Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Wireless Networking Hardware

Speakeasy Introduces Broadband WiFi Sharing Plan 300

Posted by timothy from the distributed-profit-center dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Today, speakeasy (the greatest ISP ever) sent out a letter from the CEO introducing their NetShare Wi-Fi plan. It lets you share your broadband with your neighbors, with Speakeasy handling the billing and splitting the fee 50/50. More ISPs should be like this!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Speakeasy Introduces Broadband WiFi Sharing Plan More

Speakeasy Introduces Broadband WiFi Sharing Plan

Comments Filter:

  • I get WiFi now for free (Score:5, Funny)

    by ObviousGuy ( 578567 ) <ObviousGuy@hotmail.com> on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @11:15PM (#6346118) Homepage Journal
    My neighbors pay 100%

    • Re:I get WiFi now for free (Score:5, Funny)

      by womby ( 30405 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @11:28PM (#6346227)
      having a neighbour with wifi was extreemly helpful when I had to phone the cableisp to bitch about there service being down

      have you check your cables?
      yes I have also check the cables of the guy next door

      what do you mean?
      his cablemodem is offline too

      oh!

      • Re:I get WiFi now for free (Score:4, Funny)

        by DMDx86 ( 17373 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @12:08AM (#6346474) Journal
        well.. my neighbor across the street has DSL, I have cable. Its REALLY handy when Crime Warner breaks.. except that I have to assemble my 24db dish [digishop.gr] to get a signal and point it at his house.
        • I am already a speakeasy customer with ADSL. I already share my bandwidth of 802.11b. I already have a couple of people walk down the street and get on my connection. The unfortunate problem is i had someone send spam from my network and speakeasy shut off my service. They dont put up with their customers sending spam which i actually appreciate. When i called them to have it reconnected they told me how to configure my linux firewall to block people from doing that. thats what i want in an ISP, i want them
          • It's a scam. I explain why here [slashdot.org]. But the basic gist is that you only get 50% of what your "customers" pay speakeasy credited back to your account. They don't mention this until you're on the MySpeakeasy page where you can set it up (screenshot [nonymous.org]).

            It makes far more sense to not tell them you're sharing, and just have your neighbors pay you directly. And until the NetShare plan was unveiled, that was an OK thing to do. Now... I may actually need to find a new ISP because of this, if they intend to enforce this
            • scam? only available on the signup page?
              the page referred to in the original article
              http://www.speakeasy.net/netshare/
              has a link labled "learn more"
              it takes you here
              http://www.speakeasy.net/netshare/learnmore/

              and it's SPELLED OUT there
              "..including crediting the Admin's account each month for 50% of the basic Customer fees."

            • Re:Speakeasy NetShare is a Scam (Score:5, Informative)

              by lactose99 ( 71132 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @09:18AM (#6348670)
              This isn't a REQUIREMENT to share your bandwidth-- Speakeasy has always allowed you to share your connection with whomever you wish. This is simply so you can opt for Speakeasy to handle the billing to those you share with (if you so choose). Its by no means a requirement, and if you are sharing to people you trust will keep up with their share of the payment, then there is most likely not a reason to use this program (unless the extra email adresses, web space and such make it worth it to you). Scam my ass, you just misread their intentions.

              • NetShare IS required if you are collecting fees (Score:3, Informative)

                by Anonymous Coward
                Speakeasy has always allowed you to share your connection with whomever you wish... If you are sharing to people you trust will keep up with their share of the payment, then there is most likely not a reason to use this program

                Actually, it is a requirement to use NetShare if your line is residential and you are collecting fees. So, yes, you can share with whomever you wish, but you'd better be using NetShare if they are paying you! From the NetShare FAQ [speakeasy.net]:

                Use of NetShare is mandatory if broadband circ

    • Re:I get WiFi now for free (Score:5, Interesting)

      by phyxeld ( 558628 ) <phyx AT lostinthenoise DOT net> on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @11:58PM (#6346426) Journal
      I got a new neighbor who had the bright idea to ask me about running cat5 to my house, so we could share dsl costs. I told him that, since he only had a laptop, he should get a wireless card instead, and I'd get him online.

      Now he pays a share of the bill, in exchange for connecting to my AP. If he knew anything about wireless networks, and/or knew that I was already intentionally running an open AP before he moved in, he might not be so willing to pay for an equal share of the line... But he doesn't! =)

      I wonder if running a NetShare AP rules out running a wide-open free AP. Neighbors won't want to pay if they can get it for free, right? I think my setup now, with free access for anyone who knows what free access is, and payment from those who don't, works well for the time being. Nobody better educate my neighbor, though, or I might have to install NoCatAuth or something.

      • Umm Ethics? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ralphus ( 577885 )
        What kind of ethics cause one to intentionally run a open access point and then charge someone who doesn't 'get' it?

        come on.... you aren't open. admit it.

