Researchers Test WiFi Access From Moving Vehicles 155
Julie188 writes "Researchers from Microsoft and the University of Massachusetts have been working on a technology that would let mobile phones and other 3G devices automatically switch to public WiFi even while the device is traveling in a vehicle. The technology is dubbed Wiffler and earlier this year its creators took it for a test drive with some interesting results. Although the researchers determined that a reliable public WiFi hotspot would be available to their test vehicles only 11% of the time, the Wiffler protocol was able to offload almost 50% of the data from 3G to WiFi."
call it what it is (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:call it what it is (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
- Dan.
Re: (Score:2)
Researched this myself (Score:4, Interesting)
But once you have the physical layer taken care of, you can play cool little tricks like data queuing for WAPs to save cost. Locational awareness is also feasible to anticipate whether there will be a hotspot in a quarter of a mile or to go ahead with the transfer now.
Cohda (Score:3, Informative)
not gonna work (Score:5, Insightful)
When I hit one of these, it sort of grinds everything to a halt, as the phone thinks it has a wi-fi connection but does not.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There really needs to be a standard way for an access point to say "I have no wireless authentication, but I am not open" when advertising itself, to allow devices to respond appropriately.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a bit like posting a sign that says "please no trespassing, we're not going to call the cops, but we don't want to have to see you trespassing."
Re: (Score:2)
Not if the router's set up in such a way that you have to log in/purchase time on a web form before it'll actually let your IP address talk to the internet as a whole, which is the problem in question.
Re:not gonna work (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with that approach is that it takes a long time, so it isn't suitable for mobile applications (not even if you're just walking). First you have to scan the available frequencies for beacon frames, then you have to send a frame to associate, then you have to receive an acknowledgment, then you have to send a DHCP broadcast, then the DHCP server has to give you an IP address, then you have to send a ping (echo request) to a host on the internet, then you have to get an echo reply back and only the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because it doesn't work on your iFruit doesn't mean that it won't work with something that was designed for this purpose.
But how would a city bus line offering Wi-Fi negotiate carriage with every AP on its routes?
Re:Yo moron (Score:5, Insightful)
But how would a city bus line offering Wi-Fi negotiate carriage with every AP on its routes?
And would a bus using this technology in the Netherlands have to register as an ISP?
Re:Yo moron (Score:4, Interesting)
Wi-Fi for pass holders only (Score:3)
It will be nigh impossible to restrict access to people inside the bus, unless you feel like changing the passkey for the connection every you hop onto a bus.
Or unless the captive portal requires logging in with credentials issued by the transit authority. For example, even a bus system that doesn't operate on Sundays [fwcitilink.com] issues reduced-fare cards to seniors and people with disabilities, and it also sells monthly passes.
Re:Yo moron (Score:4, Interesting)
The main problem would be in tunnels and plain old congestion.
Define "Public" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Define "Public" (Score:4, Informative)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6960304.stm [bbc.co.uk]
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070116/115327.shtml [techdirt.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I anm was arrested. Big deal. Arrest isn't conviction, and regarding the Singapore lad, it's in Singapore. Not exactly number one for human rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Define "Public" (Score:4, Insightful)
So, if I have an electrical outlet outside of my house and I don't "secure it", should people be able to plug into my electricity with impunity? How about my garden hose? If I don't physically bar someone from parking in my driveway, that's OK? Is it OK to help yourself to my garden? How about siphoning the gas out of my car?
There's loads of things in the physical world that aren't necessarily secured, but that you don't have a reasonable expectation of being able to use.
I don't agree in any way that just because the wireless isn't 100% locked down that you should get a free pass to just use it. You know you're using a network that isn't yours -- just because you can connect to it doesn't mean you have carte blanch.
Re: (Score:2)
electricity (or the fuel driving the turbine at least) can be used up. Bandwidth can only be saturated.
Re: (Score:2)
You're running under the assumption that the home owner has an unmetered broadband connection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Assuming 30 days in a month that 250GB limit would be reached with a consistent throughput of just over 100 KBps. If you can't push that over your wireless connection then you have something seriously wrong in your network setup.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, they typically are.
