I haven't found a QoS/shaping scheme that works adequately with DD-WRT, so I just shut the open SSID down.
Additionally, I believe that in the next 5-7 years, the US broadband ISP model will move to a metered bandwidth model, similar to what US mobile carriers are doing now. Just wait.
They'll claim its due to torrenters or some such nonsense, but the real reason will be to extract more profit from their customers. So, I think the whole "open and free" Internet thing will be a moot point in the next decade.
It's an unfortunate chicken-and-egg problem. I think this web site is trying to solve it by getting enough people to jump at the same time.
There are also plenty of solutions if one want to eliminate this "risk". Hook it to Tor, or an VPN solution of your choice, and that will be that. That's it, no more risk, and you can enjoy the safety that one can normally only get from insurance against volcanoes.
1) slow it down
2) cost me money if I do not want 1) to happen
You know, I do not travel to volcanoes, but I do use the Internet. And being hit by a meteor is something over which I have no control... My wifi is completely mine to tinker with.
On the other hand: and I am not into risking SO MUCH (just the fact of receiving a letter is too much for me, sorry my values are not equal to yours) for so little benefit, sorry.
It is a risk without quotes, it is probably not a "danger" from your point of view (just to be precise): risk is anything with a potential damaging outcome... Yes, any activity is a risk. Just ask any insurance company out there.
And frankly I could not care less about Schneier's open wifi and his arguments in this case.
Technically, you can do this several ways. You can base it on the source MAC, ipsec authentication, or just have two separate networks (one close, one open).
As for the risk. Yes, any activity is a risk. Walking down the street, breathing air, or just talking to someone will invokes a large number of them. Thus, if we dont want to be incapacitated by our own fears, we must evaluate them. Meteor insurance is a joke because of this. While it is a "risk" in the strict sense, its not a risk worth considering or giving any action to.
If the risk of open wifi is the same or even less than meteor strikes, why does it deserve any though or considerations? Why is this fear different from people who refuse to leave their home, or refuse to be around people if they dont wear face masks and gloves?
Ie, are there a rational reason to avoid open-wifi, or is it just irrational fear. Of course, anyone is allowed to not do something they feel afraid of. But I also feel allowed to point out the folly of irrational fears of risks with less than meteor strike probability.
Elemenohpee was dismissive because there is no reasonable argument for valuing minor to moderate legal liability as more important than life itself. Pointing out that elemenohpee was dismissive is not going to help you win the argument. It just adds more evidence to the accusation of "intellectually dishonest" if you have nothing else to say in rebuttal, especially when you exaggerate it.
Rational does not mean the same thing as sanity. Rationality means behaving in a manor consistent with your beliefs, desires, and the information you have. If you would much rather be killed while skydiving than driving your car taking you may do things that are not what most people would consider 'sane', but are still perfectly rational based on your goals and beliefs.
My network is still open, though, and will remain so. Less than once a year I have to throttle a heavy user.
That link describes a test, but AFAIK, the test was succesful, and they will go full ahead (rumor has it that they will want to buy spectrum in an auction going on right now to fill gaps in that network)
I think a major ifference is that they provide hardware that separates the public network from your private one.
There's an assumption that if you name your SSID openwireless.org that it somehow ties them to the Considerable Use guidelines. Which means that people searching for free wifi will find the SSID, after they connect will go to the website, and then find the little yellow bar and click on it, scroll down, and read a decent sized paragraph that politely asks them not to stream HD movies.
Yet on the page there is only 1 with a setting for QoS (which won't prevent the types of problems you want it to), and one with 'firewalling users' (which doesn't shield users from each other, only prevents them from routing into your subnets). Not to say that it's their fault - most routers don't have the features available to actually segment and properly prioritize different sets of users.
I read the FAQ and thought they figured out how to solve these difficult problems on simple platforms, only to be disappointed with the tutorials that simply opened networks up.
But yes, OpenZone is very similar. OpenZone lets BT know the end subscriber, based on the user name of the device on the HotSpot.
Copied from the 'general conditions' of an ADSL contract in Spain (Telefónica):
"Queda expresamente prohibida la [...] compartición de recursos fuera del domicilio"
(The sharing of resources out of the domicile is expressively forbidden).
The link is here: http://www.movistar.es/rpmm/estaticos/residencial/fijo/banda...
Won't do this in Spain.
Secondly, just because it's written in the contract doesn't mean it's legally enforceable.
Thirdly, just because it's legally enforceable doesn't mean it's enforceable in practice.
Fourthly, just because it's enforceable in practice doesn't mean it's enforced.
The fact that the other part can do something about it does not mean that I have the right to break it at will.
Can anyone describe why this effort is different from those that came before it?
As long as this is still the case, this will never happen.
Also, I have to pay if I go over my bandwidth limit. I appreciate there are plans with no limit, but this is a limiting factor for almost everybody.
"A pub owner has been fined £8,000 because someone unlawfully downloaded copyrighted material over their open Wi-Fi hotspot, according to the managing director of hotspot provider The Cloud."(http://www.zdnet.com/-3039909136/).
Personally, while there's this kind of case being brought, I'd rather not take the risk.