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!

Corporate Encouragement For Sharing Your WiFi

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the everybody-in-the-phone-booth dept.

Wireless Networking 173

anagama writes "Conventional wisdom is that one should lockdown wifi, your ISP doesn't want you to share your connection, that person checking email outside the coffee shop ought to be arrested. The UK ISP BT is offering an alternative model. The company will encourage its three million broadband users to pick up a FON router and start sharing signals. 'For BT, the move makes its broadband offering more useful to customers, who can access the Internet from more places, and BT doesn't need to build out a new wireless network itself. BT's Gavin Patterson, a managing director, holds out hopes that the FON scheme can someday "cover every street in Britain." "We are giving our millions of Total Broadband customers a choice and an opportunity," he added in a statement. "If they are prepared to securely share a little of their broadband, they can share the broadband at hundreds of thousands of FON and BT Openzone hotspots today, without paying a penny." '"

cancel ×

173 comments

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

also, share your turds (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20891335)

A few years ago, while browsing around the library downtown, I
had to take a piss. As I entered the john a big beautiful all-American
football hero type, about twenty-five, came out of one of the booths.
I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he
washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was "straight" and
married - and in any case I was sure I wouldn't have a chance with
him.

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated,
hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still
warm from his sturdy young ass. I found not only the smell but the
shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left
behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It
apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat,
stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd
- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as a man's wrist.

I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and
wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd
always been a heavy rimmer and had lapped up more than one little
clump of shit, but that had been just an inevitable part of eating ass
and not an end in itself. Of course I'd had jerk-off fantasies of
devouring great loads of it (what rimmer hasn't), but I had never done
it. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound
turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy
and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of the world's
handsomest young stud.

Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both
hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled
like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the
consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit
without the benefit of a digestive tract?

I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it
smelled. I've found since then that shit nearly almost does.

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into
my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big brown cock,
beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and
bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet
flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had
chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed
I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I
soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd
passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily,
sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My
only regret was the donor of this feast wasn't there to wash it down
with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the
cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more
delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with
the rich bitterness of shit.

Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But
then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There
was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished
them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my
briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the
shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever
unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an
unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.

I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using
them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my
mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit
trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six
orgasms in the process.

I often think of that lovely young guy dropping solid gold out
of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could,
and at least once did, bring to a grateful shiteater.

How hte hell (0, Troll)

armanox (826486) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891363)

Do we block this guy from ever being able to concievably post again? Or how can we delete these posts that nobody has any interest whatsoever in reading?

Re:How hte hell (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20891481)

RTFM. Slashdot doesn't delete posts because Taco doesn't believe in deleting posts. There are two ways I know of for a post to disappear:

  1. If it gets flushed because the discussion is too large, a la 20721.
  2. If our Benevolent Masters at the Church of Scientology disapprove in any way

"We" can't "block" "this guy" from "concievably" posting, for several reasons:

  1. We are not Slashdot admins
  2. It's not one guy
  3. Concievably isn't a word
  4. IP bans are ineffective due to the availability of proxies
  5. Jews orchestrated and carried out the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center in New York

My advice to you is that you delve deep into your user configuration page and fix it so that you don't see AC posts or -1 Troll posts at all. Alternatively, type up a bogus DMCA takedown notice claiming the shit-eating first post as your own work. Before you can even click "Send", Taco will be knocking at your door wearing nothing but a pair of see-through panties and handcuffs, eager for you to administer his "punishment" for being a "bad boy".

Censorship Nazi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20892027)

Are you some kind of censorship nazi?

fuck your copypasta (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20891377)

Fuck your shit-eating copypasta

Fuck boasting about getting first post on anti-slash

Fuck cookiecutter, unoriginal, humorless trolling

Fuck you, fuck your fucking failtroll, and fuck off back to gaia

Sure, I'll share my broadband... (2, Insightful)

daedalusblond (1037302) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891345)

...but will BT pay for it?

The only way i see this working would be if organizations were compensated for sharing. Not just "encouraged". It'd be nice to put some of the excess on our fiber circuits to good use.

Re:Sure, I'll share my broadband... (4, Interesting)

JamesRose (1062530) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891499)

That's the point, BT has BT openzone, so at places like airports BT gives wi-fi access, if you partipate in this scheme, you let people use your broadband, and in return you can use theirs and BT's. It's like communism, but the good kind :P. Of course you can choose not to, and you pay a little to accesss the wi-fi area.