        • Re:Umm Ethics? (Score:5, Funny)

          by shepd ( 155729 ) <(slashdot.org) (at) (gmail.com)> on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @12:25AM (#6346548) Homepage Journal
          >What kind of ethics cause one to intentionally run a open access point and then charge someone who doesn't 'get' it?

          A strong belief in Darwinian Selection?

        • Re:Umm Ethics? (Score:5, Informative)

          by phyxeld ( 558628 ) <phyx AT lostinthenoise DOT net> on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @12:29AM (#6346566) Journal
          ralphus:
          What kind of ethics cause one to intentionally run a open access point and then charge someone who doesn't 'get' it?
          Hehe, I thought I might get a reply like that.

          I run an open network for people passing by who might want to use the net for a while. I leave my network wide open, with DHCP and all, because when I travel, I apprecieate others who do the same.

          However, I pay $100/mo for my dsl (split with housemates, we all value having a 1.5/768 connection), and I'm not paying that to give other people full-time premium dsl in their homes for free. This guy approached me and offered to pay in on our dsl bill, and I don't see our choice of media as having anything to do with the ethics of charging him.

          I keep a pretty close eye on stats for our little net (linux hostap puts these in /proc), and I know how much bandiwdth which clients are using. This guy uses KaZaa a lot, and if he weren't paying me, I'd probably have limited his MAC address to 5k/sec by now, if not dropped him completely.

          I'll have to look into the NetShare thing, one the login stops 404ing, as giving him an email address and having him pay speakeasy directly may be a nicer option.

          I hope to be able to continue to run my network open though.
          ralphus:
          come on.... you aren't open. admit it.
          Whatever. I block outbound port 25, too. Does that also make it not open? Still seems pretty open to me, strangers can browse the web just fine... I was thinking of limiting it further, so strangers could get online, but could only make TCP connections to a whitelist of ports (ie 22). That way people can ssh out and check their mail, and if they're savy enough they can bring in a full net connection from outside. Now _that_ would be "not really open", though still open enough for a lot of wifi travelers I know.

          • Re:Umm Ethics? (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Esion Modnar ( 632431 )
            I run an open network for people passing by who might want to use the net for a while. I leave my network wide open, with DHCP and all, because when I travel, I apprecieate others who do the same.

            I used to live in an old house in the South, which had a guestroom with its own front door. The idea was, travelers could stop here in the middle of the night, and carry on in the morning. These people were complete strangers, and usually did not arrange ahead of time.

            Now I mentioned this was an old house, bui

            • Funny point (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Glonoinha ( 587375 )
              -Now I mentioned this was an old house, built before the Civil War. Apparently hospitality to strangers was a lot different back then.

              Esion, do you know WHY it was perfectly safe, common and acceptable to have a guestroom complete with accomodations and leave the front door open for anybody passing by to use before the Civil War, and not after?

              Same reason it used to be perfectly safe, common, and acceptable to leave an unsecured Wireless AP on your network but now it isn't.

        • Re:Umm Ethics? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by MADCOWbeserk ( 515545 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @01:16AM (#6346766)
          I see no problem with charging the guy. As long as he can call on you to fix it if it goes down. Something a freebie can't do.
      • I just went to readup on NetShare more, and they highly recomend using WEP, but don't require it. The page to sign up 404s after I login, though...

      • Re:I get WiFi now for free (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bfields ( 66644 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @12:45AM (#6346638) Homepage
        I wonder if running a NetShare AP rules out running a wide-open free AP.

        From their FAQ:

        I don't use WiFi but still want to share my connection (Ethernet, carrier pigeons, free-space optics, whatever). What's your policy?

        Speakeasy believes that shared wireless networks are in keeping with our core values of disseminating knowledge, access to information and fostering community, provided this usage does not have an adverse impact on the services of other customers, does not involve any illegal activity and is not otherwise in violation of any aspect of our existing Terms Of Service. Please remember that the Speakeasy account-holder is responsible for all activity originating from their DSL line, even if it is the result of other users on a shared wireless connection.

        You may use either wired or wireless networks to share your connection, under the NetShare terms of use. Use of NetShare is mandatory if broadband circuit is residential and you intend to collect fees from third parties accessing your network.

        What I get from this is that they don't mind your sharing your connection, but that if you want to charge the neighbors than they're requiring you to use this new system to do it.

        It also sounds like they'll provide your neighbors with email accounts and stuff if they sign up.

        It all seems pretty reasonable to me....

        Neighbors won't want to pay if they can get it for free, right?

        Speaking for myself, if I were using my neighbor's connection a lot, I'd certainly be more than happy to chip in for it.

        --Bruce Fields

      • I have a wide open network here, as do two other people on my street. Personally I have enough trouble making wifi stretch across my house, I do have a rather large place. Anyway I also live in gated community so wardrivers would be booted by security pretty quickly.

