Re: Guerilla Internet Service Providers (fwd)
At 01:08 AM 1/3/96 -700, you wrote:
All of this is assuming that the bandwidth is available on the airwaves to handle ~200 ~T1s. (If we're talking $200.00/mo. for T1, sign me up tomorrow, and my neighbor, and his, and hers, and... *poof* no more bandwidth in a "decently" populated metro area or even a downtown. (Back of the envelope calculations show that ~200 T1 ~= 1 TV station [although I might be off by an order of magnitude.])
I apologize if this is off topic, but the crypto part still applies (moreso, even!) to broadcast over the airwaves. (Besides, I'm sure that this list has enough subscribers that are shelling out $200-$500/mo. for 56K/Frac T1/ISDN that they'd be interested in a less expensive alternative.) Steve@AZTech.Net
To a certain extent, I think this is (or should be!) VERY MUCH "on topic." If our goal is to allow/assist privacy, we need to start actually anticipating technological developments so that we can do "minor course corrections" that will end up guaranteeing unbreakable security. One of these is by routing data through organizations (NOT THE PHONE CO!) that won't tend to kow-tow to the wishes of the government. We know that if this telephone-company bypass is done, it can either be done "right" (from a cypherpunks standpoint; so that it's including encryption, etc) or "wrong." If we don't plan ahead, it will almost certainly be done "wrong." Witness the fact that the vast majority of modems contain no encryption standard, for example. If USR or somebody else had mandated it in 1982 with 2400 bps modems, we might all be talking on encrypted lines already. And as you pointed out, this is especially important if RF is the medium-of-choice for connections. We should definitely make a serious amount of contact with people working on the PCS standards to ensure that GOOD encryption is included.
jim bell wrote:
And as you pointed out, this is especially important if RF is the medium-of-choice for connections. We should definitely make a serious amount of contact with people working on the PCS standards to ensure that GOOD encryption is included.
If by PCS you mean the GSM derived 2GHz system, then I believe that they use the A5 algorithm, the same as GSM. Unless they are using one of deliberately crippled versions, then I think you'll find that this is quite tough stuff. Seeing as the rest of the planet seems to have gone with GSM 900, it's a shame you guys didn't do likewise, you'd have had proper international roaming and decent airlink encryption for years by now ;) As a semi-aside, I'm not sure if anyone here has mentioned it yet, but the DCS 1800 (another GSM variant) based "Orange" UK cellphone operator, recently announced that they have linked their MSC direct with the Demon ISP (biggest UK ISP), so that you can now get a 9600 baud encrypted pure digital Internet link. It's not exactly as cheap as a local call, and 9600 baud isn't exactly flying, but ... Andy M PS Ok then, maybe I _am_ biased towards GSM, see .sig ;) -- Andrew Meredith Senior Systems Engineer Tel: (direct) +44(0) 1793 545377 Network Engineering Tools Group Tel: (main) +44(0) 1793 541541 Motorola, GSM Products Division Fax: +44(0) 1793 512618 16, Euroway, Blagrove SMTP: meredith@ecid.cig.mot.com Swindon, SN5 8YQ, UK X400: Andrew_Meredith-QSWI016@email.mot.com
participants (2)
-
Andrew Meredith -
jim bell