Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [decentralization] WiFi - What goes around comes around

Expand Messages
  • Darrin Eden
    ... The first cubic acre problem is fun and dynamic yet still a physical reality. One difference eroding the relevance of the land-line contract is the ease by
    Message 1 of 13 , Jul 19, 2002
      >
      >
      >>And prohibited by the ISP's agreement. (Or if not today, would be
      >>immediately once this takes off).
      >>
      >
      >Not if its SDSL service. This is the thing about WiFi -- it turns last
      >mile problem into the last cubic acre problem.
      >
      The first cubic acre problem is fun and dynamic yet still a physical
      reality. One difference eroding the relevance of the land-line contract
      is the ease by which individuals add software extending the fuzzy ends.

      Darrin Eden
    • burton@openprivacy.org
      ... Hash: SHA1 ... Ug... this is a very bad argument. 1. A lot of AUPs allow this. (Speakeasy is one of the better examples) 2. I would argue that it is
      Message 2 of 13 , Jul 19, 2002
        -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
        Hash: SHA1

        Johannes Ernst <jernst@...> writes:

        > I think you almost mention the answer to your question yourself:
        >
        > At 13:44 +0100 2002/07/19, Julian Bond wrote:
        >
        > >It feels like there's a window of opportunity here for a mass market
        > >Wintel and/or Mac WiFi pack that solves the home users setup, firewall
        > >and access problems while making it easy for them to share their
        > >bandwidth (because it's cool).
        >
        > And prohibited by the ISP's agreement. (Or if not today, would be immediately
        > once this takes off). This is not primarily a technical problem, it's one of
        > revenue. If people share things (pipes) that other people charge for, those
        > other people will make sure they don't lose money through the sharing. And,
        > for better or worse, no one whose revenue would be threatened (mostly telcos)
        > has any financial breathing room right now to watch eroding revenue, or even
        > the danger of eroding revenue.

        Ug... this is a very bad argument.

        1. A lot of AUPs allow this. (Speakeasy is one of the better examples)

        2. I would argue that it is unethical to prohibit sharing of a resource. This
        would be akin to Dell prohibiting me from allowing you to use my laptop.
        Civil disobedience; they can't enforce this and if you think it is unethical,
        share away.

        3. If the bandwidth is allocated correctly it will not harm the ISP (which is
        what they are most concerned with).

        4. You would only be *helping* the ISP by driving *more* traffic through them
        which would require more expensive pipes. At least in San Francisco we are
        exploding into a vacuum WRT the amount of bandwidth we need. If we can scale
        this linerally we will need more pipes to the Internet...

        <snip/>

        Anyway.

        Kevin

        - --
        Kevin A. Burton ( burton@..., burton@..., burton@... )
        Location - San Francisco, CA, Cell - 415.595.9965
        Jabber - burtonator@..., Web - http://www.peerfear.org/
        GPG fingerprint: 4D20 40A0 C734 307E C7B4 DCAA 0303 3AC5 BD9D 7C4D
        IRC - openprojects.net #infoanarchy | #p2p-hackers | #reptile

        The philosophy of this column is simple: if you have good language skills, you
        will be respected and admired; whereas if you clearly have no clue about grammar
        or vocabulary, you could become president of the United States.
        --Dave Barry, writing in the Miami Herald.
        -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
        Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
        Comment: Get my public key at: http://relativity.yi.org/pgpkey.txt

        iD8DBQE9OJG/AwM6xb2dfE0RAuFYAKC5//Eurogj/1TQcWJGwPVzsgEJEACgm8os
        kQqL/Dbnukq90HTT5sEAaFE=
        =6liP
        -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
      • Johannes Ernst
        At 15:25 -0700 2002/07/19, burton@openprivacy.org wrote: ... I don t like it either ;-) But there s a lot of economic and plain old cash-flow
        Message 3 of 13 , Jul 19, 2002
          At 15:25 -0700 2002/07/19, burton@... wrote:

          <snip/>

          >Ug... this is a very bad argument.