        By the way I also have a place in Marathon on the Florida keys, I found a company there that uses 2.4ghz to broadcast 2.4ghz thoughout the island. It even works on boats. It is tdma not wifi though. Service is pretty good, 512k up 2mbit dow

  • Great idea (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sn00ker ( 172521 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @11:16PM (#6346129) Homepage
    No, I actually mean it.
    This is a great way to get the penetration without the risk of people fucking up the configuration of innumerable devices. No more battling with IOS or iptables. No more wrestling with the choice of sendmail, exim or qmail. Now, someone else does all the grunt work, you just sign up users - And you get money for it.

    • Re:Great idea (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @11:20PM (#6346157)
      It's a sad day when you have to use WiFI to achieve penetration. Call me old fasioned but red wine and berry white on the hi-fi in order to achieve penetration.

  • TOS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SKPhoton ( 683703 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @11:18PM (#6346141) Homepage
    Thats pretty cool. But what if someone breaks the Terms of Service. Would they cut the connection altogether?

    • Re:RIAA loophole? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JVert ( 578547 ) <corganbilly@hotma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @11:51PM (#6346378) Journal
      What happens if you get busted for sharing music? Are you now legally responsible for your neighbors actions or are you free and clear because no one knows (not even you) who did the alleged file sharing. Logs? we dont need no stinking logs.

      • Re:RIAA loophole? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by SKPhoton ( 683703 )
        hopefully (assuming youre the one sharing the dsl) are running longs. if youre the one leeching, lets hope they're not. ;-)

        • Re:RIAA loophole? (Score:2, Interesting)

          by H310iSe ( 249662 )
          I'm hoping that having an open access point will allow me the same defense. I can't say for sure it was my neighbors but I can say there's a reasonable doubt.

          'course, that's only if I was stupid enough to go to trial.

      • Re:RIAA loophole? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @11:58PM (#6346424)
        I have been wondering that for a while...

        I live in a group house, and there's 9 of us with wireless ethernet running throughout the entire place. If RIAA sues because they suspect one of us is downloading something illegal, how do they decide who gets the blame, if all 9 of us are dhcp'd behind NAT, with only one publically addressable IP? You can't fathomably put it all on the one sap who registered for the DSL connection can you?

        • Re:RIAA loophole? (Score:3, Informative)

          by kilgore_47 ( 262118 )

          I live in a group house, and there's 9 of us with wireless ethernet running throughout the entire place. If RIAA sues because they suspect one of us is downloading something illegal, how do they decide who gets the blame, if all 9 of us are dhcp'd behind NAT, with only one publically addressable IP?

          With many p2p networks, it is actually possible to (remotely) tell what a NATed client's internal IP is. I know this is the case with KaZaa at the very least, and probably others too. Now weather the RIAA would

      • Service providers are excluded from the DMCA. Hopefully, the neighborhood tech would fall under this category.

    • Re:TOS (Score:5, Informative)

      by Slayback ( 12197 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @12:27AM (#6346555)
      Actually, from the FAQ:

      Am I responsible for the NetShare customer usage?

      As a NetShare Admin, you are responsible for all traffic taking place on your circuit, whether generated by yourself or your NetShare Customers. This covers abuse, reasonable use, etc.
      • Hrm... maybe you could claim like ISPs do and claim that you're a carrier and not responsible for your users? (I forget the exact technical term) I guess if it is in their TOS that you are, then you really can't argue with that... although maybe the courts would see it a different way.

    • Being the point man, err, no thanks (Score:5, Funny)

      by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) * on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @01:11AM (#6346748)
      >But what if someone breaks the Terms of Service

      That's a tough one, worse is being everyone's "tech support guy."

      Things you WILL hear:

      The internet is slow!

      The laptop doesn't work in the kitchen/bedroom/toilet/outside.

      I can't play SOME_ONLINE_GAME, open up these ports.

      My buddy is staying for a while, can you hook him up?

      Can you get a stronger antenna for that thing?

      Who the hell is messenger service and why does he keep asking me to buy crap?

      Hey is it cool if I download porn? I won't tell anyone. *replace porn with unregistered software, movies, etc

      Virus scanners are for chumps right?

      Yeah, I'll pay you next week. I'm low on funds now. (or I can pay you in pot, beer, outside art, etc)

      Can you really read my email from your apartment?

      Is it cool if I resale my connection to the guy upstairs? You know, like Amway.
      --

      I'll take peace of mind over saving a few bucks on broadband anyday.

  • Stuck out here (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dr Tall ( 685787 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @11:19PM (#6346145) Journal
    I doubt any technology like this will get to ISPs in Iowa any time soon. :(

    • Not "Stuck" (Score:2, Insightful)

      by debugdave ( 153189 )
      I just checked and looks like you can get it in Des Moines. So stop making Iowa look like it is worse than people think it is already! You could also do it all yourself minus Speakeasy if you can't get their access in your neck of the woods.

      dave

  • If I can't get speakeasy.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @11:20PM (#6346159)
    How do I mod up the CEO for +4 insightful?

