Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

10 Internet Connections At Same Time

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the for-when-nine-just-don't-cut-it dept.

The Internet 152

An anonymous reader writes "As a follow-up to the story about Verizon being forced to allow tethering, the engineers at Connectify climbed on the roof and made a video showing an 85Mbps download rate through a combination of a tethered Verizon mobile phone and all of the available open Wi-Fi networks. It's a darn shame that they cancelled the unlimited 3G on the Kindle; tether 20 of those bad boys and you could have had a real Internet connection."

cancel ×

152 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wasn't it limited? (1)

Proteus Cortex (2511824) | about 2 years ago | (#41071171)

I remember the Kindle 3G connection being limited only to the Kindle Store and Wikipedia, wasn't it?

Re:Wasn't it limited? (5, Informative)

sexconker (1179573) | about 2 years ago | (#41071237)

Nope, the old Kindle's have a rudimentary web browser you can enable in one of the settings menus. Works fine on 3G.

Re:Wasn't it limited? (2)

wiedzmin (1269816) | about 2 years ago | (#41071357)

DX still lets you browse anything you want... it has no WiFi so disabling 3G on it would piss some people off.

Re:Wasn't it limited? (3, Interesting)

alexgieg (948359) | about 2 years ago | (#41071479)

Nope, the old Kindle's have a rudimentary web browser you can enable in one of the settings menus. Works fine on 3G.

True enough. On the other hand, my Kindle 3's 3G connection went kaput a few months ago and I haven't missed it. I guess I could have saved some money buying the WiFi-only model back then. In fact, now that I think about it, I connect it to my home WiFi once every two weeks or so, and I'm reading on it all the time. I wonder if my usage pattern is typical.

Can't use it like one connection (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41071231)

You need a node on the internet that can split a single connection and send the data down the separate links. Otherwise those are just 10 separate internet connections that can only be used for separate transfers.

Besides, if you were to use 20 3G connections at a time, you'd see significant slowdown per connection as these are in competition for the shared medium.

Re:Can't use it like one connection (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41071423)

It looks like they're using Free Download Manager on top of their connection software in the video (http://www.freedownloadmanager.org/) In that case, those separate Internet connections could speed up even a single download quite a bit. My impression of 3G is that the fairness is set up so that a lot of connections per tower can get the expected download rates at the same time, no?

Re:Can't use it like one connection (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41071795)

So most likely it is Link Teaming then. I bet they would not get those numbers if they did a straight up SSH, SCP, or RSYNC.

Apps that make use of multi-part/multi-segment download will reap the benefits of this, but not single connection apps. :(

I'm sure this can be done for free on Linux and Mac OSX Boxes. I'm sure Windows supports this as well, all of which is out of the box, with the addition of some settings.

So I'm guessing this kickstarter project is putting an easy front end on the configs...

Sounds like a great tutorial to write up. >:)

Re:Can't use it like one connection (1)

BadgerRush (2648589) | about 2 years ago | (#41072915)

I'm sure Windows supports this as well, all of which is out of the box, with the addition of some settings.

There is no easy way of doing it on Linux. You must be confusing it with interface bonding which binds two or more interfaces in the same local network, this is supported on the kernel for years and recently has been added to network manager. Interface bonding does not work to link two different internet connections.

To use multiple connections on Linux you would need a very complicated setup redirecting all traffic from both connections trough some kind of custom vpn server.

Re:Can't use it like one connection (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41073035)

Or, you know, some kind of round-robin nat...

Re:Can't use it like one connection (2)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 2 years ago | (#41073123)

Looking at the kickstarter deal...it appears that you do not buy this software, but you only get annual rentals of it??

The add seems to indicate you get a years license for the 'software router'.....

Is this what others are seeing too?

Re:Can't use it like one connection (2)

funwithBSD (245349) | about 2 years ago | (#41071895)

And the latency does not get any better, which sucks on 3G and 4G.

Re:Can't use it like one connection (2)

Lennie (16154) | about 2 years ago | (#41071915)

There is a big chance that will change in the future though. What do you think of Multi Path TCP ?

short demo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWN0ctPi5cw [youtube.com]

Longer presentation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02nBaaIoFWU [youtube.com]

IETF WorkGroup:

http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mptcp/charter/ [ietf.org]

Linux kernel implementation:

http://mptcp.info.ucl.ac.be/ [ucl.ac.be]

Re:Can't use it like one connection (1)

Cormacus (976625) | about 2 years ago | (#41072409)

What do I think of it?? I want it! More than once I've started a large file transfer on the LAN from my laptop only to remember that I am on the WiFi. Instead of plugging in the cable and restarting the transaction I would love it if I just had to plug in the higher bandwidth connection and the kernel would handle the transition between adapters.

