A Motley Crew Beams No-Cost Broadband In New York 250
Peter Meyers points to this article in the Village Voice, one of the best I've seen on the growing guerilla-networking scene. He excerpts a bit for your pleasure: "Along with some 30 other volunteers in a group called NYCwireless, Townsend's on a crusade to set up wireless Internet access zones: small areas, often called free networks, where people can tap into high-speed connections, without cables or phone lines, at no cost. Call it a marriage of the Web and pirate radio, forged even as big telecom interests bicker over the rights to wireless-spectrum licenses."
maybe it's me (Score:3, Funny)
(and do they use tortorous sentences like the one composed above?)
Mile High Wireless needs people.... (Score:2, Informative)
guerilla network SYDNEY (Score:1)
London UK has a couple too. (Score:2)
My personal choice for broadband is either BT or BT or BT and I can choose to pay £40/month ($60) for the privilege.
So, I'm looking very seriously at WLANs and setting one up for my local area. Hell, I have the skills, I have the motivation, I just need a connection and some hardware.
Some existing Community WLANs:
http://consume.net/
http://www.wlan.org.uk/
Could have far-reaching implications (Score:2, Insightful)
Slashdot beaten? (Score:1)
This article appeared somewhere else before it did on slashdot.
What a pity.
www.netstumbler.com [netstumbler.com] appears to be a good site for people interested in "war driving" and wireless networking like myself.
Im sure Netstumbler is the software used by NYCwireless members to do the "War driving" described in the article.
Motley Crew, or Motley Crue? (Score:1)
Re:Motley Crew, or Motley Crue? (Score:2)
Hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
Networking stuff is CHEAP. A few people here already have their own home networks.
Link them, leap over the technological hurdles, create an internet where big commerce does not exist.
Sorta like hands around the world, but with cat-5.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
First we must replace the IP proticals with something more secure and expandable
Second, net hardware may be cheap but unless we where to implament a p2pnet we would need somewhere to connect to localy. The problems of depending on a total p2p based network are plenty odvious to anyone with a cable net connection trying to download a mp3 from someone who has a 14.4 connection.
Third killer apps are needed. Chicken != Egg
Forth a configuration file that says app foo should use TCP/IP and app bar should use XYZ/AB. A bit simplified but you get the idea.
Fifth, a rag tag fugitive fleat of standerds.
Sixth, government intervention and "Protecting the children"
Thats what I just came up with off the top of my head. It would be very nice to see such a thing take off but I doubt that it will happen.
All of these obsticals where overcome the first time we built the net so it can be done again.
Then again it was done again with the Internet2 but thats not for public use.
Also remember that the original net was in 1995-1997 the Information Super Highway. Then it turned into e-business. It was not invissioned as a shoping mall but as a library. You can not take a rouge net with no central authority and keep the corp world out of it.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2)
Hell, half the time it's what the corporate LAN looks like :)
Seriously, yeah, that's the killer app.
If each base station has a 40G hard drive, you've got a pretty nice local caching system. For pr0n and MP3z, as you suggested, only a few nodes actually need to use "cheap internet links" to slurp data from distant networks. The rest can be distributed (Freenet-style) and stored on the nodes in the city.
For high-bandwidth, low-latency gaming, it might be a problem if you wanted to play Counterstrike with someone halfway across the country, but if the p2pnet gets big enough, how bad a thing is it if you can "only" play with the several hundred players in your city.
Just as Code Red II took advantage of cheap high-bandwidth connections to rapidly infect hosts within "nearby" netblocks (rather than wasting time probing IP addresses at random), our imaginary p2pnet could have slow connectivity outside the local area, but blazingly-fast bandwidth for the 1000s of hosts that are local.
It's basically the inverse of the current internet - rather than relying on a thick backbone (which has evolved into a single point of failure) pipe and capillary-like dialup links at the end user, you have the thin pipes going between cities (the long-haul data), and the fat pipes at the users' end.
Internet: Narrowband (56k, DSL, cable) clients rely on broadband backbone (OC-192 and up) to talk to other narrowband clients anywhere in the world.
P2pnet: Broadband clients (megabit) talk to each other wherever possible, but are restricted by geographical location. Most of the time, the desired content is on a cache somewhere nearby. Only rarely do they request stuff from remote sites, relying on one of several relatively-clogged links (DSL/cable/T-1) to the" old Internet".
If you're trying to build something whereby anyone in the world can buy stuff, or read your magazine, or trade stocks, you build Internet.
If you're trying to build something that'll allow a tech like Freenet to scale, you build P2pnet.
Fire codes, use of phone polls, etc (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Redundant)
No, it isn't.
