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."

Comments

But who pays for it?

[realmolo]

"...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.

Re:But who pays for it?

[ArsSineArtificio]

In my opinion, resources that are on public property are free by implied consent.

Your opinion is silly. Can I have your car next time you park on a street?

Re:But who pays for it?

[Dun Malg]

In my opinion, resources that are on public property are free by implied consent. Your opinion is silly. Can I have your car next time you park on a street?

Pull your head out, please. Like all those idiots who say "copying a music CD is theft/stealing", you are comparing real property e.g. my car, with services. Services may or may not cost someone money based on quantity used. WiFi accesss on public property could be compared to putting a drinking fountain next to the sidewalk. Water is a metered utility, but cheap enough for a drinking fountain to not incur any significant cost; likewise, 'net access is cheap in that it's usually either flat-rate or metered only above a certain cap. If you don't lock up your sidewalk-adjacent drinking fountain, people will use it and you'd have a hard time getting the authorities to do anything about it. If you don't want the public using your sidewalk-accessable drinking fountain (wireless network), lock it up (encrypt it) and only give keys to those whom you wish to use it. If you pay a lot of money on a metered basis for your Internet access, then you're a fool to leave it open for anyone to use (see sidewalk drinking fountain analogy).
Point is, one can pontificate about absolute morality (picking a dime up off the sidewalk is theft!), or take the Common Law/rational approach to such things (would a reasonable and prudent person assume that a drinking fountain by the sidewalk is for public use?). Free WiFi 'net access is common enough that if a reasonable and prudent person with an 802.11b equipped laptop found himself able to access his webmail at Denny's, he'd assume it was intended for public use. To argue that one should seek specific permission first renders unusable such publicly-available things as parking lots and sidewalks.

Re:But who pays for it?

[ArsSineArtificio]

Point is, one can pontificate about absolute morality (picking a dime up off the sidewalk is theft!), or take the Common Law/rational approach to such things (would a reasonable and prudent person assume that a drinking fountain by the sidewalk is for public use?). Free WiFi 'net access is common enough that if a reasonable and prudent person with an 802.11b equipped laptop found himself able to access his webmail at Denny's, he'd assume it was intended for public use.

Yeah, right. I'm driving past a building and I happen to see that I can, for a few feet, access BOBS_NETWORK. Doubtless that means that Bob is delighted to let any passerby use the access which he has paid for.

By your analogy, if he left his door unlocked I could come in and make a couple calls on his home phone. Hey! It's not like he's getting charged by the call! Wait, a reasonable and prudent person wouldn't think that one could enter another person's home... and a reasonable and prudent person wouldn't think that one could get unauthorized access to another person's network.

Your comparison between metered and unmetered services is completely idiotic. The point is, Bob paid for his Internet access, and it's his. It isn't yours. And it's his to decide who gets to use it, even if it wouldn't cost him any more to let you use it also. Just because you contrived a clever way to use it without his knowledge or permission doesn't mean it's yours.

I can see here the age-old argument that the clever have the natural right to steal from the foolish.

Re:But who pays for it?

[dissy]

Point A)

If i choose to allow public access to my network by placing a hub outside of my building with a sign stating "Free internet", why do you insist anyone that takes my offer is a thief?

Public WiFi is no different except for the link medium being RF instead of long strands of metal.

You are no doubt using slashdot for free because they said you are allowed to. Guess your a theif too huh.

Point B)

WiFi is radio.. The signal is just protons. It is no different really than light.

If you feel a WiFi signal can be owned, then I declair i own the color blue (And any frequency close to it.)

Anyone that sees the color blue without my express permission is now a theif.

Silly you say? I aggree. You cant own photons, you cant own RF spectrum, and you sure as Hell dont own any photons that are passing through my house and body right this moment.

If you dont want me to have your formatted protons, then keep them to yourself.
The second they pass through me and or my house or even arguably anywhere i happen to be standing, those protons are free to be decoded in anyway I see fit.

Dont like it? Dont send those protons to me and i wont come after them.

Plain and simple indeed.
--Jon

Re:But who pays for it?