  • But.. routers are evil! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lurid980 ( 679436 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @11:20PM (#6346162)
    I wonder how this appiles in states where using a router is (or will be) llegal. Its amusing to me that ISP's hand out routers themselves, or in this case encourage connection sharing. Kinda spits in the eye of certain lawmakers that think they know something about technology.

    I'm all for the WiFi boom, but I wonder what new (read: idiotic) laws are going to start surfacing if people are broadcasting their internet connections around.

    In Washington, Free == Illegal
    • Where are they trying to make routers illegal and for what reasons?
      • Oh, all that garbage about not be allowed to have any device that disguises where a communication originated from. Quite a few states are at least looking at it. I believe someone adopted it already, but I'm not sure. I want to say somewhere around Minnesota, but I can't recall.

        In any case, routers fall directy under this proposal. They're also talking about hooking up 5 machines to one connection is ripping off ISP's or some such garbage. Yet ISPs seem to keep handing out routers and this new Speakea
        • When they start busting people for owning routers, I'll believe it. Until then, I think people are extrapolating the reach of the law to scare people. Think of how many businesses use routers. No way they'd make it illegal to use NAT.
        • Speakeasy specifically allows routers and servers in their Terms of Service, its part of what you're paying them for, in their mind. I've had several friends on Speakeasy who finally convinced me to upgrade from the overcrowded cable in my area. They specifically tell you if you ask that they heartily approve of people doing these things. The stupid laws they are making up elsewhere wouldn't apply because of Speakeasy's TOS.
  • I can't see any rates on their site because my line doesn't qualify. How much do they charge for regular ADSL and that(I want it, I want it, I WANT IT) 3.0/768? I don't know why I wouldn't qualify, I have 2 DSL accounts through Bellsouth lines and have qualified through Covad. Anyone in Georgia using Speakeasy?

  • IDSL (Score:5, Informative)

    by SKPhoton ( 683703 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @11:22PM (#6346171) Homepage
    According to the article, this applies if you get either a T1 or IDSL. IDSL maxes out at 144kbps up/down. Thats not much of a connection to share in the first place. Getting a T1 for a residential place is not all that likely even if you do cut it down to 50/50.. still a lot to pay. If youre a business user, you might not want to share the connection for security reasons.
    • The 50/50 thing is that.. whatever you charge your neighbour, you get half of... eg: Let's say I pay $100/month for my 3megabit ADSL line, and I charge 4 neighbours $40/month each for the line... Covad would collect $160 from them, and credits me for $80 .. Meaning that I only pay $20/month.

      Of course, if I charge 6 neighbours $40/month, then I should be getting $20/month back..... would they actually be sending me a cheque, or would they pocket the difference?

    • Re:IDSL (correction) (Score:3, Informative)

      by manly_15 ( 447559 )
      From the article:

      If you're located in an area that only qualifies for IDSL or T1 services, setting up NetShare in your neighborhood would allow all surrounding locations to contribute to the cost of a T1 circuit while sharing in high quality broadband access!

      The way I interpret this is that Speakeasy is saying that this plan makes it easy for people who don't live in an area where ADSL/SDSL is avalible to share a connection and split the costs, much like the co-ops mentioned awhile back. They are NOT limi

    • Re:IDSL (Score:3, Informative)

      by Boiling_point_ ( 443831 )
      RTAC (read the article carefully). I think you've misinterpreted this:

      If you're located in an area that only qualifies for IDSL or T1 services, setting up NetShare in your neighborhood would allow all surrounding locations to contribute to the cost of a T1 circuit while sharing in high quality broadband access!

      Their FAQ page has more detail that indicates it's a change in your status from a Speakeasy customer to their reseller / support guy . You become admin for your neighbours, and attend to thei

    • Re:IDSL (Score:2)

      by davidu ( 18 )
      this person is unable to read clearly, why is it mod'd up?

      did the moderators read the article? It's a solution for people stuck with the choice of IDSL or hauling in a T1...*sheesh*

      -davidu

    • Re:IDSL (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) *
      >Thats not much of a connection to share in the first place.

      I would think its doable if you could throttle speeds. It would be nice to be able to tell my linksys, "Okay give the people with this MAC address 128up and 128k down." Now two guys running Kazaa won't make everything slow down to a crawl.

      Unless Speakeasy is going to send me a kick ass router/wireless AP that can manage connections like this it just sounds like a headache.
    • That should be plenty to share unless you go wild and subscribe 50 people. For a couple neighbors or something it should be fine. Chances are you won't all be using it at the same time and using up all the bandwidth. If you are then well damn get together and get one of you to download the porn and the others to download the porn from the first guy. Maybe set up a good shared caching proxy server.