          <snip/>

          I don't like it either ;-) But there's a lot of economic and plain
          old cash-flow issues that are very real right now and that we need to
          keep in mind even if we are techies. Exhibit A: take any balance
          sheet of any telco and figure out what you would do to their business
          model so that the next quarter's figures include a reduction in
          outstanding debt.

          What I'm really trying to say is that we need a package solution
          (when opened, both technology and a business model fall out) that
          help meet some of the unmet wireless demand as outlined in this
          thread, but also increase telco revenue. If it doesn't do that, I
          think it will have little chance for success. Exhibit B: inventory of
          recent lawsuits where the revenues of big companies were threatened.

          At least I'm arguing that win-win is usually easier to get done than
          I-win, you-lose ;-)
        • burton@openprivacy.org
          ... Hash: SHA1 ... No! :). This would mean they would be selling more SDSL lines :) Right now it is bad for them because a lot of the 802.11b users are taking
          Message 4 of 13 , Jul 19, 2002
            -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
            Hash: SHA1

            "J. Fritz Barnes" <barnesjf@...> writes:

            > Hi Kevin,
            >
            > I don't understand your point 4. Wouldn't requiring more expensive pipes be
            > a negative for the ISP?

            No! :). This would mean they would be selling more SDSL lines :) Right now it
            is bad for them because a lot of the 802.11b users are taking up the extra
            bandwidth not used by normal customers. Once this is gone people will need to
            buy more lines from them.

            > What does exploding into a vacuum WRT bandwidth mean?

            A lot of this tech is 'exploding into a vacuum'. No matter how much bandwidth
            you serve up there will always be a need for more.

            SF is especially sensitive because there are so many people with computers here
            and the city really lends itself to deploying 802.11b everywhere.
            <snip/>

            Kevin

            - --
            Kevin A. Burton ( burton@..., burton@..., burton@... )
            Location - San Francisco, CA, Cell - 415.595.9965
            Jabber - burtonator@..., Web - http://www.peerfear.org/
            GPG fingerprint: 4D20 40A0 C734 307E C7B4 DCAA 0303 3AC5 BD9D 7C4D
            IRC - openprojects.net #infoanarchy | #p2p-hackers | #reptile

            If you play with fire, you might get burned. If you eliminate fire, you will
            never feel it's warmth and never enjoy it's illumination.
            -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
            Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
            Comment: Get my public key at: http://relativity.yi.org/pgpkey.txt

            iD8DBQE9OKjEAwM6xb2dfE0RAluwAJ9X4fPlNc8yCb0R5fYE0Rue3cIqKwCguENR
            NDoRA085m+qBl3lqgzNiV3k=
            =rDsc
            -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
          • Tony Kimball
            ... Hash: SHA1 ... An interesting (to me) point which this statement suggests: Broadband in rural American is hard to get. (I discount satellite due to
            Message 5 of 13 , Jul 20, 2002
              -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
              Hash: SHA1

              On Friday 19 July 2002 19:03, burton@... wrote:
              >
              > SF is especially sensitive because there are so many people with computers
              > here and the city really lends itself to deploying 802.11b everywhere.

              An interesting (to me) point which this statement suggests: Broadband in
              rural American is hard to get. (I discount satellite due to dramatic
              asymmetry and enormous latency.) Usually, if it is available, there is a
              monopoly, and monopoly pricing. Now if wifi MANs cut off the telco
              metropolitan cash cows at the udder, they will be driven to compete for
              the remaining rural markets. Thus peerwise wifi may well prove the
              unexpected source of broadband universality, by means of secondary
              consequences.
              -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
              Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
              Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

              iD8DBQE9ORoJiZRIr8ozroIRApv/AKCzb2uWvyifHCzdJ+tq1kaNSQJVVACgj4Tb
              +lrvuVx/Q+IcRNygpsvAV4M=
              =/DFn
              -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
            • Todd Boyle
              The issues you guys are discussing are exactly the right issues, IMO. I and some others, have been developing a lot of these ideas on the mailing list at
              Message 6 of 13 , Jul 20, 2002
                The issues you guys are discussing are exactly the right issues,
                IMO. I and some others, have been developing a lot of these ideas
                on the mailing list at seattlewireless.net and I would *really*
                appreciate your joining! Seattle and BAWUG welcomes these
                threads and I would be perfectly happy to post here. But the
                topics are not short or meditative.

