Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Test WiFi Access From Moving Vehicles

Julie188 writes "Researchers from Microsoft and the University of Massachusetts have been working on a technology that would let mobile phones and other 3G devices automatically switch to public WiFi even while the device is traveling in a vehicle. The technology is dubbed Wiffler and earlier this year its creators took it for a test drive with some interesting results. Although the researchers determined that a reliable public WiFi hotspot would be available to their test vehicles only 11% of the time, the Wiffler protocol was able to offload almost 50% of the data from 3G to WiFi."

28 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. call it what it is by Thud457 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I prefer the OSS term for this technology, "autoleech".

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:call it what it is by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I thought this was called "How Google Got In Trouble (aka 'HoGGIT')"

  2. Researched this myself by TrisexualPuppy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The multipath and doppler effects SUCK. This is why Wimax doesn't work well in vehicles and why the Mobile Wimax variant is more popular in such realms.

    But once you have the physical layer taken care of, you can play cool little tricks like data queuing for WAPs to save cost. Locational awareness is also feasible to anticipate whether there will be a hotspot in a quarter of a mile or to go ahead with the transfer now.

  3. not gonna work by alex_guy_CA · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I had my phone setup to auto connect to wifi, but there is a lot of wifi out there that looks open and free to my phone, only it takes you to a page where you have to log in. Peets coffe, most hotels.

    When I hit one of these, it sort of grinds everything to a halt, as the phone thinks it has a wi-fi connection but does not.

    1. Re:not gonna work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There really needs to be a standard way for an access point to say "I have no wireless authentication, but I am not open" when advertising itself, to allow devices to respond appropriately.

    2. Re:not gonna work by choongiri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Right, so you make the technology smart. It connects to the unsecured wireless network, attempts to make outgoing connections, and if the outgoing connection fails (or is redirected to a login page), switches to another network. You could quite easily test the connection in the background before attempting to pass application data to it.

    3. Re:not gonna work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with that approach is that it takes a long time, so it isn't suitable for mobile applications (not even if you're just walking). First you have to scan the available frequencies for beacon frames, then you have to send a frame to associate, then you have to receive an acknowledgment, then you have to send a DHCP broadcast, then the DHCP server has to give you an IP address, then you have to send a ping (echo request) to a host on the internet, then you have to get an echo reply back and only then can you start using your application protocol. If at any step you don't get a response (how long do you wait?), you can either retry or restart the whole process (including rescanning, because you may have moved out of range of a previously promising open network).

      Grandparent is right: There needs to be a standard way for wireless access points to declare automatic public internet access. Furthermore, the handshakes (association and address negotiation) should be reduced or eliminated.

    4. Re:not gonna work by choongiri · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This whole tech, though, is designed for applications where slight delays in sending the data don't matter. It's about offloading 3G usage onto wifi where possible. Every step you mentioned has to happen anyway, and a ping takes what, an extra 50ms? Could it be done more efficiently if you were building up a system from scratch? Sure, but this is about offloading data use onto existing networks.

  4. Define "Public" by Dancindan84 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's been a fair number of stories recently of people getting in trouble for "stealing" bandwidth from unsecured wireless routers, and not just when using it for illegal purposes. I don't agree with this. I think it should be the owners responsibility to secure their network, but the possibility for legal ramifications exists.

    --
    "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
    1. Re:Define "Public" by Dancindan84 · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
    2. Re:Define "Public" by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't agree with this. I think it should be the owners responsibility to secure their network, but the possibility for legal ramifications exists.

      So, if I have an electrical outlet outside of my house and I don't "secure it", should people be able to plug into my electricity with impunity? How about my garden hose? If I don't physically bar someone from parking in my driveway, that's OK? Is it OK to help yourself to my garden? How about siphoning the gas out of my car?

      There's loads of things in the physical world that aren't necessarily secured, but that you don't have a reasonable expectation of being able to use.

