Wireless Community

Icon

Westchester County Law Requiring Secured Wi-Fi Networks (again)

Back in November of last year, “I wrote about a ridiculous law”:2 that was being proposed in Westchester County. The law would require firewalls to be established on all business networks that make use of Wi-Fi technologies, in an attempt to curb identity theft. At the time, I tried to contact the County Executive, since NYCwireless clearly had something to add to any debate that was ongoing. Unfortunately, they were unreachable (a bad trait for any public official) and did not return any calls.

Well, it seems that against all better judgement, “the proposed legislation is now law”:1, and will take effect in six months.

I had voiced some “serious criticism”:2 for the law, which overall creates a false sense of security. County Executive Andrew Spano clearly hasn’t been listening to any of the people who have been trying to help inform him:

bq. “There are many unsecured wireless networks out there, and any malicious individual with even minimal technical competence would have no trouble accessing information that should be kept confidential,” Spano said. “It would be nice if these businesses took the necessary steps on their own to ensure their networks were kept secure, but the sad fact is that many don’t.”

The law, as written, won’t do anything to help deter serious identity theft crimes. The administration’s own people even acknowledge that:

bq. Andrew Neuman, a senior assistant to Spano, said, “We know this is not a silver bullet. But deterring amateur hackers from the easiest targets is a step in the right direction.”

Deterring amateur hackers isn’t a step in *any* direction. As I previously stated, amateur hackers aren’t the people you should be afraid of, nor are they the ones causing most of the identity theft damage. Its the big guys, who know a hell of a lot more than most other people do, and will be able to easily circumvent the Administration’s regulated “protections”.

[1]http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny–wirelesssecurity0420apr20,0,2365284.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork
[2]http://www.wirelesscommunity.info/2005/11/08/westchester-county-law-requiring-secured-wi-fi-networks/

Filed under: News, Policy

Broad Coalition Fights for Net Freedom

“FreePress”:2 just launched the “Save the Internet”:3 campaign and website, where you can find out more about the battle that is being fought to keep our internet freedoms (free as in unfettered access, not free as in no cost). I’d recommend that everyone read and contact their Senators and Representatives in order to make sure that telcos and cablecos don’t restrict our access to information.

bq. The “SavetheInternet.com Coalition”:4 launches April 24 to urge Congress to take immediate steps to save the First Amendment of the Internet — a principle called “network neutrality” that ensures that the Web remains open to innovation and progress.

bq. Congress is about to vote on a bill that would ruin network neutrality by letting big phone and cable companies set up toll booths along the information superhighway. Companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are spending tens of millions in Washington to kill any protection of the free and open Internet.

bq. This bill would let these network giants become Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow — and which won’t load at all.

bq. Only giant corporations will be able to afford to pay their toll for speedy delivery. The rest of us will be detoured to the “slow lane” — clicking furiously and waiting for our favorite sites to download. Coalition members are reaching out to millions of constituents in a broad campaign to tell Congress to save net neutrality now:

bq. “http://action.freepress.net/campaign/savethenet”:1

bq. Our elected representatives are trading favors for campaign donations from phone and cable companies. They’re being wooed by people like AT&T’s CEO, who says “the Internet can’t be free” and wants his company to decide what you do, where you go and what you watch online.

bq. The best ideas rarely come from those with the deepest pockets. If the phone and cable companies get their way, the open and free Internet could soon be fenced in by large corporations. If Congress turns the Internet over to AT&T, everyone will suffer.

bq. The “SavetheInternet.com Coalition”:4 was formed to prevent Internet gatekeepers from blocking or discriminating against new economic, political and social ideas. We are mobilizing millions of Americans to urge Congress to preserve the free and open Internet.

bq. We must act now or lose the Internet as we know it.

[1]http://action.freepress.net/campaign/savethenet
[2]http://www.freepress.net
[3]http://www.savetheinternet.com
[4]http://www.savetheinternet.com/=coalition

Filed under: Network Neutrality, News, Policy

Interactive Wireless Sculpture

Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana, is introducing a “large scale sculpture”:1 that will “visualize people’s use of the University’s wireless network”:2. Artists Jesse Allison, John Fillwalk and Keith Kothman created the sculpture.

bq. “Part of what we hope to accomplish with the sculpture is to help people see a wireless network as a physical thing,” Fillwalk said. “When people think of this form of technology, it usually doesn’t bring to mind something that is tangible.”

bq. Fillwalk came up with the sculpture’s concept with help from music technology professors Keith Kothman and Jessie Allison. Creating the piece of public art has taken months and required the assistance of University Computing Services, Kothman said. The project is sponsored by the Center for Media Design.