                TOdd

                At 01:06 AM 7/20/02, Tony Kimball wrote:
                >On Friday 19 July 2002 19:03, burton@... wrote:
                > >
                > > SF is especially sensitive because there are so many people with computers
                > > here and the city really lends itself to deploying 802.11b everywhere.
                >
                >An interesting (to me) point which this statement suggests: Broadband in
                >rural American is hard to get. (I discount satellite due to dramatic
                >asymmetry and enormous latency.) Usually, if it is available, there is a
                >monopoly, and monopoly pricing. Now if wifi MANs cut off the telco
                >metropolitan cash cows at the udder, they will be driven to compete for
                >the remaining rural markets. Thus peerwise wifi may well prove the
                >unexpected source of broadband universality, by means of secondary
                >consequences.
              • B2P Info
                Isn t Mesh Networks at work on this as well? They seem to have something going on with Fujitsu America. http://www.meshnetworks.com/ Regards, Luis
                Message 7 of 13 , Jul 22, 2002
                  Isn't Mesh Networks at work on this as well? They seem to have something
                  going on with Fujitsu America.
                  http://www.meshnetworks.com/

                  Regards,
                  Luis
                  ___________________________

                  Biz2Peer Technologies
                  Llacuna, 162
                  08018 Barcelona, Spain
                  Tel. +34 93 401 9656
                  Fax. +34 93 300 9015
                  www.biz2peer.com
                  ___________________________


                  -----Mensaje original-----
                  De: tappnel [mailto:app@...]
                  Enviado el: viernes, 19 de julio de 2002 21:21
                  Para: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                  Asunto: [decentralization] Re: WiFi - What goes around comes around


                  On the topic of WiFi, I thought I'd share this article from InfoWorld
                  on MOTERAN (Mobile Telecommunications Radio and Relay Network). Its an
                  interesting concept to watch to see what its potential and
                  shortcomings are. <tim/>

                  DEMOCRATIZED WIRELESS
                  http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/02/07/15/020715opwireless.xml
                  Posted July 12, 2002 01:01 PM Pacific Time

                  THE BRIEF DESCRIPTION of the technology sounds like
                  something from a science-fiction movie where the
                  robots take over: Mitsubishi says it will offer a
                  wireless LAN technology that is self-organizing,
                  decentralized, and capable of reconfiguring itself
                  without the aid of access points and access servers.

                  Even the name sounds like one of those monsters from a
                  Japanese movie. No, it's not Mothra this time; it's
                  MOTERAN (Mobile Telecommunications Radio and Relay
                  Network) that is threatening complete world domination.

                  To take some of the mystery out of it, MOTERAN is based
                  on relay networks, which appear to be gaining traction
                  in the telecom industry because, requiring fewer base
                  stations and switches, they promise to lower the cost
                  of deployment.

                  Mitsubishi is partnering with Detecon, the engineering
                  and consulting affiliate of Deutsche Telecom, which
                  holds the patent. These two companies will form a new
                  one, tentatively called MOTERAN Networks, to deliver
                  the technology. They plan to roll out the technology
                  for on-campus corporate network use at first, then for
                  home use, and finally for public-access hot spots and
                  emergency backup networks. Eventually, the technology
                  will also be used as a low-cost VOIP (voice over IP) solution.

                  In a nutshell, MOTERAN will allow any client PC or
                  handheld with an IEEE 802.11x card or Bluetooth
                  capabilities to behave as a relay point to communicate
                  with the next terminal down the line and to use this
                  terminal to move packets along to their ultimate destination.

