One of the problems with wireless communication systems like Wi-Fi is that they are more likely to encounter problems than a wired communication system. There is, in some ways, some “mystery” left on how radio frequency signals works that we still need to figure out if you want to get the perfect connection. Wireless signals are much more likely to suffer interferences and this is especially true for Wi-Fi which operates in an unlicensed frequency range.

In addition to other devices trying to access the Wi-Fi, microwaves, cordless phones, computer accessories and even building structures can disrupt a perfectly well configured Wi-Fi connection.

While the technology is seeing constant improvement, it is still complex to plan or even monitor the behavior of a wireless connection.

One of my lab colleagues did his master’s thesis on the problem of placing the wireless access points. The tool he designed made use of a extremely complex set of equations and high number of calculations to find near optimal solutions to the placement of the access points for a 80×60 meters floor plan, while setting several constraints in his model. So knowing how complex the placement of access points would be for a “simplified” floor plan, I can understand that the same exercise for a citywide coverage is far from trivial.

As I was going through the request for proposal for San Francisco TechConnect, I found the expectations for the San Francisco Wi-Fi network far from what I expected (they are located under the Coverage section (p 9))

• Outdoor coverage shall be provided for Basic and Premium Services for a minimum of 95% of all areas of the City. An area is considered covered under this requirement if a laptop, interface – can access the Network at the provisioned service level with no additional hardware required beyond the device’s standard wireless interface.
• Indoor, Perimeter Room coverage for the ground and second floors of a building shall be provided for Basic and Premium Services for a minimum of 90% of all residential and commercial buildings throughout the City. A building is assumed covered under this Specification if a device located in each Perimeter Room on the ground and second floor of the building can access the Network at the provisioned service level. This coverage requirement may be met by using a Wi-Fi interface built into a user’s device, a signal amplifier, a high-gain antenna and/or a dedicated Wi-Fi bridge or other type of CPE.
• Indoor, Perimeter Room coverage shall be provided for Basic and Premium Services above the second floor for 90% of all residential and commercial buildings throughout the City. A building is assumed covered under this Specification if all Perimeter Rooms on all floors of the building can access the Network at the provisioned service level.

The problem with these requirements, along with others in the San Francisco RFP, is that they are extremely hard if not impossible to guarantee . So, I wasn’t surprised tonight when they announced the results that Earthlink/Google the leading candidate only got a grade of around 65% for their proposal.
Earthlink/Google proposal acknowledge that they don’t fully comply with the above requirements and states in their proposal that

It is difficult in practice to achieve 90 to 100% indoor coverage with any wireless network above the second floor or for interior rooms. Cellular systems are a good example, and users have already become accustomed to moving around to find a good signal for such services. (p 63)

So while we wait for the perfect wireless system to be designed, we should keep moving around to find a good signal and plan for failure accordingly. Maybe Earthlink should start printing signs to post around town!!

Since I am still in the middle of my Wi-Fi survey (you should take it if you haven’t done so already) that focuses on these issues of sharing, usability and legal implications, I won’t comment on the topic now but just provide some pointers and “interesting” quotes. I am also preparing a case study on FON, big municipal Wi-Fi initiatives like San Francisco TechConnect and the likes.
It is amazing what people will say to defend one or the other position of this topic. Especially the analogies!

From the New York Times story titled Hey Neighbor, Stop Piggybacking on My Wireless (Mar 5th 2006)

For a while, the wireless Internet connection Christine and Randy Brodeur installed last year seemed perfect. They were able to sit in their sunny Los Angeles backyard working on their laptop computers.

But they soon began noticing that their high-speed Internet access had become as slow as rush-hour traffic on the 405 freeway.

“I didn’t know whether to blame it on the Santa Ana winds or what,” recalled Mrs. Brodeur, the chief executive of Socket Media, a marketing and public relations agency.

The “what” turned out to be neighbors who had tapped into their system.

(…)

But they soon began noticing that their high-speed Internet access had become as slow as rush-hour traffic on the 405 freeway.

“I didn’t know whether to blame it on the Santa Ana winds or what,” recalled Mrs. Brodeur, the chief executive of Socket Media, a marketing and public relations agency.

The “what” turned out to be neighbors who had tapped into their system.

