Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Corporate Encouragement For Sharing Your WiFi

Posted by Zonk on Sun Oct 07, 2007 05:15 PM
from the everybody-in-the-phone-booth dept.
Wireless Networking Hardware
anagama writes "Conventional wisdom is that one should lockdown wifi, your ISP doesn't want you to share your connection, that person checking email outside the coffee shop ought to be arrested. The UK ISP BT is offering an alternative model. The company will encourage its three million broadband users to pick up a FON router and start sharing signals. 'For BT, the move makes its broadband offering more useful to customers, who can access the Internet from more places, and BT doesn't need to build out a new wireless network itself. BT's Gavin Patterson, a managing director, holds out hopes that the FON scheme can someday "cover every street in Britain." "We are giving our millions of Total Broadband customers a choice and an opportunity," he added in a statement. "If they are prepared to securely share a little of their broadband, they can share the broadband at hundreds of thousands of FON and BT Openzone hotspots today, without paying a penny." '"
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Corporate Encouragement for Sharing Your WiFi by anagama (611277)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Corporate Encouragement For Sharing Your WiFi 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • ...but will BT pay for it?

    The only way i see this working would be if organizations were compensated for sharing. Not just "encouraged". It'd be nice to put some of the excess on our fiber circuits to good use.

    • Re:Sure, I'll share my broadband... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by JamesRose (1062530) on Sunday October 07 2007, @05:39PM (#20891499)
      That's the point, BT has BT openzone, so at places like airports BT gives wi-fi access, if you partipate in this scheme, you let people use your broadband, and in return you can use theirs and BT's. It's like communism, but the good kind :P. Of course you can choose not to, and you pay a little to accesss the wi-fi area.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Bogtha (906264)

      ...but will BT pay for it?

      Yes. [fon.com] Summary: When somebody accesses the Internet through your connection, they pay for it, and you get half.

      • "I don't understand how someone can share their AP without fear of someone doing something nefarious over their connection. I'd be more willing to participate once there is more precedence over who's going to get busted (not me)."

        If this were the United States, you would be perfectly safe (theoretically) so long as you comply with the DMCA safe harbor provisions. However, doing that is a pain in the ass. I think you're probably safe anyway, since you're just extending someone else's network and they are sti

  • Not for free. Charging extra users. (Score:3, Informative)

    by mjensen (118105) on Sunday October 07 2007, @05:20PM (#20891347) Journal
    From the article, FON is charging the extra users. It's extra revenue for them. The extra users aren't getting on for free.
    • I think the point is not to get on for free, but to get on from anywhere they happen to be standing. If you share yours, and they share theirs, FON can make lots of money by having access points everywhere without paying a penny, and call it 'sharing' with each other.
      • You sound upset as if this is some kind of under-handed method destroying all we know and love.

        In fact, this is potentially an answer to the cost problems in setting up large-scale wireless access that have been featured here on /. recently. Sure, it's not exactly what people are looking for, but it's a step towards a larger infrastructure, I suppose.

    • Re:Not for free. Charging extra users. (Score:4, Informative)

      by larry bagina (561269) on Sunday October 07 2007, @05:36PM (#20891479) Journal
      how do you read that?

      Other "Foneros" can access the public channel for free, while non-Foneros can pay a few dollars a day to use the access points.

      "If they are prepared to securely share a little of their broadband, they can share the broadband at hundreds of thousands of FON and BT Openzone hotspots today, without paying a penny."

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Buelldozer (713671)
      Whaaaa? How did this get modded insightful?

      Fon has three types of users: Linux, Bill, and Alien. If you sign up as a Linux and share your wifi you get free wifi at any other Fon access point.

      If you are a Bill you make a bit of money when another Bill or Alien, logs onto your Fon access point. Conversely if you roam onto another Fon AP you are expected to pay at a reduced rate.

      An Alien is anyone who is not part of the Fon network. They can still access any Fon AP but they have to pay to do it.

      My point is tha
      • The way it works has changed since you last checked. You can now be a Bill - getting paid for people who access your network - and access other FON APs for free.
    • I have a FON AP and access is free for anyone although they need a FON account to use it.

