I've wanted some Internet service that I can access on the road from
different places in the USA, that means that I usually have some level
of connectivity, and at least in many metropolitan areas lets me have
something near broadband speeds with low latency - without having to go
to a public place.
Is there anything like this yet? As far as I can tell, things either
aren't much rolled out yet, or they're aimed at particular types of
connection rather than someone just with a laptop wanting general
Internet usage - ssh, ftp, sip/h323, etc. - and with a globally routable
IP, even if it's dynamically-allocated, instead of an RFC1918 address.
So, I haven't been blown away yet by what I've seen on offer so far,
based on what I can tell of what cellphone providers, etc. have been
doing. Am I missing something? It's sure been hard to tell exactly
what's on offer.
Basically, is it possible for people who travel from city to city a lot
to get proper broadband Internet connectivity (as if they brought their
cable modem along or whatever) without having to go to particular hotel
chains or Starbucks or whatever to find themselves on 802.11g behind
NAT, or limiting what kind of Internet access they have? (e.g., some
packages seem designed with the expectation you just download web pages
or whatever.) Is there just not the demand?
If (as I suspect) not, who or what should I be looking at if I want to
notice when it appears? Is there any effort in this direction?
Mark T.B. Carroll wrote:
> I've wanted some Internet service that I can access on the road from
> different places in the USA, that means that I usually have some level
> of connectivity, and at least in many metropolitan areas lets me have
> something near broadband speeds with low latency - without having to
> go to a public place.
>
> Is there anything like this yet? As far as I can tell, things either
> aren't much rolled out yet, or they're aimed at particular types of
> connection rather than someone just with a laptop wanting general
> Internet usage - ssh, ftp, sip/h323, etc. - and with a globally
> routable IP, even if it's dynamically-allocated, instead of an
> RFC1918 address.
>
> So, I haven't been blown away yet by what I've seen on offer so far,
> based on what I can tell of what cellphone providers, etc. have been
> doing. Am I missing something? It's sure been hard to tell exactly
> what's on offer.
>
> Basically, is it possible for people who travel from city to city a
> lot to get proper broadband Internet connectivity (as if they brought
> their cable modem along or whatever) without having to go to
> particular hotel chains or Starbucks or whatever to find themselves
> on 802.11g behind NAT, or limiting what kind of Internet access they
> have? (e.g., some packages seem designed with the expectation you
> just download web pages or whatever.) Is there just not the demand?
>
> If (as I suspect) not, who or what should I be looking at if I want to
> notice when it appears? Is there any effort in this direction?
>
> Mark
Most of what you want is available very easily(broadband anywhere with wifi
or cell cards), the other odd parts, that would kill the security at most
hotspots, is very easy to get around if you have a system you can access via
VPN, and that system does all the odd stuff.....
For example, I use GoToMyPC to tunnel in from my laptop when traveling, to
my home machine, and THAT does all the odd stuff... Seems like doing
something like that (a machine at home or work that does all you want, and
just vpn into that machine from others, would let you do all the stuff you
want)may be something to look into....
"Peter Pan" <PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com> writes:
(snip)
> Most of what you want is available very easily(broadband anywhere with wifi
> or cell cards), the other odd parts,
Really, something like a variety of 3G or EDGE or something is rolled
out enough to painlessly support things like H.323 from many places?
> that would kill the security at most hotspots, is very easy to get
> around if you have a system you can access via VPN, and that system
> does all the odd stuff.....
If need be I could rent a bit of someone's Xen-based server in a colo or
something - though then I pay for bandwidth three times over (e.g., from
my laptop, into my rented server, back out my server again - or
vice-versa) and it adds latency, but it may still be plenty tolerable.
Nobody gives out non-RFC1918 addresses then, or is it that they still
firewall it heavily and I'd need to tunnel over that?
Mark T.B. Carroll wrote:
> "Peter Pan" <PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com> writes:
> (snip)
>> Most of what you want is available very easily(broadband anywhere
>> with wifi or cell cards), the other odd parts,
>
> Really, something like a variety of 3G or EDGE or something is rolled
> out enough to painlessly support things like H.323 from many places?