For now, yes. But when (yes *when*, Verizon is already planning to roll out a usage-based fee model, and I'm willing to bet other ISPs won't be far behind) that happens, will you no longer advocate unauthorized use of other people's internet connectivity?
Re:Define "Public" (Score:5, Insightful)
I see where you're going with that line of thinking and I agree to an extent. However, all of those analogies require you to physically go out and take/plug in/steal something that clearly isn't yours and shouldn't be.
Logging onto an unsecured WiFi connection can be done incredibly easy while I'm in my pajamas in the middle of a blizzard. It can also be done innocently and unknowingly. "Wait, there are 4 "linksys" networks, which was mine again?".
While I don't agree with torrenting or otherwise saturating someones connection, leaving it wide open and then being pissed when someone logs onto it is almost as ridiculous as yelling to your neighbor across the street and getting mad when another neighbors listens in and potentially adds their two cents. If you're not going to take the time to secure your broadcast transmissions, don't get pissed at those who listen/use it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
*laugh* For one, there is no "it was so easy I did it in my underpants" defense. Ease doesn't equate with right -- stealing candy from babies is trivial, for instance. ;-)
There's also a huge difference between inadvertently using the wrong wifi, and intentionally looking for u
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The last couple wifi routers I have bought have been setup in this way, or with a very complex key that you can change if you like, but have to have physical access to see.
Re: (Score:2)
And, it's important to note that I'm not disagreeing with you per se ... I'm merely advocating for a different position than you. You make some good points, I just don't think it's a binary issue. I think it's far more complex -- categorical statements in most endeavors (I will refrain from saying "all" ;-) aren't really helpful.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that most of these use hard-coded IP addresses. If you run DHCP on your network, turning off the radio means you really have to plug the thing into a dedicated network connection to configure it.
Wouldn't it be easier (though slightly more risky) and still within acceptable risk to turn off the ethernet port until it is configured?
Moreover most of the wizards are Wind
Re: (Score:2)
Almost all home wireless routers I see in the UK are either secured and have a default SSID (e.g. BTInternet24829, Thomson3468FE etc) or are unsecured and have a custom SSID (FreeNet, CoffeeShop, etc).
The big ISPs send out routers preconfigured with all the necessary settings, and the default SSID and WPA key on a sticker on the bottom of the router. I just moved house, and my new router came like this, but there's also an option to set up a public (unsecured) network as well. (I haven't bothered yet, we're
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The big ISPs all provide a free wireless router (some seem to have this as a permanent "promotion", others just write things like "we'll send you a wireless box").
The small ones I've dealt with do too, but might charge an extra £30-40 for it.
I assume it prevents lots of technical support calls to send them out preconfigured.
Re: (Score:2)
*laugh* For one, there is no "it was so easy I did it in my underpants" defense. Ease doesn't equate with right -- stealing candy from babies is trivial, for instance. ;-)
The difference is that you do not begin automatically stealing candy from babies as you walk around them. The argument is perfectly fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the other day I was walking along and noticed a nice park. I looked around and I saw a few unsecured benches. I looked around for a sign telling me who the owner was so that I could contact them and ask if it was open to the public, or if it was a privately owned bench left unsecured by someone else, but I could not find one. Without any indication that it wasn't a privately owned, unsecured bench sitting in a public place, I decided to use it.
While sitting I decided to pull out my iDevice, and starte
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So that's three things.
(On each hand. So, six things total.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if you leave your front porch light on, should I be able to stand on the public sidewalk and read by it?
Or, if you leave your blinds open and your big screen T.V. on, should I be able to stand on the public sidewalk and watch?
Your cases are different because there are per-usage charges for the items you mention: water and electricity. If you paid a flat-rate for either, regardless of usage, it would be an interesting question. Especially because neither of them are "yours", you are just paying for usa
Re: (Score:2)
My internet is charged and metered. If I go beyond a certain amount, I pay for it. So, it's not a flat-rate, infinite supply scenario. Until my ISP stops telling me that bandwidth is finite and metered, it remains so.
