Should we share our password-protected network with a neighbor???

Hi. Thanks for your advocacy.

We recently password-protected our Verizon wireless network. (We were having intermittency issues and this was one of the remedial measures we chose to take.) And we just got a call from someone who’ll be staying in the neighborhood for a few months, asking to share our network for a nominal fee. We are community-minded and inclined to oblige such a request, but we are concerned about security breaches, given that we are a professional organization and have sensitive data on our network to protect, etc.

Can you advise as to the potential consequences?

I can recommend that you use common sense here. If you have private/sensitive data on your network, then common sense says you shouldn’t allow people onto the network unless you trust them or you have proper safeguards in place to protect the data even if someone gets access to your network. Such safeguards–disk encryption, strong passwords, moving the data to a computer that isn’t network accessible, segmenting the network so that only wired computers can get access to data on a server–are all good ideas regardless of whether you operate a public wi-fi network or not.

Further, I doubt that your intermittency issues have any relation to whether your network is password protected or not. Far more likely are sources of interference, which can sometimes be addressed by either (a) moving your access point, or (b) changing the wireless channel of your access point. Putting a password on a network will do nothing to address connectivity issues.

If you are community minded, and part of how you want to provide a service to the community is to provide a free wi-fi network to nearby people, I would recommend you put a proper hotspot online. We can help you out with that, and your neighbors will be able to access your hotspot free and clear of any passwords. Unfortunately, providing a password to a single community member isn’t providing a service to your community, it’s providing a service to a single person.

Related posts:

1. Earthlink Leaves Philly, Network to Go Away
2. Why Mesh-based Wireless Networks Are Ideal for New York
3. PSA: “Free Public Wi-Fi” is NOT a Free Wireless Internet Hotspot

There’s been an interesting discussion on the NYCwireless mailing list over the past few days about the Let There Be Wi-Fi article. Of particular note is a comment made by Alex, who runs Pilosoft, an independent ISP in New York City:

There is such thing as ‘natural monopoly’. Gas lines, water lines, *phone lines and coax lines* are natural monopolies and does not make sense to have multiple companies competing with each other. Now, putting *content* over those lines is definitely *not* a natural monopoly. Broadband is definitely *not* a natural monopoly.

The distinction that Alex draws between the physical infrastructures and the information services provided over those infrastructures is an important one. Its not new; In the earlier days of dial-up ISPs, phone companies would provide the physical infrastructures, and the internet was delivered over the phone lines as an information service. Many phone companies became ISPs as well, but because the modem technologies were so simple, the differentiation between two ISPs or between an independent ISP and the phone company ISP came down to additional services.

Nowadays, the separation between physical infrastructure and internet service is no less distinct, merely obscured. The technology has advanced, but its still the same basic setup. There’s a physical cable coming into your home, and there are services that are delivered on top of that wire (the internet often being one of those services). The only difference is that cable and telephone companies have spent the last few years creating a smokescreen so that we, as consumers, have a hard time seeing where that line is drawn.

The cabling, as it was before, and as it will continue to be, is a natural monopoly just like electrical, gas, and water. Phone and cable companies don’t want to admit this fact, because that means they will properly be subject to other regulations. But let’s call a spade a spade. We don’t have (and don’t want) lots of different companies digging up our streets to install yet more wires. It serves us no good to go through this wasteful process. We are better served by having one (or at most a couple) of different wires that are run across a community and into our homes, and opening up those lines to competitors who can provide internet, video, and phone services.

But the FCC has confused the situation, being blinded by the cable and phone companies’ smoke screens. They’ve removed the regulations that ensured competition on the phone lines, and they failed to establish similar regulation for cable lines. They view internet and video as information services, which cannot be regulated. But in order to have information services, you need to have widespread physical infrastructure on which to delivery those services. And because of the requirements and cost of building this infrastructure, the general public is best served by only building this infrastructure ones (or maybe only a few times).

Perhaps we’ve been approaching this problem from the wrong direction. This isn’t the FCC’s domain. They don’t belong in the gutter, digging ditches and laying wire. They belong watching our airwaves, and dealing with services at the service level.

We need to be pushing for these private natural monopolies to be treated as such.

Susan Crawford, Assistant Professor of Law at Cardozo School of Law, speaks from a similar point of view, maintaining that “broadband access companies that cover the waterfront (literally — are interfering with our navigation online) should be confronted with the power of the state to protect entry into this self-owned commons, the internet.”

So, how do we work to get these lines to be recognized by the federal or local governments as the monopolies they are? Where do we start with respect to such regulation?