[pyite]

Yes, but things like Satalite service are locked out to prevent illegal use. If a network is not locked, and Joe iBook Schmoe randomly has internet access when he's at a park or something, he's not going to think he's stealing. If someone takes reasonable (obvious) precautions to protect their service, then circumventing this protection in my opinion is wrong. And yes, I have no problems with people "eavesdropping" cordless phones, baby monitors, etc. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy with such devices. Part 15 of FCC rules: a) Device may not cause harmful interference. Well, let's interpret that as saying my neighbor's cordless phone causes interference harmful to my interception of residual energy from the big bang on my scanner. If you don't want something to be heard or accessed, put up a Faraday cage around your house. Just as someone stated before, if you put a water fountain on the edge of your property next to the sidewalk, people aren't going to think it's just for you. If it is just for you, put up a fence.

Re:But who pays for it?

[doug363]

I think you might mean pHotons in a few places, not pRotons ;). Also, I think you can "own" part of the RF spectrum, or at least be licensed to use it. Try transmitting at 1800 MHz at a fairly high power and see how long it takes before someone comes knocking at your door...

However, you don't need to be licensed to transmit around the 2.4 GHz band at low-ish power levels, which is what 802.11b uses. So there's nothing illegal about it for either party, except that as a provider, you might be violating the terms of service of your ISP contract.

Re:But who pays for it?

[Dun Malg]

Yeah, right. I'm driving past a building and I happen to see that I can, for a few feet, access BOBS_NETWORK. Doubtless that means that Bob is delighted to let any passerby use the access which he has paid for.

"Bob was surprised to notice that passers-by were using the sidewalk-adjacent drinking fountain he installed which was intended for his own personal use while mowing the lawn." Though one could probably guess that Bob didn't mean to share his internet, as more and more people do set up open nodes this inference will become less concrete. The problem is that Bob needs to understand how to set up his system properly (or maybe put up a sign that says "WiFi not for public use"). If Bob finds his water bill goes through the roof because joggers are stopping by in the early a.m. to use his drinking fountain, he needs to take steps to make it clear that it's not a public drinking fountain. Like a lock (encryption).

By your analogy, if he left his door unlocked I could come in and make a couple calls on his home phone

No, because by entering his home without permission you are breaking the analogy. Inside the house is private property, requiring the commission of trespass in order to use the phone. The drinking fountain at the sidewalk has attached to it implied consent for public use. As more free WiFi nodes appear, consent will be implied as well. The proper phone analogy would be if one installed a phone extension in a phone booth facing the sidewalk where anyone walking by could pick up the handset and dial. Implied consent once again. If you called the cops on someone using your sidewalk phone they'd say "idiot. lock it up or take it out if you don't want people using it."

and a reasonable and prudent person wouldn't think that one could get unauthorized access to another person's network.

Again, we are fast approaching the point where a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that an open node in a public place is OK to use.

The point is, Bob paid for his Internet access, and it's his. It isn't yours. And it's his to decide who gets to use it, even if it wouldn't cost him any more to let you use it also.

The duty of allowing/disallowing access to WiFi nodes falls upon the owner of that node. It doesn't take a genius to turn encryption on, and (again) the fact that it's not on could be construed as permission to use the node. The controlling factor shouldn't be an arbitrary, absolute law; it should be people taking reasonable steps to secure otherwise publicly accessable resources. What it comes down to is, the onus of protecting a resource from public consumption is on the one paying for said resource. If it's that important SECURE IT!.

I can see here the age-old argument that the clever have the natural right to steal from the foolish.

No, what you see here is the argument that the foolish have no right to complain when they fail to take reasonable and prudent precautions to prevent public use of private facilities. The law is full of analagous precedent. If you have an unfenced, unlocked, abandoned house and some kids walk in and one of them hurts themselves while playing therein, not only will you find it nearly impossible to have them convicted of trespass, but you will find yourself defending against a charge of maintaining an attractive nuisance. The concepts here aren't all that new, only the technology is.

Re:But who pays for it?

[ArsSineArtificio]

Again, we are fast approaching the point where a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that an open node in a public place is OK to use.

I would note that despite your obfuscation, two things remain:

The first is that you know that these people don't want you using their networks. All this rhetoric about how someday wireless networks will be universal doesn't conceal the fact that you know that you are intruding upon them.

The second is that, when you strip away all the redundancies, what you have said is this: it's their fault that they haven't kept me out. And that is the age-old self-rationalization of the thief.

Re:But who pays for it?

[Dun Malg]

I would note that despite your obfuscation, two things remain:

Obfuscation? I'm sorry, I thought I was providing a multitude of plausible counter-scenarios to counter your solitary example scenario. Perhaps you think it obfuscation to illustrate that the extreme case shouldn't be the basis for argument.