                  As a result, any one of these devices could be the host
                  for Internet access: One person subscribes to an ISP
                  for $20 per month, and everyone can hop across devices
                  until they reach that host and log on.

                  It reminds me of the '60s when everyone's goal was to
                  defeat the "establishment" through fairly harmless
                  guerrilla tactics such as not putting a stamp on the
                  envelope when paying a Ma Bell phone bill. Is this
                  more dangerous? The ISPs might think so.

                  According to a July 1 article in The New York Times by
                  Peter Meyers, AOL Time Warner is already calling it
                  theft of service and has warned its cable subscribers
                  "that operating wireless networks and inviting others
                  to freely share them violated their subscription agreements."

                  Glenn A. Britt, the president of Time Warner Cable, is
                  reported to have said that he had no objection to
                  sharing Internet access within a household but that he
                  did not want it distributed to those outside of the household.

                  It may be called theft of service by some, but when
                  establishment giants such as Mitsubishi and Deutsche
                  Telecom are selling the disruptive technology, it
                  makes it that much harder for providers to fight and
                  for users to resist.

                  Which side are you on? Which side am I on? I don't
                  think taking sides serves any useful purpose at this
                  stage of the game. There is no putting the genie back
                  in the bottle, as they say.

                  What do you think? Send
                  an e-mail to ephraim_schwartz@....

                  ---
                  Timothy Appnel
                  http://tima.mplode.com/

                  --- In decentralization@y..., Julian Bond <julian_bond@v...> wrote:
                  > Back in April of last year I pointed at this.
                  > http://www.ntk.net/2001/04/06/#tracking
                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decentralization/message/2240
                  > The possibility of ad-hoc Wifi wireless networks by turning Access
                  > pointers into repeater-routers with dynamic routing as opposed to
                  the
                  > SeattleWireless approach of doing similar with fixed routing
                  tables. I
                  > got a generally cool reception.
                  >
                  > A few days ago, I came across this. http://www.cowave.com/ These
                  people
                  > are proposing mesh WiFi networks linked into cells with each cell
                  fed by
                  > a fat pipe from an ISP. The network is "owned" by the ISP and the
                  ISP
                  > avoids last mile delivery costs and problems by leveraging the
                  installed
                  > base of users to get the coverage. The more users in a cell, the
                  better
                  > the coverage. They're talking about 5000 users and 150 sq mile
                  cells.
                  >
                  > ISTM that this approach is ripe for subversion and further
                  > de-centralization. Adding multiple exit points onto the internet
                  (the
                  > user's broadband connections) might provide more resilience, anarchy
                  and
                  > perhaps could aggregate everyone's bandwidth together for short term
                  use
                  > by a proportion of the membership.
                  >
                  > Now the US is shipping >1 million WiFi devices per month. Europe is
                  > ramping up fast to match it. The hardware costs have dropped to
                  minimum.
                  > So why is it taking so long to happen? A lot of this stuff was
                  talked to
                  > death 2 years ago. But the few open software projects feel like
                  they've
                  > stalled. And things like NoCatAuth which are desperately needed,
                  are
                  > Unix only. Meanwhile people are putting in home WiFi APs and
                  leaving
                  > everything on default, effectively wide open.
                  >
                  > It feels like there's a window of opportunity here for a mass
                  market
                  > Wintel and/or Mac WiFi pack that solves the home users setup,
                  firewall
                  > and access problems while making it easy for them to share their
                  > bandwidth (because it's cool). And if that gets put together, it's
                  a
                  > great trojan horse for building WAP to WAP to WAP to ISP MANs.
                  >
                  > Especially if the majority of file trading, gaming, swarmcasting
                  and so
                  > on, never leaves the WAN and therefore never appears on the ISP's
                  radar.
                  > But that's another story children, and we won't talk about that one
                  in
                  > front of the adults.
                  >
                  > --
                  > Julian Bond Email&MSM: julian.bond@v...
                  > Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/
                  > Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/
                  > CV/Resume: http://www.voidstar.com/cv/
                  > M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173 T: +44 (0)192 0412 433


                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com



                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.