Gregory Shearman <ZekeGregory@xxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> On 2008-08-13, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Sinister Midget
>><fardblossom@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:53:26 -0500
>><mdr9n5-pnt.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> On 2008-08-13, bbgruff <bbgruff@xxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
>>>
>>>> While I have your attention, may I ask what you guys pay typically for a
>>>> telephone line and national calls? In fact, considering the size of the
>>>> U.S., perhaps we ought to say "unlimited calls withing the state!"?
>>>
>>> I wouldn't know. I've been using VOIP since 2004. At the time I dropped
>>> local phone comapny, though, I was paying about $23/month unlimited
>>> local, plus long distance.
>>>
>>> When I lived in Illinois about 14 years ago, I paid about $18/month
>>> plus 3.4¢ per local call, and the same long distance rate I paid when I
>>> moved across the river to Missouri, where local calls weren't added to
>>> the local bill. The monthly bill at that time was about the same price.
>>>
>>> I got Vonage for VOIP with the the 500 minute plan and it was costing
>>> me $16/month (that was local and long distance minutes, but only when
>>> calling out) when I changed companies. This year I've paid about
>>> $13/month for unlimited local and long distance. That will go up to
>>> about $20/month when I renew my deal in October because the price has
>>> gone up.
>>>
>>> Unless I change companies again. Which I might.
>>>
>>> But it won't be a local telco. My brother used to work for them. He
>>> said one of the reasons they give such crappy wired service is because
>>> they want to push more people to wireless where they make more money. I
>>> have wireless, but I still need a wired line, and VOIP does the job
>>> fine.
>>>
>>
>> I get worried about wireless -- all those packets flying
>> about, easily sniffable. One might work around that with
>> encryption; I don't know the details.
>
> I use openvpn on my lan/wifi. It's dead easy to install, configure,debug
> and use. The only drawback is the load it puts on my Linksys WRT54GL.
> When more than a few wifi devices are working through it, it gets warm,
> and there is a bit of a slowdown.
>
> I'd get a beefier processor for my router/vpn than the Broadcom Mips if I
> had my druthers. An xscale would probably do the job better. I could use
> my NSLU2 as my vpn server but then I'd complicate my network and make
> firewalling more error prone.
>
> As for a WAN, I don't know how that works with any of the wifi
> providers. I checked mine and it's only available in the State Capital
> (Sydney) which is no good for me. It doesn't look like they provide
> encryption. You'd probably have to use a vpn tunnel if you are sending
> anything sensitive. I use a vpn tunnel across the internet through to my
> home lan... and my laptop is transparently a part of my home Lan from
> anywhere in the world, and very secure... no X509 certificate, no
> connection. I use triple lines of protection on my wifi... WEP is the
> first fence, keeps out the honest people.... then I use iptables MAC
> filtering, to keep out the stupid.... then I use encrypted tunnels. No
> X509, no connection to my LAN/WIFI network.
Very wise too!
>
>> The good news: my understanding is that certain cities
>> are trying to set up citywide Wifi. The bad news: such
>> efforts are spotty at best.
>
> True. There's a good wifi spot in my city, a whole suburb's main street
> which is full of alfresco cafes and restaurants.. sit down with your
> lappy and order a cup of java. Some pubs and cafes around the city
> implement their own "public" wifi for their customers.. but overall
> public wifi is very spotty, but then again, this is Australia, Mate.
> We've got emus and kangaroos running down the main street...
>
> I also think people should be more secure in their use of public wifi.
> Crikey... if your laptop contains sensitive information and you are
> using wifi without encryption then you are wide open to attack. Perhaps
> there should be more public education in this regard.
>
>
There is a fundamental bandwidth/physics problem with public wifi
networks, though. The more people are sharing the same bit of 2.4GHz
spectrum, the less bandwidth you get. Unlike in cellular networks,
where fair sharing is forced, wifi's more of a biggest wins.
If you have too many people, then you'll need more wired network up to
more wifi APs, with micro-cells as the final result, if you keep going
that way.
--
| mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |
|
|