The first is that you know that these people don't want you using their networks. All this rhetoric about how someday wireless networks will be universal doesn't conceal the fact that you know that you are intruding upon them.

No, I don't necessarily know if I'm intruding on a private network. Sure, you can whip up a dozen scenarios where it would be clear that I was, but I can concoct an equal number of hypotheticals where the opposite is true. I'm not arguing a specific scenario where I can suddenly access the entire C: drive Bob's new Dell machine full of pr0n; I'm arguing that there are too many possible cases IN GENERAL where it'd not be clear whether a WiFi node is intended for common consumption and therefore a blanket denunciation of anyone utilizing such is irrational.

The second is that, when you strip away all the redundancies, what you have said is this: it's their fault that they haven't kept me out. And that is the age-old self-rationalization of the thief.

Cripes, man, that may be a rationalization of a thief, but it is also the basis of quite a bit of law! Ever heard of an easement? I can legally keep you from fencing your yard if I've been using it as a shortcut long enough and you haven't done anything to stop me (fence, signs). The point is, I'm not going to intrude on a network that's obviously not meant for public use, but in cases not so obvious the best person to control access is the provider. Not some blanket moratorium without written consent, etc. Do you have to get written consent from a store before using it's parking lot? Again, the law is fairly clear about this already. The extreme case you argue is irrelevant because it is extreme enough where a reasonable and prudent person would say "hey, this isn't a public node; this is Bob's network and I can see all his pr0n". The type of case that's relevant is one such as: "You're sitting outside a Starbuck's in Santa Clara and your 802.11b card comes up green; you have internet access and nothing else; is it reasonable and prudent to assume it's a public node?" Maybe it's from Starbuck's. Maybe it's from the bagel shop across the street. Maybe it's from Bob's 802.11b hub in the apartment above the bagel shop. Should Bob be allowed to have you arrested/fined for "hacking" if it was Bob's node? Or should Bob turn his damn encryption on? Think, man!

Ut oh

[Adam9]

So if this car got into an accident.. would that be a Denial of Service attack?

Re:Ut oh

[dattaway]

Some people claimed it was a tragic accident, but there were a few people who believed Starbucks hired several thugs to...oh..."talk" to him.

Re:Ut oh

[Kredal]

No, it would be a packet collision.

If it's not free it must be.... EVIL MUHAHAHAHAHA

[CajunArson]

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)

Nice Saturn, but....

[echucker]

mine can still carry a two bikes and a canoe on the roof rack for my honeymoon tomorrow. ;-)

he shot who in the what now?

[deander2]

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.. :-)

Re:he shot who in the what now?

[GigsVT]

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.

If it weren't for those brave rebels who dared to park their porta-potty in the parking lot of stores with pay toilets then we would all still be paying to use the toilet.

Re:he shot who in the what now?

[deander2]

haha!!

THIS deserves a +1 funny if anything does. :)

Re:he shot who in the what now?

[littleRedFriend]

Yes, I agree. If he really wants to put Starbuck out of business he should be giving away free coffee in front of their shop.

What's the point?

[Osiris Ani]

A Starbucks representative could not be reached Friday for comment. A representative at Wireless carrier T-Mobile, which supplies Starbucks with the access, declined to comment.

Probably because they couldn't care less. Seriously, what's the point? Okay, he drives the war car around and provides sporadic wireless 'net access to people in the general area of a Starbucks, thus proving to them that they do indeed have a choice... until he drives away.

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.

Re:What's the point?

[ProfessorPuke]

But he does run a free service in the area. He's got 3-5 public spots on that street already. The nearest is at 338 Newbury St, while the Starbucks is 350 Newbury.

That's very close!

And if the reporters had bothered to interview him, they'd see that he's fishing for a closer neighbor of Starbucks to host his antenna permanently.

Re:What's the point?

[bergeron76]

Here in Atlanta I have a neighbor in one of the highrises who is offering his bandwidth to me when I drive past his apartment. I found him on a local wi-fi sharing site. I drive past his highrise everyday enroute to work and it's a great opportunity to pull down weather and traffic data. I think its just a matter of time until this kind of thing becomes more prevalent.

Would this guy please come out here....

[SwedishChef]

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.

Free WiFi

[Chanc_Gorkon]

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.

