Slashdot Mirror
How a DIY Network Plans To Subvert Time Warner Cable's NYC Internet Monopoly (vice.com)
Jason Koebler writes: Toppling a telecom monopoly is the dream of many Americans, but the folks at NYC Mesh are actually doing something about it. On any given weekend, Brian Hall and his fellow organizers can be found around the city, installing directional Wi-Fi routers on rooftops. Anyone in the city who lives near another person on the network is welcome to join, and NYC Mesh volunteers will help you install a rooftop router. The network is still small, but it has partnered with two internet exchanges to install "super nodes" that have a range of several miles and are connected directly to the backbone of the internet.
When there is a will there is a way. It's only a matter of time before the "last mile" problem finds alternate solutions. I *love* this!
This will provide some healthy competition to a market where there's usually only one or two companies providing internet and who own an officially sanctioned monopoly in the area.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
it has partnered with two internet exchanges to install "super nodes" that have a range of several miles and are connected directly to the backbone of the internet.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Well, they mention that they are partnering with two Internet exchanges, so I assume TWC is not involved.
They and others have been around for over a decade and are highly efficient. I assume that is what they are using.
> I don't understand how this works.
Somewhere, it funnels everyone to an AOL dial-up machine running Trumpet ...
They have two links to the backbone. The agreement you sign for that type of a hookup is not going to be the same as consumer internet access agreements. They are pretty explicitly creating an ISP. Every ISP is hooked up somewhere to the backbone as well, so you can't say "oh they hooked up to the backbone therefore they aren't allowed to provide internet services". That doesn't follow at all. The novelty of this is the network. They are installing wireless routers to create a mesh network that will facilitate communication inside the network and everything else goes in and out of the backbone hookup. This is different from the physical infrastructure required by running cables and setting up towers because presumably they are in unregulated EM spectrum with small devices for the regular nodes. It's easy for them to expand the network cheaply and don't have issues with getting approval from the municipal government.
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
The easier regulation is to hold the router owner responsible for everything that passes through it, which will, of course, include child porn and terrorism.
Indeed. A lot of regulation out there is NOT socialists per se trying to control things, but rather crony capitalism whereby fat cats (legally) bribe laws into place to keep small cats out of the market.
Socialists then get all the blame.
I'm happy someone is trying to stick it to a big telecom. Big telecoms have turned me grayer than Bernie Sanders over the years. They can die an ugly painful death along with Microsoft, Oracle, and SCO. I wish this new endeavor luck and success.
Table-ized A.I.
I guarantee that TWC will do anything and everything in their power to stop this, slow down the implementation process, or just make their lives as difficult as possible. Right on down to standing on the steps of city hall holding their breath.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for what these people are doing. I just can't see TWC letting this go without a fight, or at least a temper tantrum.
Air-Stream in South Australia have been doing this successfully for a long time and is one of the largest wireless community networks in the world.
http://air-stream.org/
Also WACAN in Western Australia is doing well.
http://www.wacan.asn.au/
I don't think you need to throttle, but you can have speed tiers. You would probably require each subscriber to use PPPoE to prevent abuse.
If you have a node that is near a super node you will probably be using significantly more electricity and using more of your wireless bandwidth. That means less bandwidth for local traffic.
Moving to town from the ranch to satisfy the whims of the human I was happily sexing with, we ordered up some cable to go with the only rental our budget would allow. It was like Christmas in April on our row, since the last paying cable customer had departed weeks ago... I say row, because it was ill-advised to cross the paved street with your bootleg connection.
As fast as the cable company would uncover illegal splices, the park denizens would repair/replace the barely buried RG-6.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
So I love this.
Don't step on the baby.
I'm looking forward to NYC mesh eating into their bottom line!!! :-)
what about the bigger legal issues of CP & uploading / downloading copyrighted stuff over this. Where the host can be the one doing the hard time.
In a mesh, more nodes = more paths.
As much as I admire these folks, it's gonna be a network with limited throughput but potentially high resiliency except where it interfaces with the rest of the 'net. I've done many tens-of-kilometer shots, many home-brewed networks, using things like DD-WRT, Open-WRT, Tomato, etc., and it's great fun but it's something that requires regular heavy lifting, maintenance, investment, and quickly one realizes just how hard it is to not only keep running but to expand and grow. Go for it!
I'd prefer to see the mesh hosting any number of ISPs (which the ISP subscribers would tunnel to through the mesh) kind of like when municipal fiber is done right.
In a mesh, more nodes = more paths.
It's also wireless, which means that more nodes = more total traffic one the limited bandwidth available. Doccis has the same limitation, but when you add a router to a congested wifi location, the congestion gets worse, not better. When you add routers to Doccis, the individual congestion clears up.
Mesh networks work reasonably well up to about 1000 - 2000 nodes per square mile. Above that, performance drops as a function of n*log(n). By the time you reach 10,000 nodes per square mile, performance on 802.11n drops to less average bandwidth than old school DSL. at 20,000 nodes per square mile, bandwidth has dropped to dialup speeds. New york city (including the boroughs) has over 25,000 residents per square mile. That means that the Mesh network cant handle more than 10% of the population before performance begins to drop under ideal conditions. Under real world conditions, It is likely to be half that, and will get worse over time as more and more bandwidth pollution is brought into service in the form of the IoT. The part that people don't understand about mesh networks, is that even with huge numbers of gateway routers, once more than a dozen nodes are within reach of each other, their traffic starts interfering with each other significantly due to multiple transmission collisions. Directional antennas help a little, but not nearly enough, especially when there are vastly more sources of wifi that are not part of the mesh that inject pockets of congestion and provide no services to the mesh (other peoples wifi routers who are time warner customers for example).
