Slashdot Mirror


Making Wireless Carriers Play Together

An anonymous reader writes "Ok, so the idea of opening all Wi-Fi networks in a misthought utopian vision didn't go over so well. But no one discussed the best part of open Wi-Fi networks: bonding different Wi-Fi and mobile carriers to get the best price and decent performance. We could save money and avoid lock in by bouncing to whoever gives us the best rate, and, when we need speed, jump on all of them at once for a network bonded boost."

41 of 58 comments (clear)

  1. Go Away by Antipater · · Score: 3, Informative

    You don't get to make another Slashdot submission to say "and another thing!" just because nobody liked your first one.

    --
    Everything is better with chainsaws.
    1. Re:Go Away by GeniusDex · · Score: 1

      Unless you add chainsaws.

    2. Re:Go Away by Antipater · · Score: 2

      Well, of course. Wouldn't everyone here like to see "Making Wireless Carriers Play Together [With Chainsaws]"?

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    3. Re:Go Away by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I think actually you do. Case in point.

    4. Re:Go Away by JazzLad · · Score: 2
      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
  2. niche devices by alen · · Score: 1

    the hotspots have too many limitations

    which is why everyone is buying a smartphone. the service is not that expensive if you're on a multi line account

  3. Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Police Raid Wrong House, Steal 18-Year-Old Girl's Computer Thanks to Unsecured WiFi Connection

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/29/police-raid-wrong-house-through-technolo

    1. Re:Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      At some point an IP address would stop becoming sufficient justification to raid someone's house.

    2. Re:Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At some point an IP address would stop becoming sufficient justification to raid someone's house.

      That point will probably be when the cops bust down the wrong door, and a firefight ensues.

      Which, considering the pure idiocy of Knee-Jerk America, will likely result in even more attempts to ban guns, instead of focusing on and fixing the actual problem of overzealous, militarized police departments.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! by mspohr · · Score: 1

      There are thousands (? millions) of free WiFi hot spots and I have never heard of a SWAT team being sent to any of them because of "IP abuse".

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    4. Re:Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      At some point an IP address would stop becoming sufficient justification to raid someone's house

      By and large it is NOT sufficient. I work for a company that tracks and recovers stolen laptops. We recover up to 150 per week. Rarely will the police be willing to knock on a door based on IP address data alone - They almost always need additional forensic evidence before they are willing to engage.

    5. Re:Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! by geminidomino · · Score: 2

      Call me cynical, but I think that probably has more to do with the nature of the crime (theft) rather than the quantity or quality of the evidence. An IP address is plenty good enough when someone says something that's a particular type of stupid on a webforum.

    6. Re:Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      That point will probably be when the cops bust down the wrong door, and a firefight ensues.

      Nearly already happened. But it was for kiddee porn so, it was ok.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    7. Re:Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Living in Texas, and having watched a raid down the street, I tend to disagree. The difference is that the police treat even domestic disputes as Waco-style raids, with the police themselves whipping out their AR-15s just because the same two people were fighting again and the neighbors called in again.

      This is what we'd have to look forward to until the courts decided that IP addresses are junk. Which is, of course, exactly the reason we should keep our wifi open.

    8. Re:Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Not a firefight, maybe something like the 'away from home-home' of a Senator/Congressman, who happens to be entertaining his boyfriend at the time...then a law will be passed requiring more than an IP address.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    9. Re:Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Call me cynical, but I think that probably has more to do with the nature of the crime

      oh, you think you're cynical - I assumed it was an unwillingness on the part of the department to prosecute simple crimes like public urination.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    10. Re:Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! by socialleech · · Score: 1

      What you're saying isn't much different than a police force kicking in someone's door based on eye witness testimony. Which has been proved many times to be both unreliable, misleading, and/or incorrect.(I could google more links than I could fit in that sentence, JFGI if you need proof of that statement)

      Did that person really see you? Or do they think they see you? Hard to decide and/or prove both ways. I wont add anything more to that statement/question, take it as it is.

    11. Re:Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      They love those. They get to use them to pad thier "sex-offender" bust stats, which are good as gold come budget time.

    12. Re:Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      They love those. They get to use them to pad thier "sex-offender" bust stats, which are good as gold come budget time.

      Oh, right. I forgot that pissing on the side of the road is a no-voting, no-guns for-life crime nowadays.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  4. What's the point? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just because you can connect to multiple spigots doesn't meant that they don't eventually lead to the same water main. As for saving the customer money Android already provides for the ability to switch over to configured WiFi hotspots when detected.

