Is exist, it is call FON fon.com
Why we need an Open Wireless movement
31–40 of 51 posts
Re: Why we need an Open Wireless movement
#32In a spot where I lived where there were 20+ networks visible, there was one very strong open network (they were obviously using a substantial antenna or two) that was around for more than two years. It was quite popular - you could routinely see a dozen or so clients connected in the evening. Connecting to that network would often yield a OS finger print scan + occasional attempts to exploit vulnerable services. Traffic going over router also very obviously was having its adsense traffic replaced. God only knows what else they were doing. Since it's on their network, it's very likely a lot of that wouldn't even be illegal.
I certainly wouldn't go around encouraging people to connect to random wifi networks. It's a different world out there than it was 5 or 10 years ago.
Re: Why we need an Open Wireless movement
#33Sigh.
How about this idea, we create device that can send digital data by modulating and demodulating sounds which can be sent from one computer to another. Then we'll invent a store and forward protocol where you could type in a message on a local computer, and that message would then move between you and its recipient through a series of jumps we will call "hops." [you know, like its hopping from computer to computer]. You could send a message from anywhere to anywhere else just by putting in the places it had to go between here and there. We could even create a system where by we can create a category or subject area and messages can be sent to everyone who wants to read them on those messages. The coolest thing is that because its just computer to computer there is no evil mastermind in the middle pulling the strings and we'll have the source code to everything so that anyone can become part of the network. It will be a network for the users and we'll call it User Network, no that doesn't sound quite right, I've got it Usenet.
Silly history lesson aside, connections aren't "free" and the people who pay the bills set the rules, if you don't like the rules pay for your own network. You can argue the prices are fixed or too high. Fine. You can get a USB Softradio and the Gnu Radio stack and create your own white space wireless.
But moaning about the fact that no one is willing to give you "the nice one" free access to their network becasue they can't also prevent "the bad one" from getting access is a phenomenal waste of time.
We can probably have 'free' wireless for anyone as long as everyone got their own IP address. There is a proposal floating around where the US Government would install wired and wireless networks everywhere like the interstate highway system, and then individuals would apply for their own block of IP:V6 address space. In that world everything you owned would then 'DHCP' off your personal address space. And every packet you sent would be tracable right back to you. Last I heard both the MPAA and RIAA thought this was a great idea of tax payer funded network so that everyone, rich or poor, had equal access to a quality internet experience.
Its not free. It never has been.
Re: Why we need an Open Wireless movement
#34Sigh. How about this idea, we create device that can send digital data by modulating and demodulating sounds which can be sent from one computer to another. Then we'll invent a store and forward protocol where you could type in a message on a local computer, and that message would then move between you and its recipient through a series of jumps we will call "hops." [you know, like its hopping from computer to comput…
Always with the negativity. Sheesh. Here is the cliff notes version of the referenced article:
Complaint: Can't find free wireless
Observation: Criminals abuse open wireless networks
Observation: Fewer and fewer networks
Ask: "We" want to reverse trend, encouraging 'free' networks
Ask: Give common carrier protection to someone who opens a wireless network.
Whine: It sucks not to be able to get online.
Strawman #1: Perhaps people want to prioritize their traffic over the freeloaders
Occam's Razor Says: No, the simpler argument is they pay for it and don't want to give it away)
Strawman #2: If a hacker wanted to they could break into your network so you don't buy much by securing it.
Occam's Razor Says: Locking your front door doesn't prevent breakins either but it does keep random strangers from scoping out what is inside your house.
Ask: No cost WiFi that protects the identity of the free loader
Fallacy: There is no protocol that allows anyone to join the network using link layer encryption.
Exception: Opening VPN connections using well established standards.
Strawman: Spectrum auctions were expensive, WiFi makes more efficient use of spectrum.
Exception: FCC just opened up a huge chunk of wide area spectrum for unlicensed use, aka 'white space' from the abandonded TV bands.
Ask: Join with us to whine about the lack of free wireless access points.