I don’t know the answer, but would love to hear ideas.

Related posts:

1. Event: Has Divestiture Worked? A 25th Anniversary Assessment of the Break Up of AT&T
2. HR 2726 (Rep. Pete Sessions) Bill Banning Muni-Networks Nationwide

Good afternoon. My name is Laura Forlano and I am pleased to be here today to testify before the New York City Council’s Technology in Government Committee on behalf of NYCwireless, a non-profit organization that advocates for and enables the growth of free, public wireless networks, in support of Int. No. 625-A, a local law to establish a permanent broadband advisory committee in order to assess the feasibility of using municipal resources to facilitate universal access to broadband technologies and telecommunications and information services in New York.

Over the past four years, NYCwireless has been active in the deployment of free, public wireless networks in over ten New York City parks and open spaces through partnerships with local parks organizations and Business Improvement Districts (BIDs). NYCwireless has played an invaluable role in establishing the idea of public hotspots within public spaces within a City. Indeed, NYCwireless’ groundbreaking ideas and work first started this movement. By working in 2001 with local businesses, NYCwireless established Tompkins Square Park as the first Wireless Park in New York City. In 2002, NYCwireless brought this idea to the Bryant Park Conservancy, and was successful in creating the City’s and the Nation’s most visible and popular Wireless Park. We have also created community engagement programs that take advantage of wireless networks in Manhattan, such as our wireless arts festival, Spectropolis. NYCwireless is an all-volunteer organization with seven (7) board members, five (5) special interest working groups and approximately sixty (60) active members.

As a small non-profit organization that relies on volunteers to do its work, NYCwireless has confronted the difficulty of bringing wireless broadband projects to New Yorkers first-hand for a number of reasons. The technology itself is one of the simpler parts of the equation. Much more difficult are the identification of projects that address critical socio-economic problems and improve the lives of New Yorkers, the creation of an overarching vision for our projects and the development of a strategy to implement our vision using the latest technologies.

We believe that a similar challenge is facing the city of New York with regards to the future of broadband technology. Over the past two years, we have followed the Technology in Government Committee’s oversight hearings with great interest and believe that the establishment of a permanent broadband advisory committee is one positive step towards creating the necessary comprehensive vision and holistic strategy necessary for improving the socio-economic future of New York by using cutting-edge technologies and mobilizing community resources.

We believe that the advisory committee can play a leading role in increasing competition in the market for broadband provision and insuring the availability of affordable broadband options for small businesses, non-profit organizations and under-served areas. We believe that this problem can only be solved by the active involvement of municipal government in stimulating competition in telecommunication infrastructure. Competition can come in the form of municipally owned open access telecommunication infrastructure (such as the Philadelphia project), non-profit projects (such as NYCwireless, BIDs, parks organizations) or private sector initiatives.

With respect to the specifics of Int. No. 625-A, we would like to urge that “municipal resources” be interpreted broadly to include a wide range of the city’s resources such as physical assets (light poles, rooftops), financial assets, and, most importantly, human assets such as community and non-profit organizations. Community organizations such as NYCwireless can play an even greater role in improving New York’s socio-economic future from the bottom-up with the support of a clear vision, a comprehensive strategy and available municipal resources.

NYCwireless looks forward to working with the Technology in Government committee, city agencies, other non-profit organizations and the private sector in order to improve the lives of all New Yorkers using the best available technologies to address our city’s socio-economic needs and challenges. Thus, we urge that the City Council pass Int. No. 625-A to establish a permanent broadband advisory committee. Thank you very much.

Related posts:

1. New York City Council Approves Public Broadband Commission
2. NYCwireless Testimony for NY City Council Hearing: The Regulation and Use of the Unallocated Portion of the Radio Spectrum, Also Known as White Spaces
3. October – December 2005 Board Meeting Summary

I’m a big fan of what’s going on in Philadelphia, but this article in The Philadelphia Inquirer has me thinking that maybe all of this talk about the end user cost of muni-networks is, in part, wrong.

One way that most Community Wireless networks are different from other broadband networks is that they view their wireless service as supplemental. In other words, NYCwireless wouldn’t ever expect to be the only Internet service that a person uses. This is true for most CWNs, expecially those in urban places.

As such, our pricing models expect that usage of the networks is an add on to a user’s already expensive broadband connection. This is one way that commercial Wi-Fi is different, and why so many people are unhappy about the high prices. Is the $30 per month (or thereabout) price of a T-Mobile Wi-Fi a supplemental service fee, or is it a primary broadband connection fee?