Re:Can't use it like one connection (2)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about 2 years ago | (#41074185)

It will, you just have to set up your DHCP server to assign the same IP address to both the MAC address of your wifi interface and wired interface.

I do this on my Macbook Pro. At home I can move seamlessly between Wifi and wired without missing a beat, even mid-transfer.

Re:Can't use it like one connection (1)

Cormacus (976625) | about 2 years ago | (#41074309)

Thats an interesting idea (and I'm sure that it does work for you) but having the same IP address resolve to two different MAC addresses on the network seems to be a Bad Idea. Ignoring the network itself though, if that works then the MacOS kernel must already have some support for this because (for example) if you opened a connection on the WiFi interface, some internal juggling has to happen if you say plug in your Ethernet jack and then turn off the WiFi, right? What prevents that socket connection from simply closing when you turn off the associated hardware?

Re:Can't use it like one connection (1)

Gerzel (240421) | about 2 years ago | (#41072313)

Eh separate transfers might be alright if you are accessing different things. I often listen to online radio while I play an online game and download something. Add in roommate's Netflix and you have four separate transfers going not counting any background system stuff that might happen at the same time.

Re:Can't use it like one connection (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41072605)

Otherwise those are just 10 separate internet connections that can only be used for separate transfers.

Separate transfers... such as the way Bittorrent works?

I'd be pleasantly happy with torrenting at those speeds.

Re:Can't use it like one connection (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41072823)

You need a node on the internet that can split a single connection and send the data down the separate links. Otherwise those are just 10 separate internet connections that can only be used for separate transfers.

Isn't this the problem MP-TCP (multipath TCP) is designed to solve?

http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mptcp/
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/tsv/trac/wiki/MultipathTcp

You could practically design in your head an MP-TCP command line file download tool where the server side would use a fountain code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_code) to split and transmit the source over multiple channels while the client side would recombine and quit on completion. As error recovery is automatic, this might even be better as a UDP file transfer protocol.

Re:Can't use it like one connection (1)

KingMotley (944240) | about 2 years ago | (#41072945)

Sort of, except with multipath TCP, your "command line file download tool" would just be wget. There wouldn't be a need for a separate tool usually for doing multipath transfers aggregating the links. It all happens at a lower level in the TCP/IP stack. Now you could create a multipath aware wget-like tool (mpwget?) that would allow you finer control over the aggregation that would differ from the system default.

Nook (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 2 years ago | (#41071235)

I have an old (if anything this new can be called 'old') nook that came with 3G. It has battery issues (batteries are always the first thing to go - invent a new one and rule the world).

But I still stick with it because I like the 3G. I would rather use my old one with the heavy case and light, then buy a new one without the 3G connection that weighs half as much and has the integral light/color.

Re:Nook (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41071315)

i think, id rather just go home and fuck your mom

Re:Nook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41071917)

Uh, the one home is my grandma. Have fun, she could use it.

Re:Nook (1)

tangelogee (1486597) | about 2 years ago | (#41072027)

Battery issues? The nook (1st gen at least) had user-replaceable batteries.

What would you do if you had a million dollars? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41071241)

I'll tell you what I'd do, man: 10 internet connections at the same time, man.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41071375)

I'd probably have to pay 45% in total taxes, "fees" and "surcharges".

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41071433)

I'd probably have to pay 45% in total taxes, "fees" and "surcharges".

No, at a million dollars the tax rate goes down to 13%.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41071533)

No, you have to be so rich that you would never spend the money anyways to get a 13% tax rate.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41071557)

actually never any less than 13%

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? (1)

HapSlappy_2222 (1089149) | about 2 years ago | (#41072557)

Sigh where are my mod points today?

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41072595)

No, at a million dollars the tax rate goes down to 13%.

Do you buy cars for 10% of your income? Do you buy food for 0.5% of your income? No, because percentages are bullshit used only to make people not feel guilty for someone paying 20% while the rich pay %13. When in reality, they are paying $130,000 and you are paying $2,000. Seems fair right? Oh that's right, rich people are just thieves and leeches and they owe that money for here.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? (2)

KhabaLox (1906148) | about 2 years ago | (#41072853)

Are you arguing for a regressive tax system?

