Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York City Neighbors Build Cheaper Way to Connect to Web

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 215 posts

Re: New York City Neighbors Build Cheaper Way to Connect to Web

#141

Post by woah »

nz21 wrote: post #100
woah wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are doing exactly this with althea.net

I've been reading https://althea.net/how-it-works and I don't quite understand one aspect: The article says there's a "backhaul" that connects the althea network to the internet. I understand this means the community will then need just one subscription to the internet, as opposed to n, so it's cheaper. But doesn't this mean that every user in the network will experience vastly slower connection than if they had thei…

It's a commercial subscription. The fact is, any residential ISP is selling the same connection to the internet to 20-100 subscribers. This is known as the oversale ratio. Since nobody is using the whole connection continuously, people experience the advertised speeds most of the time.

The backhaul connections that ISPs resell (and that are sold into Althea networks) are usually around 10x the price of a residential connection with the same advertised speed.

It's the difference between "it is technically possible for this connection to attain this bandwidth" and "you are guaranteed this bandwidth at all times"

Re: New York City Neighbors Build Cheaper Way to Connect to Web

#142

Post by myself248 »

spacecowboy17 wrote: post #137

What if every household enabled an open "guest" SSID on their Wifi router? Wouldn't it have a huge positive impact of giving access to people who can't afford mobile data or home internet?

Like the old somewhat-tongue-in-cheek "Linksys Community Network Project".

The idea was roughly this:

Such a large portion of wifi equipment sold at the time had the SSID "Linksys" and no password. So everyone's devices had a saved setting to connect to that, even if we later configured our networks differently.

Therefore it's super convenient if you just call your guest network that. When you actually have guests over, chances are good that their devices will automatically use your wifi with zero hassles whatsoever.

(Also implied but unspoken: The existence of this craptastic webpage explaining the Linksys Community Network Project is plausible deniability if you get caught using someone else's open wifi that they shared out of ignorance rather than because they read this page and agreed with it.)

Ah! Of course! https://web.archive.org/web/20030402170927/http://www.linksy...

Re: New York City Neighbors Build Cheaper Way to Connect to Web

#143

Post by cylinder »

corey_moncure wrote: post #96
chadwittman wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Love the project! Why does my intuition suggest big ISPs are going to try to regulate this out of existence in the US. It's depressing.

It's already illegal twice over. Anyone "forwarding" packets from a connection to an ISP is almost certainly in breach of contract. Amateur packet radio service regulations state that you may not use it for applications that are available over commercial services.

Alleged breach of a private contract is not "illegal."

Please know what you're talking about before providing legal advice.

Re: New York City Neighbors Build Cheaper Way to Connect to Web

#146

Post by mattr47 »

dahfizz wrote: post #140
spacecowboy17 wrote: post #137

What if every household enabled an open "guest" SSID on their Wifi router? Wouldn't it have a huge positive impact of giving access to people who can't afford mobile data or home internet?

You'd lose bandwidth and gain liability. Not a winning proposition.

Not an issue really for liability.

https://openwireless.org/myths-legal.html

Re: New York City Neighbors Build Cheaper Way to Connect to Web

#147

Post by anigbrowl »

c3534l wrote: post #133
unnouinceput wrote: post #132

Quotes:"The Mesh maintains a “super node” antenna and 31 hubs throughout lower Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn that collectively serve about 350 residences."..."“Plus the people are nice,” she said. “It’s a great community.” Yeah, 350 is less then a block of customers for Comcast or Verizon. When only few people are involved everything is great, try to scale this bigger then you'll the real shit go down. It's human c…

Does it need to be scaled up beyond a community of neighbors?

Yes, 350 people out of ~8 million means only ~0.00005% of New Yorkers have access to it.

Re: New York City Neighbors Build Cheaper Way to Connect to Web

#148

Post by ajosh »

dsd wrote: post #122
robocat wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A HAM license doesn't help you: you cannot legally use the amateur radio bands to transmit an internet connection. I suspect the Amateur HAMmers would detect and enforce that: I imagine there are HAM goonsquads.

I thought the rule was no encryption. They theoretically have an entire ip block available.

The rules also prohibit commercial communications (i.e. pecuniary interest). There are some limited exceptions which depending on your use may be enough.

That said, ham radio is a fun hobby regardless. If you are into IP stuff on ham radio, it's not too hard to get an ip on the ham IP block /8.

Amateur radio does have a tradition of self enforcement which is part of my the FCC continues to grant privileges. People practice RDF for fun but I know people who have used to to find people intentionally interfering with other stations.

Re: New York City Neighbors Build Cheaper Way to Connect to Web

#149

Post by dahfizz »

mattr47 wrote: post #146
dahfizz wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd lose bandwidth and gain liability. Not a winning proposition.

Not an issue really for liability. https://openwireless.org/myths-legal.html

Your link just makes me more comfident that I don't want to run an open WiFi network.

Most of their defense is based on the assumption that you have all the same protections as a network operator. However, as the article points out, this has never been tested in court. So you might be fine, and you might go to jail, we don't know.

And even if you do get network operator status, there are still legal notices and copyright systems you have to comply with.

And thats all just copyright. That article doesn't deal with more serious online crimes.

If the FBI finds someone downloading child porn from your network, you will be arrested. You will have to convince the police that it was someone else. Even if you don't end up with any serious penalties, that's a hell of a lot more hassle than I'm willing to put up with.

Post reply on HN