Since it isn't 'free' to provide a network connection, you have to make it economically viable. Economics being the force that allocates scarce resources (and network connectivity is once such resource). If you don't pay cash for a 3G connection (or an LTE connection or an EDGE connection) then you have to offer something else. I am really, really tired of hearing people refer to the Internet as "the commons" (as in the original Boston sense and with 'Tragedy of' in the conversation) since the network has never been a 'commons' in any sense of the word or concept. That you grew up and didn't understand who was paying for it and why and got mislead into believing it was 'free' is fine, but don't persist in that mis-information or you might find yourself talking about how all the strangers sleeping in your parent's living room is a 'tragedy of the commons' when its just squatting on your parents property. Its not a 'tragedy of the commons' when there are rolling blackouts because there isn't enough power generating capacity or typhoid because there is an open sewer running by your house. The author wants a world wide, cryptographically secure, communications network that anyone can access for free. Its a pony request [1].
Re: Why we need an Open Wireless movement
#35Shame on everyone who complains about the recent federal government domain seizures (torrent, poker sites) but poo-poos this important and highly reasonable article. Shame on everyone who despises the Great Firewall and the Middle Eastern Internet off buttons we have heard about recently, but is unwilling to take a small step towards ensuring free speech on the Internet.
I'll continue on my karmakazi rant here. I disagree strongly that 'whining for free wifi' is a reasoned argument against domain name seizures.
Re: Why we need an Open Wireless movement
#36Shame on everyone who complains about the recent federal government domain seizures (torrent, poker sites) but poo-poos this important and highly reasonable article. Shame on everyone who despises the Great Firewall and the Middle Eastern Internet off buttons we have heard about recently, but is unwilling to take a small step towards ensuring free speech on the Internet.
I'll continue on my karmakazi rant here. I disagree strongly that 'whining for free wifi' is a reasoned argument against domain name seizures.
It isn't directly, but on the censorship/P2P continuum, it moves a step toward freedom. Using Internet you did not pay for helps voice dissent and helps whistleblowers. It just might be a first step towards the P2P/mesh decentralized utopian Internet of Doctorow is enamored.
"Whining"? … I think that is grossly unfair, but it's not a real accusation, is it?
Re: Why we need an Open Wireless movement
#371. There are a bunch of greedy selfish bastards here
2. Greed can be a powerful motivator so how about this
Original proposition:
Make it easy to share your network freely and securely because it's the nice thing to do.
New proposition:
Make it easy for people to monazite their networks.
Build APs that come with standard captive portal pages tied to a merchant service. Owner puts in their bank account info, user puts in their CC info, merchant provider takes a cut, and you get paid.
Heck if you're the merchant provider you could even set standard rates based on how much bandwidth is 'shared.'
I bet, as long as they were the merchant provider, comcast would go for this idea. Get paid twice for the same connection? Sweet! They already give out modems, giving out APs that make them money would be a small step.
Re: Why we need an Open Wireless movement
#38Too 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…
1G costs about $30K if I decide to use my phone in other country, so I'd say that reports about cheap 3G is greatly exaggerated
Or you could just get a local prepaid data SIM
Re: Why we need an Open Wireless movement
#39Too 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…
Can you use 3G anonymously?
Correct me if I'm wrong but you should be able to run any number of anonymizing or pseudo-anonymizing services over a connection that ultimately comes to you via 3G.
Re: Why we need an Open Wireless movement
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll continue on my karmakazi rant here. I disagree strongly that 'whining for free wifi' is a reasoned argument against domain name seizures.
It isn't directly, but on the censorship/P2P continuum, it moves a step toward freedom. Using Internet you did not pay for helps voice dissent and helps whistleblowers. It just might be a first step towards the P2P/mesh decentralized utopian Internet of Doctorow is enamored. "Whining"? … I think that is grossly unfair, but it's not a real accusation, is it?
Agreed, whining is perhaps too strong.
I don't know where the ends of the censorship/P2P continum are however. I was wondering the other day if a crowd of people wanting to legalize pot started protesting in the streets of Washington and demanding that the government give in to the will of the people, and then Mexican drug lords sent some tanks up to support their efforts, is that freedom? It sounds when I read it like a red herring but I'm trying to get my head around any positive aspects to network anarchy. It seems anarchy in virtual space would have the same downside as anarchy in meat space. (cue jokes about the Libertarian Paradise of Somalia)
So for articles like the EFF one to be compelling they have to move the conversation forward. This one, for me at least, didn't rise to that standard. It seemed to get stuck in the complaint about how people who pay for online access have an easier time getting online than people who don't.