How much do you suppose it costs to lay down some transatlantic cable or put up a satellite?
How much do you figure it costs to put out long haul cable across the US?
How much do you think the switching hardware for all of that costs?
There is a world of difference between schmucks wiring up a little bit of ethernet around their house and putting up an international networking infrastructure.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2)
Consume the net (Score:2, Interesting)
Where bout are you? (Score:2)
Will be talking to my housing association once I've investigated the options more.
Re:Where bout are you? (Score:1)
Re:Consume the net (Score:2)
Some (relatively) long haul connections are about to come online in London. The extended range people are starting to get/offer may be of use to you.
...j
(they cancelled Jackass? [free2air.org] Eeep!)
this has been happening in London for a while now. (Score:1)
haha, the last phrase made me laugh... (Score:2)
Its so true, but its also so ghetto. 3G, once implemented, will have multiple metropolis coverage instantaneously. I've heard about the air-port technology for public places... how does this differ from that idea?
Re:haha, the last phrase made me laugh... (Score:2)
The U.S. hasn't even selected the 3G frequencies yet. When it finally rolls out, if it rolls out in its current form, you'll be paying metered rates for it, plus subject to all the limitations that cell phone carriers currently insist on.
By the time 3G would or does roll out, free and for-fee wireless networking using 2.4 GHz (802.11b at 11 Mbps and later this year or early next, 802.11g at 22 Mbps) and 5 GHz (802.11a, later this year, at 54 Mbps) will have filled every reasonable niche.
3G might be better in the sense that it could more easily offer ubiquitous coverage. But it's not going to be better for us or for the average traveller or consumer who needs access on the road.
When I talk to cell and wireless companies, I keep asking: tell me why, if 802.11b has 95% coverage for all the typical places people congregate and travel to and from in a year or so, why do I need to reach 98% with 3G at lower speeds and higher costs? Haven't gotten a straight or good answer yet.
Re:haha, the last phrase made me laugh... (Score:1)
corporate resistance (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead what they will do to discourage this is they will point out, just as I will, that this is a precarious thing. It's a great anonymous platform for introducing worms and viruses into the wild, and a nice way to control a zombie army without worrying at all about being traced to your home IP. All this on top of a protocol that's as secure and solid as swiss cheese. Really, you'd have to be asking for trouble to do this.
Actually, some companies might object: the ones who have to deal with the repercussions of this, be they ISP's having to clean up the mess, or other companies (or governments) hit by guerilla network crackers. This is very unfortunate, but it's an old principle. It only takes one person to pee in the pool.
inccorect trust (Score:2)
The force will come from FCC, as it did in TV broadcasts. For 50 years 60 channels were occupied by 3 networks, go figure! It only takes a few laws, "in the public interest", and heavy fees to blow everyone else off.
Re:corporate resistance (Score:2, Insightful)
This has been said a million times before, and I'll say it again:
If someone wants to introduce worms and viruses into the wild, they will always find a way to do it without being traced. They could go to a library, internet cafe, college; or if desperate enough, break into someone's home and force an innocent person to assist them. The simple fact is, creating a surveillance society will not stop crime.
With that said, I think you're right. Opponents of a free internet will characterize it as a tool of crime.
Re:corporate resistance (Score:2)
With WiFi, anyone who wants anonymous networking can park their car outside any apartment building, or a corporate office, hook up, and off they go. For grins, I bet they could eventually do it outside Verizon, AT&T, Qwest, or any other telecom megacorps. As WiFi becomes more popular for home networking, there'll be an unlimited supply of unprotected nodes.
And as code red has shown, the average windows drones, or even companies like MS, are not capable of securing their computers. Having the same population securing their WiFi stations is probably an excercise in futility.
Re:corporate resistance (Score:2)
That and a good dose of administrative policy... i.e. "If you want to connect to my node, send me your snail mailing address and I will hand-deliver your IP address and routing information in a sealed envelope."
The whole boogeyman aspect of community wireless just kind of disappears with the right combination of policy and configuration.
Pirate Cable! (Score:2)
Re:Pirate Cable! (Score:3, Insightful)
That's precisely what it is - "stealing" cable access by offering it to people other than the account holder. It's rather like college students in dorms or off-campus housing quietly setting up home networks off one cable line, instead of doing the honest thing and letting the ISP know what they're up to.