Re:Sure, I'll share my broadband... (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891901)

More importantly, are you still going to ban someone's account when "they" use too much "secret limit" bandwidth in a given month?

Re:Sure, I'll share my broadband... (1)

empaler (130732) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892009)

More importantly, are you still going to ban someone's account when "they" use too much "secret limit" bandwidth in a given month?
That's a very American thing. EU consumer laws usually stop that sort of behaviour. (If you know of any such problems in the UK, please do tell)

Re:Sure, I'll share my broadband... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20892061)

Interesting how you spouted that off about it being an American trait. You know things are bad here in the states(especially leadership) when an American agrees with you.

Re:Sure, I'll share my broadband... (2, Informative)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892183)

...but will BT pay for it?

Yes. [fon.com] Summary: When somebody accesses the Internet through your connection, they pay for it, and you get half.

Who pays the bills when the RIAA comes knockin'? (1)

rebullandvodka (569646) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892579)

I don't understand how someone can share their AP without fear of someone doing something nefarious over their connection. I'd be more willing to participate once there is more precedence over who's going to get busted (not me).

Re:Who pays the bills when the RIAA comes knockin' (1)

JoelKatz (46478) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892629)

"I don't understand how someone can share their AP without fear of someone doing something nefarious over their connection. I'd be more willing to participate once there is more precedence over who's going to get busted (not me)."

If this were the United States, you would be perfectly safe (theoretically) so long as you comply with the DMCA safe harbor provisions. However, doing that is a pain in the ass. I think you're probably safe anyway, since you're just extending someone else's network and they are still responsible for access control and so on.

However, there is certainly a risk that you might have to fend off a lawsuit regardless of how clear it is that you are in the right. I wonder if BT is going to assume that risk on behalf of their customers. Seems like it would make sense since they already assume this risk for the access they extend to these same people.

Not for free. Charging extra users. (3, Informative)

mjensen (118105) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891347)

From the article, FON is charging the extra users. It's extra revenue for them. The extra users aren't getting on for free.

Re:Not for free. Charging extra users. (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891385)

I think the point is not to get on for free, but to get on from anywhere they happen to be standing. If you share yours, and they share theirs, FON can make lots of money by having access points everywhere without paying a penny, and call it 'sharing' with each other.

Re:Not for free. Charging extra users. (1)

SnoopJeDi (859765) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892251)

You sound upset as if this is some kind of under-handed method destroying all we know and love.

In fact, this is potentially an answer to the cost problems in setting up large-scale wireless access that have been featured here on /. recently. Sure, it's not exactly what people are looking for, but it's a step towards a larger infrastructure, I suppose.

Re:Not for free. Charging extra users. (4, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891479)

how do you read that?

Other "Foneros" can access the public channel for free, while non-Foneros can pay a few dollars a day to use the access points.

"If they are prepared to securely share a little of their broadband, they can share the broadband at hundreds of thousands of FON and BT Openzone hotspots today, without paying a penny."

Re:Not for free. Charging extra users. (1, Informative)

Buelldozer (713671) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891631)

Whaaaa? How did this get modded insightful?

Fon has three types of users: Linux, Bill, and Alien. If you sign up as a Linux and share your wifi you get free wifi at any other Fon access point.

If you are a Bill you make a bit of money when another Bill or Alien, logs onto your Fon access point. Conversely if you roam onto another Fon AP you are expected to pay at a reduced rate.

An Alien is anyone who is not part of the Fon network. They can still access any Fon AP but they have to pay to do it.

My point is that if you are a "La Fonera" and share your wifi free you get wifi free. Sharing is good.

Re:Not for free. Charging extra users. (1)

s7uar7 (746699) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891813)

The way it works has changed since you last checked. You can now be a Bill - getting paid for people who access your network - and access other FON APs for free.

Re:Not for free. Charging extra users. (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892571)

I have a FON AP and access is free for anyone although they need a FON account to use it.

Firsaddaosdja psto (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20891349)

FUCKERS!

I'm using shared WiFi to write this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20891361)

...first post!

WTF? (1)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891369)

Uh... security anyone?

Re:WTF? (2, Informative)

EriDay (679359) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891439)

FON authenticates its users.

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20891465)

Your ISP makes internet access available to you. Does that compromise their security?

Unless these routers are configured in a half-assed fashion I don't see security being a problem.

Re:WTF? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20891961)

>Uh... security anyone?

No thanks, I'm trying to cut down.