Can't tell if young, naive pseudo-libertarian or just trolling.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41072865)

Yes, I actually do buy cars based on a calculation of a percentage of income.

The rich paying less percentage tax is just that, them paying less tax than they should be paying. The fact that the number is still higher has no impact.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? (4, Insightful)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41073007)

Those who benefit the most from society owes society the most.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41074073)

The rich paying less percentage tax is just that, them paying less tax than they should be paying.

No disagreement there - Buffett should probably pay more tax as a percentage of his yearly income than his secretary. But:

Those who benefit the most from society owes society the most.

I'm pretty sure that the 13% tax Buffett pays on his $100 million in earnings per year is $13 million more than the 20% tax on your $8,000 earnings per year at McDonald's.

Obama is good at populist rhetoric, but what he doesn't tell you is that the top 20% of wage earners pay 80% of the income tax in the US, and that taxing the top 1% more would only yield around $5 billion in extra tax revenues - not nearly enough to erase the debt that he and Bush Jr. accumulated. Read the Wikipedia articles on taxation in the US if you don't believe me.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? (0)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 2 years ago | (#41071387)

I'd just have the local ISP supply me one of their 1Gb/s links.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41071517)

UID in excess of 2M and misses the obvious joke... yep, you and me AC? We're old. Of course that means the bearded geeks we used to call old are now positively ancient...

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? (5, Funny)

somarilnos (2532726) | about 2 years ago | (#41071535)

And I think if I was a millionaire I could hook that up, too, 'cause internet connections dig dudes with money.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? (4, Funny)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 2 years ago | (#41071805)

You know what I would do if I had a million dollars? I would invest half of it in low risk dark fiber and then take the other half over to my friend Asadulah who works in software...

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41074261)

1/2 mil in software? You'd be better off getting it in 1's and burning it for heat in the winter.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? (1)

Reasonable Facsimile (2478544) | about 2 years ago | (#41071571)

I'll tell you what I'd do, man: 10 internet connections at the same time, man.

'cause chicks dig dudes with 10 internet connections at the same time.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41071625)

With $1 million I'll try to have an early retirement.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41072583)

With $1 million I'll try to have an early retirement.

You have the right idea. But I never seem to win the lottery...

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 years ago | (#41074453)

A million dollars isn't enough to comfortably retire on particularly early, unless you are only expecting to only live another 15 to 20 years or so. You need at least five mill to be really certain of early retirement.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41072559)

Well, you don't need a million dollars to do that man. Take a look at my cousin, he's unemployed and gets 10 internet connections for free at the local mall near the food court.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#41072753)

Am I the only one that pictured 10 monitors in a circle, each showing porn, and a swivel chair in the middle?

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#41072849)

And a dude spinning in that chair and doing a 1-man circle jerk?

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41072931)

I'll tell you what I'd do, man: 10 internet connections at the same time, man.

What do you need 10 Internet connections for?! You only have one dick!

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41073097)

Reading this? Funny.
Reading this while watching Repo Games? Hilarious.

Sounds great for Bittorrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41071317)

This sounds like it would be awesome for Bittorrent. If Dispatch can make peer connections across my LTE and Cable connections, I could almost get South Korean download rates!

Bring me Google Fiber (2, Insightful)

Picass0 (147474) | about 2 years ago | (#41071325)

The reason you need to jump through hoops like this video only underscores how crappy internet service is in the US.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41071361)

But even still imagine using Dispatch with TEN Google Fiber connections :)

This technology probably still works outside the US.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#41071501)

But even still imagine using Dispatch with TEN Google Fiber connections :)

This technology probably still works outside the US.

you need some point to aggregate to that has a fast link though too. but the tech itself isn't that new idea. what's puzzling about the demo is why they didn't do it with 10 verizon links to achieve something 100mbit+.

you see, if you got wifi in there.. just one decent wifi link to a decent office connection could do that 80mbit/s.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber (2)

fa2k (881632) | about 2 years ago | (#41072607)

what's puzzling about the demo is why they didn't do it with 10 verizon links to achieve something 100mbit+.

Wireless doesn't work like that

Re:Bring me Google Fiber (5, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41071677)

>>>how crappy internet service is in the US.