First, I can guarantee that these wireless pirate networks will be disconnected very, very soon; ISPs will not stand to see their own bandwidth and equipment costs skyrocket because some freeloaders are abusing someone else's connection. Second, there will be much whining and screaming from said freeloaders, claiming they were doing nothing wrong, when in fact it's almost certain the ISP contract clearly states that a customer cannot use their service to offer Internet access to others. Third, I bet you'll almost never actually see one of the piraters actually go out, lease a T3 or something from a backbone provider, and cover the costs of setup and maintenance of a legal wireless freenet. Why spend that kind of money, when one can simply abuse a cable connection and Fight The Man?
No, corporations shouldn't be allowed to swallow wireless spectrums whole, but if you can't do it legally, don't do it at all. You're only hurting yourself, your ISP, your users, and any future attempts to set up a legit service. Seriously, grow up.
Not stealing at all (Score:5, Insightful)
However, that said, if I have paid for 500 k then I am entitled to 500 k * all the time* - especially if this was leased line rather than dsl/cable.
So from the isp's point of view thats all that will be taken, 500k just most of the time rather than for a few hours in the evening.
If they are not really serious about allowing me to take 500k then they shouldn't try to sell it to me as such.
At work we have a small kilostream link with 5 allocated ip addresses. They (BT) could't care less how many pc's route out through the line, masqueraded or otherwise because all i can do is use all of my 64k.
What if I now connect to another sub branch across the street by using wireless
The kind of "up to 512k" access that is being advertised is basically dodgy because this 512k is not deliverable unless most of the people on that switch are not using it. One outcome of local wireless networks might be the withdrawal of this spurious 512k promise - probably better in the long run.
God this is a tortous post
But I am sure you see what I am driving at.
Re:Not stealing at all (Score:2)
Re:Pirate Cable! (Score:2)
Bzzzzt. Wrong! Stealing cableTV is not the same as networking your own house.
Splicing Cable degrades the signal ever-so-slightly for everybody else in your area. When the cable is spliced too much it will make a difference in everybody's signal.
When you share your broadband 'net access, you only have 128k (or 512k or whatever...) to dole out. You're paying for X-kbits and dammit, you can do what you want... except violate the TOS.
Re:Pirate Cable! (Score:2)
I'll be you'll almost never see one of the piraters actually go out and buy a six-foot sub to share. Why spend that kind of money, when one can simply abuse a sandwich and Fight The Man?
Re:Pirate Cable! (Score:2)
Re:Forget litigation. how about your health? (Score:1)
But guess what?
They all run of frequency bands similar to radio broadcasts, so none of that matters. By your rationale, everyone should be heating up by conventional broadcasts, let alone WLAN. Do you see this happening? In fact, i'm sitting next to a WLAN transmitter and have done for months. And i'm still around to point out to you that you are wrong.
WLAN uses around the 2.4ghz range - microwaves start the heating effect you talk about, but not until a minimum of 3ghz upwards.
So no, no health risks greater than background EM radiation. I'd be more worried about that microwave transmitter you stick to the side of your head when you phone someone on your mobile...
Re:Pirate Cable! (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually you pay for a lot less then that bandwidth costs your ISP, they like all other flat rate consumer/small business ISPs make assumptions about the amount of idle bandwidth and buy far less bandwidth out of their colo/POP/HUB then their customers buy into it. Much higher prices are charged to folks who buy the right to resell the connections because the ISP needs to allocate more bandwidth out of their colo/POP/HUB.
You do (probably) have the right to use all the bits you can push up and down the line, but (probably) no resale rights. Who knows what counts as a resale though.
Is it a resale if I don't charge money (say it is my home DSL connection, and a friend comes over with a laptop...or someone I don't know parks in my driveway)? What if I don't charge money for bandwidth, but I'm selling coffee? What if I'm not selling coffee, but merely the right to come onto my property, where 802.11 just happens to be set up?
Anyway if "freenets" become popular, and get charged the same amount "normal" home DSL connections are charged, it will have to push up the prices for "normal" home DSL connections (assuming the current prices don't have much profit margin -- which seems likely given the number of bankruptcies in that area)
Okay, so what if you go semi-legit with it? (Score:2)
Further, I see big benefits for heavy duty proxy servers in applications like this. With intelligent management and semi-responsible use, it's doubtful whether this would present much of an increase from the provider's point of view.
I've been considering setting up something like this with my dialup connection. The bandwidth is silly, but people could still check their mail or chat over it, and dialup ISPs could care less what you do with the connection. A local proxy would make an even bigger difference in this case.
This can happen by accident (Score:4, Informative)
In about 2 hours of driving through central Zurich, the testers found no less than a dozen open, unrestricted corporate wireless LANs. Getting the gateway's IP was not a problem thanks to most 802.11b base station's built in DHCP server. If you live near any of these companies, all you need is an external antenna for your card and off you go at someone else's cost - and it's their own fault.
