Being Wireless: Viral Telecommunications

sh4na writes "3G is out before it is ever in... because, as Nicholas Negroponte puts it, the *real* next generation is the Wi-Fi "lily pads and frogs" concept. Wouldn't it be great?"

Comments

802.11 + VoIP = Bye Bye Cell Phone

[mhesseltine]

Unless, of course, Verizon, T-mobile, Voicestream, etc. "influence" their favorite congress rep and get some BS law passed claiming that VoIP on 802.11 is so cheap and available that the terrorists will use it to coordinate missions. And then, when someone uses your hub, you are now responsible for aiding terrorism.

On second thought, forget I ever posted this. Those bastards don't need any more ideas.

It has potential, but...

[warpSpeed]

You need a fundamenatly different method of IP addressing, new routing protocols, and methods for interacting with the current net as it exists. Do you think that IANA will easly start putting out IP addresses for Mesh networks? Even with IPV6? The hardware is there, but more work needs to be done on the practical implementations of mesh networks and integrating them into the current infrastructure.

Then lets consider how ling it will take the "Bells" to wake up and notcie that thier stangle hold on the local telco market is threatened. It will not take too long for Congress to churn out some back-assward laws that stifle any creative use of Wi-Fi.

For this to work..

[N3WBI3]

For something like this to work the average user has to do alot of evolving. As we saw with the warchalking article last week there is a good amount of room for someone to try and abuse your network. In the case of most war-chalkers its harmless but there are occasions when it would not be.

I really like the Linksys Wireless Routers/Firewalls, you can set up a dhcp reservation list by MAC address so if you want to share with your neighbors you can get their mac and let them in. things like that combined with keeping track of security notices, and basic security masures could make such a network as secure as your average broadband connection.

uhh, right.

[anthonyclark]

Yeah, of course every consumer is going to share their broadband connection with every stranger geek walking past.

Consumers don't share, they consume. Peer to Peer is all about taking, not sharing. Most of the 'clueless home users' I know (and I can think of half a dozen right now) only share what they download; they don't add new resource to the network.

Once Joe(ly) consumer realises that his/her mp3s and porn will download 10% slower because of all this sharing of connections, he/she will call tech support, who will tell them how to restrict access to their own PCs.

For the people by the people doesn't work when most of the people are selfish.

Problems with this concept

[Aztech]

He mises one crucial point, the backbone, this posting for instance isn't going to magically bounce from the middle of the UK to Exodus(?) by 802.11 alone, as illustrated by the recent crackdownby cableco's on publicly listed access points they're reluctant to support an essentially public network that runs contrary to their business model, and transcending the traditional backbone requires organisation and capital, something absent from P2P systems.

A concern is the finite amount of spectrum available in regards to the scalability of P2P wireless systems, as the number of users increases so does the baseload just to maintain the system, some clever managed routing will be required along with a wired backbone between nodes, if you use daisy chain style off-air repeating between nodes you quickly deplete spectrum and diminish the benefit of local frequency replication, basically the "everyone shouting in a crowded room" scenario.

"Distance decay" is a feature of the traditional phone network yet on the net people no longer communicate on the basis of geography, did that Wired article come from a server in Silicon Valley, New York, London? Does it matter, I don't particularly care, I'm just interested in the content. However the "lily pads and frogs" architecture is deeply tied to locality, it's easy to communicate with local nodes but it progressively gets more difficult the farther you go, again this leads us back to the backbone problem.

Another issue is misuse, free wireless reminds me of the net of yester year, you could for instance use SMTP servers all over the globe and the vast majority of users didn't abuse that facility, but obviously the small majority of spammers swiftly made that a thing of the past and continue to annoy us today, how would open wireless networks be any different? Control is needed, which leads back to structure and capital.

Call me a pessimist, but it's not quite as rosy as he makes out.

Already happening in my town...

[ites]

Check out http://reseaucitoyen.be/, a project in Brussels that has been pushing this idea for some time.
It's in French. Translation: take a WiFi card, attach an external antenna.
Next, take an old Linux box, turn it into a router.
Aim towards another node, and you join the network.
Security is easy: treat this segment as being unsecure and use your existing firewalls.
Basically such an architecture creates a public infrastructure on which all kinds of services are possible.
It's cheap, robust, and a serious threat to the telcos.
Negroponte is right: 3G is the Telcos trying to define the future, when the future is busy happening somewhere else entirely!

And Voice?

[mookone]

First of all this article assumes Voice over ip will be perfect(HA!). Also, have you ever tried to download while warchalking? Its near impossible to roam from network to network (any 802.11 protocol) and still retain connections over TCP/IP. All the equipment handles roaming differently. Why? Take a look at the standard, there is hardly anything there to talk about Roaming. So all the hardware manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to devise their own way to implement roaming and in the process made sure that complete seemless roaming was impossible under the current scheme.
802.11 and the others like 802.11b were built to supplant wires, not to allow full movement like the mobile phone networks.

This article is almost completly based on fantasy

[NDPTAL85]

I'd love to know where this guy gets the idea that data services are increasing at a rapid rate. Here in the US telcos are in financial trouble because they bet on that very same thing happening, and its not. Most folks use their cell phones to make phone calls and thats it.

Next I'd love to know why this guy thinks that there would be a critical mass of people savvy enough to participate in such a p2p network. How many of your friends and family know how to fully use their cell phones including all their various features?

Also who here would like to have their ability to make and recieve phone calls contingent on the good graces of others? Without telcos you have no garuntee of service. When there are service problems who will you call? Why on earth would the public at large want to manually handle their own communications networks? Its akin to everyone running their own switchboard just to save a buck. It might be great fun for the geeks out there but for folks who are either too lazy or too busy (i.e. everyone else) this just isn't going to appeal to them.

Lastly there is the is the issue of bandwidth. Just because you pay a "fixed fee" for a certain amount of service that does not absolve you from letting the neighborhood run buck wild with your connection. If enough people use your connection in a manner which disproportionately affects your ISP, they WILL bill your butt for the extra costs and then where will you be? Do you think any of your everything must be free loving neighbors will pitch in to help you in your plight? I don't think so. I'm also sure the fad will die down after the first few cases of someone's line being used to traffic in warez or illegal pr0n causes the authorities to come down on some unsupecting "ISP account sharer".

So in short, I really think the geeks should just stick to the technical stuff and leave the business plans, or non-business business plans to the professionals.

Routing in a mesh network

[nchip]

Nice idea..

Unfortunatly reality isn't that simple. First, the routing problems are a lot different from those in tradiotional ip or gsm networks. Suppose you would have 1000+ wifi node network in your city, how would you find the way hopping from node to node to your friend? Even worse, many of the nodes are moving in cars and busses, and just as you have found a nice route through the network some of the nodes have moved or went down.

I'm not saying routing dynamic mesh network is impossible, it's just very hard, and can easily consume most of the bandwidth available.

Besides, if a hop is aroung 100m, a packet travelling 100km would be a 1000 hops away! A user of mesh network will miss the low latency and reliability of gprs networks with the current technology.

The main problem with mesh networks is that they do not scale very well.