http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/18/new-adventures-in-wifi/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:39:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/18/new-adventures-in-wifi/comment-page-1/#comment-4142 james crabtree Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:16:32 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=300#comment-4142 hey maria - nice blog. just thought i'd pop by and have a look. Me and the 100,000 others... :-) keep in touch. jc hey maria – nice blog. just thought i’d pop by and have a look. Me and the 100,000 others… :-) keep in touch. jc

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/18/new-adventures-in-wifi/comment-page-1/#comment-4141 Cory Doctorow Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:21:04 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=300#comment-4141 Anonymity is a benefit, not a bug, from where I sit. I've run open APs in Toronto and San Francisco for four+ years now, and one of my main reasons for doing so is to allow for anonymous speech, for the same reason that the framers of the Constitution supported anonymity. As to free-riders: not only have I never had this problem (contention for my bandwidth), but I've never heard of anyone having this problem. My APs accomodate 10 users, my DSL lines deliver 1.5Mbs and most websites deliver < 60ks in throughput. In that scenario, contention can NEVER occur -- unless you have one guy downloading an enormous file from Akamai or Bittorrent. It's an edge case, it doesn't really occur in the field, it's not a problem that needs solving, unless you've got the economist's irrational, superstitious dread of free-riding. (In any event, the NoCat and other free-software open AP projects manage bandwidth contention either through fair apportionment or prioritization, and includes a login system) Finally, is it really to an AP operator's benefit to implicitly assert that she has the right, ability or duty to control her users' actions? Safe harbors are nice, but I'd rather get common carrier status: I take all traffic, I don't have the right, ability or duty to monitor it, and I send it on. (Really, is anonymity in WiFi more socially corrosive than anonymity in prepaid mobile phones? How about anonymity in message-board posting?) Anonymity is a benefit, not a bug, from where I sit. I’ve run open APs in Toronto and San Francisco for four+ years now, and one of my main reasons for doing so is to allow for anonymous speech, for the same reason that the framers of the Constitution supported anonymity. As to free-riders: not only have I never had this problem (contention for my bandwidth), but I’ve never heard of anyone having this problem. My APs accomodate 10 users, my DSL lines deliver 1.5Mbs and most websites deliver < 60ks in throughput. In that scenario, contention can NEVER occur—unless you have one guy downloading an enormous file from Akamai or Bittorrent. It’s an edge case, it doesn’t really occur in the field, it’s not a problem that needs solving, unless you’ve got the economist’s irrational, superstitious dread of free-riding. (In any event, the NoCat and other free-software open AP projects manage bandwidth contention either through fair apportionment or prioritization, and includes a login system) Finally, is it really to an AP operator’s benefit to implicitly assert that she has the right, ability or duty to control her users’ actions? Safe harbors are nice, but I’d rather get common carrier status: I take all traffic, I don’t have the right, ability or duty to monitor it, and I send it on. (Really, is anonymity in WiFi more socially corrosive than anonymity in prepaid mobile phones? How about anonymity in message-board posting?)

]]>