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    1. Re:What's the point? by mcelrath · · Score: 2

      Sure Android will switch to a wifi hotspot, but that paywall/clickwall the provider put up will cause all apps/browsers to download the clickwall instead of their intended destination, and break. I frequently find myself having to disable wifi because I'm in a coffee shop that I frequent, and don't want to deal with your clickwall just so I can pull up google maps to get directions. Happens in airports especially. I'd just rather use the 3G than deal with your clickwall, for some trivial info lookup. Android needs to figure out whether it has a real connection or a clickwall, before routing all your traffic through the new connection.

      Switching between wifi and cellular is far from perfect. I don't believe e.g. Skype can really handle switching upstream providers at all...

      --
      1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
    2. Re:What's the point? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you come from a rural area where everyone has the short-sighted, "all about me", "because f**k you is why" mentality but you may wish to consider one of the main reasons the main is so much larger than the service feeds. You're not the only one that being serviced by it. For each person that opened say 20 spigots that'd be 19 fewer people that could be serviced. If the main had sufficient capacity in the first place you wouldn't need 20 spigots, you'd just need a single larger one.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    3. Re:What's the point? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      Sure Android will switch to a wifi hotspot, but that paywall/clickwall the provider put up will cause all apps/browsers to download the clickwall instead of their intended destination, and break. I frequently find myself having to disable wifi because I'm in a coffee shop that I frequent, and don't want to deal with your clickwall just so I can pull up google maps to get directions. Happens in airports especially. I'd just rather use the 3G than deal with your clickwall, for some trivial info lookup. Android needs to figure out whether it has a real connection or a clickwall, before routing all your traffic through the new connection.

      Switching between wifi and cellular is far from perfect. I don't believe e.g. Skype can really handle switching upstream providers at all...

      this can be automated.. there's even standards for it, like wispr.
      pretty much nobody uses it though.

      this sounds like an american problem though. the areas where you would have multiple providers are such that you should have pretty decent 3g already.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:What's the point? by Zouden · · Score: 1

      Android doesn't use 3G if it's connected to a wifi network, regardless of whether the wifi connection works. That's the problem.

      --
      "A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
    5. Re:What's the point? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      (and elsewhere what's the point when your 3g is all you can download and 10 bucks a month..)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    6. Re:What's the point? by nmr_andrew · · Score: 1

      And where, pray tell me, can I get this mythical unlimited 3g service for $10/month. Most certainly nowhere in the US.

  5. Apparently by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

    Someone over at /. HQ has spent some time on a vision quest in Sonora. You should have left the Peace Pipe in Arizona.

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
  6. Re:Sense of entitlement by sribe · · Score: 1

    Please take your false sense of entitlement and go bond with your own network. You're unwelcome on any non sociopath's net.

    Uhhmmm, I'm pretty sure the sociopaths don't want this guy freeloading off them either...

  7. Wishful Thinking by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

    You all know the words - it's sing along time!

    Why can't we be friends,
    Why can't we be friends...

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  8. Remind me again... by Rod+Beauvex · · Score: 1

    Why isn't there one giant coast to coast network with many providers, the same way there is one internet with many ISP? Other than the obvious reasons of benefitting consumers.

    1. Re: Remind me again... by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      Uh....that's exactly what we have. Your wireless provider is just an ISP that provides a connection to the phone and internet networks.

  9. Wouldn't mind seeing what options exist by Yoik · · Score: 2

    I am in a neighborhood with choices in broadband, and have considered buying redundancy. Current promo options make it very feasible.

    Comcast here has reliability issues due both to overhead wires that go out for days(annually), and an irritating tendency to show lag (or momentary outages) in the 10-90 second range(daily or worse). I assume the latter is due to doing service on the live system, but is impossible for me to diagnose as it is gone before I can characterize the problem to even complain.

    I wouldn't mind adding a cheap DSL if I can bond the two in a way to improve my service, but I am not clear how to do that. True bonded service might work, but I don't know how to set that up on two IP addresses. My current router won't do it, and I haven't looked into equipment choices.

    Any suggestions?

    1. Re:Wouldn't mind seeing what options exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am in a neighborhood with choices in broadband, and have considered buying redundancy. Current promo options make it very feasible.

      Comcast here has reliability issues due both to overhead wires that go out for days(annually), and an irritating tendency to show lag (or momentary outages) in the 10-90 second range(daily or worse). I assume the latter is due to doing service on the live system, but is impossible for me to diagnose as it is gone before I can characterize the problem to even complain.

