11–20 of 51 posts
Now there are smartphones. That certainly poses a problem that I am grateful not having to deal with anymore.
I almost didn't manage to read further. The same can be said about so many things (if everyone just took or borrowed what he needed in a responsible manner, we wouldn't need money at all... to name the most utopian example), yet this kind of reasoning simply doesn't work, as has been shown both practically and theoretically (from game theory to "selfish gene").
It makes me always kind of sad to see smart and enthusiastic people not to grasp this simple fact.
This seems like a non-issue to me, especially in the age of smartphones with personal wifi hotspot abilities.
Too little, too late. Free Wifi was interesting a decade ago. Nowadays in most countries 3G is so cheap that nobody bothers trying to find an open access point. I currently pay 4 Euros per Gigabyte per month (or optionally 9 Euros for 9 Gigabytes) - that's all, no other monthly fees, no minimum charges, can be (optionally) combined with a voice plan. And in addition most newer laptops provide (optional) builtin 3G mo…
I'm all for open Wi-Fi networks but I'm not quite sure how it's a "tragedy of the commons". People locking their Wi-Fi network aren't harming other users of the RF spectrum, which is the common resource. The resource being locked out is the telco's backhaul, which isn't really a commons, is it?
I'm all for open Wi-Fi networks but I'm not quite sure how it's a "tragedy of the commons". People locking their Wi-Fi network aren't harming other users of the RF spectrum, which is the common resource. The resource being locked out is the telco's backhaul, which isn't really a commons, is it?
I'm not sure it's a tragedy of the commons per se, but it's a collective action problem of one sort or another.
I'm not sure how making your wireless network open is the "socially responsible" thing to do anymore then letting strangers come in and use your bathroom at will is. Sure, most people won't cause any harm, but it only takes one asshole (or too many people taking advantage) to make it a nightmare for you.
A closer analogy would be letting strangers use the outhouse on your property, but not letting them in the house.
The router used by Numericable here in France offers a "guest WiFi" connection out of the box. It is not enabled by default, mind you, but it is available nonetheless.
"...a desire to prevent their neighbors from "free riding" on their connections; and a fear that unencrypted WiFi is a security or privacy risk. Both of those reasons have a degree of legitimacy..."
A degree of legitimacy? The article goes on to state that the risks inherent to untrusted network access have "other solutions", but that's a pretty bold statement. Good security is about layers. If you don't want people snooping on your network communications, you need layered security.
Their proposed solution of link-layer security is cool and all, but it's a long ways off. There was a time when I was all about open networks for the common good, but the whole Firesheep fiasco changed my tune pretty quickly.
I'm all for open Wi-Fi networks but I'm not quite sure how it's a "tragedy of the commons". People locking their Wi-Fi network aren't harming other users of the RF spectrum, which is the common resource. The resource being locked out is the telco's backhaul, which isn't really a commons, is it?
RF isn't the commons they're talking about. The commons is the open access points that people would come by and torrent / download kiddie porn through. People abused open access points, so everyone started closing them.
Then there's also Firesheep. But that's just a cherry on top, really.
Anyway, in my home country (europe), with a fiber optic connection plan (80ch tv+net+phone) for about 40€/month you also get 3G connectivity included. In the US I pay ~$35 for 10Mbps rcn internet only.
I used to have my european wifi router open but since everyone in the neighborhood has wifi and the really cheap 3g connectivity is ubiquitous, I ended up setting up wpa.