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.
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].
The other day, someone walked by with their dog and asked if they could get use our hose to give their dog some water. I bit the bullet, and allowed them to take $0.05 worth of water that I had paid for with my hard earned money.
Same deal here. Connectivity is getting to the point where the costs are so low, you might as well give it away to passersby, because seriously, are we really counting nickels and dimes?
Not free, but cheap enough that most of us can be generous with it.
I had a really funny experience that kind of relates. My sink had some of those poorly made fiber washers, if you weren't careful, which meant if you over-tightened or under-tightened the sink valve when you closed it, it would drip. Just a little bit, you know drip .... drip .... drip ...
Then California got this whole drought thing going and the water company was asking everyone to cut back. We fixed the faucet and saved a bit over 3% on our total overall water bill.
For me in the US I'm fortunate because water is cheap. I find I can't ignore it though.
The difference is with WiFi, someone can take $50.00 worth of service, and you wouldn't even see their face. If someone tried to come up to your house and take $50.00 of water, you'd probably notice.
I'm not sure how making your wireless network open is the "socially responsible" thing to do anymore then letting strangers come in and use your bathroom at will is.
Sure, most people won't cause any harm, but it only takes one asshole (or too many people taking advantage) to make it a nightmare for you.
FWIW, I believe the idea is to segment the network so you are sharing your bandwidth, but not your "home network."
A closer analogy would be letting strangers use the outhouse on your property, but not letting them in the house.
The router used by Numericable here in France offers a "guest WiFi" connection out of the box. It is not enabled by default, mind you, but it is available nonetheless.
Probably the closest analogy would be seeding on bittorrent. No harm to you, beyond perhaps reduced network speed, but significant benefit to everyone else.
Unfortunately, in many countries[1] you'll be prosecuted as an accessory if someone commits a crime via your connection, unless you set it up in such a way that you're legally an ISP. This is obviously a lot of trouble, so you're better off not bothering.
[1] there have been a number of cases in Germany, for example
Do you mean "guest wifi" meaning one need not enter a WEP key, or do you mean "open wifi" like is being discussed here?
Because it is my understanding from reading the EFF page that they want the Starbucks model (open network and gratis connectivity), which differs from my experience with SFR/Orange/Neuf etc which are revenue-sharing deals [in my experience].
Even Netgear(? or perhaps D-link) in the US shipped access points with some kind of silly revenue-sharing situation.
Anyway, in my home country (europe), with a fiber optic connection plan (80ch tv+net+phone) for about 40€/month you also get 3G connectivity included. In the US I pay ~$35 for 10Mbps rcn internet only.
I used to have my european wifi router open but since everyone in the neighborhood has wifi and the really cheap 3g connectivity is ubiquitous, I ended up setting up wpa.
When my kid was a teenager and had a laptop, I wanted to impose a "no internet after 10pm" rule. I could turn off my router easily enough, but I had to ask a couple of neighbors to secure their network. They were happy to help. One of them needed technical assistance, which I was more than happy to provide.
Now there are smartphones. That certainly poses a problem that I am grateful not having to deal with anymore.
1. 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.
Shame 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.
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?
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.
The people demanding drug reform would be fantastic, and the Mexican drug gangs is absurd on the face because if growing were legal here, they would have a hell of a lot less business. Not your point, I know.
I'm all for open Wi-Fi networks but I'm not quite sure how it's a "tragedy of the commons". People locking their Wi-Fi network aren't harming other users of the RF spectrum, which is the common resource. The resource being locked out is the telco's backhaul, which isn't really a commons, is it?
The resource is internet access everywhere. Everyone benefits from open wifi, but any individual benefits by locking down their own wifi. So everyone locks down their own wifi, and nobody has internet access, and we're all worse off.
I'm not sure it's a tragedy of the commons per se, but it's a collective action problem of one sort or another.
RF isn't the commons they're talking about. The commons is the open access points that people would come by and torrent / download kiddie porn through. People abused open access points, so everyone started closing them.
In 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.
"Our failure to work together prevents us from enjoying better, more widespread Internet access."
I almost didn't manage to read further. The same can be said about so many things (if everyone just took or borrowed what he needed in a responsible manner, we wouldn't need money at all... to name the most utopian example), yet this kind of reasoning simply doesn't work, as has been shown both practically and theoretically (from game theory to "selfish gene").
It makes me always kind of sad to see smart and enthusiastic people not to grasp this simple fact.
Too 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 modems, so you don't even need a USB modem to use your 3G connection.