(…)

Many home network owners admit that they are oblivious to piggybackers.

Some, like Marla Edwards, who think they have locked intruders out of their networks, learn otherwise. Ms. Edwards, a junior at Baruch College in New York, said her husband recently discovered that their home network was not secure after a visiting friend with a laptop easily hopped on.

“There’s no gauge, no measuring device that says 48 people are using your access,” Ms. Edwards said.

(…)

Most people just plug the thing in,” he said of those who buy wireless routers. “Ninety percent of the time it works. You stop at that point and don’t bother to turn on its security.”

(…)

When Ms. Ramirez asked the man what he was doing, he said he was stealing a wireless Internet connection because he did not have one at home. She was amused but later had an unsettling thought: “Oh my God. He could be stealing my signal.”

Yet some six months later, Ms. Ramirez still has not secured her network.

(…)

Beth Freeman, who lives in Chicago, has her own Internet access, but it is not wireless. Mostly for the convenience of using the Internet anywhere in her apartment, Ms. Freeman, 58, said that for the last six months she has been using a wireless network a friend showed her how to tap into.

“I feel sort of bad about it, but I do it anyway,” Ms. Freeman said her of Internet indiscretions. “It just seems harmless.”

And if she ever gets caught?

“I’m a grandmother,” Ms. Freeman said. “They’re not going to yell at an old lady. I’ll just play the dumb card.”

(…)

For the Brodeurs in Los Angeles, a close reading of their network’s manual helped them to finally encrypt their network. The Brodeurs told their neighbors that the network belonged to them and not to the neighborhood. While apologetic, some neighbors still wanted access to it.

“Some of them asked me, ‘Could we pay?’ But we didn’t want to go into the Internet service provider business,” Mrs. Brodeur said. “We gave some weird story about the network imposing some sort of lockdown protocol.”

From the Slashdot comments on the story

I think a lot of people have an open WiFi connection for the rest of the world to use. This however is not only because they want to give some protest but also to simply add a other node to the ever growing number of open “uplinks”.

As more and more people are doing so at the moment it becomes easy for traveling laptop users to get online everywhere they want. Closing you “uplink” will become more and more rude in the global opinion I think. Sharing the connection will become more natural to people as they become more aware of the benefit they have from the open uplinks offered by other users.

WiFi will become eventually something like opensource code, sharing and be shared only here we are not talking about code but about internet access. You give access to users and those users give you access in return.

From a post on TechDirt Are You Liable If Someone Does Something Illegal On Your WiFi? (Mar 20th 2006)

For years, whenever the press has written one of their fear-mongering stories about open WiFi, they almost always include some tidbit about how if someone uses your network to do something illegal, you can be arrested for it. It’s one of the popular open WiFi horror stories — but is it true? Well, of course, you can be arrested, but it’s unlikely that there would be any legal grounds for the arrest.

(…)

While it is true that they can go after you, there are valid legal defenses for this — as has been discussed for years. If you are legally sharing your WiFi, then you are a service provider, and under current laws you are not liable for what others do with the service. That’s what it says in the Communications Decency Act, and it clearly applies here. In fact, we’ve even heard stories of people purposely leaving their WiFi open for this very reason — as it gives them a legal defense should the industry ever come after them.

In the comments of the post on digg.com (Mar 20th 2006)

You are right. If you don’t secure your wireless, you are asking for it. You deserve everything that you could get. If your grandma has wireless, and she doesn’t secure it, she deserves it too.

(…)

This article is false, to be a service provider you have to have contracts and the ability to release contact info of your subscribers to the authoritys should an electronic crime take place, other wise you are fully resposible for all activity of that connection… Having an open wifi connection does not mean no one useing that connection has to take resposibility for it.

(…)

Actually there’s nothing in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that says a service provider must have contracts or the ability to identify it’s users:

Definition: For purposes of section 512(c), a “service provider” is defined as a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor, including an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user’s choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.

Under that definition, any given person with an open access point is a “service provider”.

(…)

The analogy of an unprotected WiFi Network as an ‘open door’ is not very suitable. A comparisson to a porch light is much better. They both emit an EM signal when left running by the owner, and they both ‘shine’ in all directions unless screened.
So if someone sits in my driveway and uses the light from my porch to write a fake check, or to forge a document etc. Is the owner of the porch light responsible, only because he could have put up a screen that stops the light from reaching the driveway?

