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."
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.
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?
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
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.
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.