      I don't agree in any way that just because the wireless isn't 100% locked down that you should get a free pass to just use it. You know you're using a network that isn't yours -- just because you can connect to it doesn't mean you have carte blanch.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Define "Public" by rotide · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I see where you're going with that line of thinking and I agree to an extent. However, all of those analogies require you to physically go out and take/plug in/steal something that clearly isn't yours and shouldn't be.

      Logging onto an unsecured WiFi connection can be done incredibly easy while I'm in my pajamas in the middle of a blizzard. It can also be done innocently and unknowingly. "Wait, there are 4 "linksys" networks, which was mine again?".

      While I don't agree with torrenting or otherwise saturating someones connection, leaving it wide open and then being pissed when someone logs onto it is almost as ridiculous as yelling to your neighbor across the street and getting mad when another neighbors listens in and potentially adds their two cents. If you're not going to take the time to secure your broadcast transmissions, don't get pissed at those who listen/use it.

    4. Re:Define "Public" by Dancindan84 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      All of the things you've described have 2 things that make them very different from using unsecured wireless:
      1. All of those things you've described require someone to trespass on your properly to get access to. Wireless could be available from as far away as across the street or in a completely different building.
      2. It's very easy to secure a wireless network, whereas securing those physical things would be rather awkward.
      3. There's no easy way to know if the network is public, or someone's private unsecured network. Sometimes it's obvious, but often it isn't.
      • Last year when I went to Myrtle Beach for a vacation, the beach had public wifi set up for anyone to use. There were also some private wifi from the nearby condos that were unsecured. If I hadn't been told about the public wifi on the beach by the condo company I rented from, I wouldn't have known which was which. The SIDs weren't named to be obviously private or public.)
      --
      "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
    5. Re:Define "Public" by chill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And if you leave your front porch light on, should I be able to stand on the public sidewalk and read by it?

      Or, if you leave your blinds open and your big screen T.V. on, should I be able to stand on the public sidewalk and watch?

      Your cases are different because there are per-usage charges for the items you mention: water and electricity. If you paid a flat-rate for either, regardless of usage, it would be an interesting question. Especially because neither of them are "yours", you are just paying for usage from a utility.

      A different case for your driveway, garden or gasoline. They are finite resources that use by another deprives your of their use. That is one of the basic issues behind theft.

      Internet bandwidth, if used such that it didn't interfere with your usage, is a different animal. As long as you aren't saturating it, you aren't suffering a loss either of money or resource. With out a loss of product or service, how can you justify calling it a crime?

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    6. Re:Define "Public" by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Logging onto an unsecured WiFi connection can be done incredibly easy while I'm in my pajamas in the middle of a blizzard. It can also be done innocently and unknowingly. "Wait, there are 4 "linksys" networks, which was mine again?".

      *laugh* For one, there is no "it was so easy I did it in my underpants" defense. Ease doesn't equate with right -- stealing candy from babies is trivial, for instance. ;-)

      There's also a huge difference between inadvertently using the wrong wifi, and intentionally looking for unsecured wifi.

      Sadly, wifi routers are so cheap and easy to get, that lots of people just fire it up, go through the setup wizard, and never think of it again.

      For much of the consumer public, these things are treated like toasters. Turn 'em on and go. They just don't realize there's more to it. The availability of the tech has outstripped the knowledge of the people using it.

      Right or wrong, these have become consumer devices used as black boxes -- the companies making them should make them a little more secure, and try to steer you into having some protections on it -- having them all have the same SSID and passwords is bad. Unfortunately, that would likely lead to more support issues for them as people call and say "teh wireless doesn't work" as people get lost in the instructions or lose their passwords.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Define "Public" by wwfarch · · Score: 2, Informative
      Wireless vs wired has almost no bearing on whether or not you can use up a 250 GB bandwidth limit. The bandwidth available to wifi is typically much higher than the internet bandwidth itself.

      Assuming 30 days in a month that 250GB limit would be reached with a consistent throughput of just over 100 KBps. If you can't push that over your wireless connection then you have something seriously wrong in your network setup.

