are willing to pay for it, a commercial entity will provide it.
s/willing/forced/
That's the trend these days at least. There should be nothing wrong with giving service away (since you're paying for bandwidth). But those nasty DSL/Cable ToS's prevent you from doing that.
Until there's competition in broadband service, we'll be forced into agreeing with those unilateral ToS that our ISP forces down our throats.
Oh, you wouldn't know anything about this, you're still a college boy, grasshopper.
But those nasty DSL/Cable ToS's prevent you from doing that.
They would have no problem with it at all... if you were paying for all the bandwidth you're using. If these people want to provide the service, then let them buy a commercial Internet line like every other ISP. Why the hell should I (and the other "home" subscribers) subsidize these idiots so they can "share" their free Internet access?
Funny how if you explain something like this to them, they'll say something like "But... But.. that's expensive!" Well, duh.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
A much more effective way to rectify this problem exists, if various groups want this piece of spectrum to remain non-commercial they would do well to lobby the FCC to make this a strictly non-commercial space before a lot of these networks which are commercial in nature get off the ground.
Outside of the aforementioned I don't see much of a solution, the number of channels you can use is limited due to the spacing required and everyone who is presently offering any sort of public access which is provided for a fee will want their AP's configured for the lowest channel possible (i.e. 1) to ensure that this channel is found first so their users can get the access they paid for with the least hassle/configuration possible.
A few comments have insulted this guy, calling his car a dumb publicity stunt. They say he's not really providing a viable alternative to the paid system, because his car will just drive away the next evening.
Wrong! In this neighborhood, he's been working to provide free 802.11b connections for some time. Any property owner on Newbury Street can contact him to get a free WAP installed.
The point is that most of the utility of portable WiFi access is dependent on connectivity, not high bandwidth. Most users will be very satisfied if they can just check/read their email, and download a little text. That works fine with a 30kbps link, and increasing bandwidth only slowly increases percieved value. That kind of data rate can get lost in the noise of anyone's broadband connection- so if you throttle the utilization of anonymous users, you've got essentially $0 costs (besides $100 for the WAP box).
Since the financial barriers to entry are so low, this won't be a viable business for T-Mobile; unless they can somehow block out new entries. And they can do this by grabbing up prime chunks of this unregulated RF spectrum by getting their transmitters installed first.
Its a race- whoever can deploy first will win the consumer mindshare. Once users take 802.11b for granted, they won't be willing to pay. But there will be property owners willing to run cheap WAPs to attract potential customers.
It is true that the War Car is just a stunt for publicity- and it seems to have worked. Maybe this will inspire some other coffee-vendors to ask him for help in competing with Starbucks.
I don't get the protest angle, the problem isn't having to pay, it is the ridiculous markup. Its like the hotels who charge $15 a night for high speed internet access.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Why the hell should I (and the other "home" subscribers) subsidize these idiots so they can "share" their free Internet access?
So, by your very admission, the current broadband model doesn't work, and we should be looking for alternatives. One of those alternatives might be decentralized wireless networks.
What's wrong with taking the total bandwidth available to the ISP and dividing that up by the number of users wanting bandwidth at the moment? That sounds fair. If the ISP can't/won't do that, then it's clear the model will fail when the ISP's user base grows.
Read and learn you dork. Simple economics has all but destroyed the telecom industry moron.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
"...who believe Wi-Fi networks and the Internet access they offer should remain free."
Peace and free internet, man... Free, until I realize I can either make a killing off of it or can't pay the bills or can so inundate you with banner ads and pop-ups as to seriously dilute the meaning of the word "free". Sure, they all believe it should be free, but it normally doesn't stay that way for long... I'm sure yahoo started with the same principle in mind. Capitalist pigs ^__^
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Many people (probably those who don't live in Boston or those who haven't really read the associated articles) don't seem to get what the guy with the War Car is doing. The parent article here does, and should be modded up so we have less "its just a stunt" responses so prominent.
IMHO, of course.
His "oh" face. You know, Oh Oh, baby, yea, yes!
I'm not sure where I see the problem here...
it's a protocol/band anyone can use.
If people want to set up nodes and use layers on it to authenticate, and charge money, that does not preclude someone else from also using wi-fi equipment in the same area.
Yes, there is a density issue, but both parties are affected equally.
