[OpenWireless Tech] A small question about tracking
Todd
Todd at chiwifi.net
Tue Nov 6 05:16:42 PST 2012
On 11/06/2012 07:05 AM, Natanael wrote:
> 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.
Are you saying that getting on the internet at starbucks, is just too hard ?
I think teaching people how to use a simple webpage to get access the
the internet should be the bottom rung, if you can't figure that out,
the internet is better off without you. Think of it as a way to curb the
extreme stupidity on the internet, BONUS!
>
> 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.
The WISPs would not be a block size thing, you would literally have to
leave the city to run into that issue, also by setting it up so that
large sections of the wireless bandwidth are used by individual orgs,
you can have people actually work together and communicate, and not all
use the same wireless band. So using this system there is no reason to
duplicate efforts, if someone has setup this system already in the area,
then join it. If not, the only other networks to compete with are closed
home wifi's. Mine is also designed so that while the end user always
sees wireless a,b,g,n the backbone can by any wireless band, thus
sidestepping the bandwidth issue.
If you want the system to be widely adopted, you will have to design it
in a way that makes it ok for anything larger then a home users to run
it. It is impossible to run a large network where every admin, is a home
user. What happens when you need to upgrade a router but no way to
contact the router owners ?
Also IP addressing is a huge issue when working with anything larger
then home user. It is a bad idea to ignore the business market.
>
> 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.
It is funny you should mention flashing routers by taking them to tech
shops, I have never actually heard of that happening which is why I
started a shop to do exactly that, but aside from my own, I have never
heard of shops offering that service, can you provide any examples ? I
am very interested in how others are doing 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
> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:Tech at srv1.openwireless.org>
>>> >>>> https://srv1.openwireless.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Tech mailing list
>>> >> Tech at srv1.openwireless.org
>>> <mailto:Tech at srv1.openwireless.org>
>>> >> https://srv1.openwireless.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tech mailing list
>>> Tech at srv1.openwireless.org
>>> <mailto:Tech at srv1.openwireless.org>
>>> https://srv1.openwireless.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tech mailing list
>> Tech at srv1.openwireless.org <mailto:Tech at srv1.openwireless.org>
>> https://srv1.openwireless.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tech mailing list
> Tech at srv1.openwireless.org <mailto: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/20121106/1b7f033d/attachment.html>
More information about the Tech
mailing list