Google and Skype in Startup to Link Hotspots

An anonymous reader writes "Google and Skype are investing in a new startup (FON, the Spanish startup) that plans to help hotspot owners charge for Wi-Fi access points. The plan outlines two different classes of customer; "Linus" members, named after Linus Torvalds, will share their hotspot with other Linus members for free and "Bill" members, named after Microsoft's Bill Gates, will charge for access to their hotspot. FON will get some of that revenue, and share it with ISPs."

Fantastic names

Linus & Bill. I love it. Glad to know someone still has a sense of humour out there.

Re:Fantastic names

I personally think Richard would be more appropiate than Linus. The freeness of Linux in particular and GNU/Linux in general comes from RMS's ideals, or more precisely his expression of some ideals common to many people. Linus has done a great job, but the antithesis of Windows is GNU.

Re:Fantastic names

Except that if it was up to Richard, we'd still be waiting to be able to boot the GNU system on more than two pieces of hardware. I'll take Linus on the "actions speak louder" principle. Which, if you think about it, applies perfectly well to this hotspot thing. It's about standing up for a certain standard (in this case, internet service) by demonstrating what you want and embodying the change and yadda yadda yadda.

geek pride

I know that here on slashdot and in the geek community in general, we wear our colors proudly. But does anyone else think that this naming convention is a tad juvenile?

Re:geek pride

Agreed. The usual Deluxe and Premium please my macho pride much better.

Re:geek pride

Nope.

I think it's a great way to introduce people to Linux and the concept that there is something other than the "Microsoft Way".

Those of us that know what it means will chuckle, those of them that don't will ask "where'd the names come from?".

I think it's fantastic.

Sure as hell beats the standard marketing bullshit naming schemes that seem to be everywhere, IMO.

Aliens

The guys from FON were recently at ETel in San Francisco. There are also Aliens, which are the people who are willing to pay for access.

Linuses: People who will let others (Aliens and other Linuses) use their links, if they in turn can use other Linuses links.

Bills: People who will let others (Aliens) use their links, for a percentage of the profits.

Aliens: People who are willing to pay Bills to use their links (and since they pay, they can use Linuses links), but aren't willing to share their own connections.

For more information about the different types of users, see http://en.fon.com/info/linus-meet-bill-meet-an-ali en.php [fon.com]

Re:Aliens

They should have called the Aliens "Steve".

Competition

I really don't see how Google and Skype are going to compete with the free Linksys hotspots that are already well-established in the marketplace.

I just don't understand what they could offer that would make me switch.

They can't compete on price, nor anonymity.

Re:Competition

The idea is that they pay normal people to share their own access points (or in the case of "linuses", access is given out for free). While there may be wireless access available in alot of locations, if everybody who has an access point were to offer it, there would be alot more coverage.
Think about the residential areas where there isn't a borders or starbucks nearby: You could connect to a "bill" access point hosted by your average joe (provided you bought the subscription), bill gets paid, and google gets paid. While one may think that google is getting something for nothing, it offers a universal payment scheme for residential access points everywhere.
 
All this and I didn't even RTFA.

Re:Competition

The idea is that they pay normal people to share their own access points (or in the case of "linuses", access is given out for free). While there may be wireless access available in alot of locations, if everybody who has an access point were to offer it, there would be alot more coverage. Think about the residential areas where there isn't a borders or starbucks nearby: You could connect to a "bill" access point hosted by your average joe (provided you bought the subscription), bill gets paid, and google gets paid. While one may think that google is getting something for nothing, it offers a universal payment scheme for residential access points everywhere.

All this and I didn't even RTFA.

Hardly anybody RTFA. Mesh networks with multiple outlets to the general Internet threaten the entire status quo; the telecom companies fear this and that is exactly why we all need to promote it. Your ability to get your bits in and out of your neighborhood network is terrifying to the established telecom monopolies as well as the giant media companies. This is what we have to work to implement immediately.

What can they offer me I can't do myself?