Saying "wi-fi should remain free" is absurd. That's like saying "Ethernet should remain free!"
full disclosure: i'm a field tech at tech superpowers. i am one of the people who worked on the newburyopen.net project, and am listed as a co-author of the specs we released last week.
the network exists primarily because we had spare bandwidth and wanted to do something neat with it. mike figured out how to make the repeaters we use to make the nodes, and set about talking with merchants on the street. we wanted to do something for the newbury st. community, and this was something that was essentially free, and that nobody else could provide, so we let it rip.
there are a whopping three remote nodes presently (with hundreds more coming in no time!), plus the central access point at our offices. why not more? because we have to bill hours to fund the thing, which is what we've been doing since this spring. we DO have jobs, you know...i mean besides this stuff.
about three weeks ago, mike had some kind of fevered evening in which he built this insane rig that sits on top of his car. it's tall and black, and you don't want to drive with it in place. but we can get pretty good ranges with it, and it does work a quarter-mile away from the t-1.
but this is the thing: it's not a commercial venture - it's professionally installed in your home or business, yes; it's corporate-funded (technically, we're an inc.); there's tech support available - but it's not about making money, and therefore isn't meant to comptete with starbucks or anyone else, as the cnet article kind of implies. if it were, we wouldn't have released the specs, but we did, because we wanted to help along the idea of free, open networks. ours, for example, will stay free. whether or not we could be charging, we don't intend to, because it's more fun this way.
also, just to make the point, people who hook up to THIS unsecured network *aren't* stealing, plain or simple. and that's the whole idea - if there were more (deliberately) unsecured networks, people wouldn't have to steal access. so go do your part!
every good
Reading the documents from tech superpowers shows that they are just one enforcement officer away from the FCC shutting them down.
...
Here is a prime example. From their technical document I found the following passage.
"We use an Airport Base Station, Lucent Pigtail connector, and Orinoco Wide-area Antenna. All of these parts are available on our online store, but be warned: the use of a Lucent Pigtail connector on an Airport requires the removal of the case and drilling of a hole. This will void your warranty and most resellers (including us) will not take back a product after it's been modified in this way."
Gee guys, I hate to break this to you, but these modifications don't just void your warranty. These modifications also convert the Apple Airport into a device that is illegal to use in the United States. Here are some relevant FCC regulations.
"15.204(b) - A transmission system consisting of an intentional radiator, an external radio frequency power amplifier, and an antenna, may be authorized, marketed and used under this part. However, when a transmission system is authorized as a system, it must always be marketed as a complete system and must always be used in the configuration in which it was authorized.
15.204(c) - Only the antenna with which an intentional radiator is authorized may be used with the intentional radiator."
In other words, Apple certified and sold the Airport as a system. When you drill it open, disconnect the internal antenna, and connect an external antenna you have built a new uncertified configuration which cannot legally be used.
This is the sort of thing that makes it hard for legitimate for-profit WISPs (who use legal equipment) to compete with these hobbyists networks. The gear that WISPs have to pay $1000 for, the hobbyists cobble together for $200.
So, by your very admission, the current broadband model doesn't work
No, it works fine for people who don't abuse it. If your bandwidth needs are different, then get a different service.
What's wrong with taking the total bandwidth available to the ISP and dividing that up by the number of users wanting bandwidth at the moment?
That's basically how it works -- within reason. But "users" is based on one user. When you have pigs at the trough how try and pack 100 users into their one allotment (at the price of a single user), then you have a problem. Hell, why even sign up with the cable company? Why not just have one person for the whole neighborhood sign (for $75/month) and let the whole neighborhood feed off that?
This may come as a surprise to you, but the bandwidth costs money. The maintenance of the lines costs money. Support personnel, routers, etc, costs money.
Why are you so unwilling to actually PAY for a service that you use? Why do you think that everyone else should foot the bill for YOUR services?
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
This is an example of "having only one tool". The adage is about a hammer but in this case it is Free Software but defined as "free as in beer".
I love Open/Free Software, so much so I founded the local LUG. But nowhere (except by such clueless as Mr. Oh) in all of Open/Free Software philosophy does it say you can not make money. At no time has RMS ever said a person can not make money. He merely advocates limits to the models which might be used to make money. Providing a service is a viable model.
Let's look at it from another direction. Microsoft was guilty of using illegal business methods by providing IE free with its operating system. It was a loss leader for the purpose of breaking Netscape's business model.
Mr. Oh is giving away Internet access that costs his company money to break Starbuck's added-service model. Bandwidth costs money. Perhaps in some future utopia bandwidth will be free but today it costs money. It costs significant amounts of money to create/obtain more bandwidth. There is no "copy" command for creating more bandwidth. CD burners can not make more for the price of a blank.
He is a luser when it comes to wireless. 1500 feet is only 500 yards, barely over a quarter mile. While the car is a mobile point, the link between it and his office is still a point-to-point link. The APs mounted on the car are point-to-multipoint and have a range of only 300 feet!?! Off-the-shelf equipment does better than this. I am currently playing with some gear at 1 1/2 miles without modifications.
It is my sincere hope that wireless will massively drive down the cost of bandwidth. Out where I live APs have to have a minimum of two miles range or they would not be cost effective. Point-to-point links for backhaul need to run 10 miles or more at a shot. Out past me from town those distances rise rapidly. This is doable tech. Wireless ISPs in rural settings are the fastest growing sector of the ISP market. There are now 3000+ wISPs in the US. In rural areas wireless is the only option possible for boardband access. I and millions of other rural residents will never have the option of cable or xDSL.
Thankfully this infrastructure is being built today by commercial, co-op, and community organizations.
I think, therefore, ken_i_m
Chief Gadgeteer, Elegant Innovations
Oh really?