Now, my wifi is locked down, but I just don't think your argument about bandwidth holds water. I would argue for most people, their internet connection is far from being an un-metered, infinite service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. Standard setup in the U.S., from major Cable/DSL/Fiber ISPs is a flat-rate, unmetered connection that is limited by data rate (and ISP whim). Short of a satellite or cellphone connection, I can't remember the last time I saw a metered connection offered.
With an open WiFi connection -- the only type I'm discussing -- you're walking a fine line with your definition. The problem is many systems are set up out-of-the-box to connect to any open wifi link in range. It makes life easier for tech s
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Canada, you get X Gigs/month at one rate. As you go over that, you essentially pay per gig. I had understood that even in the US, "unlimited" came with footnotes that essentially say "unlimited does not mean unlimited".
I'm not saying that's f
Re: (Score:2)
So far, every account I have has been "unlimited, but there is a cap" and over the cap they don't charge, but they start throttling hard.
I have 3 kids at home that live on online games, online videos and chat. It isn't uncommon for them to all be set up with Teamspeak and Xfire for voice chat, with multiple chats at once; WoW or some such; plus a TV show streaming in a window. I should probably look at my bandwidth usage... :-) Comcast hasn't screamed at me lately.
Yes, you're right in that there is a bi
Re: (Score:2)
Or, if you leave your blinds open and your big screen T.V. on, should I be able to stand on the public sidewalk and watch?
Well that is a special case, there might be local laws regarding peering into open windows.
But I think your point is valid. If I leave my wireless unsecured and it is spilling outside my house such that someone on the street can connect to the network, I can't really claim anyone is stealing my wireless. I made it accessible to the public. If I left a bowl of candy sitting on my front step, I'm not going to get angry at kids for stealing my candy.
Re: (Score:2)
At least until the NFL catches wind of it and drops lawyers on you for a public showing of their broadcast without express written consent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want to share your resources with the public, quit using the public airwaves to broadcast the availability of your resources for free, which is what an open access point does. It specifically tells other systems that it is there. It tells those systems that it is available. It assigns them the necessary address information required to make use of it. It happily routes for them. It does all of this across what the government considers a public resource: a segment of the EM spectrum used for comm
Re: (Score:2)
Would someone be able to use your garden hose without leaving the comfort of their own home?
But then, does it cause you grief if someone on the sidewalk is listening to the music you are playing even though you paid (presumably) for the CD, and they are simply freeloading? You could turn it down or close the window (secure it from prying ears)
Re: (Score:2)
I merely make a counter-point to that argument that if the owner hasn't made steps to secure it, you get to use the resource with impunity. A point for discussion, not an absolutely final statement. I tend not to believe in black and white situations, and exploring the gray is often more interesting.
Sometimes, things which
Re: (Score:2)
Since you don't like black and white, let's discuss shades of explicitness. How explicit of permission do I need?
Is the broadcasting of "open network here" explicit enough? Each WiFi client card has its own uniquely assigned (unless I'm taking steps to clone someone's in order to trick the AP, of course, which would be stealing) MAC address which identifies it. Isn't it pretty explicit that I'm allowed to communicate with your AP if it associates with my device with its unique MAC? How about the DHCP server
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your electrical outlet is on your property; using it is tresspassing. Youe wifi signal is on MY propery. If you plug an extension cord into that outlet and toss the other end in my yard, I'm going to assume you have a flat fee for electricity and don't mind sharing it with me.
Re: (Score:2)
If I have a garden hose laying in my yard and it's running and a neighbor walks INTO my yard and drags it over to HIS yard and waters his flowers with it, then that would be "theft" of my water.
If I have a sprinkler in my yard and it's going into my neighbors yard and watering his grass, I can't complain that he's benefiting from my water.
The extension cord analogy is the same, if a neighbor walks into my yard and plugs something into my extens
To expand on your garden hose analogy. (Score:2)
>How about my garden hose?