>
>> that would kill the security at most hotspots, is very easy to get
>> around if you have a system you can access via VPN, and that system
>> does all the odd stuff.....
>
> If need be I could rent a bit of someone's Xen-based server in a colo
> or something - though then I pay for bandwidth three times over
> (e.g., from my laptop, into my rented server, back out my server
> again - or vice-versa) and it adds latency, but it may still be
> plenty tolerable. Nobody gives out non-RFC1918 addresses then, or is
> it that they still firewall it heavily and I'd need to tunnel over
> that?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Mark
Not sure if I explained that very well....
At home I have dsl/cable/now fios, and run my own machine at home 24/7....
On the road with the laptop, I just tunnel into my computer at home, and
when on the road use something like gotomypc that just repeats the
screen/keyboard mouse etc from the machine at home on my laptop wherever I
happen to be, so the actual work is actually done by the PC at home, I just
basically see what the screen would show if I were home and in front of
it.... Seems to work pretty well, and I never have to worry about what is
blocked or not as I travel around....
From the way you sort of asked, thought maybe something similar would work
for you....
"Peter Pan" <PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com> writes:
(snip)
> Not sure if I explained that very well....
> At home I have dsl/cable/now fios, and run my own machine at home 24/7....
> On the road with the laptop,
How do you get broadband low-latency connectivity with the laptop
without having to go to public places like Starbucks or particular hotel
chains or whatever?
(snip)
> From the way you sort of asked, thought maybe something similar would work
> for you....
Unfortunately, if I want real-time videotelephony using H.323 or
something, the latency is going to kill me: even without wireless
delays, wherever I have the machine I route through, it's often going to
take around 0.1s or so for packets to go one-way from where I am to that
machine. So, add on the time for them to reach my interlocutor, and then
the trip back again, and it could be unusable because we'll keep
interrupting each other. I fear that the latency will be too high once
having an intermediary machine doubles it.
Mark T.B. Carroll wrote:
> "Peter Pan" <PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com> writes:
> (snip)
>> Not sure if I explained that very well....
>> At home I have dsl/cable/now fios, and run my own machine at home
>> 24/7.... On the road with the laptop,
>
> How do you get broadband low-latency connectivity with the laptop
> without having to go to public places like Starbucks or particular
> hotel chains or whatever?
>
> (snip)
>> From the way you sort of asked, thought maybe something similar
>> would work for you....
>
> Unfortunately, if I want real-time videotelephony using H.323 or
> something, the latency is going to kill me: even without wireless
> delays, wherever I have the machine I route through, it's often going
> to take around 0.1s or so for packets to go one-way from where I am
> to that machine. So, add on the time for them to reach my
> interlocutor, and then the trip back again, and it could be unusable
> because we'll keep interrupting each other. I fear that the latency
> will be too high once having an intermediary machine doubles it.
>
> It's a pity it's not easier to test first!
>
> Mark
Not exactly sure what you mean, the latency for controlling the desktop via
the laptop is sort of immateial, since the stuff actually runs on the
desktop, the notebook just controls it....
As for videophony, haven't really played with that, my cell phone also does
wifi, so I can use it over wifi at many places, and as a cell phone if not
blocked or no hotspots available... If at home, I do video conferencing
stuff on the desktop (ie just voice when travelling, video only at home)
> Mark T.B. Carroll wrote:
(snip)
>> Unfortunately, if I want real-time videotelephony using H.323 or
>> something, the latency is going to kill me
(snip)
> Not exactly sure what you mean, the latency for controlling the desktop via
> the laptop is sort of immateial, since the stuff actually runs on the
> desktop, the notebook just controls it....
The latency for controlling the desktop is very material if I'm doing
videotelephony from the laptop! The audio and video will take more time
to get between me and my interlocutor so we'll interrupt each other.