But what's even greater is that around Lake Zurich, you can use broadband 802.11b for free, legally
See the project's official site [www.surfam...argetblank].
The NYC Wireless website (Score:2, Informative)
Wireless communities in Sweden (Score:2, Informative)
Motley Crew ? (Score:3, Offtopic)
public water fountains (Score:5, Informative)
i live in manhattan... does anybody want to get together with me and try to propose to city hall that these entities should be legally protected? do it fast and stealthily enough, with the right level of positive community mojo, and it could sneak under the radar of the huge corporations with vested interests and reversing it would only be a pr embarassment for them...
people have water at home, sometimes metered, they buy bottled water, but everyone is used to the idea of the free public water fountain. why should it be any different with these little cells?
From the owner of the First Node of NYC wireless (Score:5, Informative)
* As far as violating the terms of service, most of the internet connections we are using we are ok, since we are not reselling the service, only sharing it to the our immediate friends and neighbors. Providers may choose to change there terms of services though. We are paying for this service, and choosing to let people use bandwidth we have already bought.
* As far as the network getting used by to many users and becoming useless. Most of the access points have Linux or FreeBSD machines as gateways. If this becomes an issue we will just install traffic shaping software on the gateway. The goal is not to provide you with a superfast connection that will make you give up your home cable modem and DSL line to sit in the park (though that would be nice). The goal is to provide a public free open wireless network for anyone to use. Even if the network gets saturated and we are only providing each person with 10kBytes/sec, that is still double the speed of dialup and adequate for web browsing and email. I watch the bandwidth usage very carefully, and people have been very good about using the free network.
* Wireless is not a replacement for a wired network, and free networks are not a replacement for commercial networks. That being said we are never going to replace commercial wired networks. We can provide an alternative for you to use though.
If your interested in starting a project in your area, do it.
1. Put up a simple web page on geocities or something.
2. Start a mailing list on Yahoo Groups
3. Post links to your website on the Seattle Wireless [seattlewireless.net] and Personal Telco [personaltelco.net] web pages. -That is how NYCwireless (originally RooftopsNYC) got started.
-Maybe there is a group in your area, check: Personal Telco Wireless Communties List [personaltelco.net]
If your in New York City, your welcome to use my node at 84th Street and Lexington Ave. Relax at the corner, or have a coffee at the coffee shop.
www.nycwireless.net [nycwireless.net]
Re:From the owner of the First Node of NYC wireles (Score:3, Interesting)
The best way to preserve and nurture the trend is to link the idea of free public wireless with free public spaces. What am I saying: make areas like Washington Square Park, Central Park, Thompson Square Park, Prospect Park, etc. zones of free Internet. Of course, lots of nonpublic spaces are ideal for free wireless access as well, but for different reasons that are not as symbolic.
So then the issue becomes one of petitioning Henry Stern, the New York City parks commissioner, to pony up a little city $, and to start a volunteer program to support the infrastructure? Is that the wrong way to think about it?
Interestingly, we have the mayor, comptroller, and public advocate up for reelection this year. There might be some election year steam that could be funneled behind this. A candidate could get a big bang for their buck by taking a stand behind free public Internet in public spaces. It would have sound bite value and would play in the press well. It is something that would be interesting to the electorate and draw positive attention. Even if only at the gimmick level (thinking cynically about politics? forgive me
But then, of course, this access must be truly public. A lot of what we are talking about here is sort of "for the geeks, by the geeks." We would have to talk about truly free, public access, which means providing the terminals as well... handing out laptops in a New York City public park to ensure free and equal access is a daunting task indeed. I don't even know where to begin to think about how to make that work, if at all.
I'm thinking aloud here, forgive me if I have missed anything, but there is so much promise and peril and I salute the pioneers!
Re:public water fountains (Score:2, Informative)
Re:public water fountains (Score:2)
I wouldn't mind setting up a wireless network for free for people in my apartment complex, but I would like their info, and i would probably give them static IPs, so in case something did happen, I could track down who did it.. No need for me to get shit from the FBI for downloading kiddie porn when it was really the guy in 1B.
Re:public water fountains (Score:2)
ROFLMAO!
it depends on what you want to pay taxes on (Score:2, Insightful)
"people have water at home, sometimes metered, they buy bottled water, but everyone is used to the idea of the free public water fountain. why should it be any different with these little cells?
Well I expect it depends on the society you are living in. You have a valid, idealistic and really nice idea- I'd love to see it. Of course, nothing is free, somebody has to pay for it, and we pay for 'free' water fountains through our taxes.