Oh look.
A member of the Entitlement Generation complaining "oh the U.S. is so sucky" while the other 6 billion people live on less than 10 dollars a week. It's like listening to a member of the elite bitch-and-moan that he's only in the top 1% of the wealthiest instead of the 0.1% wealthiest.

FACT: The average U.S. speed is EQUAL to the average EU speed. That's right: Our cousins in the European Union have it No better than we Americans. Sure they have some states that are better, but they also have some crappy states (like Greece, Spain) that are a mere 1-2 Mbit/s.

The only continent-spanning union that is faster is the Russian Federation (+2 Mbit/s faster than EU or US). But the U.S. average is faster than Canada. Faster than Mexico. Faster than China. Faster than Brazil. Faster than Australia. Faster than India.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 2 years ago | (#41071873)

Considering the planet only has slightly over 6 billion inhabitants ....
Averages are always meaningless numbers if the sample size is that high.
Who cares what the average bandwith in the USA is, when 50% of the americans have less than 64 killo bandwith?

Re:Bring me Google Fiber (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about 2 years ago | (#41072113)

It's slightly over seven billion now, actually. 7.034 billion, to be precise.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber (2)

camperdave (969942) | about 2 years ago | (#41072305)

Considering the planet only has slightly over 6 billion inhabitants ....

Um... A billion people [worldometers.info] would like to have a word with you and your decades old statistics.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 2 years ago | (#41072863)

Dors not matter if I miscount by a billion. As the number of people having a faster internet connection than the average of the US population is far bigger than the total US population.
Even in Bangladesh people have 4G mobile internet connections ...

Re:Bring me Google Fiber (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41072101)

Oh look.
A member of the Entitlement Generation complaining "oh the U.S. is so sucky" while the other 6 billion people live on less than 10 dollars a week.

Oh look, a member of the "you have no right to complain about anything" generation. I'm guessing you're a Baby Boomer, that generation that had as children the best mix of right and left ideas, who when they grew up into the political thinkers of the 80's who decided the rest of us weren't entitled to that.

Generational bigotry works both ways.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41072139)

Has someone had a bad day, hmmm? Seems like you are coming on a little strong.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41072153)

LOL this moron again with his "FACT" statements and no backup. US internet blows chunks, I'll stick with my 10 euro per month, 30MB/s connection rather than move to your little backwater.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber (4, Informative)

pjt33 (739471) | about 2 years ago | (#41072159)

Sure they have some states that are better, but they also have some crappy states (like Greece, Spain) that are a mere 1-2 Mbit/s.

Source? I'm in Spain and I could have 50Mbit/s if I switched to ONO. (I can't be bothered: 20Mb/s with Jazztel is good enough for me). Maybe it's 2Mb/s if you average over everyone, including those who choose to live so far out in the sticks that they don't have running water, but I'd like to see the figures.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41072219)

Sources for your "facts"? I certainly haven't experienced the fast average speed you seem to be touting.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber (2, Insightful)

Picass0 (147474) | about 2 years ago | (#41072479)

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess than since I'm 44 years old there's a good chance older than you, so don't talk down to me like I'm your junior.

I didn't burn a flag so stop implying things about my political leanings. I only said internet speeds in the US don't fare well against benchmarks from around the world and that's the truth. That will change if Google Fiber goes widespread.

Stop injecting politics into crap that's not political. I'm not alone in being sick of people talk like they're on a cable TV debate program. I was discussing internet bandwidth, not the November general election.

If I were eating and said "MMM, good cheeseburger!" you'll find a f'ing way to make it about Obama. You know what? Forget everything I just said. What I really should have typed is short and sweet:

STFU

Re:Bring me Google Fiber (-1, Flamebait)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 2 years ago | (#41072975)

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess than since I'm 44 years old there's a good chance older than you, so don't talk down to me like I'm your junior.

If you don't want to be talked down to - then don't make ignorant political posts.
 
Case in point:
 
 

Stop injecting politics into crap that's not political. I was discussing internet bandwidth, not the November general election. If I were eating and said "MMM, good cheeseburger!" you'll find a f'ing way to make it about Obama.

Since the original poster didn't mention politics...
 

STFU

Illustrating neatly why you were, and should be talked down to. You're an immature over entitled jackass.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber (1)

Picass0 (147474) | about 2 years ago | (#41073049)

I - AM - the original poster.

