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!

Making Wireless Carriers Play Together

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the until-the-next-bottleneck-at-least dept.

Networking 58

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

cancel ×

58 comments

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

Go Away (3, Informative)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year and a half ago | (#42753935)

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

Re:Go Away (1)

GeniusDex (803759) | about a year and a half ago | (#42754583)

Unless you add chainsaws.

Re:Go Away (2)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year and a half ago | (#42755111)

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

Re:Go Away (-1, Flamebait)

yuaggyta (2829823) | about a year and a half ago | (#42754595)

http://www.cloud65.com/ [cloud65.com] my friend's sister-in-law makes $78 hourly on the laptop. She has been without a job for eight months but last month her check was $16455 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Here's the site to read more

Re:Go Away (1, Funny)

phil_aychio (2438214) | about a year and a half ago | (#42754899)

Something about this doesn't add up...at 78 dollars an hour, she would have had to work over 200 hours in one month to make that amount, yet it says '...just working on the laptop for a few hours", which is completely misleading. 50+ hours a week ain't trivial. I think your friends sister-in-law is embellishing, to say the least.

Re:Go Away (2)

JazzLad (935151) | about a year and a half ago | (#42755745)

Whoooosh [troll.me]

Re:Go Away (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42754931)

I have an article on the frontage that says otherwise.

Re:Go Away (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42755483)

I think actually you do. Case in point. [slashdot.org]

Yeah, right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42753943)

And the wireless carriers will just laugh in your face at this idea.

niche devices (1)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#42753991)

the hotspots have too many limitations

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

Sense of entitlement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42754001)

"Ok, so"...

"We" do not get to jump on everyone's bandwidth and bond them (lol).

"We" get to be good citizens and when we need connectivity that we don't otherwise have, we use other people's open WiFI connections.
"We" also open our own to share what we have with others.

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

M

Re:Sense of entitlement (1)

sribe (304414) | about a year and a half ago | (#42754237)

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

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

Re:Sense of entitlement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42755255)

Maybe they are the kind-hearted sociopaths like Dexter?

Seriously though, bonding across technologies with vastly different latencies is a mess. This is like someone who needs a 430-hp Corvette deciding to rope together 10 43-hp Hundai Excel's. The math works, but the practical issues abound.

Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42754007)

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

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

Re:Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! (2)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about a year and a half ago | (#42754063)

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

Re:Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! (5, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#42754275)

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

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

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

Re:Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! (2)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#42756551)

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

Nearly already happened. [nbcnews.com] But it was for kiddee porn so, it was ok.

Re:Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42758203)

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

so.. that's why they don't do raids like that in texas?

(without at least having the old-fashioned waco-style standoff first)

Re:Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! (1)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758505)

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

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

Re:Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! (1)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758653)

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

Re:Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! (1)

mspohr (589790) | about a year and a half ago | (#42754277)

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

Re:Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about a year and a half ago | (#42754419)

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

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

Re:Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! (2)

geminidomino (614729) | about a year and a half ago | (#42755395)

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

Re:Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758793)

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

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

Re:Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762241)

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

Re:Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year and a half ago | (#42764063)

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

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

Re:Free wifi? Don't forget the SWAT team! (1)

socialleech (1696888) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759217)

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

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

Making Them? (0)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42754025)

"Making", You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Peopel might make corporations, but after that no one Makes them do anything. The Corporations make the rules of how you'll use and be charged for their services.

Go re-watch The Matrix, and the Terminator series. They're allegory for the Intangible Thought-Machine Invasion. Protip: The Machines Won. The rule system are now self perpetuating, and only those whe ally with them stand a chance of a decent life. You're either part of the machine, or you're food.

Idiot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42754039)

Wireless carriers already "play together", why do you think they're almost never competitive, and all of their prices are abnormally high?

What's the point? (3, Informative)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about a year and a half ago | (#42754047)

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

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42754741)

*everything* switches to a configured wifi hotspot.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42755615)

Just because you can connect to multiple spigots doesn't meant that they don't eventually lead to the same water main.