      I'll assume a business wouldn't be stupid enough (haha) to not already have heavy security in place between the

  • Speakeasy IS Cool! (Score:5, Informative)

    by stevew ( 4845 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @11:22PM (#6346176) Journal
    I've had their service since DirectTVDSL crashed. They are VERY Linux friendly - their terms of service are REALLY reasonable, for the most part "do what you want as long as it's legal." Did anyone notice they are one of the three repositories for rpmfind??

    I'm a happy customer!

    • very linux friendly, yes (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @12:13AM (#6346498)
      They are VERY Linux friendly

      I'll vouch for that. Conversation between me and lady tech at speakeasy:

      tech:"how do you know your connection is down 30% of the time?"
      me: "I use Big Brother to monitor it."
      tech:"Oh cool, we use that here too. Is there a URL you can give me to look at it?"
      me: "Hmm, no, it's on a server inside my network, and I don't have a hole punched in the firewall for it."
      tech:"How about emailing me a screen shot?"
      me: "Hmm, hang on- I don't remember which program it is that does screen shots in Linux."
      tech(sounds of her standing up):"hey guys, anyone remember how to do a screenshot in X?"

      I was speechless...

    • I've been a speakeasy customer for 2 years now [after pac bell wouldn't transfer IPs between CO's for me, and their service wasn't great anyways]

      So on my 2nd install [I've been through 3 now, all via moves] I actually had a 1st level tech IM a 2nd level tech so that we could manually configure the dsl modem [which was set to dynamic via a covad logistics error]. Spent less time waiting for the 2nd level tech to IM back than any pacbell on-hold time.

      As for their terms of service: My townhouse is exceptiona

  • And they save support costs! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kelmenson ( 592104 ) <kelmenson AT yahoo DOT com> on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @11:22PM (#6346179)
    Sounds like Speakeasy's real benefit comes from the fact that the customers will be directing their questions to their local connection rather than calling up Speakeasy's support line. That benefit alone probably outweighs any losses they are going to incur.
    • Actually, as part of the beta crew (with my neighbor), they provide support for all of their services (email, etc) but you have to do the support for the wi-fi connection since you're the one who knows it and has configured it. It works pretty well for me and I get to use the money from my half to pay for upgraded speed.

      Hatch

  • As an economist... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ajuda ( 124386 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @11:26PM (#6346198)
    As someone with a firm grounding in economics, I must admit that I just don't get it. ISPs and other groups have high fixed costs, and low variable costs

    In English, that means that a lot of the infrastructure costs XXX million dollars, no matter how many customers they have and only a few things actually cost the company more as they add more customers. Because of this, I cannot understand why they would want to let people split service costs.

    This article made me think of a joke I once heard... A man goes into a restaurant and sees a sign: "All you can eat 10 dollars, half of all you can eat: 5.50"

    • Here is why. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mindstrm ( 20013 )
      Because: people are going to do it anyway, and NOT pay for it. This way they get to at least know what's going on, at least to some users. They can reach extra users with zero work on their part, other than billiing.

      In the end, it's silly of course.. ultimately, people will have neighborhood wireless networks set up, and be sharing resources with each other other than just their internet connection.

    • Re:As an economist... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Noehre ( 16438 )
      The thing is, the DSL ISPs don't hve high fixed costs. They just buy bandwidth and colocation space. The lines themselves are maintained by the telco.

      If anything, Speakeasy is screwing the Baby Bells to lure in more customers.

    • Re:As an economist... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by micaiah ( 593598 )
      "Because of this, I cannot understand why they would want to let people split service costs."

      Because lets say a customer just won't pay X amount of dollars for broadband. He or she can't afford it etc. With one more person they can. Now the ISP has a sale that they wouldn't have had. Up to the demarc the bandwidth is the same. The customer is the one who might notice a difference in performance as their next door neighboor is on a downloading spree. As far as the ISP is concerned they have made a sale an
    • I'd like to point out that the high fixed costs and low variable costs scenario works quite well with price discrimination.

      For the various reasons mentioned in other posts--deciding who gets to have the access point, sharing bandwith with other users, probably renting the equipment and paying a service fee--sharing the connection does not halve your costs for the same exact service. For those that cannot afford a cable modem, DSL, or T1 line on their own, they will be able to share with their neighbors, b

    • Re:As an economist... (Score:5, Informative)

      by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @11:58PM (#6346423)
      They're not really splitting the cost. You, the neighborhood admin, can set whatever price you think your neighbors will bear.

      "Who sets the NetShare customer pricing? [speakeasy.net]
      We put the power in your hands! As the Admin, you can select any retail price from $20 to $50, in $5 increments, and from $60 to $100 in $10 increments."