Right now I can share my Wi-Fi spot with anyone I want. The only real software here is the "Bill" version which would allow charging. And guess what? I can do the "Linus" version with any wireless router I please.

And Balmer members..

And Balmer members will throw their wi-fi equipment at each other and threaten to fucking kill the linus members.

Other models

There will be a Larry model released later, but it's expected to remain in beta for the first 15 years, and unusuable for the first 15 weeks due to overwhelming underestimates of how many people would use something by Google.

Like the Linus model, it will be free to use. However it will log everything you do for non-evil purposes.

Launch seven weeks from now?

The launch of this service wouldn't be in seven weeks from now, would it?

Like just after March 31st?!? ;P

Two plus One is Three.

I can only wonder what a "Steve" member is.

"Steve" membership

The "Steve" membership will cost twice as much as the "Bill" membership, but will require no configuration, have longer uptimes, and all of its interfaces will be so damn pretty.

Liability?

So if I sign up for this, and somebody using my connections downloads all sorts of illegal files, who is the RIAA going to sue? The obvious choice seems the subscriber of the internet connection which would be me. FON's website says

"Am I responsible if a user uses my connection for any illicit activity?

No. As long as you have not actively participated in the commission of a crime or do not have knowledge that a particular individual is using your connection to commit a crime or illegal activity, it is our understanding that you are not responsible. Nevertheless, this may vary depending on the laws of each country. Furthermore, FON discourages any inappropriate use of your connection by making sure that each user of the FON Community has registered and is identifiable."

Not very reassuring to me.

Tell me this when..

The MPAA is suing your ass for some movie you never heard of. They offer you to settle for $4000 or risk going to court and loosing thousands more. This is what happened to me. I talked to several lawyers and they all came to the same conclusion; "If it's only $4K you should take the settlement." It doesn't matter that I was innocent. The only thing that matters is the RIAA/MPAA has more money and time than me and they can bankrupt me, but not the other way around.

A dangerous precident is being set right now and I feel as if we as private citizens are helpless.

And snoopy members...

Will sit atop their houses and type their messages the old fashioned way.

22 million for this?

Let me get this straight - Google, Ebay/Skype, Sequoia and Index are investing $22 million in a startup that

- aims to do something obvious("FON's idea is not entirely novel - in fact, several companies and associations have tried to tie together free Wi-Fi hotspots into networks, but no one has succeeded on a large scale.")
- doesn't yet have a plan on how to prevent the notoriously insular/suspicious ISP's from blocking this service("FON faces a hurdle in that most ISPs prohibit subscribers from sharing internet access with people outside their household")
- doesn't have the software for the "Bill"(read: paying) part of the idea for the next 4 months
- is going against the grain when it comes to wi-fi trends(wasn't Google itself planning to offer free wi-fi in SF?)
- is treading slippery legal ground here(consumers reselling their Internet connections to others)

But wait, Google is investing in it so I guess this really must be a great idea right?

Promising but also scary

This has all the potential to start a new revolution in P2P bandwidth sharing, just like Napster. In the end, the whole this is pretty good for easy/cheap internet access. But....

The whole thing rests with a private company.
Unlike Napster:
1. The entry barrier is huge. [We are not dealing with data alone]
2. It is difficult to switch to another service; unlike Kazaa to eDonkey to BitTorrent. The reach of the service is local, for Napster it was anyone anywhere with a Network Connection.
3. The guy who started this, is more of a shrewd businessman. He may not give a damn about all that "Freedom" that we really care about.
4. Lots of chicken and egg issues for a competitor to spring up [like ISP support]

By 2008, if this service has 5 million people hooked (like Napster); then where will we stand? To emphasize, unlike switching email providers, or P2P servers, the entry barrier will be monstrous; and only an investment from the likes of Microsoft or IBM will create a competitor.

I will never sign-up for this!

Basically

It looks like an attempt made by a company that wants to leech off some cash from various wireless APs, but wants to appease the /. community by giving it's product plans names like "Linus" and "Bill".