Your 3G plan, in your country. Please don't be so quick to dismiss movements that could help other people but not you.
Here, a 3G plan with 1 gigabyte cap costs 90 bucks per month. The 8 GB plan is almost half the minimum wage. I would kill to have open wifi everywhere.
While yes mobile data is getting better (I'm in a similar situation to you paying EUR5 for 500mb per month) part of the problem is that of security. If you want to have a public access point then there should be ways in which you can do this but still isolate users and protect their respective traffic.
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.
Instead of single open access points I would prefer seeing unified mesh network. It is my understanding that the 2.4 GHz spectrum where WiFi is operating is extremely busy, and therefore noisy. Instead of setting up your own AP which competes for a piece of RF spectrum, there should be a way of providing bandwidth and range for neighboring networks. Of course I realize that routing a mesh to internet is quite difficult, so I just keep dreaming on....
They acknowledge but do not even address the "cops breaking down your door" problem. I don't think it admits of a solution. Technical approaches like putting unknown MACs behind a firewall to block filesharing or filter the web are imperfect and prove that you knew leaving your wifi open might help baby-rapers.
(Pardon the throwaway, but I do run an open wifi. If I do win that unlucky lottery, I don't want some zealous prosecutor digging up this comment.)
In a world where it was understood that everyone ran free wifi, the courts would stop accepting that illegal activity from your IP was a reason for the cops to break down your door. Just as it's obvious today that illegal activity from a Starbucks open wifi isn't a reason for the cops to break into Starbucks.
I'm not saying it's easy to get there from here, but a solution is clearly not inherently impossible.
Not only do we need an open wireless movement, we need mesh networking amongst mobile internet devices and all wireless routers within reach of each other hooking up to form a carrier-independent infrastructure. There are a few projects working towards the former, however the latter would provide a solid backbone especially if the blank spots can be filled through an internet connection.
The biggest problem here is sharing your IP address. I do not want the FBI at my house every time my neighbor downloads something illegal (recent cases show that this does happen). Some level of protection is necessary. NAT for example seems a poor choice. Maybe with IPv6 the FBI would know not to bother the network operator but to go directly to the offender. Or maybe some sort of a part-way link level encryption gateway is the answer.
I get where the EFF is coming from. From a technical standpoint, the notion that "WiFi everywhere" could be delivered easily if everyone just opened their networks is sound, but their arguments trivialize a lot of the consequences. Take this gem:
"...a desire to prevent their neighbors from "free riding" on their connections; and a fear that unencrypted WiFi is a security or privacy risk. Both of those reasons have a degree of legitimacy..."
A degree of legitimacy? The article goes on to state that the risks inherent to untrusted network access have "other solutions", but that's a pretty bold statement. Good security is about layers. If you don't want people snooping on your network communications, you need layered security.
Their proposed solution of link-layer security is cool and all, but it's a long ways off. There was a time when I was all about open networks for the common good, but the whole Firesheep fiasco changed my tune pretty quickly.
If your wifi is to an internal network firewalled from the internet, then yes of course you'd want to secure it.
But most home wifi (which is what we're talking about here) is routed more or less directly to the inherently untrusted internet. If you're sending unencrypted data you care about to that then you already have a problem. (Yes, it's true that people are sending unencrypted data they care about across the internet and it's true that they already have a problem.)
I have an open anonymous wifi setup that doesn't allow eavesdropping.
I have an ADSL/wifi router as my primary access point. It provides a WPA2 encrypted network for my own laptops. Then I have an old secondary wifi router plugged to that one over ethernet. It offers another passwordless network and has some bandwidth-limits in place, does NAT, and provides another subnet over dhcp to anonymous users. You can't use the secondary network to eavesdrop on what happens on the primary router.
When I'm out travelling and find an anonymous wifi myself, I just ssh to my account at a unix box, forward the connection to a remote http/s proxy to my laptop and thus route all my web traffic over ssh via a trusted exit node.
The problem is that not everyone can afford that. In fact, almost no one can afford that. The internet as a whole is only viable because of vastly pooled resources - it could never have happened on a "my slice, get off my lawn" basis. Even if you can afford it, you're being vastly overcharged compared to a decentralized network. One that already exists in many areas, most of it is already fully painted with WiFi supposing people could actually all use it.
Cellphone-based systems are an inefficient use of bandwidth, as is explained in the article. This cost is passed on to you as poor data rates and unbelievable roaming charges (compared to the cost per gigabyte of home internet). Is that really the future you want?
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.