Re:WTF? (2, Interesting)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892635)

That's why we invented ssl, ssh, etc. AP security is mostly an illusion anyway and at least IMO it should not be allowed as it's hijacking a scarce public resource (the frequency being used) and making it into a private resource. Very annoying if you live in a crowded area where everyone is trying to run their own little AP and it's to congested to work well and you can't share because they are all locked.

A solution for the muni-wifi conundrum? (1)

ctdownunder (816383) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891391)

This is a very cool solution that has been proposed by many community based wifi projects. That BT would endorse an organic approach like this is very open minded. Let's hope that internal politics doesn't commit this idea to the "let's outsource this for study" meeting whores, effectively shelving it.

That's how San Fran et all should have done it (5, Insightful)

turnipsatemybaby (648996) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891403)

I can think of no simpler way to implement a city-wide free wifi system than a grassroots method such as this. Not only is the up front cost relatively inexpensive per user, it's distributed across thousands of people who can take part if/when they see fit, and it's much easier for individual people to maintain than a central authority.

Not only that, you would have the redundancy of having multiple choices of APs in a given area, so if one goes down for whatever reason, you can still choose another.

It's almost like the equivalent of swarm intelligence, but applied to wifi.

Re:That's how San Fran et all should have done it (1)

daedalusblond (1037302) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891445)

Even better, how about roaming?

You don't ever want to have to stay in JUST ONE coffee shop just because SP3 is downloading.

Re:That's how San Fran et all should have done it (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20891475)

This isn't "grassroots", it's being done by BT. BT is essentially pre-compromised by british intelligence services. Now, they tend to be somewhat less unpleasant people than american spooks (subjective), but still, this is basically pre-emptively building a monitorable and centrally controlled wireless network before british subjects start getting too uppity and build their own widespread mesh networks, much harder for big brother to control and monitor.

Re:That's how San Fran et all should have done it (1)

Angostura (703910) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891947)

If the spooks want to monitor IP traffic, they'll just stick a probe or two in at Telehouse or any of the large Colo/Interconnection points or wherever. This project gets the spooks precisely nothing as far as I can see.

Re:That's how San Fran et all should have done it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20892073)

The point is a MESH network doesn't have large, centralised interconnection points. And MESH networks are hovering on the brink of wide adoption. So, by pre-supplying an adequate wide-area wifi network, the main impetus to participate in a mesh disappears, and meshing remains the domain of a minority of tech geeks.

Re:That's how San Fran et all should have done it (2, Insightful)

Angostura (703910) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892127)

Every mesh network I've seen employs at least one backhaul to enable Internet connectivity. Now, unless you believe that there will be a wealth of intra-mesh communication that the spooks will want to see, the backhaul is where they will tap.

Re:That's how San Fran et all should have done it (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891681)

What do you do about areas where no one pitches in?

this should be stopped dead in its tracks! (4, Funny)

siddesu (698447) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891415)

damned bleeding heart pirate and crime promoters, these telcos, how dare they muddy the waters of evidence-gathering against all those copyright-thieving artist-income-depriving file-sharing child-porn distributing criminals?

Some US providers try/tried too... (3, Informative)

olden (772043) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891431)

Some providers in the US also try/tried that, starting as early as 2003, and usually hoping that non-customers would pay $$ to access their network through such user-provided "open" wi-fi APs. I don't think this worked overly well so far though...
http://www.sonic.net/hotspots/ [sonic.net]
http://www.speakeasy.net/netshare/learnmore/ [speakeasy.net]

Re:Some US providers try/tried too... (1)

empaler (130732) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892037)

According to the Fon maps [fon.com] , the US is pretty well set there, depending on where you look, of course.

Since there's a camera on every street corner... (0, Troll)

MacDork (560499) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891435)

I don't guess plausible deniability is a problem in Great Britain. They can prove their charges simply by showing a lack of other suspects in the vicinity on video since cameras are ubiquitous. No people around? You're guilty. Sometimes they don't even have trials, they just shoot suspects. [wikipedia.org] I wouldn't step foot in that Nazi police state if you paid me.

Re:Since there's a camera on every street corner.. (2, Insightful)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891527)

firstly, what the hell are you talking about? plausible deniability of what?

But what really annoys me about your comment is the shear stupidity of it. Is the UK a nazi-esque state? no. If it were would the media be able to report about when the police did make a bad call and kill an innocent man? would the independent police complaints commission investigate? would it be possible to criticise the government at all?...

So tell me how many death camps does the UK have? I can count... none.