I was responding to cpu6502 who called me an entitlement generation leftist because I made a statement about bandwidth speeds in the US.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41072519)

Oh look if it isn't another member of the Bend Over and Take it Generation back again to tell us why we should settle for the scraps of a society you left behind instead of aspiring for more. Just because the youthful idealism of the 60s became a cooped bastardization of itself and under your stewardship the peek of american influence was squandered doesn't mean that everyone else has to abandon hope of a better future (with better internets).

Re:Bring me Google Fiber (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41072541)

FACT: The average U.S. speed is EQUAL to the average EU speed.

[citation needed]

Re:Bring me Google Fiber (1)

Zlib pt (820294) | about 2 years ago | (#41072671)

States? is the EU a country now?

Re:Bring me Google Fiber (1)

Zlib pt (820294) | about 2 years ago | (#41072775)

And a little more ontopic:

My parents pay a little under 40€ for unlimited phone to 75 countries (landlines) 24/7, 110 channels and 100 Mb Eurodocsis 3 internet connection. Today I reached 80mb/s+ on a real world download - not some speedtest - at their house.

And from what I understand in France the price and services are very similar

Re:Bring me Google Fiber (1)

Zlib pt (820294) | about 2 years ago | (#41073831)

uuups. I'm from Portugal. Also the lowest connection speed i know that can be contracted here is 2 Mb unlimited for 16.99€, the rest is usually 10+. Some reach 200Mbps and there are some pilot programs @ 1Gb residencial. Also 3 or 4 providers offer (real) FTTH.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber (1)

gitano_dbs (1490853) | about 2 years ago | (#41073389)

That's right: Our cousins in the European Union have it No better than we Americans. Sure they have some states that are better, but they also have some crappy states (like Greece, Spain) that are a mere 1-2 Mbit/s

I am on ONO at Spain paying for the 50mb/5Mb plan, they offered me a month ago a upgrade to 75Mb/5Mb, the price was 1 year permanency more, same money. Just did that quick test for you http://www.speedtest.net/result/2132615837.png [speedtest.net] . ONO its a cable company pretty spread at Spain, so i call bullshit to your "facts" , care to provide any source ?

Re:Bring me Google Fiber (1)

TheUnFounded (731123) | about 2 years ago | (#41073609)

[citation needed]

Is it so terrible to want more than "average"? (1)

no_such_user (196771) | about 2 years ago | (#41073801)

Entitlement Generation? I must have missed the part where the poster said something about expecting it for free.

Even with its flaws, I'm thankful to have a fast Internet connection at all. But it could be much better.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber (1)

grumpyman (849537) | about 2 years ago | (#41072377)

It comes with Google (TM) Internet.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41073157)

You think Google Fibre is going to provide 1 Gbps sustained per user? Not a chance; you're as contended as any other service and perhaps even more so.

Google, as usual, won't provide information on such trivial matters.

Just don't run any servers on their network, because that's greedy.

dummy@barbie-teens.com (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41071335)

dummy@barbie-teens.com

Hardware-torrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41071393)

cool

Wintel Only (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41071417)

Wintel only for now. This was needed 10 years ago when all you could get was 10 dial-up lines.

JJ

Re:Wintel Only (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41072683)

Wintel only for now. This was needed 10 years ago when all you could get was 10 dial-up lines.

JJ

That brought back memories of pooled landlines for hosting a BBS, and more recent memories about taking an entire weekend to perform a netinstall of Debian GNU/Linux in 2000 AD/CE. After all, 300 bps (baud) should be fast enough for anyone. ;)

Why is this impressive? (4, Interesting)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41071483)

Ok, so they made a download of 85Mbps, is this impressive due to the speed, or the complexity?

Also, how fast is the Ethernet connection on it's own?

All in all, they hooked up all of these networking cards:

        7 USB Wi-Fi Cards
        USB 3G Modem
        4G Tethered Smartphone
        Ethernet Connection

Re:Why is this impressive? (1)

HapSlappy_2222 (1089149) | about 2 years ago | (#41072615)

The Ethernet connection was Comcast's "100 Mbps" connection, which was running at 85 Mbps (due to the cap being hit as DHCP handed out the IP address). The other 9 connections were just there to make it "look fancy".

