"A wireless access point is a one-time investment, and is relatively inexpensive, however bandwidth is not free."
Like hell it's not. If I plug in the WAP and start transmitting, I'm creating bandwidth for free, aren't I? Now, Internet bandwidth, that's another story -- it's not free, neither as-in-beer, nor as-in-freedom, thanks to the telco/cable monopolies that are, for most people, the only way of getting bits out the door.
Being able to surf the web from the cafe while sipping a latte is not particularly interesting. What's interesting is how communities are coming together to build MANs and other networks that are free-as-in-freedom -- networks that are distributed, in the hands of the people, and free from corporate or government interference. The real revolution is happening outside the coffee shop, where we're building these networks, node by node, as we speak.
So what purpose will these community networks serve? Who knows! Remember, the Internet was designed to keep US government networks alive through a nuclear war -- who could have envisioned Slashdot, Amazon, Napster, et al. emerging from that? We believe that if we build it, they will come. (And so what if they don't -- I'll still be able to trade files with and make phone calls to my neighbors.)
Well, sort of. If the point is to "extend" the Internet, hell yeah someone has to pay for that bandwidth.
But if the point is to build a "parallel network" that's distributed, free from the telco monopolies, and in the hands of the people -- a network that's free-as-in-freedom -- then you can't truthfully say it's unworkable, because we're making it work as we speak.
That's why I don't offhand care if Sputnik wants to have a go making money off my software (NoCatAuth)... 'Cause I'm not going to be the one doing the tech support!;-)
Well, it's true that unencrypted layer 2 traffic sucks over wireless. However, NoCatAuth combats this by requiring credentials to be resubmitted every so often. These credentials are sent only via SSL and are in theory secure. Therefore, if a MAC address is hijacked, the hijacker will only have at best a couple minutes before the session expires on them. This was considered "good enough", given what we have to work with. Any further questions, don't hesitate to visit the website & join the mailing list.
Yer damn right. Have you taken a look at NoCatAuth yet? As it happens we're working on a C port that should run comfortably on one of these. Join the mailing list to find out more.
Slashdot Mirror
This, and then the very next day, I get SPAM from Microsoft!
http://oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/2895
If condoms are free, then get her some Astro-Glide -- the best possible condom-ment. (Heh, get it?)
Poor ELJ. They got "Perl Journal"-ed! :-(
(note what happens when you visit tpj.com...)
"A wireless access point is a one-time investment, and is relatively inexpensive, however bandwidth is not free."
Like hell it's not. If I plug in the WAP and start transmitting, I'm creating bandwidth for free, aren't I? Now, Internet bandwidth, that's another story -- it's not free, neither as-in-beer, nor as-in-freedom, thanks to the telco/cable monopolies that are, for most people, the only way of getting bits out the door.
Being able to surf the web from the cafe while sipping a latte is not particularly interesting. What's interesting is how communities are coming together to build MANs and other networks that are free-as-in-freedom -- networks that are distributed, in the hands of the people, and free from corporate or government interference. The real revolution is happening outside the coffee shop, where we're building these networks, node by node, as we speak.
So what purpose will these community networks serve? Who knows! Remember, the Internet was designed to keep US government networks alive through a nuclear war -- who could have envisioned Slashdot, Amazon, Napster, et al. emerging from that? We believe that if we build it, they will come. (And so what if they don't -- I'll still be able to trade files with and make phone calls to my neighbors.)
Well, sort of. If the point is to "extend" the Internet, hell yeah someone has to pay for that bandwidth.
But if the point is to build a "parallel network" that's distributed, free from the telco monopolies, and in the hands of the people -- a network that's free-as-in-freedom -- then you can't truthfully say it's unworkable, because we're making it work as we speak.
Two minor factual corrections:
(1) LANRoamer and NoCatAuth appear to have started around the same time.
(2) NoCatAuth does indeed authenticate from behind NAT'ed firewalls.
That's why I don't offhand care if Sputnik wants to have a go making money off my software (NoCatAuth) ... 'Cause I'm not going to be the one doing the tech support! ;-)
Well, it's true that unencrypted layer 2 traffic sucks over wireless. However, NoCatAuth combats this by requiring credentials to be resubmitted every so often. These credentials are sent only via SSL and are in theory secure. Therefore, if a MAC address is hijacked, the hijacker will only have at best a couple minutes before the session expires on them. This was considered "good enough", given what we have to work with. Any further questions, don't hesitate to visit the website & join the mailing list.
Yer damn right. Have you taken a look at NoCatAuth yet? As it happens we're working on a C port that should run comfortably on one of these. Join the mailing list to find out more.