      Your bill gets cut in half, they get new customers, they do all the billing, and you do all the local footwork and admin. Signing up people who would otherwise not have gone to DSL.
    • At least from a local (New Zealand) perspective, this is totally wrong. Let me elaborate.

      Here the ISP and the phone company are completely different people. Telecom scamper around plumbing in DSLAM's etc. etc. and wire them all together to make a grande country wide ATM network called (ironically) IPnet. The point with IPnet is that it gets packets from your subscribers ADSL routers to some boxen in your datacentre, then you deal with it from there, including international backhaul. Telecom charge you, bas
      • Telstra do the same thing in Oz. There's a Telstra ATM network with DSLAMs on one end of it and ISPs (including Bigpond) on the other.

        Telstra did a stupid thing, however, in that the PPPoE/A connections from the CPEs are routed to an L2TP LAC in their main exchange in each city and then sent to an LNS at each ISP. This means that every single PPP/L2TP call has to run through this LAC, causing mucho problemo for all concerned, including (ironically) bigpond.

        The even stupider thing is that Telstra DSL's m
    • Geez, you don't need a degree in economics to figure it out!

      Situation I:
      Person A & B share a connection. Person A pays $45.99, Person B pays nothing.

      Situation II:
      Persons A & B have their own connections. Each pays $45.99.

      Admittedly, that is not always the case and there are lots of variables like the precise location of the demand curve, competitive issues, etc.

      In English that means you price something at the level that you think will bring you the maximum profit.

      However, I shouldn't have to ex

    • Re:As an economist... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by sleeper0 ( 319432 )
      It's multi-level marketing. While speakeasy may have made more money if your neighbor signed up for service with them himself, as they are not a dominant service provider it's much more likely your neighbor would have signed up with another ISP. Having the existing customer do their marketing for them gets them sales they probably wouldnt have otherwise had
    • Perhaps they are enlightened and are embracing disruptive technologies head on and developing new business models.

      All the ISP's are facing a problem with WIFI. If I can get DSL and then share that line via WIFI to say 2 neighbors, then the ISP has missed out on 2 potential customers. ISP's can react to this by outlawing WIFI, outlawing NAT or by working with the disruptive technology and adding their own value.

      Let's look at Speakeasy's case. If a DSL connection through them costs say $60 and I want to

    • Re:As an economist... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by zenyu ( 248067 )
      As someone with a firm grounding in economics, I must admit that I just don't get it. ISPs and other groups have high fixed costs, and low variable costs

      The answer is right there. Their highest fixed cost is the DSL circuit they rent from one of two surly companies in direct competition with them, the ILEC or Covad. If they can get you to do the advertising and on site support for your service that eliminates their largest variable cost and much of the risk. Since the fixed cost becomes lower per customer
    • Speakeasy knows that x amount of people will not pay 50 bucks a month for broadband no matter what. They might pay ten or twenty dollars. That's where "kid with too much bandwidth" steps in. He gets customers because he's going to save/make money. He has an incentive to find these people e.g. bug his neighbors. Speakeasy will get 50% AND payment for the line no matter what.

      Also, people are sharing anyway too. So Speakeasy legitimizes it and hopes greed will turn Bob the computer geek downstairs into
    • As a boy scout, I suggest you check your footing-- your 'firm grounding' ain't so firm.

      ISP do not have high fixed costs, they have high variable costs. The only fixed costs for an ISP is the hardware for the servers, the server room facilities, and sysadmin overhead.

      ISP variable costs include bandwidth (expensive), marketing costs (expensive with severe diminishing returns), and tech support (overhead, unless you want to go through Mumbai).

      As such, this ISP seems to be pushing the bulk of it's variable

  • I wonder what their motive is (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FryGuy1013 ( 664126 ) * on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @11:26PM (#6346200) Homepage
    Doesn't it seem counter-intuitive for them to offer this service? I mean, increasing the number of people on residential circuits without increasing the number of paying customers is just going to degrade the service for everyone. People are still going to do it behind the backs of ISP's, but they are actually promoting it. Also, what determines which house gets the access point if the price is split 50-50 for everyone? Just a curiousity.

    The site is down, or I would look to see if there are extra fees for getting service like this, or what other restrictions are put on. All-in-all, this seems good for the consumer, since you can get cheaper net access if you can get neighbors to chip in, without fearing the wrath of your ISP. Probably the RIAA should take a lesson from these people.
    • The thing about DSL is that the person subscribing gets x amount of bandwidth. If they share it only with themselves, they use x amount. If they split it among 3 friends, they get x/4. The DSL provided is still only sending the max amount they have alotted, and the customer services. If they allow the customer to share, it encourages the customer to upgrade to their higher bandwidth accounts, which cost more, and thus increases the amount of money the company gets. They amount they pay back is not goin
    • Part of their motive is, almost undoubtably, to make themselves look good to the geek community. Speakeasy has always courted our community and truly requires us to exist. Speakeasy must have known that this would stir up some notice, must have known that geeks will share their systems anyway, must have known that their (speakeasy's) service isn't competive in the pure cost/bandwidth arena. With what Speakeasy could figure, I'd say it is a well calculated move. The fact that the story is on slashdot make

  • Beautiful (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mikeophile ( 647318 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @11:32PM (#6346260)
    Provide internet bandwidth over DSL and tap into their customers own greed...er entrepreneurship to setup WiFi at their own cost to resell the bandwidth.