(…)

If the person enters your property line without permission than its trespass but if the wireless signal bleeds beyond your property boundaries into public areas and other peoples property then they are not committing a crime
.Its like a fruit tree that overhangs a fence if the tree has a piece of fruit that is accessible in a public area like a footpath than the person can take that fruit legally ,is it morally right to to take the fruit is another question.

(…)

Actually, the old way of thinking as far as “signal bleeding beyond the edge of your property line” simply does not work in the modern era, when it comes to technology. If that were the case, people could never be found guilty of trespassing when they hack into a private network. For example, you figure out the modem number to some government server. You dial in from home. Technically, you are at home and *not* at the government facility in question. The “signal” of their modem has crossed their property line and come into your home, by way of the phone line. Using your logic, a person couldn’t be held responsible for their actions, since they were acting upon something that was freely accessible from their own home. We all know that people get busted for this kind of stuff all the time, however.

You can let the radio waves pass over you all day long. As soon as you use those signals to actually become a member of that other person’s network, you put yourself at risk of prosecution.

The moral of the story is don’t take without asking, even if it’s an open wireless network that falls right into your lap.

(…)

I seriously hate analogies when it comes to this subject. Nobody ever seems to get it right. Nobody using your connection is really trespassing like they would be if they just walked into your unlocked house. I like to think of it more as that person is visiting.

If somebody knocks before they come in and another member of the family automatically lets them in, it would be REALLY hard to sue that person for “using your space.” If you can’t control your own family, it really doesn’t make sense to be suing other people for consuming your precious living space either, though. It does however make sense to sue that person if you tell them to get out and they stick around making it hard for you to get things done around the house.

Somebody who is just using their wireless card has a list of available access points and has the ability to simply click “connect.” The wireless card then asks the router for an IP address, and in most cases allows your card inside automatically. If you can’t control your own router, it really doesn’t make much sense to be suing people for using your precious bandwidth. If you can somehow find out who is physically accessing your network and tell that person to stop, and they continue to use your network, it would then be fair to apply the appropriate charges.

Simply making it illegal to enter any body’s property or wireless network without direct permission would be HORRIBLE. There is such thing as implied permission, people. I can cut through some body’s yard if I want to and there’s no fence there, if they want to stop me from ever doing it again all they need to do is tell me to stop. Those people wouldn’t be able to chase me down and sue me for doing it, the judge would just ask why they didn’t use a fence. Just because that person didn’t know what a fence is or how to install one wouldn’t be a valid excuse for the judge that knows better.

It is interesting to see how people try to explain and compare the situation of open Wi-Fi access to familiar activities and how much they disagree on how to see it in terms of both social norms and legal implications. Any opinion or first-hand experience you want to share with me?

Photo Credit: Combination Composition, originally uploaded by B Tal.

As part of the research project for my master, I am conducting an online survey on how people understand and use Wi-Fi technologies.

The goal of the survey is to help improve the design of Wi-Fi by collecting various user experiences.

Whether you have used it only once or use it everyday, every experience you had with Wi-Fi is valuable to this research and I will appreciate if you would take the time to answer my online survey.

The survey is 6-12 min depending on your experience with Wi-Fi and do not require any technical expertise to be answered.

My goal was to find as much information as possible on the case Richard Dinon vs Benjamin Smith III for WiFi trespassing (more info here or here). I believe this case is the first of the kind where somebody get sued for trespassing because he is using somebody else open WiFi connection without permission. The case may be still in progress or has been settled but there has apparently been no update available anywhere since last July.

I was also hoping to find more regulation and legal literature about wireless networking but it looks like I already found most of the ones specifically related to WiFi (there is not that much yet).

Since I was on site, I passed by the Center for Internet and Society to see if I could get some more information. I ended getting an appointment with Professor Lawrence Lessig, who gave me some really good pointers and was especially helpful in sorting through some of the issues and reducing the complexity of my project.

One of the problem I was facing was: how can I design a system where people can retrieve information about whether or not they are allowed to connect to a wireless network while they are offline. The easy way felt like a Catch 22: To know if you were allowed to connect, you would have to connect and get the information from the Internet. Therefore, you could possibly be breaking the law for the sole purpose to know if what you are doing (or planning to do) is legal.