Is this different than Sputnik?

Aside from the fact that when Sputnik.com tried this back in 2002, WRT54Gs were not around.. how is this business plan and implementation any different?

screw wi-fi

...Seriously.
The whole "Hotspot" thing is getting old. Really, how many people would use a system/service that:
1. Is not engineered to be accessable country-wide on a single bill and with possibilities of international roaming?
2. Is designed for SHORT distances from access points.
3. Cannot hand over between cells.
4. Is unreliable, no guaranteed uptime and no centralised management of links. (If a link goes down, who is responsible to fix it?)
5. Has no "standard" protocol etc. configuration EVEN FROM THE SAME VENDOR, which makes configuration and management difficult.
6. Is reputedly insecure, with WPA-2 just about impossible to set up for a layman, and WEP easily cracked?

...All of these services that we got used to with the plain old telephone system. Also, although services like 3G really have a terrible protocol stack, at least it provides the above. Let's also not forget Wi-Max and realise that these fools are living in the past.

The only good thing to come from Wi-Fi is community meshes.

Linus and Bill

I'd love the Linus model and will promote it everywhere. I'd like to be the customer of the Linus model, yet my business will be a Bill model :)

I wonder if anyone will release a Darl model too.

Followed by...

The "Jobs" class of connections.

You open your laptop, attempt to sign onto the wireless network, and a man in a black turtleneck walks up to you, swipes your credit card and hands you a glass of Kool-Aid.

It takes 30 minutes for the first ping...but after that you can connect to anyone in the world for the next 12 hours. In fact, the connection is so good, you can leave your laptop and just move your life-spirit to the actual server you are connecting to, and savor the magnetic aura of the hard drives, whilst having full access to your iTunes library...even the songs that won't be written for another 20 years.

Beat that shit.

'Linus' users shouldn't be

Skype is both closed source and more importantly uses closed VoIP protocols. It is the antithesis of the 'Linus'. If you don't think that matters, then you just don't get it.

Love the Idea but lets CC it

Can someone come up with an OS type project for this so people can do a share and share alike type thing for their wi-fi?

Is there already such a thing?

FON's website

The article didn't really tell too much about what's distinctive about FON, so I went to their website here:

http://en.fon.com/ [fon.com]

And of course, their blog: http://blog.fon.com/en/ [fon.com]

It still isn't too clear though on what the advantage is of having a "Linus" hotspot instead of just having it be open-access. My guess is that the main benefit is that hotspot users are authenticated with a "global" ID, which would help deter abuse, spamming, etc.

Re:FON's website

It still isn't too clear though on what the advantage is of having a "Linus" hotspot instead of just having it be open-access.

Are you sure you read the site? The reason to run a Linus hotspot is so that you will get reciprocal access to all the other Linus hostpots out there.

[And how did parent get modded informative? All it said was that the author didn't have any information to add.]

Mesh networks

A tough part of any agreement like this is, just like the article states, to actually get people to work together and provide access. There is an interesting perspective on how it might need a radical group who do it for kicks in Cory Doctorow's novel "Someone Comes to Town, Someone Leaves Town [craphound.com]" to get things moving.

Personally, I think a time will come when WiFi access is very common, and some kind of roaming agreement between providers will cause your access to be metered by your ISP wherever you are.

Trivia: Did you know that practically the entire Internet infrastructure in Haiti is wireless?

If you know Spain, you'll see it won't work

It seems very nice, but it is not going to work.

1) The man itself. No one in Spain would buy a used car from Martin Varsavsky.

2) In Spain it's illegal to resell or even share your Internet connection, the contract with the ISP almost always says so. It can be debatable, but it is what you have signed.

In fact, FON has been around for some time with very limited success. It gets mentioned in the news just because Varsavsky is a known celebrity in Spanish ISP world.