    I hope the other ISP's take notice before Speakeasy overruns them.

    On second thought, please come to California and overrun my DSL provider soon.

  • Brilliant! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Stephen Samuel ( 106962 ) <samuel&bcgreen,com> on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @11:38PM (#6346309) Homepage Journal
    You provide the physical infrastructure, you also provide the front-line support.
    All they have to supply is the bandwidth (damn cheap, unless your neighbour is a spammer) and some light-duty billing support (also damn cheap) and email services (also cheap). In return, they get a nice new income stream.

    Definite +4 insightfull!

  • Interesting concept. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JVert ( 578547 ) <corganbilly@hotma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @11:45PM (#6346343) Journal
    supporting a neighborhood network can have alot of benefits if you plan it out. Consider kazaa on one single shared server that everone can remote desktop into to download, then everyone has instant access to what the others have downloaded. Now when someone finds a cool game everyone else can get interested in and you have an instant wlan party. Suddenly its more convinient to download tv shows then recording them.

    The beuty of the internet is you can connect to japan as fast as your neighbor, the problem with the internet is you connect to your neighbor just as fast as japan. Wifi can change alot if you allow it.

    Now THATS what I call a supernode!

  • What about the liability? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SedentaryZ ( 31149 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @11:51PM (#6346381)
    It looks like there might be some liability concerns. From the FAQ for the NetShare Admins:

    Am I responsible for the NetShare customer usage?

    As a NetShare Admin, you are responsible for all traffic taking place on your circuit, whether generated by yourself or your NetShare Customers. This covers abuse, reasonable use, etc.
    So what liability will you incur if your neighbor you just signed up :

    sends fraudulent spam

    defaces a website

    cracks a site and steals cc info

    publishes libel and slander

    distributes child porn

    distributes the latest eminem track

    etc
    This might be taking on more than I'd want to deal with!

    • They'd better give some kickass router with bandwidth monitoring and a good firewall, otherwise, why, on god's green earth, would I agree to admin for a bunch of strangers who can get my service shut off if they spam, or don't pay their bill, or whatever.

      the FAQ is here [speakeasy.net]. or some highlights below:

      Q - As the Admin, it is your responsibility to provide support for:

      * Customer support: for initial setup, signup and troubleshooting. Speakeasy will work with you to resolve issues related to circuit connec

  • Maybe they'll have fewer non-pay disconnections (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MatthewB79 ( 47875 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @11:55PM (#6346406)
    If your neighbors are sharing a connection with you it should be obvious to them whether you are paying your share of the bill each month. I'd say it could create more of a sense of accountability in regard to keeping the neighbors happy and the connection up. After all, nobody wants to be the guy who got everybody's connection turned off because he forgot to pay the bill for 60 days.

  • depends on neighbors (Score:2, Interesting)

    by iosmart ( 624285 )
    haha, maybe if something like this comes out in my neighborhood maybe THEN would my stupid neighbors realize that sharing a connection is NOT NOT illegal...
  • Costs that Speakeasy has to deal with are inflated over the bare cost of service and hardware.

    As more ISPs do this, they put the admin tasks in the hands of capable users (hopefully better than the MCSE's they got conned into hiring). That simplies things a bit. That means that they no longer have to guarantee the speed of broadband. It allows the market to loosen up from the usually stagnant progress it's had. when you have two variables (performance and price) rather than this rigid 56k no more no less, DSL speed no more no less, customers can be satisfied and fewere are left out of the picture.

    Don't we want to close the digital divide?

    As Speakeasy (whoever it is up the chain) no longer has to buy as much hardware, the hardware sellers have to drop their prices, which is good for Speakeasy.

  • greatest ISP ever? Hardly... (Score:5, Informative)

    by e40 ( 448424 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @12:37AM (#6346599) Journal
    I like Speakeasy. I was their customer for almost a year, but had to leave for SBC because they couldn't give me good service. That's not why I fault them.

    The problems?

    1. Hold times for customer service. 10-15 minutes was normal for me.

    2. They sometimes didn't followup on open tickets. I'd call, get a ticket opened, and wait for days for them to call. Then, call back and ask about it, and hear "Gee, this ticket has been open a long time... sorry." No shit!

    In general, they give good service, though it comes at a premium.
    • I forgot to mention that the greatest ISP ever was DNAI (Berkeley, CA), who was bought by RCN who promptly sold off their DSL biz to some crap company that drove it into the ground. Well, RCN started to drive it into the ground before they sold it.