What's your point? Multiple spigots allow you have a faster flow rate unless the water main is the same size or smaller than the line to the spigot. A 6-inch water main can carry enough water to supply 60+ 3/4-inch water lines at full bore. A 12-inch main could supply more than 250 3/4-inch lines.

Re:What's the point? (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757119)

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

Re:What's the point? (2)

mcelrath (8027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42755789)

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

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

Re:What's the point? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759705)

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

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

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

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

Re:What's the point? (1)

Zouden (232738) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759717)

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

Re:What's the point? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759727)

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

Re:What's the point? (1)

nmr_andrew (1997772) | about a year and a half ago | (#42763163)

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

Apparently (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year and a half ago | (#42754219)

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

Is this what we do on /. now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42754229)

Oh oh here is a great post to put on the front page:

"WHat if we all had flying cars, and could travel back in time. Oh oh and what about if there were no wars, wouldn't that be great?

Wishful Thinking (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#42754293)

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

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

Remind me again... (1)

Rod Beauvex (832040) | about a year and a half ago | (#42754405)

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

Re: Remind me again... (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | about a year and a half ago | (#42755277)

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

Wouldn't mind seeing what options exist (2)

Yoik (955095) | about a year and a half ago | (#42754487)

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

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

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

Any suggestions?

Re:Wouldn't mind seeing what options exist (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42754883)

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

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

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

Any suggestions?

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

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

Re:Wouldn't mind seeing what options exist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42756913)

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

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

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

Any suggestions?

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

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

Or this ...

https://www.mushroomnetworks.com/products.aspx?product_id=1002

The SYSWAN SW24 as I understand caps at around 40Mb/s throughput - if you have fast cable as your primary and Fast (6Mb) DSL you might end up bottlenecking yourself.

but the Truffle Lite is also about 10x more expensive.

Re:Wouldn't mind seeing what options exist (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758823)

Any suggestions?

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

What is the thought here? (1)

fermion (181285) | about a year and a half ago | (#42754545)

That some kid is whining because he can't afford but bandwidth to download p0rn fast enough?

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

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

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

Connectify Dispatch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42754693)

What about a collaborative that brings people together looking share connections to reduce WiFi costs. Someone in an apartment building for example could easily collaborate with a few other residents and create a Connectify Dispatch server to provide a super fast available WiFi connection that everyone could potentially be using at speeds unavailable to consumers otherwise. In fact if you owned an apartment building you could probably put 4-5 connections together with a server and distribute the connection to 10-12 apartments offering ridiculous speeds to the residents at a fraction of price for individual internet connections.

  Commence the bandwidth distribution revolution!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Connectify Dispatch (1)

bws111 (1216812) | about a year and a half ago | (#42754871)

Um, yeah. Only three little problems to overcome.

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

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

Legal: This is no doubt very much against your TOS

Re:Connectify Dispatch (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about a year and a half ago | (#42756169)

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

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

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

Hey Timothy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42754967)

Wake up and smell the grounds. There's no advantage to individuals if WiFi signals are dominated by carrier traffic. That's why no one bit.

I have enough trouble getting decent WiFi performance from my laptop in many coffee shops as it is. I don't need every sell phone in the place interfering with my ability to read Slashdot post so I can get my ya-ya quota for the day responding to such silliness.

Cut it out!

Sounds lucrative. (1)

ANonyMouser (2641869) | about a year and a half ago | (#42755055)

If the vendors got together and coordinated I'm sure they could devise a nice premium service type arrangement. However this does sound like the sort of thing that regulators jump on quickly as being anti-competitive.

WE already have this, don't we? (1)

aklinux (1318095) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757207)

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

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

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

Re:WE already have this, don't we? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42758659)

Don't think bonding, think load balancing: half the traffic through one ISP half through the other (sorted by routes based on destination so the service you are consuming doesn't see a flip flopped IP address). This is easily doable with current $60-$100 routers.

My WiFi isn't getting opened until the police have to follow the same laws as everyone else... so never.

WAT (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758837)

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

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

What would be really cool... (1)

Vrtigo1 (1303147) | about a year and a half ago | (#42814127)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?