Slashdot Mirror
Google and Skype in Startup to Link Hotspots
An anonymous reader writes "Google and Skype are investing in a new startup (FON, the Spanish startup) that plans to help hotspot owners charge for Wi-Fi access points. The plan outlines two different classes of customer; "Linus" members, named after Linus Torvalds, will share their hotspot with other Linus members for free and "Bill" members, named after Microsoft's Bill Gates, will charge for access to their hotspot. FON will get some of that revenue, and share it with ISPs."
I know that here on slashdot and in the geek community in general, we wear our colors proudly. But does anyone else think that this naming convention is a tad juvenile?
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
Right now I can share my Wi-Fi spot with anyone I want. The only real software here is the "Bill" version which would allow charging. And guess what? I can do the "Linus" version with any wireless router I please.
The idea is that they pay normal people to share their own access points (or in the case of "linuses", access is given out for free). While there may be wireless access available in alot of locations, if everybody who has an access point were to offer it, there would be alot more coverage.
Think about the residential areas where there isn't a borders or starbucks nearby: You could connect to a "bill" access point hosted by your average joe (provided you bought the subscription), bill gets paid, and google gets paid. While one may think that google is getting something for nothing, it offers a universal payment scheme for residential access points everywhere.
All this and I didn't even RTFA.
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
So if I sign up for this, and somebody using my connections downloads all sorts of illegal files, who is the RIAA going to sue? The obvious choice seems the subscriber of the internet connection which would be me. FON's website says "Am I responsible if a user uses my connection for any illicit activity? No. As long as you have not actively participated in the commission of a crime or do not have knowledge that a particular individual is using your connection to commit a crime or illegal activity, it is our understanding that you are not responsible. Nevertheless, this may vary depending on the laws of each country. Furthermore, FON discourages any inappropriate use of your connection by making sure that each user of the FON Community has registered and is identifiable." Not very reassuring to me.
Will sit atop their houses and type their messages the old fashioned way.
Do you think it is free for the provider? No? Than what makes you special that you think someone else should pay for your convience?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Let me get this straight - Google, Ebay/Skype, Sequoia and Index are investing $22 million in a startup that
- aims to do something obvious("FON's idea is not entirely novel - in fact, several companies and associations have tried to tie together free Wi-Fi hotspots into networks, but no one has succeeded on a large scale.")
- doesn't yet have a plan on how to prevent the notoriously insular/suspicious ISP's from blocking this service("FON faces a hurdle in that most ISPs prohibit subscribers from sharing internet access with people outside their household")
- doesn't have the software for the "Bill"(read: paying) part of the idea for the next 4 months
- is going against the grain when it comes to wi-fi trends(wasn't Google itself planning to offer free wi-fi in SF?)
- is treading slippery legal ground here(consumers reselling their Internet connections to others)
But wait, Google is investing in it so I guess this really must be a great idea right?
This has all the potential to start a new revolution in P2P bandwidth sharing, just like Napster. In the end, the whole this is pretty good for easy/cheap internet access. But....
The whole thing rests with a private company.
Unlike Napster:
1. The entry barrier is huge. [We are not dealing with data alone]
2. It is difficult to switch to another service; unlike Kazaa to eDonkey to BitTorrent. The reach of the service is local, for Napster it was anyone anywhere with a Network Connection.
3. The guy who started this, is more of a shrewd businessman. He may not give a damn about all that "Freedom" that we really care about.
4. Lots of chicken and egg issues for a competitor to spring up [like ISP support]
By 2008, if this service has 5 million people hooked (like Napster); then where will we stand? To emphasize, unlike switching email providers, or P2P servers, the entry barrier will be monstrous; and only an investment from the likes of Microsoft or IBM will create a competitor.
I will never sign-up for this!
Life is just a conviction.
All this and I didn't even RTFA.
Hardly anybody RTFA. Mesh networks with multiple outlets to the general Internet threaten the entire status quo; the telecom companies fear this and that is exactly why we all need to promote it. Your ability to get your bits in and out of your neighborhood network is terrifying to the established telecom monopolies as well as the giant media companies. This is what we have to work to implement immediately.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
It looks like an attempt made by a company that wants to leech off some cash from various wireless APs, but wants to appease the /. community by giving it's product plans names like "Linus" and "Bill".
Charging for wi-fi access is just plain selfish unlesss that is all you offer as a business. For example: Starbucks makes so much money selling drinks and other crap, they could easily give it away. Don't even give me that crap that people would sit all day and surf. Some would, but they would be in the vast minority. Most people buy their swill, bs with someone for a few and head into the adjoining bookstore.
The obvious response to this would be to not go to Starbucks. If you don't like that a business will not give you free internet access, don't shop there. This seems pretty brain dead simple to me. Hell, here in Boston there is a Starbucks and an ESR. ESR offers a free and open wi-fi access. Guess which place I buy my coffee from?
If the manager of Starbucks feels that offering free wi-fi will hurt business, then why should he do it? If he thinks he can make extra by charging for wi-fi, why not? If you don't like it, go some where else.
The MPAA is suing your ass for some movie you never heard of. They offer you to settle for $4000 or risk going to court and loosing thousands more. This is what happened to me. I talked to several lawyers and they all came to the same conclusion; "If it's only $4K you should take the settlement." It doesn't matter that I was innocent. The only thing that matters is the RIAA/MPAA has more money and time than me and they can bankrupt me, but not the other way around.
A dangerous precident is being set right now and I feel as if we as private citizens are helpless.
Skype is both closed source and more importantly uses closed VoIP protocols. It is the antithesis of the 'Linus'. If you don't think that matters, then you just don't get it.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
Except that if it was up to Richard, we'd still be waiting to be able to boot the GNU system on more than two pieces of hardware. I'll take Linus on the "actions speak louder" principle. Which, if you think about it, applies perfectly well to this hotspot thing. It's about standing up for a certain standard (in this case, internet service) by demonstrating what you want and embodying the change and yadda yadda yadda.
I understand they replace the router's firmware. So I wonder if that new firmware would addresses the problem of sharing your Internet connection without sharing your LAN.
I do have an open access point at home, because I appreciate my ability to use other people's access points when I'm on the road, and so I feel I have to share mine as well.
BUT, I don't want to share my LAN.
It just happens that I do have 2 access points at home, so what I do is that I use the crypted one and leave the other one open for friends, visitors and passers-by.
This is not a very good solution, because I need to remember to switch off the open AP whenever I connect an insecure machine on my LAN (like during OS install, etc.), and every time I switch it back on, I have to think about my notebook's firewall and sharing settings.
What would be really great would be a router solving these problems in an easily configurable way: some authenticated users have access to the whole LAN while others have not.
Until now, the only solution I have seen is a VLAN switch, which is too expensive for home use.
Slippery legal ground? They offer money to ISPs so it will be done by agreement, they only have to get one ISP in any area to sign up and that ISP will gain more customers who want to use the FON system.
Think about it, all other things being equal, if with one ISP you can use FON and with another not, and you can gain something from it (free roaming) then the ISP who accepts FON will get more customers, plus the revenue share FON are offering.
"I personally think Richard would be more appropiate than Linus. The freeness of Linux in particular and GNU/Linux in general comes from RMS's ideals, or more precisely his expression of some ideals common to many people. Linus has done a great job, but the antithesis of Windows is GNU."
Actually, BSD is the antithesis of Windows, because it is the only completely free OS. RMS's GNU puts strings on it's "free" software that limit how you can distribute modified copies.
Vote for Pedro