But apparently if the intent and only purpose of the initial connection was to retrieve information on your right to connect then this would not be considered illegal. Professor Lessig recommended me to read Order without Law : How Neighbors Settle Disputes which should give me a better understanding of how this would work.

He also recommended me to look into RDF and the InfoCard research on an identity metasystem to use in my design.

So , even if I didn’t have time to really visit the rest of the Stanford campus, the trip was more than worth it.

Stanford Campus – Flickr Album

Now that Fon has get major financial backing by company like Google or Skype, this changes the situation. Not only are they getting money but also a lot of free marketing with nearly any major publications talking about Fon. Glenn and OM Malik have posted a nice update on the situation.

I believe that we need to come up with a solution to offer an unified and enriched user experience in regard to wireless networking. The question that stands is not if it is going to happen (I believe it will) but how and when it will happen.

Fon has definitely an opportunity to get it right and has partners that can help it . But there are still major obstacles for it to become successful.

NETWORK SIZE IS NOT EQUAL TO VALUE

The number of hotspots is not directly linked to the value of the network. While Metcalfe’s Law

The value of a network equals approximately the square of the number of users of the system (n²) (Wikipedia)

So, yes the more hotspots Fon will get, the more valuable it will become to be part of the network (be a Fonero). But contrary to the telephone (for example), the increased value of participating to the network is not as clear. In the case of Skype, the value increases as more people join since prospective members will have more people they know on the network. But in the case of WiFi, all access points are not equally valuable to the network. In urban (and dense) areas, a hotspot can serve several people and will greatly enhance the value of the network. But in areas where the density is lower, the probability that an access point could cover more than 1 or 2 neighbours.

So, what does this mean?

1. In dense areas, the people may be tempted to set up Fon access and getting revenue out of it.(the Bill model)
2. In rural areas, the opportunity to make money out of one access is little. So, more people that will sign up as Foneros will probably choose the free roaming option (the Linus Model)
3. The people that will be paying for access will be the non-members of the network and the Bills when roaming

So what this creates is a multi-layered network:

• In metropolitan areas, the network could have a high traffic and bring revenue to Fon from visitors mostly. But a lot of users of these network will use it for free (people living in low density areas and part of the Fon network).
• In low density areas where broadband is available, the network will probably not generate a lot of revenue since most of the users could have an incentive to become part of the network as a Linus.
• People who don’t get access to broadband right now (like low-income neighbourhood) are not gaining much from this deal. They will have to pay to use the network in any case and the monthly fee will be higher than getting a connection at home. This does not really go with what FON founder, Martin Varsavsky, say about his dream to bring equal access to everybody.

Fon, as a movement, will probably succeed but it is not sure it can succeed as a commercial entreprise. This will depend of the growth of the interest for outdoor access to WiFi and also some of the rules that Fon sets on their members.

• If the population that is interested in WiFi access grow faster that the people joining the network as Linus, then Fon can generate more revenue.
• If most of the people interested in this kind of access join Fon or their competitors as members, then there will be less and less opportunities for Fon to charge these people.
• As more and more cities deploy wireless networks, the value of Fon in these cities will diminish as well

MEMBERSHIPS INCENTIVES?

Fon also need to make the rules for membership more clear. In his post announcing the support Fon received, Martin Varvasky talked about 120 days of membership. I am not sure what this means.

If you capture FON´s signal and you are not a fonero in 120 days you will have to pay to use the FON signal (Martin Varsavsky)

Unless I missed something, this could mean:

1. that somebody need to be a member of Fon for at least 4 months before being able to benefit from free roaming? OR
2. Does it mean that the people he calls Aliens can get away with not paying if they do register within 4 months of the access.

In both cases, this is something that could bother a lot of people.

• If you are trying to make money out of your acces point, (2) could mean you that you will have to wait 4 months before getting your first check and only then you will know for sure how much you made.
• If you want to get free roaming, (1) would mean that you have to setup and share your access now but you need to pay for roaming until the 4-month period has ended.

If I am right then the system don’t work as most people expects and the incentives to become part of the network become much lower.