I already pay over $100 per month for my DSL at home. I’m not going to pay another $20 or $30 per month just to get Wi-Fi periodically. And neither are most other people (discount the road-warrior types who’s businesses pay for their supplemental internet fees).

We need a more sophisticated pricing model. And this is what bothers me about the Philadelphia prices. The Philly network imagines that it is the primary broadband connection for people living in the city. But what about all of the people who already have $40-$60 home DSL and cablemodems? Wireless Philadelphia should make sense for them as well, except they won’t really use it at home, just when they are away from home.

I think this is critical for the project’s success. What is the right price for supplemental Internet? I personally would pay about $5 total for all other broadband I would use outside of my home. I suspect that this pricing is about what other people would be willing to pay as well. This type of pricing model respects existing broadband service, and offers the opportunity for Philadelphia to capture more of the market. It also acknowledges that one company/organization can’t solve the universal broadband issue by itself.

Who says that I should only have 1 broadband connection? Telcos, cable companies, WISPs, and any other broadband provider must embrace this view of the market, because its the way things will be in the future.

Related posts:

1. HR 2726 (Rep. Pete Sessions) Bill Banning Muni-Networks Nationwide
2. Why Mesh-based Wireless Networks Are Ideal for New York
3. Excellent documentary on Philadelphia/Earthlink Muni-Wi-Fi network

While Mr. Fein is correct in stating that Wi-Fi in New York would be more costly than in, say, Philadelphia (as I have written previously in this blog 1, 2), his claim that it would cost $1 billion is way off the mark. Yes, New York City recently put out an RFP for a $1 billion wireless network for police, fire, and emergency rescue use. This network is intended to be private and secure, and won’t likely use Wi-Fi (it certainly won’t use Wi-Fi in the normal 802.11a/b/g bands).

From where is Mr. Fein getting his $1 billion figure? According to JupiterResearch, the cost of building and maintaining a municipal wireless network is $150,000 per square mile over five years. Sascha Meinrath of CUWiN claims that a network with a density of 142 nodes per square mile would cost about $49,700. If we take these as a low and a high estimate, we wind up with a total cost for NYC between $15 million and $50 million. Even if we triple the JupiterResearch cost estimates, we don’t come even close to Mr. Fein’s number.

Furthermore, Mr. Fein’s claim that such a network would be entirely Wi-Fi is mis-informed. Such a network should use whatever wireless and wired technologies are appropriate. Wi-Fi happens to be the best solution for getting internet access over the “last 100 yards”. As for competition, New York could be the city that encourages the most R&D in wireless, if only the City created the right environment, perhaps by opening up more lightpole franchises at an affordable rate.

All of this doesn’t address the most important issue: only about 35% of New Yorkers have broadband, and only 10% of low-income families in New York City have broadband. And this is the most connected city in the country! We should be demanding that the Mayor and everyone else in our City Government address this situation! Wi-Fi, WiMax, Wi-whatever—wireline or wireless—it doesn’t matter. In fact, any viable solution will make use of all of these technologies, as well as some others that aren’t even released yet.

We shouldn’t look at this problem as being so large and costly that we can’t address it. We can start small. NYCwireless and its partners have brought free Wi-Fi to many City parks and other public spaces. And we continue to bring public Wi-Fi to low income buildings and other neighborhoods. Working together, we (and every single New Yorker) can make a difference.

Related posts:

1. New York Times Editorial: Wi-Fi and the Cities
2. Why Mesh-based Wireless Networks Are Ideal for New York
3. Testimony to the New York City Broadband Advisory Committee

Robust and reliable, mesh wireless systems offer multiple points of connection to the network and no central tower. Mesh users can bypass obstacles like hills and trees by using different signal paths. Mesh networks are easily expandable at very low cost, and they have no single point of failure. Mesh networks also feature shorter distances between nodes, which means each antenna can broadcast at lower power, creating less interference and allowing more users to communicate simultaneously.” (from http://www.freepress.net/wifi/guide2.php)

The benefits of mesh technology are many:

• self-organized, dynamic routing and connection
• little or no centralized configuration
• each node is interchangeable with every other node
• overlapping wireless coverage areas ensure that no node is a point of failure
• no wires are necessary, as the network is entirely wireless
• organic build-out of the entire network is possible
• multiple separate networks can be built independently and grow into a single cohesive network
• redundant paths to backhaul
• easy/seamless addition of additional backhaul

The alternative for wireless networks are “hub-and-spoke” networks, so called because they resemble bicycle wheels in their architectural diagrams. In hub-and-spoke networks there is one central distribution node with which all client nodes communicate. This centralized architecture is like the cell phone networks: even when client nodes are close to one another, they must route through the central tower in order to communicate. This creates a single point of failure, and requires significant infrastructure at these tower nodes.