  • That's how San Fran et all should have done it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by turnipsatemybaby (648996) on Sunday October 07 2007, @05:26PM (#20891403)
    I can think of no simpler way to implement a city-wide free wifi system than a grassroots method such as this. Not only is the up front cost relatively inexpensive per user, it's distributed across thousands of people who can take part if/when they see fit, and it's much easier for individual people to maintain than a central authority.

    Not only that, you would have the redundancy of having multiple choices of APs in a given area, so if one goes down for whatever reason, you can still choose another.

    It's almost like the equivalent of swarm intelligence, but applied to wifi.
      • If the spooks want to monitor IP traffic, they'll just stick a probe or two in at Telehouse or any of the large Colo/Interconnection points or wherever. This project gets the spooks precisely nothing as far as I can see.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Angostura (703910)
            Every mesh network I've seen employs at least one backhaul to enable Internet connectivity. Now, unless you believe that there will be a wealth of intra-mesh communication that the spooks will want to see, the backhaul is where they will tap.

  • this should be stopped dead in its tracks! (Score:5, Funny)

    by siddesu (698447) on Sunday October 07 2007, @05:27PM (#20891415)
    damned bleeding heart pirate and crime promoters, these telcos, how dare they muddy the waters of evidence-gathering against all those copyright-thieving artist-income-depriving file-sharing child-porn distributing criminals?

  • Some US providers try/tried too... (Score:3, Informative)

    by olden (772043) on Sunday October 07 2007, @05:29PM (#20891431)
    Some providers in the US also try/tried that, starting as early as 2003, and usually hoping that non-customers would pay $$ to access their network through such user-provided "open" wi-fi APs. I don't think this worked overly well so far though...
    http://www.sonic.net/hotspots/ [sonic.net]
    http://www.speakeasy.net/netshare/learnmore/ [speakeasy.net]

  • RIAA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Sunday October 07 2007, @05:47PM (#20891551) Homepage Journal
    Must be screaming in pain now.. Even less of a way to determine who downloaded/uploaded something that is *isp sponsored*.

    Cool.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by TheRaven64 (641858)
      Not really. If you'd R'dTFA[1] you would know that you still need to log on to the network to use it, and have an account with them. They still log exactly who is doing what and where.

      They also allocate 512KB more bandwidth to your link while other people are using it, and only allow the other people to use this, which is quite neat.


      [1] In my defence, I did this before it was on /. and so wasn't aware I was breaking the rules.

  • Wippies in Finland (http://www.wippies.com/) is doing a similar thing. They give a free WiFi box (among other things) to users who operate an access point and share their broadband connection with other Wippies members.

  • So lets see.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SirLurksAlot (1169039) on Sunday October 07 2007, @05:55PM (#20891605)
    You share your bandwidth with someone else and the ISP pockets a little extra money if that someone doesn't happen to be a current customer? Yes, according to the article the other users will be on a different channel, so your service isn't interrupted, but no matter how you look at it you're still splitting your pipe. Also, since this scheme involves a new customer paying for access on your (already paid for) connection why not apply the extra money as a credit on your bill? I'm paying a pretty good chunk on my broadband (Time Warner), but I wouldn't mind this setup if it meant my bill was going to be lower.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by TheRaven64 (641858)

      but no matter how you look at it you're still splitting your pipe

      No you're not. That's the entire point of this system. When other people are connected, BT (who own almost all of the ADSL infrastructure in the UK, including the last mile) will allocate another 512KB of bandwidth to your connection. This will then be split between the other people who are using your connection.

      I just had a quick look at TFA, and apparently it wasn't the same article I read earlier today detailing this scheme, which made no mention of FON but did explain the extra bandwidth provisio

      • No, that's not the case. They limit the shared bandwidth to 512kbps and prioritise your traffic, but that comes out of your downstream connection. Consumer ADSL lines are mostly already provisioned at the highest bandwidth the line will support.

      • BT (who own almost all of the ADSL infrastructure in the UK, including the last mile)

        I wouldn't be surprised if BT own less than half the ADSL infrastructure in the UK now. Sky/Easynet, AOL, Tiscali/Pipex, Carphone Warehouse, Be, C&W/Bulldog and Orange all have their own LLU infrastructure in a significant number of exchanges, starting with the busiest ones of course.