Re:Free WiFi

[Chanc_Gorkon]

Another news flash.....everyone I have ever run into at a hotel would use it if it was a way to get a fast net connection. One thing they could do is for those with no card, rent one at typical hotel rates and advertise that they can get it for free if they bought one. WiFi also makes it much cheaper to deploy a network rather then rewiring a hotel room. So far as the cost of deploying WiFi in a hotel, well, it ain't expensive. Not compared to the specialized BS they use to run in room PPV. You know on those they still use tape and only one room can watch a movie at a time? Really wild crap. Heck they could even stream movies via a special web page. That way many rooms can watch the same movie and on a better screen besides the POS TV's in the room.

oh yeah... they're SCARED, let me tell you!

[nettdata]

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.

I can see it coming :-)

[0x0d0a]

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."

Re:If it's not free it must be.... EVIL MUHAHAHAHA

[Reality Master 101]

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.

His web site

[ProfessorPuke]

Is here
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.

Re:His web site

[Gumber]

Good point, though a $100 WAP isn't going to be capable enough to throttle anonymous users.

What I don't get..

[Zeinfeld]

Is how he avoids the accident in the first place driving about with that great long ethernet cable hanging off his bumper...

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.

Re:What I don't get..

[Megane]

Its like the hotels who charge $15 a night for high speed internet access.

It's not all that bad compared to the $1.50 they charge for a 12 ounce can of soda. A can of soda lasts you what, ten minutes? An hour and a half of leeching and you break even. Besides, it cuts into their PPV pr0n profits, and they have to make that up somewhere.

Internet hippies...

[Mulletproof]

"...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 ^__^

Mod this up!

[Lurkingrue]

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.

Wi-Fi remaining free?

[mindstrm]

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!"

Nice, too bad they are illegal.

[Distan]

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.

Re:Nice, too bad they are illegal.

[interstellar_donkey]

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.


Had it ever occured to you that for profit WISPs shouldn't be trying to make a buck on top of a free, unregulated public spectrum? Companies already have access to a large chunk of the different radio spectrum that the common person can't touch.

When you start limiting modifications a person can do because it interfers with business running on the same public spectrum, you start down a slippery slope; Eventually we end up with some wisp setting up a tower at the shop accross the street, and I learn my $150 WAP I bought and put an antennea on is suddenly illegal.

Re:Nice, too bad they are illegal.

[ProfessorPuke]

The comment meant that if a hobbyist can create something that's externally detectable RF signatures are indistinguishable from a licensed device, then it should be legal for him to do so.

And in fact, it is, by rule 15.23:

(a) Equipment authorization is not required for devices that are not marketed, are not constructed from a kit, and are built in quantities of fire or less for personal use.

(One could argue that techsuperpowers is "marketing" modified devices, even if they're not charging for them. They should be careful about this- but as a professional group, hopefully they are)

Re:Nice, too bad they are illegal.

[interstellar_donkey]

The FCC specifically allows commercial use of this unregulated spectrum. Your argument is like saying that if I put up $10,000 worth of solar panels to convert the "free unregulated" sunlight into electricity, I shouldn't be allowed to sell that electricity.


True, and I personally am not bothered if somebody wants to make money off this. But what I do have a problem with is how often a company acts in difference to the public. This is a great example.

To go back to your anology, it would be as if I spent $1,000 on a solar panel and used it to provide free eletricity, then a for profit utility spent $10,000 on panels that blocked out part of the suns coverage. I could go down to radio shack and for $100 buy an add on that would boost my power to equal the big companys, but somehow that's wrong?

Re:Antenna

[DavidRavenMoon]

.

It's an Apple Airport base station mounted on a pole.

Re:If it's not free it must be.... EVIL MUHAHAHAHA

[Reality Master 101]

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?

Huh?

[Gumber]

These people are offering free public Internet access via an unsecured Wi-Fi network? How is this stealing?

This seems rather shortsighted.

[Gumber]

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.

Re:If it's not free it must be.... EVIL MUHAHAHAHA

[Gumber]

Say what?

Re:If it's not free it must be.... EVIL MUHAHAHAHA

[interstellar_donkey]

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?

Miss the point; Free Wireless because of economics

[Thalia]

Why rant about should there be free wireless; rant about there will be free wireless. It just makes sense.

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.

The MPAA and RIAA dont like this...

[thelinuxking]

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.