I think your garden hose analogy is quite appropriate.
You are correct, that I should be able to walk onto your property and turn on your water and use your garden hose.
But what if you set up a sprinkler in your yard, and some of your water sprays over into my yard?
Should I be able to set out a bowl and collect the water that you are spraying into my yard? I think so.
Your hypothetical unsecured wireless router is broadcasting beyond the boundaries of your property, and by the pr
Re: (Score:2)
And, to answer a question with another question ...
The closest example I can think of to this is satellite and other telecoms signals. Does the fact that a signal reaches you give you the legal right to use it? Or is it still considered private?
I know broadcasters h
Re: Define "Obvious" (Score:2)
But beyond that, unsecured wireless connections usually have a DHCP server running on them that is in essence advertising access and providing IP addresses to any takers. So if y
Re: (Score:2)
I stupidly put angle brackets around the SSID I wanted to say - (donotconnecttome)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on where you live really. Some would say your driveway is private property, but the legal arm of the government (in the US and some places elsewhere) really doesn't think it is so they can go in your driveway and then attach a GPS module to your car. Since your private parking lot has recently been declared public property, you really can't do anything when I park there, use (or remove) the water hose and electricity that you offer for free to the public.
At least that's how precedent and the law wor
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want people to use it, it's a trivial matter to configure your router to stop inviting people to use it. Turn off SSID. Lower the signal strength so it stays on your own property and out of public spaces. Implement WEP or WPA.
You dismissively state that configuring wireless security is trivial, when most people don't even understand why wireless security is important, let alone how to go about implementing it. Everything you listed there makes no sense to the person who can just go to best buy and hook up a router. Open wireless networks are real easy to set up. As soon as you as security, it's an entirely different matter.
First you have to go to http://192.168.1.1/ [192.168.1.1] or some such, which is a completely foreign address to most peo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it should be the owners responsibility to secure their network
Secure the computers, leave internet access unfettered. If I see an unsecured access point my assumption is that the owner isn't a selfish hog and doesn't mind sharing his bandwidth.
Theres never been a problem using wifi in a car... (Score:2, Insightful)
... so long as its not moving. If you're a passenger in a car doing 70mph you're going to be in and out of range of a wifi hotspot in a matter of seconds so what exactly is the point of this research? To prevent people getting bored in traffic jams in towns?
Re: (Score:2)
It could be useful on a bus -- they tend to be in cities, the passengers tend to be bored, and they don't go very fast. (Cars in cities too, but they tend not to have passengers.)
It might work on a train, but railways are less likely to be in WiFi range (tunnels, and the land around railways isn't often the kind of place you'd get free WiFi). It's probably easier to stick with the current system: have a WiFi hotspot on the train and let that figure out what to do (3G, Satellite, or however they do it).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Correction, 3G is artificially expensive (come on, NOBODY needs to account in pence per Mb any more!), sticking the equivalent of a basic business DSL-line connected DSL on every cell tower would cost nothing and allowing roaming between countries where the same operator is present in both (T-Mobile, I'm looking at you) means that's data is basically pence per Gb. You can QoS-limit it over the airwaves to prevent congestion (it SHOULD be the lowest priority traffic, even below SMS if that can be done) but
Re: (Score:2)
The problem you describe isn't really a problem. It's been solved on a small scale.This could solve it on a huge scale.
There are many uses for connecting to the internet beside surfing and watching videos.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless th vehicle is moving slowly then by the time the device has negotiated a connection with a wifi hotspot then its probably already out of range.
good for text messaging, notgood for streaming vid (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the benefit of WiFi speeds can be used for extremely low bandwidth needs, but not high ones. Great, I'll be much happier that my 50 byte messages go over WiFi after a couple minutes than over 3G immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
11% of the time (Score:4, Funny)
... researchers determined that a reliable public WiFi hotspot would be available to their test vehicles only 11% of the time ...
but then a closer look found that in those cases, 99% had the SID "Free Public WiFi".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... presumably that means "with functioning internet access".