Visualizing network traffic through physical, interactive sculptures has been around since computer networks came into common use. Pioneering work by Natalie Jeremijenko at Xerox Parc in 1995, “Live Wire”:4 “is an 8 foot piece of plastic spaghetti that hangs from a small electric motor mounted in the ceiling. The motor is electrically connected to a nearby Ethernet cable, so that each bit of information that goes past causes a tiny twitch of the motor. A very busy network causes a madly whirling string with a characteristic noise; a quiet network causes only a small twitch every few seconds.”

The sculpture is intended to celebrate Ball State University’s ranking by Intel as the nation’s most wireless campus. Most of the network’s equipment was provided by Cisco, which provides all of the live data that feeds the artwork. “A live camera and processed video feed”:3 is available for viewing remotely.

[1]http://www.thestarpress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006604150323
[2]http://www.bsu.edu/web/jfillwalk/wireless/
[3]http://dvisweb1.bsu.edu/media/journalism/johnfillwalk/live.asx
[4]http://www.ubiq.com/weiser/calmtech/calmtech.htm

Filed under: Art, Event, News

NEW YORK: NOT-SO-WIRED CITY

I was recently interviewed for an article in the New York Press titled “NEW YORK: NOT-SO-WIRED CITY – Thanks to the big telcos, we lag in installing a wifi overlay”:1. The article talks about how, with the exception of NYCwireless’ parks hotspots, NYC seems to be lagging behind in the broad deployments of Wi-Fi networks that have been taken up by other major (and lots of smaller) cities across the country.

bq. New York City lags far behind all of these municipalities. “Politicians [here] don’t know the difference between a server and a waiter,” said Andrew Rasiej, who ran for public advocate last year on a platform of providing municipal wireless broadband. “This is a city that made most of its money in the Industrial Age, and the people who control most of its power structures are Baby Boomers who don’t know much about technology.”

bq. The city inched closer to municipal wireless broadband last December when the City Council passed a bill creating a special taskforce to advise Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on technological options for “unwiring” New York, but this has stalled in the new session. Impatient activist groups have taken matters into their own hands.

bq. NYCwireless has installed wireless networks in Bryant Park, Union Square Park, Tompkins Square Park, Bowling Green Park, City Hall Park, and South Street Seaport. The group also maintains a database for users to identify neighborhood “hotspots.” And in keeping with the original, co-operative sentiments of Jones’ activity, the group provides open-source software, free of charge, to any apartment building or block that wants to build its own “mesh” wireless network.

bq. For around $5,000, a tech-savvy apartment resident can attach a “router” to a physical Internet connection in the building, and plug in two or three access points at electrical points on each floor of a typical six-storey building, according to NYCwireless Executive Director Dana Spiegel. These access points transmit wireless signals to residents on each floor, creating a “mesh”: a network that has no identifiable center—or owner—because each computer added creates more paths of connection.

bq. Organizations like NYCwireless can afford to give away their creations—often enhanced versions of other groups’ work across the country—because they’ve entirely bypassed the hefty research and development investment costs of the major telecommunications companies. “It’s not this black box, über-technology that requires zillions of dollars to do,” said Sascha Meinrath, project director of the Champaign-Urbana [Illinois] Community Wireless Network, whose software was developed by part-time volunteers sitting around drinking coffee and testing ideas.

bq. To many, the municipal wireless movement challenges the very concept of ownership: making a traditionally privately held utility available to everyone for next to nothing. Spiegel said communal networks brought people together. Discussing the recent New York Times feature, “Hey neighbor, stop piggy-backing on my wireless,” Spiegel said, “That’s completely wrong. It should be, ‘Hey neighbor, it’s great to finally meet you.’”

One of the corrections that needs to be made about the cost of building a wireless apartment building is that it should cost around $5,000 to light up the *entire* building, not just a single apartment. This price is based on a few assumptions about the size and construction of a building, but is well in line with some of the projects on which we’ve worked.

bq. Unsurprisingly, the giant telephone companies have made no secret of their hostility to the new technology. They are currently lobbying intensely at a federal level and in 15 states to pass laws banning municipalities from providing free wireless broadband, citing anti-monopoly concerns. Several traditional companies, including New York City’s main Internet providers Verizon and Time Warner Cable, impose non-sharing policies on users.

bq. Spiegel pointed out that there was no law against sharing an Internet connection. NYCwireless recommends ISPs that do not restrict use in this way, and instructs users how to set up security software to prevent harm to computers on a network.

bq. Groups like NYCwireless see wireless broadband as bridging socio-economic divides as well as bringing smaller communities together. While Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum has openly dismissed Internet access as a priority for low-income communities, NYCwireless secretary Laura Forlano describes a home broadband connection as helping users to find jobs and retail bargains. “Everyone knows public libraries are crowded and can only offer limited time online,” she said. “If you’re a single mother, you may only be able to go online at midnight.”