  • BT's FAQ (Score:3, Informative)

    by Jacco de Leeuw (4646) on Sunday October 07 2007, @06:14PM (#20891717) Homepage
    As posted on the FON blog [fon.com]:

    Q:If I am a Fonero and have BT do I need to sign up?
    A: Yes

    Q:I am a Fonero but not a BT customer, can I access BT Fonspots?
    A:Yes, all Foneros can use BT Fon Hotsposts and vice versa

    Q:I am a Fonero but not a BT customer, can I use BT Openzone hotspots.
    A: No, but if you had BT Total broadband then Yes.

    So, FON users still do NOT have free access to BT's commercial hotspots ("BT Openzone") UNLESS they are also paying BT broadband customers ("BT Total"). Bummer. The only thing new here is that a major ISP does not mind (and in fact encourages) the use of FON routers.

  • Anti-RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Sunday October 07 2007, @06:15PM (#20891723)
    Talk about the perfect excuse that it wasn't me sharing music over my WiFi router. It was someone else -- and BT make it all possible. Certainly an RIAA nightmare in the making.
    • No, to use the system you still have to log on with a username and password. They will know who is downloading what. How does that make sharing any different from what exists today?
  • Amazing. A telecom with vision. That's completely unheard of over here in the states. The only thing our telecoms can envision is the almighty dollar.

  • Just two questions... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hack slash (1064002) on Sunday October 07 2007, @06:59PM (#20891977)
    If you do sign up to the scheme then:

    1) with the ever growing list of people getting done for illegal activity, ie downloading mp3s/illegal porn/'hacking' etc., will you be exempt from any charges relating to criminal activity through someone using your router?

    2) is the broadband service provided truly unlimited?

    I can't see many people in their right minds signing up to such a service if they weren't protected from neighbours doing heavy downloading and the drive-by wifi'ers downloading stuff deemed illegal. Because on one end of the scale I wouldn't want additional charges for bandwidth use or have the speed restricted due to too someone else using it too much, and the other end I wouldn't want to be arrested because someone else used my internet connection through the wifi router for criminal activities.

    • Re:Just two questions... (Score:4, Informative)

      by IndieKid (1061106) on Monday October 08 2007, @03:25AM (#20895377) Journal
      From the FAQ [bt.com]:

      What happens if someone uses my broadband connection to access an illegal site? Can I prove that it wasn't me accessing the sites?
      Yes, their access to the internet will be through a separate channel, so it is easy to identify that the access was through the visitor channel.
  • WiFi sharers should have official legal immunity. What if someone uses a community WiFi signal to do something that attracts the attention of NSA et al? Sharers should coordinate to encourage new laws protecting people who share connections. The owner of a connection should NOT be held liable for the actions of others through their connection that are being done without their knowledge.
  • that's one down. Now if we can just get Comcast to go for it ...

  • Umm, I'm not impressed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cheros (223479) on Sunday October 07 2007, @08:22PM (#20892605)
    I got that FON adaptor with a Skype phone, and it took me all of 30 seconds to decide not to install it.

    Given the current security climate I'm really not going to give someone a chance to (a) identify where I live and if I'm around (look at their status info on the web - having an access point means you've got kit to steal) and (b) to put a remote controlled listening device on my traffic. The FON adaptor is a small Linux box, and I don't know what it does. Worse, someone else controls it and can flash the thing at any time.

    Nope. Not interested in contributing to an 802.11 version of Echelon :-).

  • I prefer a more Grassroots approach... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wellingj (1030460) on Sunday October 07 2007, @08:26PM (#20892637)
    Why do we need a teloco to allow us to do this? DIY is always better. [meraki.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by EriDay (679359)
      FON authenticates its users.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MikeFM (12491)
      That's why we invented ssl, ssh, etc. AP security is mostly an illusion anyway and at least IMO it should not be allowed as it's hijacking a scarce public resource (the frequency being used) and making it into a private resource. Very annoying if you live in a crowded area where everyone is trying to run their own little AP and it's to congested to work well and you can't share because they are all locked.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by binarybum (468664)
        yes. ISPs would be much more secure if they didn't make internet access available to customers. And banks would be much more secure if they weren't always dealing with people's money.