      I wouldn't mind adding a cheap DSL if I can bond the two in a way to improve my service, but I am not clear how to do that. True bonded service might work, but I don't know how to set that up on two IP addresses. My current router won't do it, and I haven't looked into equipment choices.

      Any suggestions?

      Try something like this:
      http://www.amazon.com/Syswan-SW24-Dual-WAN-Router/dp/B007SIT0VC

      I used it for a Cable and DSL combo. Might need to reboot it every couple of months, but it's good otherwise. Pretty simple web UI.

    2. Re:Wouldn't mind seeing what options exist by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Any suggestions?

      You can't bond two different ISP's, unless you own the end of a tunnel somewhere else (maybe a VPS), but you can pretty easily load balance and do failover with pfSense v2. The quick version: you set up both interfaces, both gateways, then you set up a gateway group with your fast ISP as Tier 1 and your slower ISP as Tier 2, and then in your LAN firewall rules, you put in an 'allow to all' rule at the end, with the gateway set to the gateway group. There's also a tick box to make the use of a gateway sticky for session affinity purposes and other variables that can be tuned (e.g. drop a member of the group on packet loss or latency thresholds).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  10. What is the thought here? by fermion · · Score: 1
    That some kid is whining because he can't afford but bandwidth to download p0rn fast enough?

    Right now there is enough speed on the mobile networks, at least in the city, to do what you want to do. Virgin 4G is pretty fast, when it is working. Even ATT LTE is pretty fast, but the limits makes it useless for anything real.

    As far as WiFi, again we have to look at where the money is. The cities could do what is suggested, but they have been thwarted.

    Eventually, hopefully, we will not have our mobile technology that was designed primarily to allow telephones to jump from access point to access point. WIFi may not be the best technology given range and power. And some sort of shaping technology will have be made to insure that people like the poster don't saturate the bandwidth when they want to get the latest blue movie.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  11. Re:Connectify Dispatch by bws111 · · Score: 1

    Um, yeah. Only three little problems to overcome.

    Physics: more people using WiFi does not increase speeds. Quite the opposite.

    Technology: No matter how many 'connections' you have, they are all using the same shared oversold resource. Using more of that resource on one connection means there is less bandwidth available for the other connections.

    Legal: This is no doubt very much against your TOS

  12. Re:Connectify Dispatch by bobbied · · Score: 1

    One MAJOR issue with this... My TOS (Terms of Service) with AT&T specifically disallows me sharing my network connection with more than 4 devices.

    My provider at home has TOS rules that keep me from letting people not living at or visiting my home from using the bandwith.

    You can bet the providers would find a way to stop this, either by TOS restrictions, by technical means or both.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  13. WE already have this, don't we? by aklinux · · Score: 1

    My Android phone already switches to configured WiFI when available, or am I supposed to buy accounts w/ all the carriers in my area?

    I don't see how bonding 2 connections to the same access point helps me any.

    I know I can bond multiple connections from my network, but is bonding connections from different carriers even possible?

  14. WAT by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    So you want to get a bunch of mobile hotspots in a room and then dynamically choose one based on some rules? You could used pfSense off the shelf for time-of-day and bonding purposes but I don't think it will handle packet accounting. For automatic routing look into the meshing algorithms (e.g. BATMAN) but that doesn't do everything you want either.

    Could we convince you to save a ton of money and have a cable modem put in instead?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  15. What would be really cool... by Vrtigo1 · · Score: 1

    What would be really cool in a not too distant future...

    Interoperable networks to the point that you can go buy a phone anywhere and use it on any network. No more CDMA vs GSM vs iDEN.

    Postpaid pay-as-you-go plans with every carrier

    Software on the phone that functions similar to a least cost routing algorithm...I.E. I want to send a text message right now, go check with every carrier and get their current SMS rate, then when you have it, select the carrier with the lowest rate and use them to send the message. Same thing for phone calls or data. Say you pop open the facebook app, your phone would go get the per KB data rate from every carrier and send the request through the cheapest one.

    Naturally the actual LCR algorithm itself would need to consume data to do its job, so perhaps this could be something built into the GSM spec where all of the towers exchange this info as part of the network overhead.

    But just think about what this could do...no more carrier lock in, no more price gouging, actual COMPETITION in the market.

    The telcos would HATE it and FIGHT it and try to make it ILLEGAL to do things this way.

    But take a second and actually think about it - how much would this do to promote innovation and prevent price fixing?

    You could actually probably do something similar to this today with the various prepaid carriers assuming you had two or more than were on the same network type...