These people are offering free public Internet access via an unsecured Wi-Fi network? How is this stealing?
It seems to me that antagonizing commercial WiFi operators is an invitation to regulations.
The existing unlicensed spectrum may remain free, but it will become filled up with a proliferation of low power RF devices, ranging from WiFi, to phones to RF-lighting.
When this time comes, we will want the FCC to open up more unlicensed spectrum, but we may not get it, or as much, if commercial WiFi providers are at the same time lobbying the FCC for their own slice of licensed spectrum so they can do business without people deliberately trying to screw them.
Say what?
If you want to "target greedy business", hit the phone companies and the cable providers, who make it damn difficult for a small local wireless provider like ourselves to compete. Verizon wants you to purchase a DS-3 to their ATM network to provide DSL, and their wholesale DSL circuit costs are only about $10 less (if even) than their retail price. In some "special promotion" cases, the wholesale cost is less than what they retail it for. Cable companies won't even talk to you if you try to talk to them.
Now, who is the "big evil commercial interest" here? Us, a small, local wireless-only ISP, or Verizon and Adelphia, big-time companies that can run at a loss for years to hold the little guys back?
Trust me, our monthly fees barely cover what goes into supporting it. I don't see how someone can provide free wireless without sharing a cable or dsl connection, which providers generally don't allow in their policies.
Finally, all of these people putting up significant time and money to provide free wireless have to be making money somewhere to support the costs. How are their companies or employers doing anything less evil than we are?
Can you imagine a beowulf cluster of those?
Sounds like a hoax to me, an experiment to see how quickly the internet can spread false information with no backup whatsoever.
This is a symptom of the onset of adult reality. It's a "reality bites"-thing when Mommy and Daddy start to cut the purse strings. Some folks have such a strong reaction to this that they are willing to give up all sorts of things if the government will just assume the role of Mommy and Daddy.
Folks who look to the government in this manner are sometimes called socialists. At other times they are called not so nice names. One of the basic assumptions of democracy is personal responsiblity.
I think, therefore, ken_i_m
I don't think that's the problem. There are pleanty of wireless spectrums that are heavily regulated which companies can and do charge for services on.
Wi-fi is an largly unregulated spectrum. It's one of the few ones the common man has. And so it's pretty dang hard to swallow companies making a buck off something like this, espically when they seem to act with indifference to the free use of an open spectrum. Remember this?
If somebody wants to give away his or her bandwith (as long as it's in accordance with his providers TOS) on a public spectrum, why is he somehow worse then a company doing that?
The Internet is generally stupid
But is is easy to swallow companies making a lot more than a buck off of radio spectrum because the govenment has given them a monopoly to use it? Or the vast tracts of spectrum set aside for the military that go unused?
I think, therefore, ken_i_m
AS far as I understand it, don't WAP's produce a great deal of microwave radiation? ...do we really want these everywhere, if thats the case?
The secondary profits of providing free wireless access are more than the primary profits of commerical wireless access. A free site tends to have about $500 in fixed costs, $100 per month in variable costs for bandwith at the site, and, well, nothing for billing and back end systems. A commercial site has these costs, plus about $50 per site to keep the back end and user accounts running, plus $10 per user per month in technical support costs. The technical support costs are the killer.
I chatted with a marketing droid for our local coffee shop's provider. It took him a bit to understand that $20 per month really was the maximum I would pay, that I wouldn't pay more for lighting fast access or access to any of the hundred of so sites nationwide or for special software so that I didn't need to keep a browser window minimized. I have access elsewhere; it's only worth $20 per month. Too bad they have technical support from people trying to get their 802.11(b) card to work under Windows 95/98/98SE/2K/ME/NT/XP/XPpro with NetScape/IE4/IT5/....
That provider tanked, someone else took over a month later. The coffee house noticed a significant drop during the slow hours when geeks drank coffee and typed on computers. The other coffee house is not as good but had free wireless and I spend $120 in the month I was there.
Hold it you say, $120 per month for wireless? Well, about $80 per month in profit. I drink a lot of coffee. It's worth more to the coffee shop to provide the wireless point, provide no support, and sell coffee than it will ever be worth to the wireless service provider to deal with billing and customer support for $20 per month.
Wireless wants to be free, just because it makes more money that way.
Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it. The real question is repeat which historical analogy. Will WiFi become like drinking fountains?
That's great and all, but can't anyone tell me WHERE in Boston this guy's operating? Need to know these things!
Your user ID is 208074 and you fell for this? You must be the most naive person on Slashdot!
The MPAA has their own "WarCars" which combat and repress the operators of the free (MPAA: free=bad) wi-fi spreading saturn "war cars".
The MPAA's "war cars" are Humvees with dual machine guns and radar systems. Deluxe models have "WI-FI" seeking missile launchers.
Uh, no. Government monopolies that suddenly had zero restrictions destroyed the telecom market. The last 50 years of telecom, the market hasn't been operating at anything CLOSE to being near the natural laws of economics.