Mesh networks are designed to survive the failure of a single node (and sometimes more than single node). Like the internet itself, mesh networks have significantly more resiliency built in. Its untrue that they are more likely to go down than non-mesh networks; This is like saying that cars with airbags are more likely to crash. The fact is that mesh networks have extra safeguards from failure, and reduce the likelihood of network failure.

Furthermore, since there is built in overlap between the service area of neighboring mesh nodes, if one should go down, service should still be available in its coverage area (albeit at a possibly lower data rate). Because mesh nodes are interchangeable, servicing the network is as simple as plugging in a new node where one has failed. This isn’t nearly so easy to do with a non-mesh network, even one that has a centralized network management system. Mesh networks need no such network management infrastructure, since their management intelligence is built into each node, and is spread dynamically throughout the entire network.

So, what does this mean for New York City? Let’s look at a couple of examples, which NYCwireless has had the opportunity to investigate:

In Building Wireless Network

New York City has a plethora of apartment buildings, many of which date from the early or mid parts of the 1900’s (and some even earlier). These buildings have electrical and phone systems, but even cable networks are an add on. Creating an additional network is both expensive and difficult for these buildings, since it often requires significant construction to create a complete wired network infrastructure that is safe from the elements. This is the reason why Wi-Fi has been so popular with New Yorkers–cable and DSL modems don’t often reside where people want to use their computers.

Using a mesh-based wireless network, such buildings are easy to “light up”. Traditional hub-and-spoke wireless networks rely on a distributed wired infrastructure (like cable and DSL networks), whereas the only requirement for a mesh network is electricity. Using a centralized backhaul located in one or a few places in the building, and inexpensive mesh wireless devices, an entire building, servicing 100’s of units, can be brought merely by plugging in the nodes at appropriate locations (3-10 per floor, on average).

Since most buildings have thick walls separating apartments or floors, if there is a spot in the building where the wireless signal is weak, just add another mesh node nearby. And since the nodes are usually powerful enough to communicate between adjacent floors, the network will have multiple routes up and down the building, ensuring that even if part of the network goes down, the rest of the network will still work.

Distributing a wired backhaul (T1 or fiber internet connection) throughout a building is cost effective, but it may not even be necessary all of the time. If there is another nearby building with lots of available bandwidth–like a school, library, or even business–setting up a higher-powered mesh node at that location will enable the extra network capacity to be wirelessly beamed into the building through the windows. With this type of network, there might not even be any wired internet at all within the building!

Business District Network

New York City is filled with Business Districts. Whether you live on the south side of Staten Island, Central Harlem, or along Northern Boulevard in Queens, there are plenty of areas where small businesses (and sometimes large ones) line the streets for blocks on end. Especially for small businesses, bringing in an internet connection can be both costly and time consuming (waits of months for a T1 are not unheard of). Considering that many small businesses would rather place their resources into running and building their shops, spending all of that time and money, month over month, on simple internet access can be a wasteful investment.

Creating a wireless hotspot all along a business district benefits residents, businesses, and visitors to that area. This is the primary reason why the Alliance for Downtown New York partnered with NYCwireless to help create its wireless network in downtown Manhattan, and why other Business Improvement Districts (BID) and Parks have worked with NYCwireless in similar capacities. Creating a hotspot that exists outside (throughout the cold New York winter) is hard enough. Creating a hotspot, using traditional non-mesh wireless technologies, that is larger than a standard City block is even harder. Consider that such a hotspot likely needs more than one DSL connection, that its hardware must be mounted outdoors, and that if a local business is a participating host for all or part of the network, that the network becomes dependent upon that business staying in that location for years on end.

All of these difficulties are easily solved by using a mesh network. Instead of mounting the hotspot access point and large antenna on the top of a short building, the multiple nodes of the mesh network can be mounted inside or next to local storefronts, lining the street. Backhaul can reside inside of a building where it is easy to get to, and more DSL lines can be added as needed. Since there are more mesh nodes than the few traditional access points, coverage is better.

The best part of this architecture is that the business district network no longer is reliant on one or a couple of businesses. Instead, the backhaul can be provided by a long-standing resident of the area–most likely a BID or City organization–and the network can flow down the street. As local businesses come and go, the BID can merely unplug a mesh node from a departing business, and plug it in next door. The network continues to operate, and service never has to go down for more than a few minutes (if even that). In this type of community architecture, a traditional hub-and-spoke network would be unmanageable.