Calling the UK a Nazi state is an insult to all the people who died because of the Nazi regime.

since there's a dweeb on every corner who hasn't . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20892117)

..read some history, I'll help out. The english invented the modern death camp, and used them extensively in south africa during the boer wars,against all comers, including women and children, and in India when they were trying to get their independence. They also used the quaint punishment called "shot from guns", go look it up, how they treated "bloody wogs". I am sure the toffs found it amusing. In addition, after ww2, they were responsible for running open air in the winter concentration camps for german pows who were *not* repatriated, and held in the open until they starved and froze to death. Starved and frozen to death. Not SS troops, just regular german wehrmacht conscripts. By the tens of thousands. Their capitalist pigs also stripped ireland of food, leading to mass famine there (and you wonder why they wanted independence all the way to fighting for it, and perhaps a spot of revenge)



Read some history about your own nation before you claim polly puregood status. And if you want more, there's plenty in the books where those atrocities came from. You don't get to have a rise and fall in empire without massive exploitation of people and general genocide action. How about the opium wars, hmm? How about keeping hess on ice forever, to keep him from blabbing about all the high level plutocrats who supported the rise of the third reich, including a lot of your "royals"? How much do you want really, location of todays camps? Who knows, but you can bet they have them, buried under some military reservation someplace. The english have always had a brutal violent government hiding behind a veneer of false civility. The people there are still called "subjects", that should be clue enough.



If you want something more current, their intelligence "agents" had operatives inside the ira who went along with bombings on their own soil, and kneecappings and so on, accepting collateral damage to further political aims of helping along the big brother terror based police state (the US learned from those actions sad to say). They are also covering up the real events of 7-7 (which was an inside job, most obviously, again, to help bring about a stronger police state, just like 9-11 was in the US).
If you want to read history, start with a sense of neutrality, you'll find most governments are a pack of lying murdering thugs for the most part who use historical revisionism in the schools and media to whitewash their negative points, ie,. mass brainwashing, and sounds like you have fallen for it. Control of the economies and politics of large nations (any nations really) is just too tempting for the psychopaths to ignore. The filthy murdering oily shit floats to the top, they get the power, orders from those sorts float downstream.

Re:Since there's a camera on every street corner.. (1)

MacDork (560499) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892303)

firstly, what the hell are you talking about? plausible deniability of what?

Come on now Joe, everyone here understands the open wifi defense. "Your honor, my wifi was open. It could have been anybody."

But what really annoys me about your comment is the shear stupidity of it. Is the UK a nazi-esque state?

In free countries, if the police were to tackle, pin, and then shoot a suspect in the back of the head seven times execution style, those police would go to trial and be put away for murder. Did any of those police go to trial for murder? Of course not, the police state ruled [bbc.co.uk] there was insufficient evidence [infowars.net] for a murder trial. The train driver was there [mirror.co.uk] with a gun shoved in his face, so I guess eye witness testimony is insufficient in the UK.

So tell me how many death camps does the UK have? I can count... none.

Nazi Germany didn't have death camps [wikipedia.org] until the last couple of years of the war, when their plans for world domination started to sour. Nobody really knew of them until the war ended.

Calling the UK a Nazi state is an insult to all the people who died because of the Nazi regime.

No, what the UK has become is an insult to all the people who fought and died to protect it from the Nazi regime.

Re:Since there's a camera on every street corner.. (0, Flamebait)

JamesRose (1062530) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891559)

If you're an American, then look very closely at your own system before attacking ours, if you aren't then please, go, research your own country anyway, because there is no government where bad things aren't happening, and instead of sitting on a forum attacking another country's system go away and fix your own first please. We may loose small amounts of freedom, but there are countries where they don't have free schooling, free health care, a minimum wage, support for the unemployed and one of the riches populations in the world. I accept things are getting worse, but I know where we started from. Tell me, if the man you referred to running towards an underground train with a backpack on shortly after severeal suicide bombings had been a suicide bomber too, would you like to explain to the hundreds of casualties, deaths and relatives why the armed police there to protect them didn't shoot? The percentages say, it was better for that man to die than to risk the hundreds, and as a result we also live a more concious society of these incidents which in itself helps protect us.

Re:Since there's a camera on every street corner.. (4, Insightful)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891629)

Tell me, if the man you referred to running towards an underground train with a backpack on shortly after severeal suicide bombings had been a suicide bomber too, would you like to explain to the hundreds of casualties, deaths and relatives why the armed police there to protect them didn't shoot? The percentages say, it was better for that man to die than to risk the hundreds, and as a result we also live a more concious society of these incidents which in itself helps protect us.

You are fucking joking, right?