And this is not the only problem that Fon is facing. I believe the 120 days rule may have been setup to limit freeriding on the network. Indeed, not only would Fon needs to monitor all these access points, but it may need to set a minimum threshold on hotspot usage to let users roam. I can setup today an access point with the Fon firmware and put it where nobody can access. Doing this, I bring no real value to the network but I can roam on it for free. Same thing with the account management. Since I don’t have to pay Fon to get an account if I am a Linus, what prevents me from sharing it with all my friends.
WI-FI AND THE LAW

Fon also needs to figure out clearly the legal implications for its customers and members. in several countries, operating a network requires the operator to log all connections and even in some case get a telecom operator licence. Laws are also not clear on whether a person sharing his/ her connection can be liable for the activities

No. As long as you have not actively participated in the commission of a crime or do not have knowledge that a particular individual is using your connection to commit a crime or illegal activity, it is our understanding that you are not responsible. Nevertheless, this may vary depending on the laws of each country. Furthermore, FON discourages any inappropriate use of your connection by making sure that each user of the FON Community has registered and is identifiable.No. As long as you have not actively participated in the commission of a crime or do not have knowledge that a particular individual is using your connection to commit a crime or illegal activity, it is our understanding that you are not responsible. Nevertheless, this may vary depending on the laws of each country. Furthermore, FON discourages any inappropriate use of your connection by making sure that each user of the FON Community has registered and is identifiable. (FON F.A.Q)

Fon say that its users are not liable but then says that it depends. This F.A.Q entry is really confusing and they shouldn’t state something in regard to the law if they are not totally sure.

And this does not include authentication, billing and other security issues that are going to come up shortly. Whether Fon succeed or fails, it will at least help advance the design of next generation wireless networks by forcing some of the issues to get figured out.

• How can we move from a device (or connectivity) centered approach (for ex: using a mobile phone, TV or Wi-Fi ) to a activity centered approach (watching a video, accessing securly a bank statement)?
• How can we help turn network connectivity consumers into producers (similarly to what has been done in digital media for example)?
• How can we help users have an optimal unified experience despite technologies like DRM, network neutrality,….
• How do we design networking technologies to better account for information asymmetry or bounded rationality..

Related:

• Network neutrality and the state of broadband
• Spanish company, Fon, wants to let wireless internet users share their connection
• Ubicomp 2005 video: Yellow chairs
• Yahoo! Research Labs–Berkeley and SIMS Garage Cinema

]]> http://www.iyne.org/2006/02/03/ithome-unraveling-complexities-of-networked-devices-in-the-home/feed/ 0 http://www.iyne.org/2005/12/20/workshop-at-chi-ithome-unraveling-complexities-of-networked-devices-in-the-home/ http://www.iyne.org/2005/12/20/workshop-at-chi-ithome-unraveling-complexities-of-networked-devices-in-the-home/#comments Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:29:47 +0000 Riad Lemhachheche http://www.iyne.org/?p=90 A workshop at CHI 2006 in Montreal that matches my research topics. Submission deadline of position papers has been extended to Jan 16th.

IT@Home: Unraveling Complexities of Networked Devices in the Home
CHI 2006 Workshop

Call for Participation

The home is becoming a complex and hard to manage collection of
computers and digital lifestyle devices. The work to setup and
maintain a network of digital living devices in the home is similar
to the work of IT professionals. Indeed the growing complexity of
interconnected digital devices results in more and more time spent
solving problems with those devices and their configurations, an
important part of computer use that we call “IT@Home”. The workshop
will be structured to consider four areas of focus:

• Perspectives – How should we consider IT@Home? What theories
  apply to IT@Home?
• Problem Framing – What are critical problems in IT@Home?
• Empirical Study – Case studies and examples of effectively
  studying home IT.
• Design – What are some critical design issues for IT@Home?

Contributions to these conceptual areas that are illustrated through
data and case studies will be valued by researchers, designers,
product teams and market analysts through the coming years.

Individuals interested in participating in this full-day workshop
should submit a position paper on IT@Home that addresses one of the
four areas listed above. Position papers should be limited to 4
pages. Submissions in PDF or Word should be sent to David McDonald
dwmc at u.washington.edu by Monday, January 16, 2006. Notifications of
acceptance to the workshop will be made in early February 2006.