Verizon, Covad and Comcast sure aren't going

Verizon, Covad and Comcast sure aren't going to like this one. If this shit works, three wireless hotspots (channels 1, 6 and 11) per apartment building will be enough. Right now I can see 12 routers in our building and in G range alone. This means Verizon/Comcast have $480 monthly from owners of the routers. If those hotspots are open (as in Linus) or open for a small(er) fee (as in Bill) - they'll get 1/4th of that. If this takes off, Verizon will need to learn to live a much leaner life.

Does FW help sharing Internet access but not LAN?

I understand they replace the router's firmware. So I wonder if that new firmware would addresses the problem of sharing your Internet connection without sharing your LAN.

I do have an open access point at home, because I appreciate my ability to use other people's access points when I'm on the road, and so I feel I have to share mine as well.

BUT, I don't want to share my LAN.

It just happens that I do have 2 access points at home, so what I do is that I use the crypted one and leave the other one open for friends, visitors and passers-by.

This is not a very good solution, because I need to remember to switch off the open AP whenever I connect an insecure machine on my LAN (like during OS install, etc.), and every time I switch it back on, I have to think about my notebook's firewall and sharing settings.

What would be really great would be a router solving these problems in an easily configurable way: some authenticated users have access to the whole LAN while others have not.

Until now, the only solution I have seen is a VLAN switch, which is too expensive for home use.

ISPs get paid twice?

So, you pay an ISP for the connection, then pay them again when you allow others to share it?

That's a sweeet deal. For the ISPs.

Already Been done and failed.

This is nothing new, this was tried a couple years with a company I worked called Joltage http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/30/144020 4&tid=95 [slashdot.org]... Subsequently failed: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/02/16/214625 9 [slashdot.org]. Perhaps the dotcom bubble is back...

Interaction with Access Point Aggregators?

So when we get to a point where my neighborhood has a few of these Fon Linus networks for me to use, what if I get a Mushroom Network [mushroomnetworks.com] type router and start aggregating the networks to get mondo bandwidth? What if Fon teamed with people like Mushroom or WiBoost to offer this as an option from the get go? I'd love to get both functions rolled into one box.

Bittorrent of Network Access?

Basically sounds like BitTorrent protocol ported to physical network access issues.

YOU are annoying...

Charging for wi-fi access is just plain selfish unlesss that is all you offer as a business.

Do you think it is free for the provider? No? Than what makes you special that you think someone else should pay for your convience?

Re:This is annoying

Charging for wi-fi access is just plain selfish unlesss that is all you offer as a business. For example: Starbucks makes so much money selling drinks and other crap, they could easily give it away. Don't even give me that crap that people would sit all day and surf. Some would, but they would be in the vast minority. Most people buy their swill, bs with someone for a few and head into the adjoining bookstore.

The obvious response to this would be to not go to Starbucks. If you don't like that a business will not give you free internet access, don't shop there. This seems pretty brain dead simple to me. Hell, here in Boston there is a Starbucks and an ESR. ESR offers a free and open wi-fi access. Guess which place I buy my coffee from?

If the manager of Starbucks feels that offering free wi-fi will hurt business, then why should he do it? If he thinks he can make extra by charging for wi-fi, why not? If you don't like it, go some where else.

Re:This is annoying

Starbucks makes so much money selling drinks and other crap, they could easily give it away. Don't even give me that crap that people would sit all day and surf. Some would, but they would be in the vast minority.

In this country (Malaysia), wifi is free at Starbucks. I don't really see anyone with a laptop who doesn't also have a drink-in-progress. People (myself included) order something every hour or so, and at those prices, that's surely keeping them in business.

After hours it's a different story. Many of the Starbucks near me have primarily outdoor seating, and when they shut at 1 or 2am, strange characters show up with decal-coated laptops and do mysterious things late into the night. If this really bothered the management, presumably they would turn off the access point or bring in the chairs at closing time.

Re:This is annoying

A proportionate charge is OK. What isn't OK is the gouging in which some hotels indulge, such as those using Swisscom Eurospot. For the 24 hour charge you could have home broadband for a month or two - and then they put a download cap on it too! It's tempting just to hack into another local WLAN.