[OpenWireless Tech] A small question about tracking
Todd
Todd at chiwifi.net
Tue Nov 6 05:27:30 PST 2012
Oh I almost forgot, the WISPs I am talking about could easily be tech
shops. and there are tons of ways to monetize a WISP without charging
for access, you can obviously charge for additional bandwidth above a
certain point (I personally chose 5mbit up/down for free, above that
speed, paid) but more importantly is the number of for-profit services
that can be offered locally which would easily makje up for the cost of
the bandwidth, especially considering that once you get above 10gbit,
bandwidth costs $1mbit
That's the biggest secret of last mile ISPs, they are ripping everyone
off on bandwidth charges.
On 11/06/2012 07:16 AM, Todd wrote:
> 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 (???)" 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 (???)" 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 (???)" 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121106/047dec2e/attachment.html>
More information about the Tech
mailing list