My Kindle 3G still works (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41071507)

I regularly read facebook or googlemail. I've not noticed it being switched off? I do feel a bit ripped-off though. I bought the 3G version (instead of the cheaper wifi) specifically because the amazon description advertised webbrowsing over the connection. Now suddenly they've taken away that function. (ponder) Maybe if I ask for a store credit, I can return the 3G and get the cheaper wifi instead.

Re:My Kindle 3G still works (1)

arnott (789715) | about 2 years ago | (#41071683)

From the article:

The free Internet ride is over though: Amazon is now capping use of the browser over 3G at 50 megabytes per month.

However, it’s more likely that Amazon is limiting the 3G connection because of hacks that allow the device to be used as 3G mobile hotspot for free.

likely even faster if not useing USB (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#41071647)

likely even faster if not useing USB to link them all.

Re:likely even faster if not useing USB (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41071893)

I see you havent tried 3.0 yet. IT ROCKS...

How is this special? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41071699)

Seriously, how is this special? This is most likely just an implementation of PPP Multi-link link aggregation. The reason why the software is a subscription model is because the links need to be re-aggregated at an end point, most likely their servers. If it isn't Multi-link, then it is most likely Link teaming.

If you had a dedicated server with a fat (multi-gbps) fat pipe, you should be able to execute on this. I hope their business model isn't banking on an over-subscription model...

Re:How is this special? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41071767)

I don't think its a subscription model. I think you just get upgrades and support for a year. Anyways, I've been waiting for something like this, and haven't really seen anything close to it yet.

FINALLY!!! (4, Funny)

jemenake (595948) | about 2 years ago | (#41071723)

... a use for all of the wireless passwords in my neighborhood that I've cracked! All of my neighbors (individually) have slower connections than I do.

On a side note, it always would irk me that Windows XP, if you gave it more than 1 path to the internet, would be unable to get to the internet at all.

New meme? (1)

bwintx (813768) | about 2 years ago | (#41071773)

From now on, will a link to this story substitute for the fabled "Beowulf cluster" meme? We shall see.

Re:New meme? (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about 2 years ago | (#41072201)

"Beowulf connection" has a nice ring to it.

Re:New meme? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41074119)

i love it, perhaps its technical term can be a RAIIC

Re:New meme? (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41073111)

It needs a legendary name to compete with "Beawolf Cluster", hmm perhaps "Hydra Connection"?

Must go faster (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41071905)

OHH to chain all the 4g phones in my office.

If there was only a MiFi app for that to not need 10 individual WiFi cards, but rather spawn a new WiFi virtual access point when the data rate saturates the 150/300 802.11n limits.

Speedtest.net or GTFO! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41071995)

Oh how very 1996 of them. I haven't used bonded connections since v.90 modems and ISDN lines went out of favor in 1998. But, these aren't even bonded in the traditional sense they are disparate links form disparate providers. The aggregate bandwidth might indeed be impressive and there may well be a use for this as a headend for some sort of multi-user network, but it won't provide high speed in the sense that everyone expects.

A single connection between you and the website of your choice will never reach more that the speed of the SINGLE link that your TCP session traverses. Doubt it? Let's see this Slashvertisment run against www.speedtest.net or GTFO!

Pointless (1)

brainzach (2032950) | about 2 years ago | (#41072271)

Interesting concept, but I don't see the practical use.

How many times do you need that fast of Internet connection on the go AND have access to several unsecured WiFi hotspots at the same time?

One fast reliable WiFi connection is a simpler solution that accomplishes the same thing.

Re:Pointless (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41073337)

It happens all the time when you're out on a boat. Example: http://setsail.com/efficient-versatile-easy-to-use-communications-what-is-the-answer-for-cruisers/

You show up in a new port. There are 6 WiFi stations, 2 of which sort-of kind-of work. There's a weak 3G signal that's fast for a few minutes, then gone for a while. There's a strong 2G signal but it's slow. There's a satellite phone, which is pricey.

A device that can aggregate all of these flaky connections into one reasonably stable data stream is a Very Good Idea.

(posting AC from work, still on duty...)

fris/t 5top! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41072391)

smack (1)

magarity (164372) | about 2 years ago | (#41072469)

Someone needs to smack the twit who tethered his Kindle. As if Amazon wouldn't notice. Many times I've used my Kindle's lousy browser as a backup; if they crank down the usage or eliminate it because of this he needs to hope I never catch him unaware. How hard is it to just use a free bonus service in a device as a free bonus service in the device?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>