
Why we need an Open Wireless movement - nikosdimopoulos
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/04/open-wireless-movement
======
ChuckMcM
Sigh.

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.

~~~
erikpukinskis
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.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Point taken.

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.

------
ry0ohki
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.

~~~
mdaniel
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.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Probably the closest analogy would be seeding on bittorrent. No harm to you,
beyond perhaps reduced network speed, but significant benefit to everyone
else.

~~~
pmjordan
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

------
slug
Isn't this what fonera was(is) trying to achieve for some years now?
<http://corp.fon.com/us/this-is-fon/> .

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.

------
ninguem2
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.

------
iandanforth
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.

------
alanh
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.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I'll continue on my karmakazi rant here. I disagree strongly that 'whining for
free wifi' is a reasoned argument against domain name seizures.

~~~
alanh
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?

~~~
ChuckMcM
Agreed, whining is perhaps too strong.

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.

~~~
alanh
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.

Decentralization doesn't preclude smart, opt-in filtering, etc., by node
operators, FWIW

------
zwieback
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?

~~~
phirephly
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.

~~~
Groxx
People abused open access points, so telcos started going after the hosts, not
the abusers, so everyone started closing them.

Then there's also Firesheep. But that's just a cherry on top, really.

------
ddlatham
Previous discussion at: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2491686>

------
trotsky
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.

------
Wuzzy
"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.

~~~
waqf
The EFF is trying to propose a technical solution, not simply to change
people's attitudes by an appeal to greater good.

------
gst
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.

~~~
yatsyk
1G costs about $30K if I decide to use my phone in other country, so I'd say
that reports about cheap 3G is greatly exaggerated

~~~
jarek
Or you could just get a local prepaid data SIM

~~~
yatsyk
and notify everyone who could potentially call me about my new phone number...
I do sometimes but it's far from optimal solution

------
zokier
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....

------
throwawaywifi
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.)

~~~
waqf
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.

------
mahrain
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.

~~~
IgorPartola
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.

------
bradleyland
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.

~~~
waqf
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.)

------
yason
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.

------
noelchurchill
This seems like a non-issue to me, especially in the age of smartphones with
personal wifi hotspot abilities.

~~~
LarrySDonald
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.

------
Aloisius
I wish this could some how be shoe-horned into the current standards.
Microsoft, Apple and the OWA aren't known for their speed.

------
gmazzotti
Is exist, it is call FON fon.com