Percentages, is it? OK. How many people wear backpacks in London? Millions. How many people run for a train? Millions. Of those, how many are suicide bombers? Four so far. So, shoot anyone wearing a backpack who is running for a train, on the off-chance they might be a bomber?

Moreover, despite the initial lies put about by the police, de Menezes was not carrying a bag of any kind. Nor was he wearing a heavy coat.

Re:Since there's a camera on every street corner.. (1)

smchris (464899) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891885)

Philosophically the Nazis pretty much sent "greatest happiness to the greatest number" up in smoke. A meaningful post-WWII ethics has to value each individual to be worthy as a morality.

Re:Since there's a camera on every street corner.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20892497)

What makes you think the Nazis were interested in "greatest happiness to the greatest number"? They justified war and genocide on the basis that some people just didn't count as worthy of moral consideration at all, not that suffering was outweighed by an increase in happiness elsewhere.

Re:Since there's a camera on every street corner.. (2, Informative)

jmpeax (936370) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891983)

Nor was he running - that, too, was a lie.

Re:Since there's a camera on every street corner.. (1)

Neon Aardvark (967388) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891733)

Tell me, if the man you referred to running towards an underground train with a backpack on shortly after severeal suicide bombings had been a suicide bomber too

He wasn't wearing a backpack, and he wasn't running. Neither was the train driver, who also had a gun pointed at him, but wasn't executed on the spot like this poor guy.

You don't really know what you're talking about, do you?

Re:Since there's a camera on every street corner.. (1)

MacDork (560499) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892019)

look very closely at your own system before attacking ours

My nationality is irrelevant. Just because you can point to another country and say "They're bad too" doesn't make yours any better. That's an appeal to common practice. [nizkor.org]

Step one is admitting you have a problem. You obviously haven't done that.

Re:Since there's a camera on every street corner.. (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891735)

A camera on every corner? Really? Interesting. I just looked out of my window, and there were no cameras. The nearest CCTV camera to my house is actually on the street corner though; it's in the corner shop, and privately operated (by the way, most of the statistics right wing newspapers here quote for CCTV cameras do include these, and these are the same figures that are repeated internationally).

As for shooting suspects, the example you give is over two years old. At the time, it was a huge scandal, and was in the mainstream press for weeks afterwards. How often do the police in your country accidentally shoot an innocent person? If you live in the USA, then you'll find it's a lot more often, helped by the fact that your police are allowed to carry guns on a regular basis.

Re:Since there's a camera on every street corner.. (1)

MacDork (560499) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892429)

How often do the police in your country accidentally shoot an innocent person?

I don't call tackling, pinning, and then shooting someone seven times execution style in the back of the head "accidental." If you do, that say something truly disturbing about you. To call the incident "accidental" is as profoundly stupid as saying "accidental gang rape." What happened in London was not in any way accidental. A man was murdered in cold blood, by the police, in front of at least one witness, and the state declared "insufficient evidence" for a murder trial. It's a horrendous miscarriage of justice, and YOU are defending it!!

Re:Since there's a camera on every street corner.. (1)

empaler (130732) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892131)

Are you trolling? Did you even read what happened? A bunch of edgy police officers overreacted to something the day after their work place had been subjected to a terrorist attack. They're only human, for gods sakes, and they reacted as scared humans tend to when something unexpected happens.
Every day, 30'000 children die of stupid little things that could have been easily prevented; I know this in no way makes his family's loss any less, but that's a fact. Another fact is that none of the families of the 30'000 children are offered any sort of apology nor compensation for their loss; more likely, they are themselves dying in the dirt.
Compare that to this:

The day after the shooting, the Metropolitan Police identified the victim as Jean Charles de Menezes, and said that he had not been carrying explosives, nor was he connected in any way to the attempted bombings. They issued an apology describing the incident as "a tragedy, and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets."

The de Menezes' family condemned the shooting and rejected the apology. His grandmother said there was "no reason to think he was a terrorist." It was reported that the dead man's family were offered almost £585,000 compensation.
While I strongly oppose the British government's stance on human rights and privacy boundaries, these were just frightened little security officers who did wrong. It was not Blackwater.

Btw, Godwin is weeping.

Re:Since there's a camera on every street corner.. (1)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892201)

Godwin at T+14. Getting better.

The end of the world is nigh! (1)

Siddly (675342) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891461)

Quite an astounding suggestion bearing in mind it's coming from BT. It seems to make good sense to me.

Re:The end of the world is nigh! (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891745)

BT research does a lot of interesting work. They have a group doing some particularly fascinating stuff with emergent properties of networks of simple systems, which is likely to be quite applicable here.

