Marina base station coverage?

John Navas hath wroth:

Oh, so that's what it's called. Using Google, I found:

formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
not much else. Seems to be a rather small market for remote authentication or a possible market to be expanded. Dunno.

No need to buy it. I offer my arguments for free. However, donations are always welcome.

I can substantiate my logic and observations if you want, but I find it odd that you would disagree. The rules for what constitutes privacy are constantly being re-written by various incursions into our civil rights on an almost daily basis. Every time there's a major problem, the standard law enforcement solution is a dramatic reduction in our civil rights, including privacy, that is required to supply law enforcement. Whether it's no knock rules, automated wire tap, at&t and NSA style internet spying, DMCA enforcement by subpoena of ISP logs, and such, it's a change in civil rights which directly affects privacy. Even a reputable ISP will resort to a form of mild privacy violation, by sniffing traffic, in order to remove spam, viruses, and kiddie p*rn.

In the case of the shared satellite link, the privacy violation is in the form of traffic monitoring and disclosing the traffic summaries to the other members of the group in order to justify the metered billing. I've had complaints about this practice on the basis of privacy, mostly from those that don't undestand that I don't collect URL's or record anything about web sites visited or porno downloaded. Just the total bytes. However, if they insist that I must be spying on them, my standard answer is to suggest they pay for their own satellite link.

I've re-read my 3 statements and still don't understand what you find disagreeable. I have a system with 13 houses and about 30 users that has been functional for about 2.5 years without violence or litigation. I think that's sufficient to demonstrate that both the technology and the philosophy of charging by bandwidth used is totally functional. Whether it can be applied to a shared wireless connection in a harbor is debateable, but there may be some aspects worth adopting.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann
Loading thread data ...

John Navas hath wroth:

How did you do it? I tried to simulate the HughesNet FAP traffic control with ipfw and failed. I had some scripts running from cron every 5 minutes to update the traffic statistics and used the result to throttle the traffic to/from the IP address. I also tried the same thing use the MRTG database files. I never could get it working, probably because I'm a lousy programmist.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Quite correct. I've always found it rather pathetic when people start railing about "privacy" when they have no idea just how much they've already given up and continue to give up on a daily basis. Being able to run services with some degree of reliability requires an overview of what's active on the wire, so to speak. This doesn't mean acting UPON the knowledge of what's on that wire. I share, pun intented, your sentiments about the newness of the phenomenon and the emerging nature of the "rules" guiding it.

Reply to
Bill Kearney

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 20:34:28 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote in :

I used an inexpensive computer whose primary purpose was to be a firewall, writing my own code to monitor traffic volume and adjust speed caps by LAN address using (as best I can recall) tc and iproute2. For some background, see . (It's been some time since I did it, and I no longer have access to the system -- I'd have to start over from scratch to do it again.)

Reply to
John Navas

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 18:22:37 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote in :

That privacy is being compromised in other ways doesn't mean further compromise is warranted. If my ISP were to publish anything about me, I'd promptly switch to a different ISP.

The issue is disclosure of usage to others, and even just the amount of traffic could be a significant problem. For example, when I'm working as an expert in complex litigation, the amount of data I'm sending and receiving could easily be used when I'm being deposed. No thanks.

That is of course you privilege, but I personally don't think that's a reasonable response.

Perhaps, but a sample of one isn't terribly compelling. I've seen unpleasantness arise in shared systems, and think it best to bend over backwards to avoid it.

What person A is doing is really of no concern of anyone else, and with automatic traffic shaping there's no need to make serious loss of privacy part of the price for service.

Reply to
John Navas

John Navas hath wroth:

I used the Linux Router HowTo as a reference guide for setting up the QoS part using the scripts from Chonox.

formatting link
problem was that I had to change the rule set on the fly every 5 minutes. That required signaling iproute2 to re-read the tables which resulted in packet loss at the transition. I never could figure out a way around it. Frankly, I was lost. Anyway, it's not currently an active requirement and I assume that someone will eventually publish a user friendly version of the FAP that I can plagiarize. Thanks much.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.