        Sharing anything causes an increased security risk. The more hops data makes, the more vulnerable it is. The most vulnerable place typically being where it first enters a network.
        The question then becomes can BT manage these new security risks well enough to keep customer satisfaction at

      • Re:How hte hell (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 07 2007, @05:36PM (#20891481)

        RTFM. Slashdot doesn't delete posts because Taco doesn't believe in deleting posts. There are two ways I know of for a post to disappear:

        1. If it gets flushed because the discussion is too large, a la 20721.
        2. If our Benevolent Masters at the Church of Scientology disapprove in any way

        "We" can't "block" "this guy" from "concievably" posting, for several reasons:

        1. We are not Slashdot admins
        2. It's not one guy
        3. Concievably isn't a word
        4. IP bans are ineffective due to the availability of proxies
        5. Jews orchestrated and carried out the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center in New York

        My advice to you is that you delve deep into your user configuration page and fix it so that you don't see AC posts or -1 Troll posts at all. Alternatively, type up a bogus DMCA takedown notice claiming the shit-eating first post as your own work. Before you can even click "Send", Taco will be knocking at your door wearing nothing but a pair of see-through panties and handcuffs, eager for you to administer his "punishment" for being a "bad boy".

    • firstly, what the hell are you talking about? plausible deniability of what?

      But what really annoys me about your comment is the shear stupidity of it. Is the UK a nazi-esque state? no. If it were would the media be able to report about when the police did make a bad call and kill an innocent man? would the independent police complaints commission investigate? would it be possible to criticise the government at all?...

      So tell me how many death camps does the UK have? I can count... none.

      Calling th
    • A camera on every corner? Really? Interesting. I just looked out of my window, and there were no cameras. The nearest CCTV camera to my house is actually on the street corner though; it's in the corner shop, and privately operated (by the way, most of the statistics right wing newspapers here quote for CCTV cameras do include these, and these are the same figures that are repeated internationally).

      As for shooting suspects, the example you give is over two years old. At the time, it was a huge scandal

      • Re:Since there's a camera on every street corner.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by meringuoid (568297) on Sunday October 07 2007, @05:57PM (#20891629)
        Tell me, if the man you referred to running towards an underground train with a backpack on shortly after severeal suicide bombings had been a suicide bomber too, would you like to explain to the hundreds of casualties, deaths and relatives why the armed police there to protect them didn't shoot? The percentages say, it was better for that man to die than to risk the hundreds, and as a result we also live a more concious society of these incidents which in itself helps protect us.

        You are fucking joking, right?

        Percentages, is it? OK. How many people wear backpacks in London? Millions. How many people run for a train? Millions. Of those, how many are suicide bombers? Four so far. So, shoot anyone wearing a backpack who is running for a train, on the off-chance they might be a bomber?

        Moreover, despite the initial lies put about by the police, de Menezes was not carrying a bag of any kind. Nor was he wearing a heavy coat.

        • Philosophically the Nazis pretty much sent "greatest happiness to the greatest number" up in smoke. A meaningful post-WWII ethics has to value each individual to be worthy as a morality.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by jmpeax (936370)
          Nor was he running - that, too, was a lie.
    • BT research does a lot of interesting work. They have a group doing some particularly fascinating stuff with emergent properties of networks of simple systems, which is likely to be quite applicable here.
    • BT employs people with the coolest job title I've ever come across, Futurologist [btinternet.com], so if anyone was going to do it, it would be them.
    • People accessing your network are limited to a total of 512kbps down; I'm not sure what the upstream is limited to (if at all), but that could be a problem as we only get 448kbits.
    • No, there is a big difference between the two. The situation that you describe is where someone uses a network to which he has no authorisation, without obtaining permission. That is illegal in the UK. The situation in TFA is where you have an account with BT and are authorised to use any access point which is part of the system. If you can log on, you have a user name and password, and therefore are authorised. You are paying to be a member of the network but you are free to choose which access point y

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by janrinok (846318)
      They only get to use the additional 512kb that is given to those who subscribe to the scheme. That 512kb can only be used by other users, not the subscriber himself. His connection remains at the maximum speed that he is entitled to under his existing contract. But it explains this in TFA....

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.