[1]http://www.nypress.com/19/14/news&columns/feature.cfm

Filed under: Community Wireless, Interview, New York City, News, NYCwireless, Policy

Internet Freeloaders – Should Google have to pay for the bandwidth it consumes?

“Adam L. Penenberg”:1, an assistant professor at New York University and assistant director of the business and economic reporting program in the school’s department of journalism, “writes a great piece for Slate”:2 that if Telcos honestly can’t sustain their networks, then they should just start charging people based on usage:

bq. If the telcos and cable companies get their way, we’ll have a Balkanized Web. Content providers who can afford to pay for premium service will market superior products to consumers with fast connections. Everyone else will make do with second-class companies at second-class speeds.

bq. The business model that this most resembles is cable television. There’s one key difference, though. In the cable world, the service providers pay channels for the rights to broadcast their shows. In the system that telco-cable is proposing for the Internet, the content providers—who provide the services that make customers clamor for broadband in the first place—would have to pay for the privilege of being included.

bq. Not all content providers are taking this lying down. Business 2.0′s Om Malik reports that Google has been buying up miles of “dark” fiber — unused fiber-optic cable — at severely depressed prices. Malik believes that Google plans to “blanket major cities with Wi-Fi,” including San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and New York. Given Google’s ethos, its Wi-Fi would probably be free, with revenue derived from targeted advertising. Obviously, the telcos and cable companies would have trouble competing with that. Even if telco-cable is successful in implementing a two-tiered Internet plan, another workaround could be municipal wireless networks, like those being built in Philadelphia. (No wonder Verizon has been fighting them tooth and nail.)

bq. There’s a far better solution than Verizon charging Google to use its bandwidth or Google becoming a service provider itself. What about having subscribers pay for the bandwidth they consume? Just like you buy variable rate cell-phone plans and pay for electricity based on how much you use, your broadband bills should be calculated the same way. That way, heavy Net users could subsidize the Internet for those who don’t use it as often, and access would be available for anybody who wants it. Then content would remain free, and everyone would benefit.

[1]http://www.penenberg.com/
[2]http://www.slate.com/id/2134397/

Filed under: Network Neutrality, News

Great quote by Wendy Seltzer

USA Today “has a great quote”:1 by Wendy Seltzer, formerly a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation and now a Brooklyn Law School professor of internet law:

bq. Without forcing some commitment to net neutrality from Internet providers, small start-ups may never get a chance to see where their ideas could lead, advocates say. The very vitality of the Internet will be threatened.

bq. “That’s certainly something that the net neutrality forces will be trying to argue,” says Ms. Seltzer. “Network neutrality might be a little bit of regulation, but it’s regulation that’s good for [promoting] a lot more free market.”

[1]http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-03-14-tiered-web_x.htm

Filed under: Network Neutrality, News, Policy

The New Yorker: NET LOSSES

The “New Yorker has a great commentary”:1 on exactly why we are fighting for network neutrality.

bq. The logic of the tiered-access approach is simple: broadband companies do the work of providing Internet access, so they should be able to charge what they can for it. Telecom executives say that the revenue from tiered access would let them invest more in adding bandwidth and improving download speeds, and argue that Web sites are parasites taking, as A.T. & T.’s chairman, Edward E. Whitacre, Jr., put it, a “free ride” on the pipes the broadband companies own. But these companies have pipes into people’s homes in the first place only because of a long history of government regulation, and people want to use those pipes only because of all the value the so-called parasites have created. And it’s that value which tiered access—even if it does improve the Internet’s infrastructure—will put in harm’s way. The Internet has become a remarkable fount of economic and social innovation largely because it’s been an archetypal level playing field, on which even sites with little or no money behind them—blogs, say, or Wikipedia—can become influential. If the Internet turns into a zone of tiered access, it will be harder for noncommercial sites or startup companies to compete with bigger firms.

bq. Broadband providers insist that they have no plans to block access or degrade service to those who don’t pay a premium rate. But if some companies are getting better service, then all the others are getting worse service. Besides, there have already been examples of active discrimination. Last year, a rural telecom company in North Carolina blocked its users’ access to the Internet-based phone service Vonage, and in Canada the telecom company Telus blocked access to a Web site supporting the telecommunications workers’ union. Market forces will offer some check to this kind of interference—if a particular provider goes too far, customers will take their business elsewhere—but, in the world of broadband, market forces are weak, because most cities have only two major providers. More than ninety per cent of Americans get Internet service from either their local phone company or their local cable company, and A.T. & T.’s newly announced acquisition of BellSouth means that there will soon be only three major phone companies in the entire U.S.

bq. …

bq. Decisions that once were made collectively by hundreds of millions of Internet users would now be shaped in large part by a handful of telecom executives. It used to be said that the Internet was all about “disintermediation.” With the end of network neutrality, the middlemen are striking back.