      The original DNAI was far and above the best ISP I've ever had the pleasure to do business with. The people were first rate.

      And get this: you called their # and a human answered before the 3rd ring.... and that human was competent and helpful.

  • very interesting (Score:4, Interesting)

    by lactose99 ( 71132 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @12:53AM (#6346668)
    I got this email about 6 hours ago and had a chance to check the site before it was /.ed. Very interesting idea, as it brings the whole idea of a bandwidth reseller down to the user/geek level. Combine this with a OpenBSD/FreeBSD/NetBSD/Linux VPN, Squid web proxy, icecast server, a locally-shared fileserver, Quake/Half-Life server and such, and you could sell a value-added DSL/WiFi package to your neighbors. Get enough to sign-up (or add enough extra features to raise the price) and you could quite likely cover the entire DSL line cost via subscription co-payments, getting your own share of the DSL just for providing support to your users.

  • possible problem (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FathomIT ( 464334 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @12:53AM (#6346670)
    if speakeasy is doing the billing: in the mind of the customer speakeasy is the connection. thus, if the local wifi network guru doesn't have the best skills - speakeasy may begin to look like the problem.
    (for business broadband on the east coast or dc earthwave.net [earthwave.net].)

    peace outside

  • Old news. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Some Dumbass... ( 192298 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @01:09AM (#6346736)
    They've been advertising this WiFi thing on their webpage for about a month now.

    The rest of that letter is more interesting. Here are some excerpts:

    In addition, we also plan to support IPv6 [editor's note: !!!], multiple connections for bonding or redundancy, individual customer firewall options, improvement of peer-to-peer applications such as video conferencing and application sharing, and, eventually, relatively advanced applications such as IP multi-cast through the last mile. Of course, we will always place an emphasis on assuring the fundamental network reliability and performance our members require.

    [snip]

    Many of you have tried our new and much improved Web-based Email service. You may have noticed this service also includes Calendaring, Reminders (via cell phone, email) and much more. I am excited to announce today that we will soon add a service option to allow true shared calendaring for Business-Class members.

    [snip]

    Although VoIP (Voice over IP) has been, in our opinion, a bit over-hyped for the past few years, we believe that the technology and service has advanced to the point that it is now a viable alternative phone service for many people. Accordingly, we are exploring a Voice over IP solution that will allow Speakeasy customers to use their broadband connection to make local and long distance calls. More details to come as we complete Beta trials and determine cost and features.

    Interesting, eh?

  • The same newsletter... (Score:3, Informative)

    by quantum bit ( 225091 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @01:09AM (#6346739) Journal
    ...also said that they were planning on adding IPv6 support on their new backbone. Woohoo!

  • Business Model changing? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @01:30AM (#6346826)
    A LOT of companies (mostly software) do NOT sell their software directly. They use resellers. This creates not only great relationships, but also adds a free sales force. I think SpeakEasy is applying that model here.

  • Great Idea but would be would be illegal in AUS (Score:3, Informative)

    by crusty_architect ( 642208 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @02:00AM (#6346969) Homepage
    This is a great idea, a real win/win situation. Problem is that in Australia you need a carrier license to do this if you derive any financial benefit from providing carriage to a third party, even if it only cost recovery. I would love to have my neighbours finance an upgrade from 512/128 to 1.5Mb/256kbs.

  • bad idea... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Alpha_Nerd ( 565637 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @08:15AM (#6348194)
    I can just imagine that I'm playing an 'important' CS match, and my neigbor starts up kazaa... Then some idiot starts DLing porn and britany spears mp3s from him, consequently my ping skyrockets to 400ms.

  • Consider bway.net if you're near New York City. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by XLawyer ( 68496 ) * on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @10:06AM (#6349111) Homepage

    I was once a Speakeasy customer, and I think highly of them. But the greatest ISP is my current one, New York's bway.net. They explicitly let you share your Wi-Fi connection, although they don't seem to let you charge for it.

    Here's the relevant section of their TOS:

    Acceptable Use Policy for WiFi (802.11b) Sharing (Bway.net standard ToS applies to this service.) Bway.net clients are allowed to share their broadband Internet access connection with the general public, by participating in NYCWireless or other communities using WLANs via the 802.11b protocol, if they comply with the following additional conditions:

    1. Clients must notify Bway.net of their participation, in order to insure proper settings and security procedures. Please send email to dsl@bway.net to notify us of your participation.
    2. Client is ultimately responsible for any ToS or AUP violations by public users on client's connection (i.e. spamming, hacking, etc.). Bway.net reserves the right to suspend or discontinue service if violation persists.
    3. Client is also responsible for security of his/her own network and computers.

Slashdot Top Deals

Got Mole problems? Call Avogadro at 6.02 x 10^23.

Close