Researchers tout co-op system for ubiquitous WiFi

There's already plenty of folks working to make WiFi as ubiquitous as possible, but a team of researchers at the University of Cambridge seem to think they've devised one of the most efficient solutions yet, although it's not without its share of hurdles. The basic idea is to turn a sometimes frowned upon activity into an acceptable one, by making it safe for individuals to share their home WiFi with neighbors and passers-by. To do that all-important latter bit, the researchers propose that the guests would only be given access to a "tunnel" to a single, trusted point on the internet (as illustrated above), with a firewall offering further protection. That, obviously, wouldn't work unless everyone (including the ISPs) played along, and the researchers some ideas about that as well, even including the possibility that municipalities pass laws requiring ISPs to support co-ops. In other words, don't bet on it showing up overnight. [Warning: PDF link]

[Via New Scientist]

[Kamal @ Feb 4th 2008 11:36AM]

I thought FON was doing this already. http://www.fon.com/en/

[Hank Williams @ Feb 4th 2008 11:41AM]

This is an interesting idea. I really think lots more work needs to be put into figuring out ways to use wireless bandwidth because I do believe we are going to hit a point of crisis where the demand for wireless services far outstrips the available bandwidth.

As I blogged here:

http://whydoeseverythingsuck.com/2008/01/700mhz-spectrum-not-so-great-for.html

I believe the 700 mhz spectrum is being positioned as a holy grail, but that it is not well suited to it. I think that we really need to get cracking on solving how we are all going to be able to communicate wirelessly at any kind of reasonable speed. We are in desparate need of solutions.

[goldcd @ Feb 4th 2008 3:01PM]

Bit of a boring solution. Problem with a load of these solutions is that they rely upon the backhaul we each have coming out of our little routers. Now this is pretty much the slowest connection available to my router, it'll also go 100M wired and 54G Wireless - seems a shame these last two are only used for my computers - wouldn't it be nice if my wireless could mesh with all the other routers in my area? (I get at least a dozen popping up and you'll get the same in any reasonably built up area). Look again at backhaul, the bottleneck is above your local DSLAM or cable router - there's huuge amounts of available bandwidth on the final mile.
Just seems bizarre that whilst the backbone is all nicely peered, the bit of the internet with the most available bandwidth is just used for point-to-point traffic.
Now I don't expect my neighbour/co-DSLAM user to be hosting hotmail servers - but for stuff like p2p (the bandwidth hogs) it's ideal.
Now nobody is going to pick up this idea and make it work immediately, but maybe as IPTV kicks off it may pick up (with evil corporate backing and maybe tied to STBs initially). You request to watch a TV show, it first of all checks to see if it can find a copy over your local wifi, then from other users of your DSLAM, then finally when all else has failed it goes over the internet proper to get it from the source..

[Flashpoint @ Feb 4th 2008 12:03PM]

The way I see it, having security on WiFi is a pain in the ass and we could be so much more connected if WEP and WPA were dropped and manufacturers took more care in creating better biometric, better online and better user authenticity protocals.

Security over wireless has become nothing more than a selling point for router makers selling to the home market. These dummies at Best Buy insist ANYONE has access to ALL info you send over wifi....including that 12 year old kid with the PSP who's using your line on Infrastructure mode. They also claim you get blamed if anyone sends a message through your LAN.

Why can't companies build computers with user authenticity firmware so that user history and usage can be traced back to individual usage, as a fee for using wifi freely? Most people aren't going to have laptops and most people aren't going to be using wireless in most situations unless they have the money for the equipment.

If the makers are so worried about "wardriving" then they should allow people to use wifi freely only after they've authenticated their personal data with either a driver's licence, date of birth, ss# or any one of the hundreds of user authentifiers out there.

[jus10 @ Feb 4th 2008 12:09PM]

I don't think you've fully thought through how dangerous your "solution" to the problem is.

[Toadlet @ Feb 4th 2008 12:10PM]

I really don't see why I should give up what's left of my privacy when I'm using my own wireless network.
I'm digging that wifi handheld microwave in the picture, though.

[mr.me! @ Feb 4th 2008 12:30PM]

Why is the guest's handheld device a microwave?

[rcappo @ Feb 4th 2008 1:37PM]

Don't you know that you can modify microwaves to jam the 2.4 Ghz band?

I like this idea. It would work better if people who wanted or needed a direct connection to the internet would pay the ISP. And everyone else that didn't could just hop from neighbor to neighbor until they got to a library/business/paying neighbor/ISP/co-op/ or someone else that had a connection to the wired internet.

This is the model the internet was supposed to be. If one node goes down or if one wire is cut, there are plenty of other paths to get to the data.

[Nirmal @ Feb 4th 2008 1:58PM]

Only way people will let others "share" their personal wireless connections would be when they make it all free. I cant imagine when that will happen

[Ian @ Feb 5th 2008 3:42AM]

BT is already providing this in partnership with FON, and, at least claim, there is a firewall between the home user and a "visitor". My home wi-fi has been configured this way for the last 3 months and I haven't had any problems either with my access speeds or with security.

[Matt @ Feb 5th 2008 7:36AM]

Wasn't a decision just handed down that stated that any person who shares their wi-fi connectivity can be held liable for any illegal activity that takes place on that connection?

I understand the whole "tunneling" aspect of this proposed solution, but I wonder how this will be affected by that decision? You are technically still choosing to participate in this municipal wi-fi mesh, so could you still be held liable, even if the guest is being tunneled to a central server? And if the wi-fi sharers aren't going to be held liable, then who will be? The owners and operators of the central server? Is the RIAA or MPAA going to start suing the municipalities just like they took down the centralized Napster?

[loujob @ Feb 8th 2008 4:09PM]

Not going to see this soon?

Aren't they building this as we speak in San Francisco using 2500 wireless extenders?

So far they covered a 2 to 4 mile stretch.