  5. Re:Yo moron by tepples · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just because it doesn't work on your iFruit doesn't mean that it won't work with something that was designed for this purpose.

    But how would a city bus line offering Wi-Fi negotiate carriage with every AP on its routes?

  6. 11% of the time by jc42 · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... researchers determined that a reliable public WiFi hotspot would be available to their test vehicles only 11% of the time ...

    but then a closer look found that in those cases, 99% had the SID "Free Public WiFi".

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  7. Re:Yo moron by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But how would a city bus line offering Wi-Fi negotiate carriage with every AP on its routes?

    And would a bus using this technology in the Netherlands have to register as an ISP?

  8. Cohda by femto · · Score: 2, Informative

    You need this, a box which eliminates doppler and multipath from 802.11 channels.

  9. Already been done by BodeNGE · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's already been done in 2007 by Nokia and Siemens, and is part of the 3GPP standard. 3GPP TR 23.806 (for voice, but works for data too). Repeat after me all you Americans: International standards are better than propriatary ones.

  10. Re:Yo moron by Grismar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I certainly hope so, because that will help overturn the rules that imply same for hotels. It simply doesn't make sense; if it has to be regulated, it could just as easily be changed to "a hotel has to register as an ISP if it provides network access to others than their guests". It's besides the point though, as far as TFA is concerned. However, trains already provide Wi-Fi as we speak and buses may just as well - and they'll have a harder time convincing the powers that be that they're not serving the public. It will be nigh impossible to restrict access to people inside the bus, unless you feel like changing the passkey for the connection every you hop onto a bus.

  11. Re:Yo moron by hedwards · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The transit system around here was working on that for a while. What they did was set up a low power access point in the middle of the bus, and hooked that up to a cellular card. The effect was that you were using WiFi, but since you were in the same reference frame, you didn't have to deal with any of the random interruptions you would otherwise have to deal with.

    The main problem would be in tunnels and plain old congestion.

  12. 802.11p by SirMasterboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Isn't this idea kind of what the 802.11p amendment that was published last summer was for?

  13. only 50% - must not have been on 128 at rush hours by Locutus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    with the typical AP having only a 300m range in open air and traveling at 55+ MPH, they would be in and out of the AP quite quickly. But, if they were sitting in traffic then that would be another story. I've been quite disappointed with how many of the Android apps rely on 100% data connectivity instead of intermittent connectivity. Even the facebook app just dumps a notification and does not continue with the post or upload unless the user interacts with the notification. I found no setting in the maps/navigation app to cache the route but must rely on me manually scrolling through the entire route to cache it and then hit the road. Believe it or not, there are still dead xG spots out there and wifi-only is currently not an option.

    Maybe this study will wake up the apps developers to intermittent connectivity and make the device much easier to use.

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  14. Host Information Protocol (HIP) by WebManWalking · · Score: 2, Informative

    Isn't that what HIP is for? Maintaining identity/virtual connections as one transitions across multiple Internet access points? At first glance, this appears to be reinventing the wheel.

  15. Previous Research by mythandros · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's a paper written by a fellow who's now a professor at U of I, Chicago which relates to the topic. The gist is that taxi's in a city were equipped with wifi and opportunistically connected to open access points as they traveled. The article won't revolutionize anything but it's certainly an interesting read and something worthy of building upon. One of the interesting parts is that the taxi-side wifi used a custom written utility to accelerate establishing a connection which didn't bother negotiating transmission speed but rather used a fixed 11Mbps as this was determined to be optimal for the setting.

  16. Wi-Fi for pass holders only by tepples · · Score: 2

    It will be nigh impossible to restrict access to people inside the bus, unless you feel like changing the passkey for the connection every you hop onto a bus.

    Or unless the captive portal requires logging in with credentials issued by the transit authority. For example, even a bus system that doesn't operate on Sundays issues reduced-fare cards to seniors and people with disabilities, and it also sells monthly passes.