I imagine the idea of 'free' net access like this paid for via municipal taxes would probably be far more acceptable in social democracies (like Scandinavia) -where people generally believe in higher taxes to pay for social infrastructures like schooling, hospitals, etc. I can imagine that this idea wouldn't be as well accepted in free market democracies such as the USA where taxes aren't so well received and the model tends towards the concept of people paying for such services individually rather than as a community, through private commercial contracts.
the real motive (Score:2, Funny)
adult playground... hot summer evenings... go utterly unnoticed... sounds like somebody got kicked out of the house for looking at pr0n.
Pardon Me (Score:3, Informative)
I'm doing this in Chicago (things are moving slowly). My personal favorites in the community wireless world are Seattle Wireless [seattlewireless.net] and Green Bay Professional Packet Radio [gbppr.org] (GBPPR has some great tech and a very experimental bent, but they won't give you the time of day unless you can convert mw to dBm in your head... fine with me).
The way DSL is going, I can't wait for stuff like this to pick up some momentum.
Re:Pardon Me (Score:1)
This NYC hook-up really isn't all that much different from a couple of HAMs setting up a repeater to shoot voices a few more dozen miles because the closest repeater can't do it.
Of course, the government owns the airwaves, you do have to get a license to broadcast packet or voice, and usually these repeaters are controlled by clubs which require membership -- all this before you can use the repeater.
But even with all those hurdles, I'm with you. I can't wait for stuff like this to pick up some momentum.
Re:Pardon Me (Score:1)
We have developed an Acceptable Use Policy that can protect access point operators against possible misue and a number of technical information resources on our website.
We have also made lots of contact with the press and helped to publicize this movement. (CNN, Vilalge Voice, USA Today, others)
We're incorporating a national non-profit organization to shelter local groups from litigation and help solicit donations of funding and equipment.
You ought to be thanking us instead of criticizing us. We're working to make this happen for everyone.
Re:Pardon Me (Score:2)
About my user info... No, that's not my email, and I like it that way. Thanks for the heads up on the web page, that link's been dead for some time now.
take the next step (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's the deal: I'm in Seattle. I looked at the Seattle Wireless map, and I could plug into the local network and just be another bump on the freeloading log. Or I could use the fact that I'm on one of the highest points in the city, and run a long-haul repeater w/~15mi range to a relative's place north of Federal Way, from there ~15mi to my brother-in-law in Tacoma, then I only need to find one willing person to bridge the haul to my in-laws in Olympia. What, four more hops to Portland? I've got more freinds and relatives down there too. Likewise, it's only a half a dozen hops north to Vancouver BC. It may not be much of a service to start, but it won't take much either.
Frankly, this is how McCaw Cellular (now AT&T Wireless, my former employer) built much of the North American Cellular Network (NACN). McCaw bought up ~200+ local operating companies, put in *tiny* connections between them to optimize the expensive traffic, wrote software to dump local traffic where it was cheapest, and the rest was marketing (hence the "NACN" name). It is very much within the realm of possibility to do this successfully.
I think the participation & sustainability problems can be turned around the other way -- instead of people on the wireless freenet only wanting to get off and connect out, it should be possible to build enough resources & self-sufficiency on the wireless network that people want to get into the freenet. Convince a few major businesses that there is revinue to be had by participating (just as commercial endeavors on the web were initially driven by sales of geek toys to geeks) and combine that with a rich geek participatory network mesh, and you have the foundation for a sustainable infrastructure.
Jon
What I'm wondering.... (Score:4, Insightful)
And mind you, this is all coming from his own peronsal line. I don't know many people who would just go ahead and give away bandwidth to anyone for the hell of it. Regardless, for this kind of thing to happen everywhere would constitute either a huge non-profit organization with lots of funds, or government sponsoring...
Re:What I'm wondering.... (Score:4, Informative)
At least under some OSes you can use something like ipfw's queue command to put all of the WiFi traffic on a lower priority queue so it will only use the bandwidth you are not using. For that to be most effective you need to set that at the far end of the connection as well, but even if you don't you can kludge it by feeding all incoming traffic through a dummynet pipe with slightly less bandwidth then the real thing and again favoring the non WiFi traffic. That will get TCP (and TCP like things) enough drops to back off.
Using different priority queues is nice because the full bandwidth (or very close to it) will be available for WiFi when you aren't using the link yourself. If your OS doesn't support priority traffic queues you may be able to use fixed size traffic shaping.
This of corse does raise the fixed cost a little, unless you are already doing NATing and the NAT box can do your traffic shaping.
I would rather avoid the government sponsoring since it will either take spending from things that deserve it more, or raise taxes (or both). Plus whenever the government sponsors something it thinks it has the right or even responsibility to regulate it...