For more information on the workshop please visit:
IT@Home: Unraveling Complexities of Networked Devices in the Home
CHI 2006 Workshop

]]> http://www.iyne.org/2005/12/20/workshop-at-chi-ithome-unraveling-complexities-of-networked-devices-in-the-home/feed/ 0 http://www.iyne.org/2005/11/03/world-usability-day/ http://www.iyne.org/2005/11/03/world-usability-day/#comments Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:04:48 +0000 Riad Lemhachheche http://www.iyne.org/2005/10/19/world-usability-day/

Today is World Usability Day. So we should think harder today (and every other day too) on how we can make things, systems, services … more useful and enjoyable to use.
For my part, I am:

• researching on how to make wireless networking more easy and natural to use
• searching and accessing information more efficient (especially multimedia)

What are you doing?

]]> http://www.iyne.org/2005/11/03/world-usability-day/feed/ 1 http://www.iyne.org/2005/10/28/wi-fi-thank-you/ http://www.iyne.org/2005/10/28/wi-fi-thank-you/#comments Fri, 28 Oct 2005 21:27:44 +0000 Riad Lemhachheche http://www.iyne.org/?p=84 From Dana Spiegel, Executive Director of NYCwireless, a New York City based non-profit organization that advocates for and enables the growth of public wireless networks.

Wi-Fi Thank You

Wi-Fi Thank You is a place where you can send a thank you message to anyone who provides a free Wi-Fi hotspot.
We believe in free wireless and appreciate the people who provide it!

This is a great idea on how to augment wireless network to provide more user interaction.

Dana also wrote an interesting post Free American Broadband about the state of broadband connections in the US compared to other countries.

Related Posts:

Ubicomp 2005 video: Yellow chairs (video of public interaction with an open WiFi hotspot)
Spanish company, Fon, wants to let wireless internet users share their connection

]]> http://www.iyne.org/2005/10/28/wi-fi-thank-you/feed/ 0 http://www.iyne.org/2005/10/21/spanish-company-fon-wants-to-free-wireless-internet/ http://www.iyne.org/2005/10/21/spanish-company-fon-wants-to-free-wireless-internet/#comments Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:44:48 +0000 Riad Lemhachheche http://www.iyne.org/?p=82 (Update)

Fon, wireless community service

As I was looking at how network providers regulate the sharing of the Internet access they provide to their subscribers, I came across the initiative from Fon.
Fon is planning on being first a Spanish Internet Service Provider (ISP) that will make it possible for subscribers to share ADSL service through wireless connection (WiFi).

Principle

Basically, suscribers could choose between 2 models:

Resellers: in this case, subscribers could resell up to 50% of their connection capacity. Fon will manage the access to other suscribers and give the user a cut of the fees it gets from that particular wireless access point. (Identified in the business model as Bill for Bill Gates I guess!) Community members: subscribers will then give up up to 50% of their connection capacity for free to others members of the service. In exchange, they will be able to roam on any of the other access points made accessible by other Fon members. (Identified in the business model as Linus for Linus Torvalds I guess!)

Requirements and availablilty

As of now, the service will require suscribers to own a compatible router, the Linksys WRT54G Wireless-G Router
The service is not operational yet. It is supposed to open around Nov 15th of this year but the Fon community sign-up page is already available.

More details are available on the Martin Varsavsky’s blog

See also this other way of sharing your connection:
Ubicomp 2005 video: Yellow chairs

]]> http://www.iyne.org/2005/10/21/spanish-company-fon-wants-to-free-wireless-internet/feed/ 8 http://www.iyne.org/2005/10/10/ubicomp-2005-video-yellow-chairs/ http://www.iyne.org/2005/10/10/ubicomp-2005-video-yellow-chairs/#comments Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:58:22 +0000 Riad Lemhachheche http://www.iyne.org/?p=77 The Yellow chair stories presented at Ubicomp related the interaction between people passing by and a wireless network connectivity materialized by a yellow chair placed in front of a house in london, UK.



For more details, see the Yellow Chair Stories – a live service design intervention and watch the Yellow Chair Stories video

See also:
Ubicomp 2005 demo: u-texture
Ubicomp 2005, Tokyo

]]> http://www.iyne.org/2005/10/10/ubicomp-2005-video-yellow-chairs/feed/ 1