[OpenWireless Tech] A small question about tracking

Tue Nov 6 05:05:32 PST 2012

1: What about the free and open WiFi part? What about the "instant free
connectivity" part? Seriously, there are people who can't figure out how to
turn a computer on. The intent here is to enable simplified internet access
for everybody.

2: So how WOULD one switch easily between these WISP:s? Wouldn't we
replicate the issue with many carrier networks where we have 10 crappy
networks with poor coverage on the same spot? Let ALL the routers always
act together as one network, and that issue goes away.

3: Reflashing some routers and buying just a few new ones is easily done by
shops and other companies. If all they have to do is set the routers to
allow VPN only, then anybody can provide these VPN:s. If there's no
coverage in certain areas, you could in fact persuade these VPN companies
to put routers there. Or the local community. And with proper federation,
we'd still be able to get it all to act as one network. Wherever there are
WiFi networks already, we won't need to build anything new. Where there
aren't, we can get other companies to build it.

I've already described before how I imagine this to work. Some will enable
100% free access, even if bandwidth limited and capped (max X MB per
month). Some will enable 100% free access. Some will require payment, and
then these VPN providers (maybe your phone company? They're used to this
setup already for roaming) would pay the router owner and you pay the VPN
provider. The VPN providers could offer some limited free access as well,
and offer more bandwidth and higher quotas if you pay.

--- If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking //
Stupidity is a renewable resource

On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Todd <Todd at chiwifi.net> wrote:

>  On 11/06/2012 06:37 AM, Natanael wrote:
>
> So you'd replace ISP:s with local WISP:s? And they wouldn't throttle
> because...? And what happens to tourists and other tempporary bypassers
> with no account? Also, how would one get anybody to pay for the
> infrastructure in the first place?
>
>
> There are a few free wifi's currently, If you were part of a
> democratically run wisp, would you vote for throttling ?
> If that local wisp decides to throttle, you think the users won't switch
> to a new local wisp, or start there own using the same open source software
> project ?
>
> as for who pays for it, I CURRENTLY have 1gbit uplink that is empty,
> that's the equiv of 200+ comcast users.
> I ALONE already have enough for 200 people, and one major metropolitan
> area in IL has already approached me about my plan. Not to mention the fact
> that something on this scale, once proven, is easy to get grants for.
> Conversely I would ask, who is going to pay for the bandwidth of all the
> VPN end points in your global system ?
>
>
>
> There are three main options:
>
> Global mesh.
>
> We already talked about how global mesh is impossible, mesh can only ever
> work as a last mile solution.
> aka *mesh does not scale.*
>
>
> Using existing infrastructure plus VPN:s.
>
> Creating new infrastructure in parallell.
>
> Yes, create a new infrastructure in parallel or even replace the current
> infrastructure directly. Both are possible.
>
>
>
> What if we do not want to create any new organizations that need to be
> maintained? Do you think every local community will have the expertise and
> skill to manage it? How do you think the local politicians will handle it?
> Etc...
>
>  We do not need to worry about creating any organizations. We only need to
> create the software framework, other existing organizations will adopt it.
> That is the point of turn-key open source.
>
> What do you have against increasing the number of sys/network admin jobs ?
> The same argument was used for when people thought linux would never become
> popular, its a non-arguemnt, if there is demand for more sys/network
> admins, then more people will learn to be sys/network admins
> Because its turn key opensauce software, there will be lots of community
> support.
>
>
> Actually, your plan could be replaced by our plan but where that
> organization you propose instead is the one providing VPN:s.
> Combined with my idea for "federation" of these, we could make this work
> globally. Got an account with your community VPN provider? It will work
> globally.
>
>  The account sign up process is a wifi captive portal, you don't need
> anything special to use the local wifi service (in this instance) so you do
> not need a pre-exsisting account, just goto your country of choice and use
> the wifi the same way you would as if it was a starbucks.
>
>
>
>  --- If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking //
> Stupidity is a renewable resource
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Todd <Todd at chiwifi.net> wrote:
>
>>  What do you think is more sustainable in the long run for world-wide
>> free wifi:
>>
>> A) everyone is beholden to current ISP monopolies and politicians whim,
>> as well as throttling, lets we forget comcast and sandvines, and assume
>> they wont apply that to VPNs for some reason, and just use technology in
>> innovative ways to dodge the grey areas of the law.
>>
>> B) create an open source, turn-key WISP that can be deployed for any size
>> organization, and because its based on standards, if there are multiple
>> networks in an area, they can merge users easily. Which also means that
>> each org must be democratic or the users would just leave for one that is.
>>
>> Which in-turn makes last mile ISPs like comcat and att and verison and
>> everyone else, obsolete.
>>
>>
>> A) is the status quo, and already has tons of commercial competition
>> B) does not exist yet.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> side note, unless you are planning to have the router owners pay for VPN
>> end points, or are expecting the open wireless project to pay for all the
>> VPN end points, then the only option that actually exists is VPNs to home.
>>
>> VPNs are not free, someone has to pay, the only question is, are you
>> paying once or twice for that bandwidth.
>>
>> My incentivization scheeme does not have VPNs in it, so I do not need to
>> worry about getting people to use them.
>> It also does not expose the people who host the wifi antennas to any
>> risk. In-fact it makes all users, including the tower owners, anonymous by
>> default. Did I mention the free wifi part ?
>>
>> My plan has many incentives built in.
>>
>>
>> On 11/06/2012 06:14 AM, Natanael wrote:
>>
>> What do you suggest then? Can you start going constructive here?
>>
>> VPN:s will NOT increase the total traffic on the routers as such. Moot
>> point. VPN:s to the home will only at most double the user's traffic use,
>> and that is just one of the options.
>>
>> Fon already use VPN:s too, and how on earth do you suggest we incentivize
>> router owners to open their WiFi if they are liable for what the users does?
>>
>> We NEED these:
>>
>> Freedom from liability for router owners
>> Easy access
>> Widespread access
>> Zero setup for usera, minimal for router owners
>> Den 6 nov 2012 13:06 skrev "Todd" <Todd at chiwifi.net>:
>>
>>> What name did I call you ?
>>>
>>> Monster aggregate bandwith is meaningless if by design you double the
>>> traffic required because of a series of criss-crossing VPN tunnels.
>>>
>>> Also it completely ignores the useability of the network in the face of
>>> not only very small upstream caps but also monthly bandwidth limits
>>> imposed by ISPs.
>>>
>>> Also I would prefer if you answer my questions instead of deflecting
>>> them by claiming I am name-calling.
>>>
>>> So I ask again, why should anyone give a damn if all you are doing is
>>> trying to copy already existing and mature commercial offerings, and
>>> making it more complicated and slow with throwing on some VPN ?
>>>
>>>
>>> Also my mistake about the scale issue, I was thinking of the mesh
>>> networking discussion. These conversations seem to constantly get
>>> diverted in random directions.
>>>
>>> On 11/06/2012 05:59 AM, "Andy Green (林安廸)" wrote:
>>> > On 11/06/12 19:55, the mail apparently from Todd included:
>>> >> How is what you mentioned any different then already existing
>>> projects,
>>> >> like fon, which btw also does not use VPNs.
>>> >>
>>> >> So far you have suggested that this become massive enough to include
>>> >> hardware manufactures and for it to be world-wide but at the same time
>>> >> said these systems would not scale to city sizes.
>>> >
>>> > Hm?  I never said anything about scale problems, this will scale how
>>> > you like.  There's millions of APs out there with monstrous aggregate
>>> > bandwidth.
>>> >
>>> >> Most importantly however is the fact that it makes no effort what so
>>> >
>>> > It's easier if you say the most important thing first ^^
>>> >