Re:What I'm wondering.... (Score:3, Interesting)
If I had any PC-using friends within wireless range, I'd be quite happy for them to "borrow" some of my connection. To paraphrase, "512kb ought to be enough for anybody".
Of course, we did this in Aberdeen, Scotland, three years ago using Cat 5 and a 128k leased line. Out the window of the flat where the line came in, back in my window, a floor below. There were other people going to be added in as well. Never quite got the cable across the street though. Wireless would have been great for that.
Re:What I'm wondering.... (Score:2)
I'm in the same situation, and am very tempted to set up a consume.net [consume.net] node near Glasgow. The recommended kit is £500 (~$750) plus an old PC. That in itself is not a barrier to entry, but the problem is that I'm in a suburban area (in a ground hollow, even) and the chance of actually finding a consume.net peer is low.
Perhaps the most valuable service that alternative net projects could provide will be to track the (approximate!) geographical locations of live nodes, to encourage people to join, or to start new clusters in the knowledge that they will soon be joined by other peers.
Re:What I'm wondering.... (Score:2)
Re:What I'm wondering.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Everyone who has a wired broadband connection sets up a 'base station'
This should create a 1:1 environment, so it is truly "shared" and apart from density issues (which may be resolved by base station density anyway) there'd be no huge bottlenecking anywhere.
It would certainly be incredible if this could get off the ground in a widespread capacity, and may be the only way wireless broadband will ever be achieved!
(Then again, communism worked in theory)
Re:What I'm wondering.... (Score:1)
Even better would be if every station, not just the base station, acted as a router. Now even the base stations may sometimes benefit from the increased redundancy. To top it all off, the base stations should sign up for a few billion ipv6 addresses and the whole thing should run over ipv6. Add a proxy server for ipv4 services. SOCKS if you want to let people do just about anything.
Probably most importantly, a simple, cross-platform, standalone router should be written for people who don't know what they're doing. Just double click this installer and your laptop will have internet (ipv4) connectivity when you roam within the supported area.
Make this as simple to set up as Richochet (or even simpler) and I bet you can cover a huge percentage of the city.
Damn, I wish I lived in Manhattan.
Re:What I'm wondering.... (Score:1)
Community area networks (Score:2, Interesting)
As we live in a densely populated area, running UTP through to neighbours isn't a real problem. The people who want to connect pay a small fee as a compensation to the ones hooked up on the net, and everyone profits. The "clients" get fast, easy and reliable internet for a low cost, the "servers" get to use the other servers connection as a bonus. And the servers run mostly on open OS's (Linux, Open), makes routing the data between servers easy...
Of course, it's not really legal, but it works nicely, and can grow steadily. Long life the rise of the CAN's! ;)
Re:Community area networks (Score:1)
The thought of revoking comcasts contract has come up quite frequently with local politicos do to comcast being so phenominally bad at living up to their promises.
Re:Community area networks (Score:2)
do NOT talk to your city, they will shut you down and fine your butt to hell and back.
This is why many connected neighborhoods are privately owned subdivisions (canadian-lakes in michigan for example.. the "community" is owned and ran by one man and county officials cant do squat.) and this is how high-tech communities are formed or will be formed... in rural areas away from the morons we call city officials as priavate communities with a private infrastructure with signs stating that governments are un-welcome.
you need to always treat your local government(as all gov bodies) as your enemy. and deal with them as a spy would trying to infiltrate the organization... make them think you are their friend.
Re:Community area networks (Score:2)
I know much of this from expierience.. My father back in his day created a neighborhood "cable-tv" system. basically one large tower with good antennas and cabes ran to the neighbors (20 in all) the city then tried to destroy the neighborhood cable system by soing and threatening to condemn the houses.
Replacement for cell phones... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Replacement for cell phones... (Score:2)
Re:Replacement for cell phones... (Score:2, Interesting)
temporary autonomous zones (Score:3, Interesting)
'Cellular' resistance...
Hopefully... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hopefully... (Score:2)
Were I playing with this, it'd be set up with maximum burst rate of (bandwidth / users * 2) for n seconds and maximum of bandwidth / users over the course of any given minute, if and when scheduling comes in to play - or something along those lines, anyway. Most of the time, most of the connections are likely to be entirely idle, after all, so there's no point in artificially restricting when the bandwidth isn't banging headlong into its upper limit.
Re:Hopefully... (Score:2)
A short-lived "Free Lunch" (Score:5, Insightful)
These "30 volunteers" would soon be branded as "30 inmates" if this ever got popular. Why? they're playing with a cool new technology at the bandwidth expense of of their educational and/or corporate providers.