> As for videophony, haven't really played with that, my cell phone also does
> wifi, so I can use it over wifi at many places, and as a cell phone if not
> blocked or no hotspots available... If at home, I do video conferencing
> stuff on the desktop (ie just voice when travelling, video only at home)
Ah, right - you're using 802.11g or something. I wish it were a bit more
ubiquitous! Most places still don't have it. ): At least, as far as I
know, you have to go to a Holiday Inn or a McDonald's or a Starbucks or
something. I was hoping for something I could access from wherever I
stay.
Mark T.B. Carroll wrote:
>
> Ah, right - you're using 802.11g or something. I wish it were a bit
> more ubiquitous! Most places still don't have it. ): At least, as far
> as I know, you have to go to a Holiday Inn or a McDonald's or a
> Starbucks or something. I was hoping for something I could access
> from wherever I stay.
>
> Thanks, anyway.
>
> Mark
Just wondering where you ever got that idea... I have been travelling for
years, almost always have a wifi connction, and never ever not seen a wifi
connection near where I am (there are literally THOUSANDS of open ones
almost everywhere). Just an aside, got a laptop with a wifi card? Check out http://www.netstumbler.org/ (the netstumbler software is free can be
downloaded from there, and the forums are pretty good too). If you
download/install it and drive around, you would be rather surprised/amazed
at how many wifi systems are available.
"Peter Pan" <PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com> writes:
(snip)
> Just wondering where you ever got that idea... I have been travelling for
> years, almost always have a wifi connction, and never ever not seen a wifi
> connection near where I am (there are literally THOUSANDS of open ones
> almost everywhere). Just an aside, got a laptop with a wifi card? Check out
> http://www.netstumbler.org/ (the netstumbler software is free can be
> downloaded from there, and the forums are pretty good too). If you
> download/install it and drive around, you would be rather surprised/amazed
> at how many wifi systems are available.
Ah - I was hoping for something more cellphone-like where, wherever I
am, in whatever motel room I've rented, I probably have broadband
connectivity, so long as I'm in a major city. If I drive around suburbia
then, sure, I can often find an open access point sooner or later, but I
don't want to have to use it from sitting in the car outside or
whatever!
You do bring up lots of good points, though. (-: Mmmm, when I pick one
of my kids up from school, if I park in the right place I have unsecured
connectivity from somewhere. Dunno where, but it's nice.
Mark T.B. Carroll wrote:
> "Peter Pan" <PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com> writes:
> (snip)
>> Just wondering where you ever got that idea... I have been
>> travelling for years, almost always have a wifi connction, and never
>> ever not seen a wifi connection near where I am (there are literally
>> THOUSANDS of open ones almost everywhere). Just an aside, got a
>> laptop with a wifi card? Check out http://www.netstumbler.org/ (the
>> netstumbler software is free can be downloaded from there, and the
>> forums are pretty good too). If you download/install it and drive
>> around, you would be rather surprised/amazed at how many wifi
>> systems are available.
>
> Ah - I was hoping for something more cellphone-like where, wherever I
> am, in whatever motel room I've rented, I probably have broadband
> connectivity, so long as I'm in a major city. If I drive around
> suburbia then, sure, I can often find an open access point sooner or
> later, but I don't want to have to use it from sitting in the car
> outside or whatever!
>
> You do bring up lots of good points, though. (-: Mmmm, when I pick one
> of my kids up from school, if I park in the right place I have
> unsecured connectivity from somewhere. Dunno where, but it's nice.
>
> Mark
Have you considered another alternative? My laptop has a built in video
camera (in the case above the screen) that works whenever I am connected,
either by WiFi or cellular data card? (same laptop I use when tunneling in
to the server at home with gotomypc).. I use a BT jabra headset (hooked into
the sound card), so i can do video and voice conferencing, however, there
are very few people that have the video conferencing stuff at their end, so
probably 99% of the time I do voice only (have the jabra headset that talks
to the base unit, and THAT has the sound plugs.. ie the ones for non
blutooth, so I can plug it into the cell phone headset jack directly, or the
sound card speaker/mic jacks)....