Re:The end of the world is nigh! (1)

s7uar7 (746699) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892215)

BT employs people with the coolest job title I've ever come across, Futurologist [btinternet.com] , so if anyone was going to do it, it would be them.

Re:The end of the world is nigh! (1)

Siddly (675342) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892543)

Hopefully their impact is beginning to show, the way BT was, we'd still be using 1200 baud dial-up links. I've supported their mainframes for many years and found their computer staff A1, but the rest of the organisation seemed to lag way behind in thinking and action - I've had heartaches with their telephone and data links over the years.

it's a good idea in all (1)

shvytejimas (1083291) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891483)

makes me think there should be a catch. what if your line eventually became saturated by the traffic from the wifi router (if you are located in some popular place), wouldn't you think of upgrading your connection plan?

Re:it's a good idea in all (1)

s7uar7 (746699) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891839)

People accessing your network are limited to a total of 512kbps down; I'm not sure what the upstream is limited to (if at all), but that could be a problem as we only get 448kbits.

5uck m4 ph47 p1p3 (1)

empaler (130732) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892275)

10/10 mbit for only 270 Danish Kroner. In USD [google.com] . In GBP [google.com] .

I could get 20/20 for a little more than twice that, but I won't until I get some more storage space.

If the router didn't cost a fortune compared to how useful this would be for me, I might get three. Given that my awesome boss has given me a mobile 3G modem with near-unlimited data usage, I think I'll manage without, though.

RIAA (3, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891551)

Must be screaming in pain now.. Even less of a way to determine who downloaded/uploaded something that is *isp sponsored*.

Cool.

Re:RIAA (2, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891759)

Not really. If you'd R'dTFA[1] you would know that you still need to log on to the network to use it, and have an account with them. They still log exactly who is doing what and where.

They also allocate 512KB more bandwidth to your link while other people are using it, and only allow the other people to use this, which is quite neat.


[1] In my defence, I did this before it was on /. and so wasn't aware I was breaking the rules.

Re:RIAA (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892041)

That should have been in the summary as that wasnt the impression it was giving.

Well, my wifi is still wide open.

[offtopic] Your sig (1)

empaler (130732) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892299)

-- ---- Booth was a patriot ----
That generally applies to everyone who wants the best for his country. Why point to a random assassin and say he was one?

Re:[offtopic] Your sig (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892371)

He was willing to give his life, and did.

Will you?

Wi-Fi proof of use (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891575)

The problem with this system idea is, under current UK law, if you park your car / walk past a persons home and piggy-back off their Wi-Fi signal, you could be arrested and charged for theft of bandwidth under some weird Communications Act. Now of you have these access points, how would an ordinary (usually incompetent) policeman know it is being used by people not "stealing"? Or someone could put up a logo of the scheme outside a home and then point the police that they are not stealing bandwidth - when they actually are. Who's going to know?

Another hair brained scheme by a communications company and regulator hell-bent on not investing in the infrastructure for a better network and instead trying to get everything on the cheap.

Re:Wi-Fi proof of use (1)

janrinok (846318) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892181)

No, there is a big difference between the two. The situation that you describe is where someone uses a network to which he has no authorisation, without obtaining permission. That is illegal in the UK. The situation in TFA is where you have an account with BT and are authorised to use any access point which is part of the system. If you can log on, you have a user name and password, and therefore are authorised. You are paying to be a member of the network but you are free to choose which access point you use. The point that you are contesting is that if might make the job of detection more difficult. So what? When the police have reasonable suspicion they can question an individual and ascertain that he has a user name and password and therefore is not committing a crime - much as they can ask you to produce your driver's licence within a specific period of time at a police station of your choosing. I don't see this new development as being something which they cannot cope with.

Not only in the UK (2, Interesting)

msmikkol (155023) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891597)

Wippies in Finland (http://www.wippies.com/) is doing a similar thing. They give a free WiFi box (among other things) to users who operate an access point and share their broadband connection with other Wippies members.

So lets see.... (4, Insightful)

SirLurksAlot (1169039) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891605)

You share your bandwidth with someone else and the ISP pockets a little extra money if that someone doesn't happen to be a current customer? Yes, according to the article the other users will be on a different channel, so your service isn't interrupted, but no matter how you look at it you're still splitting your pipe. Also, since this scheme involves a new customer paying for access on your (already paid for) connection why not apply the extra money as a credit on your bill? I'm paying a pretty good chunk on my broadband (Time Warner), but I wouldn't mind this setup if it meant my bill was going to be lower.