Well, I wouldn't bet on that. In my experience, when the connection-state display widget on a screen says 4 bars of signal, it means you have "reliable" messages between your gadget and one relay tower. It doesn't mean you can reliably exchange data with anything beyond that tower. It's merely the level-1 link status.
Does anyone's handset actually test connection to a remote site before showing its "4 bars" status?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would hope that when specifically testing for availability, the researchers did a little more than drive around and see if their iphone could associate with the ap ;)
Yeah, I'd hope so, too. But I wouldn't bet on it.
Actually, with WiFI, it typically takes several seconds for a "connection" to the AP to stabilize. Consider the typical range of 30 or 40 m with WiFi APs, if you're in a moving vehicle, what are the chances you'd still be in range by the time the reply to a TCP message came back?
Re: (Score:2)
if you're in a moving vehicle, what are the chances you'd still be in range by the time the reply to a TCP message came back?
If you have that problem, the AP is going to be useless to you for offloading data to as well. This sort of usage is clearly unusual, and there are plenty of ways it can fail, but that's kind of why it's interesting - it gives you the possibility to offload data onto a wifi network if it's possible to do so. If you're not in range long enough, or don't find an open AP soon enough,
Re: (Score:2)
I've actually seen this issue with wifi. With the laptops that work uses, the green bars icon at the bottom can show 4 green bars - indicating that the user has good signal. To the laptop only.
If you look on the controller/access point, there are times that the user's laptop is having severe difficulty reaching the AP - hence even though the user has 4 or 5 bars, the AP cannot process any packets (they're garbage) and the user's applications don't work.
I think that the cell towers/phones work the same way
Thats thinking too small (Score:2)
I've been saying it be over a decade: put the repeaters in the cars, create a dynamic mesh network. Don't correctly, a signal could travel hundreds of miles, from vehicle to vehicle. Pretty much all centrals of large populations would have WiFi access corresponding to the number of people using it.
Re: (Score:2)
And the latency would be *atrocious*. Yeah, for a simple text message it might be okay, but for anything beyond that, it'd be a lesson in frustration.
Ricochet (Score:2)
Using the phone while driving (Score:2)
I feel like this is just encouraging me to use the phone and internet while driving. Awesome. Nothing more annoying than slow internet in slow traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
It's for passengers, not drivers. Using the internet (or texting or reading a book) while driving is just plain stupid and dangerous to others.
Why should we have to... (Score:2)
Transparently switching from secure to insecure (Score:2)
"Researchers from Microsoft and the University of Massachusetts have been working on a technology that would let mobile phones and other 3G devices automatically switch to public WiFi even while the device is traveling in a vehicle.
"Hey my traffic can't be sniffed, hey my traffic is now being sniffed, hey it's secure again, now it's not!" Brilliant.
Already been done (Score:2, Interesting)
Free Public Wi-Fi (Score:2)
More reading: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/news/features/wiffler-091610.aspx [microsoft.com]
802.11p (Score:2, Interesting)
only 50% - must not have been on 128 at rush hours (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe this study will wake up the apps developers to intermittent connectivity and make the device much easier to use.
LoB
Host Information Protocol (HIP) (Score:3, Informative)
Previous Research (Score:2, Informative)
Whatever Happened to UMA Network Handoffs? (Score:2)
I thought UMA was supposed to give mobile devices a Generic Access Network [wikipedia.org] that would switch them seamlessly among GSM, WiFi and CDMA networks. We're already getting phones calling themselves "4G" - don't we have working UMA/GAN devices by now.
Re: (Score:2)
It has been proven that radio waves transfer their energy to nearby tissue
"Proven?" It's elementary physics. Energy is transfered to and from your body all the time from the air, objects, sound, light, and yes, EM waves. This isn't a point of contention (unless you're from the 1600s). The question is to what degree do radio waves stimulate cancer growth, and that is still open.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad you recognize it's an uninformed guess. Just so you know, visible light is EM radiation, and it has a much higher frequency than radio waves.
With respect to the issue of cancer, it's not a simple matter of "What frequency resonates with cells"