City-wide Network

New York City represents a great challenge for any wireless network. The dense metropolitan area covers about 240 square miles, and much of that area is covered by buildings 20 or more stories in height. New York is truly a huge, three dimensional city.

Creating a large scale wireless network throughout New York represents a great challenge–one that NYCwireless would love to help solve. In all likelihood, any solution that makes this endeavor tractable will need to make use of multiple network technologies, and combine network deployments from a number of providers. To be sure, New York will require more ingenuity than that of Philadelphia’s, San Francisco’s, and Boston’s wireless city plans.

Here again, mesh networks can play multiple roles. Nodes can disburse wireless internet backhaul from the city’s dark fiber and existing excess bandwidth via a mesh network mounted on lamp posts. That network can feed separate mesh networks that draw the internet up into and throughout a building like a tree drinks water. And people and businesses can move their lives and their livelihoods from building to building without causing network disturbances.

With the help of mesh networks, New York can become a living, organic city, whose lifeblood is the packets of information that flows freely from point to point, person to person, bouncing around automatically finding its way to and from the internet.

Related posts:

1. Bruce Fein’s New York Times Letter to the Editor
2. International Summit for Community Wireless Networks: August 12-15, 2010 in Vienna, Austria
3. Our Take: NYC RFI on “City Wireless Internet Access for New York City Parks and Other Open Spaces”

So how does Wi-Fi fit in?

The Digital Divide, in part, can be solved by proper application of technology. Indeed, technology is the silver bullet for the Digital Divide that has been trumpeted by politicians and corporations alike. But in reality, it is more about the use of technology, and not the acquisition of it. This point is often confused by many who talk about the bridge that it can help form. Technology must be both affordable, to address economic problem, as well as assistive in its use in helping people better themselves.

A cheap computer is wonderful for fulfilling the first requirement, but fails the second since much of the assistance that is available to individuals is made available online. The fix, of course, is the internet, which has also been spoken of as the solution for the Digital Divide. The truth of the matter is that both computer and internet are needed, and that a broadband, always-on connection is essential.

We can assume that a computer costs $200, and that it is useful for 3 years (these are reasonable estimates). This means that a family can have that computer for about $5.50 per month, which is a reasonable cost burden for an underprivileged family as claimed by many politicians and technologists. (The truth is that many families get hand-me-down computers that can cost even less than this.) Internet access, however, is much more expensive. In New York, a DSL line from Verizon costs $30 per month, and in addition, a subscriber must also have a Verizon provided analog phone line which can cost at least $15. Time Warner Cable charges about $35 for its faster cable modem service, but this too requires a basic cable subscription, bringing the total cost to more than $50.

These prices are 6-7 times more expensive than that computer. These subscriptions cost $1000-$2000 over three years, not including taxes and other charges on top of the service fees, as well as normal subscription fee increases, which Time Warner seems to raise about once a year. These fees are in order to get a $200 computer online.

What makes anyone think that an underprivileged family that might be able to afford a $200 computer can also afford the $1000+ cost of internet access that makes that computer useful for bridging the Digital Divide?

Enter public Wi-Fi. I’m not talking about the T-mobile service you can get at Starbucks (because a coffee costs as much as the monthly payment on the computer) or the Wayport service you can get at a Hotel or Airport (since no one but active business travellers spend enough time in either place to make such services worthwhile). I’m talking about the free hotspots that NYCwireless helps provides in New York City’s parks, or the downtown areas of Urbana-Champaign, IL lit up by the CUWIN, downtown Boston lit up by NewburyOpen?.net, and Austin, TX lit up by Austin City Wireless community wireless organizations, or the countless other community wireless groups help to build across the country. Or even the low cost Wi-Fi network proposed by the city of Philadelphia.

These are the networks that can help bridge the Digital Divide. Finally that $200 computer can be used online for free or very cheap, and all families can participate in local politics and communities, and take advantage of the online assistance programs that are made available to them. These are innovative networks, and we need more of them. These networks prove that Community Wireless and Municipal Wireless should be embraced by everyone, especially the politicians who might be seeking to outlaw them. This is the future, and it is lives and is being created all around us, and everyone, politicians, corporations and individuals alike, should support them.

Related posts:

1. Diamond Consultants to publicly brief Broadband Advisory Committee regarding the Bloomberg Administration’s plans for bridging the digital divide
2. The End-User Cost of Muni-networks
3. Using Common Sense When Sharing a Wireless Network