Re:So lets see.... (2, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891777)

but no matter how you look at it you're still splitting your pipe
No you're not. That's the entire point of this system. When other people are connected, BT (who own almost all of the ADSL infrastructure in the UK, including the last mile) will allocate another 512KB of bandwidth to your connection. This will then be split between the other people who are using your connection.

I just had a quick look at TFA, and apparently it wasn't the same article I read earlier today detailing this scheme, which made no mention of FON but did explain the extra bandwidth provision.

Re:So lets see.... (1)

SirLurksAlot (1169039) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891841)

Do you have a link? If the ISP actually provisioned extra bandwidth it wouldn't be so bad. It seems like it would be easier to simply provision the line for the extra speed if they are a "sharing" customer, rather than allocating it "on the fly" so to speak.

Re:So lets see.... (1)

empaler (130732) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892393)

My impression of the functionality of the Fon router is that it sets up a VPN to isolate the "guest" traffic from the "owner" traffic. This would add a security layer that makes sense.
If so, they could configure the BRAS & DSLAM to not allow the "owner" to exceed his normal allocation while still having the line trained up on x+512, where x is the kbit count the "owner" pays for.

Re:So lets see.... (1)

s7uar7 (746699) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892249)

No, that's not the case. They limit the shared bandwidth to 512kbps and prioritise your traffic, but that comes out of your downstream connection. Consumer ADSL lines are mostly already provisioned at the highest bandwidth the line will support.

Re:So lets see.... (1)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892647)

Really? What country are you talking about? Here in the US, the telco won't sell me more than 6Mbps when the line can handle 8. And many people opt for the slower, cheaper connections going down to 768kbps. I'd be very surprised if more than 2% of the customers were within 512kbps of the line capacity.

Re:So lets see.... (1)

jrumney (197329) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892443)

BT (who own almost all of the ADSL infrastructure in the UK, including the last mile)

I wouldn't be surprised if BT own less than half the ADSL infrastructure in the UK now. Sky/Easynet, AOL, Tiscali/Pipex, Carphone Warehouse, Be, C&W/Bulldog and Orange all have their own LLU infrastructure in a significant number of exchanges, starting with the busiest ones of course.

another point (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891619)

You know I've heard of companies with seriously fast connections blasting like a mile of broadband around their building and only giving their employees access to it to encourage them to live within a mile and cut down on commuting time and carbon emmissions. So yeah free broadband wireless for employees who would only use it during not so busy offers when they're not at work because not at work means there's not people working at work to use the connection. Lol it's complicated but basically the traffic thing takes care of itself is what I'm saying. It's way more common to just hook up a partial T1 to employees houses if they live within a mile but wireless is cool too.
So in other words, this is sort of a green idea too if they do it right :D except for the whole open to the public thing which I think is stupid cuz people will just file share on it 24/7

Re:another point (1)

empaler (130732) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892531)

Partial T1? A fraction of 1.5 mbit?
Wow. I'm glad my boss isn't that stingy.

BT's FAQ (2, Informative)

Jacco de Leeuw (4646) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891717)

As posted on the FON blog [fon.com] :

Q:If I am a Fonero and have BT do I need to sign up?
A: Yes

Q:I am a Fonero but not a BT customer, can I access BT Fonspots?
A:Yes, all Foneros can use BT Fon Hotsposts and vice versa

Q:I am a Fonero but not a BT customer, can I use BT Openzone hotspots.
A: No, but if you had BT Total broadband then Yes.

So, FON users still do NOT have free access to BT's commercial hotspots ("BT Openzone") UNLESS they are also paying BT broadband customers ("BT Total"). Bummer. The only thing new here is that a major ISP does not mind (and in fact encourages) the use of FON routers.

Anti-RIAA (2, Interesting)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891723)

Talk about the perfect excuse that it wasn't me sharing music over my WiFi router. It was someone else -- and BT make it all possible. Certainly an RIAA nightmare in the making.

Re:Anti-RIAA (1)

funkatron (912521) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892103)

I would think being on the other side of a great big ocean would be more of a nightmare for the RIAA

Re:Anti-RIAA (1)

janrinok (846318) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892207)

No, to use the system you still have to log on with a username and password. They will know who is downloading what. How does that make sharing any different from what exists today?

Less reliance on ISP's? (1)

skeftomai (1057866) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891819)

If internet connectivity were meshed out like this in a widespread manner, could much of the reliance on ISP's be done away with?

wow (1)

j0nb0y (107699) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891831)

Amazing. A telecom with vision. That's completely unheard of over here in the states. The only thing our telecoms can envision is the almighty dollar.