[1]http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060320ta_talk_surowiecki

Filed under: Network Neutrality, News, Policy

Unstrung: Hotspot Invaders

I was interviewed in an “Unstrung: Hotspot Invaders article”:1 on alternative revenue models for public wireless networks:

bq. Offending users and network operators could be another roadblock for these revenue models. Ad-supported muni WiFi is a terrific idea, says Dana Spiegel, executive director of NYCwireless, which provides free WiFi in Manhattan — but “It’s critical that this advertising shouldn’t interfere with the use of the network.”

bq. NYCwireless uses splash pages that appear when users log onto the network that contain a usage agreement plus an area for logos from supporting organizations. The ads — essentially just logos for the organizations that help fund the network — are confined to the splash page.

bq. “The idea of artificially inserting ads into Websites that are viewed on the network is an appalling idea that has another name: adware,” says Spiegel. “NYCwireless would never endorse any program like that, and we feel it would create a bad experience for the people that use our networks.”

[1]http://www.unstrung.com/document.asp?doc_id=89087&WT.svl=news2_1

Filed under: Community Wireless, Interview, Muniwireless, News

Vonage Requests CRTC Investigation Into Shaw VoIP Charges

“Michael Geist reports”:1 on a complaint that Vonage Canada has filed against Shaw for Shaw’s “quality of service enhancement”, which appears to be the first major discriminatory move against Vonage by a telco or cableco. The issues involved in this case are far-reaching, and particularly pertinent to the “Network Neutrality”:2 issue. If Shaw is providing a proper high-speed internet service, then Vonage users should generally be provided good quality phone service via their high-speed internet connection. But issues with VoIP service might be nothing more than anti-competitive tactics by the incumbent telco or cableco, and the end user would be none the wiser.

bq. Vonage Canada has filed a complaint with the CRTC against Shaw over Shaw’s VoIP premium surcharge. The cable company charges a $10 “quality of service enhancement” fee for VoIP users, which Vonage is characterizing as a VoIP tax. Vonage argues that because it “competes directly with the telephone services of the network operators that also provide the high-speed Internet access, the incentives to discriminate against us are clear. This will result in less innovation, less choice and higher prices for Canadian consumers in the long run.”

bq. This could become a hugely important case since much of the two-tier Internet is based on similar enhancement fees for either customers or web services. The CRTC mistakenly declined to address the net neutrality last year in its VoIP decision, despite considerable evidence that this was an emerging issue that could have debilitating effect on the Internet. In the months since that decision, both the telcos and cable cos have openly discussed their plans for a two-tier Internet. While it appears that Vonage has focused primarily on the need for greater transparency with the Shaw fee, this has opened the door to the CRTC becoming more engaged on network neutrality.

[1]http://michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1147&Itemid=85
[2]http://www.wirelesscommunity.info/network-neutrality

Filed under: Network Neutrality, News, Policy

Toronto, Canada to deploy large municipal wireless network

Toronto Hydro Telecom “has announced”:1 that they will be installing a municipal wireless network throughout Toronto. This will make Toronto the largest municipal wireless effort in Canada, and is similar to similar efforts in Philadelphia and San Francisco. One of the interesting aspects of the project is how Toronto Hydro Telecom became a proponent of muni-wireless:

bq. In Ontario, where smart meters have been mandated, electrical utilities are looking at various telecommunications technologies for retrieving data from people’s homes and businesses for time-of-day billing purposes.

bq. Sources say Toronto Hydro has decided to support its smart meter plan using Wi-Fi technology, which can be accessed by any properly equipped laptop or handheld computing device.

bq. Brian Sharwood, a telecom analyst with the Seaboard Group in Toronto, said it makes sense for a utility to recoup the cost of supporting smart meters by also selling wireless broadband services. “In a way that’s the excuse to do all of this,” he said. “You’re going to run it past a lot of people anyway.”

bq. …

bq. But municipalities argue that competition is healthy and that blanketing communities with low-cost broadband access helps bridge the digital divide.

[1]http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1141643034143&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

Filed under: International, Muniwireless, News, Policy

Twitter

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.