From the article:
So basically what he's doing is leeching off of NYU's pipes to anyone with a wireless card. Maybe I should look for real estate in his area.
Any college Dorm Network Administrator can tell you how expensive reliable bandwidth is. Last month an unchecked DiVX FTP site here at Rutgers trafficked nearly 15 gigs A DAY, costing the university almost 10 grand in surcharges due to it's "bursty-bandwidth" contract. In short, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Due to its relatively low profile, this wireless project has and will continue to avoid radar screens in city NOCs. Apparently many people dont feel the need to download porn while sitting on park benches :). If they ever do, you can bet people like Mr. Townsend will be disciplined by IT staff, if not fired outright for violating some school network tenet.
BUNK (Score:2)
Here, reproduced on your screen, at no cost to me whatsoever, are my words. Magic? No, just something different.
Someone paid for his bandwith and wanted him to have it. What he does with it is a matter of his contract and state law. The University itself is responsible for policing their network and deserve their surcharges for signing so stupid a "bursty-bandwith" contract. We shall see if anyone bothers to move to the park to so they can traffic DIVX. The network admin may want to monitor his connection, but it's hard to imagine him getting upset at the proffesor for wanting to surf on a park bench.
In the mean time, to paraphrase an arrogant smart ass, I'll serve ham sandwiches if I feel like it! Enjoy your free virtual lunch.
Re:A short-lived "Free Lunch" (Score:2)
But there is such a thing as a caching server.
Suppose we build this p2pnet thingy. Suppose someone puts a DiVX FTP site on it. Suppose each node in the city acts as a router (any router-like software you like) and as a caching server (Freenet), and refuses to transfer data outside of the IPv6 area it recognizes as "accessible via wireless".
No, I, in Chicago, can't grab the DiVX in the Rutgers dorm. But you, sitting half a mile away, can. The only "bandwidth" that's used is the wireless bandwidth between yourself and the node(s) that hold the DiVX. The packets never touch your Rutgers' pipe.
If I want the DiVX, I do the same thing you do, except I do it from a node somewhere in Chicago.
Each cluster of nodes only has to download the DiVX once, and cache it locally, provided that there's sufficient space on each node. 40G hard drives are cheap these days.
Re:Quicky question (Score:2, Interesting)
Napster was banned at those universities where bandwidth was already at a premium.
I recently graduated from the University of Rochester [rochester.edu]. We had a pretty healthy bandwidth situation, so they didn't care too much about napster.
They did do one thing that was sort of anal: A guy was shut down after he set up a search engine that allowed anyone on campus to search everybody else's Windows-shared files (usually mp3's and pr0n). His server had to scan everybody's computer once for open shares, and then on the second pass it would record all those openly shared files. The people who got it shut down were the ones with the firewalls... they didn't like the fact that their machines were scanned every day, even though any idiot could have done this by just browsing all the network shares manually. But this automated service was viewed as an invasion of privacy. (I'm sure the intellectual property issues didn't help him either.)
Re:Quicky question (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah Bandwidth was capped at 240 mb/day down 240 mb/day up (total of 480 mb/day in both directions). Its done pretty well, with a counter at the gateway, so theres really no way around it.
If you cross the limit you are shut down for an entire week. *ouch*. Its been good for getting kids to not leave napster or gnutela running in their systrays unattended.
Have people found ways around this? A few - but its only been temporary. Someone in my network last year kept hopping blocked IPs. This was learned of and eventually they mapped his MAC every morning and shut whatever IP he was using down. It was tough. He even went so far as to buy new NETWORK CARDS to change his MAC.
After much discussion, we figure dout one way that would work. Get a group of seven guys together - each running the same custom-written client/server proxy software. Each day everyone uses the same proxy. When that IP is shut off the next morning for bandwidth violations, siwtch to the next of the sveen proxy boxes. By the time the seventh gets shut down, the first is being re-activated by the university.
Its Genius!
Re:Quicky question (Score:1)
local networks (Score:2, Interesting)
high population density
low precipitation
flat land
with the number of broadband clients in the area, one could dedicate a 20 kb stream to the open network and supply most of the metroplex with free, wireless networking. it'd also make for killer WAN parties : ) i know i've wanted a low-ping game of quake every once in a while with my friends w/in a 1 mi radius...
Re:local networks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:local networks (Score:1)
Eventually i'll be able to contribute to this type of stuff fincancially.
Re:local networks (Score:2, Interesting)
If you have time, you can contribute.