Sounds great.. but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20891905)

So what happens when one person continually uses your broadband?

Re:Sounds great.. but... (2, Informative)

janrinok (846318) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892229)

They only get to use the additional 512kb that is given to those who subscribe to the scheme. That 512kb can only be used by other users, not the subscriber himself. His connection remains at the maximum speed that he is entitled to under his existing contract. But it explains this in TFA....

Time-Warner is NOT doing this where I live (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20891937)

Earlier reports said Time-Warner was looking into this.

Time-Warner is NOT doing this any time soon in the major metro area where I live.

Is it doing it where you live?

Didn't anyone read the article? (1)

funpet (836434) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891969)

When you "securely share" your Wifi on this FON service, you are only sharing it with other FON users. It's the "unlimited txt messaging to everyone on our network" scheme brought to wifi.

Just two questions... (3, Insightful)

hack slash (1064002) | more than 6 years ago | (#20891977)

If you do sign up to the scheme then:

1) with the ever growing list of people getting done for illegal activity, ie downloading mp3s/illegal porn/'hacking' etc., will you be exempt from any charges relating to criminal activity through someone using your router?

2) is the broadband service provided truly unlimited?

I can't see many people in their right minds signing up to such a service if they weren't protected from neighbours doing heavy downloading and the drive-by wifi'ers downloading stuff deemed illegal. Because on one end of the scale I wouldn't want additional charges for bandwidth use or have the speed restricted due to too someone else using it too much, and the other end I wouldn't want to be arrested because someone else used my internet connection through the wifi router for criminal activities.

bizn4tch (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20892001)

'doing something' Why not? It's quick consider worthwhile Don'yt walk around server crashes [samag.com] in the When I stood for Lite is straining

When we look back in 2 years (1)

paulistanos (1169125) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892023)

i believe well see how much this changed the broadband landscape even if only it forced others to make wifi more available. the FON router splits your broadband so much of the negatives mentioned here dont apply and with future broadband speeds we wont care about sharing a little. i found plenty of private open wifi points in london and new york so i am confident there are enough people out there willing to be part of the FON project. interesting that BT will make it easier to make skype calls on the move

Re:When we look back in 2 years (1)

Annymouse Cowherd (1037080) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892643)

No, there are just hundreds of thousands of people with wireless routers that don't know what wireless encryption is.

QOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20892217)

If the security model really works, and my ISP doesn't limit bandwidth, this might work. However, when I'm using my home router, I'd like my packets to get priority over anyone elses. Can the FON router be configured with QOS for my packets?

RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20892603)

Can the FON router be configured with QOS for my packets?
It already does.

Legal immunity for sharers (1)

wikinerd (809585) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892237)

WiFi sharers should have official legal immunity. What if someone uses a community WiFi signal to do something that attracts the attention of NSA et al? Sharers should coordinate to encourage new laws protecting people who share connections. The owner of a connection should NOT be held liable for the actions of others through their connection that are being done without their knowledge.

Did anyone else read this as (1)

SadKingBilly (1133279) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892283)

Corporate Encouragement For Sharing Your WiFe?

Okay, good job ... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892445)

that's one down. Now if we can just get Comcast to go for it ...

Cool.. but how about Security? (1)

crf00 (1048098) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892593)

That's cool, bittorrent and anything else can now be completely anonymous.

But how about security? Considering hacking through LAN, hacking without leaving any trace, DNS poisoning, packet sniffing, etc etc...

Umm, I'm not impressed (2, Interesting)

cheros (223479) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892605)

I got that FON adaptor with a Skype phone, and it took me all of 30 seconds to decide not to install it.

Given the current security climate I'm really not going to give someone a chance to (a) identify where I live and if I'm around (look at their status info on the web - having an access point means you've got kit to steal) and (b) to put a remote controlled listening device on my traffic. The FON adaptor is a small Linux box, and I don't know what it does. Worse, someone else controls it and can flash the thing at any time.

Nope. Not interested in contributing to an 802.11 version of Echelon :-).

I prefer a more Grassroots approach... (2, Interesting)

wellingj (1030460) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892637)

Why do we need a teloco to allow us to do this? DIY is always better. [meraki.com]

wi-fi (1)

ralph1 (900228) | more than 6 years ago | (#20892711)

common sense will never come to america ever. nice some place has the freedom to innovate guess freedom is never returning to america. farting is now against the law.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?