Mesh networks have their uses, but the operating envelope is a relatively narrow band of opportunity, which will not allow them to "take the city by storm".
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
That's not necessarily true if you're using directional antennas to partition the mesh. For that matter, if you're using directional antennas you could probably get away with infra-red links, which have a huge potential bandwidth. Doesn't sound like they're doing anything that fancy, though. Sounds more like a cellular system with a mesh local connection, which, which a small enough cell, could be done with next to no power so you wouldn't have a problem with overloading.
Yeah, if they were using a simple mesh network they could easily get overfilled, but then they wouldn't be using directional antennas, so that's not what they're doing.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Don't feed the trolls.... Don't feed the trolls.... Gotta keep telling myself that...
Nice idea...
But to fit into the FCC's "Safe Harbor" category, where you, as an ISP, aren't held liable and legally responsible for the illegal content flowing through your network (think child porn and DMCA), you'll have to maintain records for each and every IP address: who is using it, when they are using it, and ensure you can send the lawyers to the exact location that was using that IP address at the date/time that they specify.
Did you consider this one legal facet of your idea (out of probably 100?) There's way, way more to being an ISP than just offering a path to the internet...
Slashdot readers may recall the:
.. " to get to the many "internet exchange" or "carrier-neutral interconnection facility” options is the real question.
How a Group of Rural Washington Neighbors Created Their Own Internet Service (November 01, 2015)
http://mobile.slashdot.org/sto...
How a group of neighbors created their own Internet service (Nov 1, 2015)
http://arstechnica.com/informa...
The "But all of the nodes are eventually routed through a
What can an existing network cartel do about such competition in their captive cities and states? Some car sale related ideas might be useful?
For security each connection has to be paid for, listed and have an ip range that can be logged.
Ensure every connection in the US to a consumer is a final hop directly to a federally listed provider by law?
Make sure the list of allowed brands that can sell to the US consumer is complex, regulated and very expensive to join.
A system of internet medallions per city, state that show users can be tracked. Only a select few traditional providers brands could have long term secure staffing for all direct contact with end users to legally supply the internet.
Invoke a law to alter free bandwidth use to ensure the final internet connection can only be for use by the user paying for their own network.
Users can connect to each other in a community network but any internet sharing is not legal. No direct selling down to groups of end users.
Track and chat down each home connecting and then find the new "direct" provider. Users will then have to reconnect to the more traditional providers.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
You can make your receive as directional as you like, but the transmit has EIRP limits imposed by the FCC so you can't just focus it down to a narrow beam or amp up the power.
Also the wireless network may be a mesh. but everyone wants to connect to the internet, so it becomes a (multi) star topology centered around, presumably, a handful of wireless Internet gateways.
Also (can I have that many alsos ?) for most people the traffic will be coming mainly from the internet to the edge not the other direction, I think the limits on eirp for the "downstream" link will be the ultimate limiting factor in scaling.
Plus what does this do to everyone else's UNII and ISM band devices ?
Perhaps they should concentrate on Netflix only and put a number of shared CDN cache nodes at the edge.
This would be better in licensed spectrum, there are "licence lite" spectral allocations available for this kind of WiMax style operation and reasonably priced equipment too
Nullius in verba
If they're acting as an ISP they're on the hook for a lot of problems. I doubt cheap routers will allow the realtime access and backdoors required by various laws.
The part that you don't understand about two-way radio communication is that transmit power is always downwardly adjustable. Therefore, self-interference can be mitigated.
Kid-proof tablet..
That would become a huge liability for the ISP since they have the biggest router. So no, they won't push for that one.
We the Church of God's Light feel our message should be spread and shared. God's light cannot be spread by sound or by electrons. This is God's Light: it must be sent by photons. Google fiber is perfect for spreading God's Light, but many areas are sadly deficient. Members may also string their own fiber optic networks on their local telephone poles to stay in good standing. If your municipality, HOA, or zoning board objects: please explain they will have to ban Jewish eruvs as well and how much luck they will have with that.
Sermons are from 6:00:00 PM EST to 6:00:30 on the summer solstice. Members are warmly encouraged to spread light on their networks at other times and for other purposes. It is all God's Light.
Can I get an Amen?
....incoming Time-Warner lawsuit in 3...2...1...
Oh I can't wait to hear how Time-Warner will claim that this "stifles their business" or that it's an "unfair competitor" or or "will promote child porn" some other such silly horseshit. Whatever it is you can bet the Time-Warner lawyers are working overtime thinking up ways to shut it down. Mark my fuckin' words.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Doesn't Verizon have FIOS and/or wireless networking through converted phone booths? I didn't know Time-Warner had such a firm grip on New York's high-speed Internet access market.
Sorry, love the tech talk. But get a kick out of all this being a repeat of "wifi for all!" in the 90s. And the autes, and just... well... repeating the same BS every 10 years I guess.
I live in NYC. Time Warner Sucks - I've never used them. Over the years I've used DSL, RCN Cable, and FIOS. I welcome new competitors to a thriving marketplace.
IR and fiber are just forms of directional wifi. There are good implementations of wifi backhauls in cities with congested frequencies. There are limitations, but you can have a pretty reliable good design.
Ahhh. I feel terrible for there sudden loss. Send flowers dear.
Do you have a citation for this?
I think you might be referring to the CALEA requirements which also apply to WISPs. There is no CALEA requirement to maintain the records you suggest however most ISPs do for other reasons and if you provide voice over IP services, the FCC does require location data to support E991. With or without these records, CALEA requires ISPs to aid law enforcement in identifying and wiretapping targets.
No, CALEA is completely a different situation, and yes, as an ISP you would be required to conform to CALEA requirements as well. Safe Harbor is defined in the DMCA: http://digital-law-online.info....