>>> >> ever to change any portion of the existing internet, only the way in
>>> >> which people connect to it. It also does not it in any way impact
>>> >> internet freedoms, instead it just shuffles around responsibility.
>>> >>
>>> >> So I ask again, why should anyone give a crap if all you are doing is
>>> >> trying to copy already existing and mature commercial offerings, and
>>> >> making it more complicated and slow with throwing on some VPN crap ?
>>> >
>>> > Todd, calling something names isn't an argument.
>>> >
>>> > -Andy
>>> >
>>> >> On 11/06/2012 05:46 AM, "Andy Green (林安廸)" wrote:
>>> >>> On 11/06/12 19:37, the mail apparently from Todd included:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> Why should anyone feel responsible for giving anyone else internet,
>>> >>>> when
>>> >>>> they are paying for out of their own pocket for it?
>>> >>>> What do they get in return ?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Well, the VPN thing is to try to reduce the "responsibility" to zero
>>> >>> and eliminate that downside.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> They can throttle the leechers how they like as well, and / or QoS
>>> >>> them down so the real user never even notices them.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I guess it boils down to if they contribute, and there's a useful
>>> >>> critical mass, then they are free to "be the leecher" when they need
>>> >>> it.  For example, if you visit other countries, roaming rates make it
>>> >>> insane to casually use Internet on your SIM.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> This way, you might get a reasonable facsimile of continuous internet
>>> >>> connection for receiving email etc as you walk around a city.  Or if
>>> >>> you are stuck in a hotel with expensive Internet, if there are other
>>> >>> APs nearby you will be able to get by.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Actually those are quite nice benefits that could appear worldwide if
>>> >>> this scheme took off.  For that, it would be ideal if AP
>>> manufacturers
>>> >>> included the support and enabled it by default alongside the regular
>>> >>> WPA network so the AP owner's own traffic remains safe.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> And again the other part is that APs should be ready to be the VPN
>>> >>> server for the owner when he is roaming.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> -Andy
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>> On 11/06/12 19:29, the mail apparently from Todd included:
>>> >>>>>> On 11/06/2012 05:20 AM, "Andy Green (林安廸)" wrote:
>>> >>>>>>> On 11/06/12 18:53, the mail apparently from Christian Huldt
>>> >>>>>>> included:
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> 2012-11-06 kl. 11:10 skrev Todd:
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> One thing note here is, most of the responses have been solely
>>> >>>>>>>>> about
>>> >>>>>>>>> "protecting the router owner" via throwing on varying levels of
>>> >>>>>>>>> VPN. As
>>> >>>>>>>>> far as I can tell,  the average member of this list is more
>>> >>>>>>>>> worried
>>> >>>>>>>>> about their continued ability to pirate then providing
>>> ubiquitous
>>> >>>>>>>>> wifi
>>> >>>>>>>>> which is very disheartening.
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> I beg to disagree, IMHO this is about being able to convince
>>> your
>>> >>>>>>>> neighbor that
>>> >>>>>>>> he/she can also share wifi without any immediate risks - which
>>> >>>>>>>> there
>>> >>>>>>>> are, at least in Germany.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Exactly, same in UK.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Since the VPN story includes trying to get the client's home AP
>>> as
>>> >>>>>>> the
>>> >>>>>>> server, going out on the internet with the IP in the client's
>>> name,
>>> >>>>>>> this has nothing whatsoever to do with 'piracy'.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> You can see for yourself that the very few open personal APs left
>>> >>>>>>> seem
>>> >>>>>>> to mainly be so by accident (SSID of "Netgear", etc), at least
>>> >>>>>>> where I
>>> >>>>>>> live and travel your average router owner "knows" that
>>> >>>>>>> unencrypted is
>>> >>>>>>> dangerous even if he couldn't explain it in terms of his traffic
>>> >>>>>>> being
>>> >>>>>>> sniffable, he could tell you it's dangerous due to possibility of
>>> >>>>>>> other people exploiting it to his detriment.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> To get people to make the other decision, to offer anonymous
>>> >>>>>>> access on
>>> >>>>>>> their IP again, there has to be a story that definitively
>>> counters
>>> >>>>>>> this perception, a reason why something changed and it is now
>>> >>>>>>> safe to
>>> >>>>>>> do so, and we might see (VPN-only) open APs become normal again.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> The only story I know that would convince me is VPN-only, since
>>> it
>>> >>>>>>> directly counters the "but the bad guy might use my IP" concern.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> -Andy
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> The "bad guy might use my IP" argument is completely irrelevant
>>> >>>>>> if the
>>> >>>>>> IPs are not being assigned by the large ISP (IE.. comcast, att,
>>> >>>>>> verizon,
>>> >>>>>> etc..)
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I am not sure what scenario you are imagining, but the guys on the
>>> >>>>> ground with compatible APs all around are exactly customers of
>>> these
>>> >>>>> kind of ISPs.  If you look at your scan list you will likely see
>>> >>>>> loads
>>> >>>>> of WPA-protected private APs right now.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> If most of those normal people opened their APs for VPN-only,
>>> because
>>> >>>>> it was built-in to their APs, you could pretty much bank on getting
>>> >>>>> service whereever there was habitation, without any special
>>> >>>>> provisioning activity.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> They already power their AP, have a live internet connection, are
>>> >>>>> close by, etc...
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> -Andy
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>> Tech mailing list
>>> >>>> Tech at srv1.openwireless.org
>>> >>>> https://srv1.openwireless.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Tech mailing list
>>> >> Tech at srv1.openwireless.org
>>> >> https://srv1.openwireless.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tech mailing list
>>> Tech at srv1.openwireless.org
>>> https://srv1.openwireless.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tech mailing list
>> Tech at srv1.openwireless.org
>> https://srv1.openwireless.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tech mailing list
> Tech at srv1.openwireless.org
> https://srv1.openwireless.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.eff.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20121106/03a5f4a9/attachment.html>