Re:Then one spammer will wreck it for everyone. (Score:2)
If you set up your wireless network correctly you will obviously plock all outgoing email traffic and only outgoing or incoming ports specific for certian services. connecting a wireless netowrk without firewalling it is
Re:How long.... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:How long.... (Score:1)
Re:How long.... (Score:2)
If so, how the hell do you get online? (The modem *needs* to connect to a computer outside of your premises...)
Another point is this, does it state that only computers on your premises can route data over the modem (that would include things like IP tunneling, SMTP relays etc etc), if not, then there isn't an issue.
Re:How long.... (Score:2)
glibness aside, however, I feel certain that once this starts to gain any steam (as it would have to, to be useful), the ISPs involved will react pretty strongly. and, really, I can see their point--as one poster pointed out, it's very similar to splicing cable lines, and giving all your neighbors cable "for free." it doesn't make you an all around nice guy, rather a theif.
and, I can't wait until NYU finds out that THEY are in fact serving as an ISP for this network. I somehow doubt they will be amused.
sean
Re:How long.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How long.... (Score:2)
You could always ask him for the infrastructure fee's to get it setup: T1 installation charge, modems that can handle a digital trunk... probably somewhere around $5k, not including reoccuring costs, that wouldn't be a problem now would it, since you'd now have "free 56k access"
Accountability Issues (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, perhaps if there was some kind of free registry service that tracked users by the MAC.
At the time of the purchase of a wireless card, they would be entered into the registry and a digital certificate issued binding their name, address, public key and MAC address. When the user entered a free zone, they would exchange their credentials and you'd be able to provide the feds with the necessary tracking information.
Of course, this takes the fun out of the project as you'd have a lot of record keeping to do. Just how much...I dunno.
Anybody think such a service could work? If not, why? What would you do to improve upon it?
RD
Re:I don't get it. (Score:2)
Theoretically, if you get enough people to do this, the big commercial interests on the "real" Internet would follow, bringing with them the unwashed masses, and you'd have effectively rebuilt the Internet from scratch... without the wires.
Re:I don't get it. (Score:2)
The real question is whether the same bandwidth levels can be achieved bouncing waves around the sky as can be by pulsing light over a thread of glass.
Then again, maybe it doesn't matter so much. There is always the Good Enough Principle when discussing mass markets.
Re:What about WAP... (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:Accountability (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically, there was this case of a small town in which this very bad individual (I think he was a serial killer or murder/rapist, something) kept eluding the law, and settled (I believe) in his hometown, where the shit began anew. The police and the law were having a hard time getting anything on the guy, and when they did, he always seemed to get out on bail or something, and resume his ways.
He essentially had the entire town scared for their lives - no one would go out after dark, and everyone kept a gun near them.
One day, the town "boys" got together to discuss what to do, how they could get rid of the guy - drive him out of town or something. Just as the meeting was getting underway, one guy popped in and told them that the man was at the local bar (apparently the favorite watering hole). All the men in the meeting grabbed their guns, and drove over to the bar...
They all walked into the bar, the suspected murderer was still there. He noticed what was going on, decided to pay his tab, and leave. He walked out, and what happened next is "conjecture"...
Apparently, several shots were heard, the police arrived, and the suspected murdered was found shot in the front seat of his car. Stone cold dead.
The FBI was called in, and everyone at the bar was questioned. Every last one of them said they were hiding when they heard the shots. The FBI continued the questioning, eventually questioning nearly every person in the town. Everyone gave the same story - nobody knew or seen nuthin'!
The FBI knew that the "town" had murdered that man, regardless of his guilt or innocence in the crimes he supposedly committed - however, with everybody backing each other up, there was nothing they could do, nobody they could arrest. They never found the murder weapon, either.
As far as the problems the town was having prior (murders/rapes)? They stopped...
Needless to say, that is one town that you don't cross...
This wasn't a racial issue... (Score:2)
But... (Score:2)
Michael
Re:What about packet radio? (Score:2)
AMPR.ORG (Score:4, Interesting)
And boy, do I use it. When my cable access in Toronto goes down, and I am in Asia or at the office, I telnet to a nearby TCP/IP gateway, then telnet to my hambox node via packet!
And all my email goes out: the gateway is also a mail gateway. Anyway, see www.mvw.net/radio [mvw.net]
Oh, and I connected to the ISS (Space station) for the first time recently.
The ampr. org (44.) has plenty of IP's left. So all hurry up and get your ham radio license!
Michael
Re:After Hours Only? (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah that's what I need... more grief every morning.
Imagine the emails waiting for me as various persons are wondering why hundreds of hack attempts/Code Red XXI/whatever are coming from our network.
 
F1_Fan.