I am not suggesting an either or connection type, heck I have MULTIPLE ways
to connect, not just one, the laptop itself has built in wifi, ethernet,
dialup modem, cardbus slot for a data card, and a usb port for tethering a
cellphone... What I use depends on what is available at that moment for
connecting, and the biggie (for me) was to have all the super high bandwith
usage stuff, offloaded elsewhere (in my case a server w high speed
connection at home, although I am looking at some hosting places to see if I
can get rid of that hassle/expense - yes work pays for it, so why not have
someone else do it?)
"Peter Pan" <PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com> writes:
(snip)
> Have you considered another alternative? My laptop has a built in video
> camera (in the case above the screen) that works whenever I am connected,
> either by WiFi or cellular data card? (same laptop I use when tunneling in
> to the server at home with gotomypc).. I use a BT jabra headset (hooked into
> the sound card), so i can do video and voice conferencing, however, there
> are very few people that have the video conferencing stuff at their end, so
> probably 99% of the time I do voice only (have the jabra headset that talks
> to the base unit, and THAT has the sound plugs.. ie the ones for non
> blutooth, so I can plug it into the cell phone headset jack directly, or the
> sound card speaker/mic jacks)....
And when going through the computer and tunneling via your desktop in
having conversations, you find that the latency isn't so high as to make
conversation hard?
A fair few of the people I care about talking to do have video -
colleagues with iChat or NetMeeting or whatever, and also keeping in
touch with my little kids so they can show me stuff they did at school
that day or whatever.
> What I use depends on what is available at that moment for connecting,
> and the biggie (for me) was to have all the super high bandwith usage
> stuff,
(snip)
Mmm. I guess my problem is that the low-latency broadband stuff I want
has to reach all the way to the laptop to make the videotelephony nice
enough.
Mark T.B. Carroll wrote:
> "Peter Pan" <PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com> writes:
> (snip)
>> Have you considered another alternative? My laptop has a built in
>> video camera (in the case above the screen) that works whenever I am
>> connected, either by WiFi or cellular data card? (same laptop I use
>> when tunneling in to the server at home with gotomypc).. I use a BT
>> jabra headset (hooked into the sound card), so i can do video and
>> voice conferencing, however, there are very few people that have the
>> video conferencing stuff at their end, so probably 99% of the time I
>> do voice only (have the jabra headset that talks to the base unit,
>> and THAT has the sound plugs.. ie the ones for non blutooth, so I
>> can plug it into the cell phone headset jack directly, or the sound
>> card speaker/mic jacks)....
>
> And when going through the computer and tunneling via your desktop in
> having conversations, you find that the latency isn't so high as to
> make conversation hard?
>
> A fair few of the people I care about talking to do have video -
> colleagues with iChat or NetMeeting or whatever, and also keeping in
> touch with my little kids so they can show me stuff they did at school
> that day or whatever.
>
>> What I use depends on what is available at that moment for
>> connecting,
>> and the biggie (for me) was to have all the super high bandwith usage
>> stuff,
> (snip)
>
> Mmm. I guess my problem is that the low-latency broadband stuff I want
> has to reach all the way to the laptop to make the videotelephony nice
> enough.
>
> Mark
Sounds like you are confusing the two.. they are two seperate functions...
one is the VPN tunnel to my home pc that I control with gotomypc, and the
second is the video conferencing that doesn't use the vpn at all, it's just
direct over whatever connection I have at the time.... Two different
functions, using two different programs, and doing two different things
That being said, while there is usually a minimnal latency in doing the
direct video stuff, I have been in a few (very few luckily) places that use
sat for internet (mainly h/motels in the rural way north, or in Alaska that
use sat internet connections, instead of terrestrial cable/dsl, now that is
a problem, but if in an area with only land connecions, haven't run into a
problem with latency)... (also have run into a problem when I have to use
dial-up, not a latency thing, but just the way slow speed of dial-up)
"Peter Pan" <PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com> writes:
(snip)
> Sounds like you are confusing the two.. they are two seperate functions...
> one is the VPN tunnel to my home pc that I control with gotomypc, and the
> second is the video conferencing that doesn't use the vpn at all, it's just
> direct over whatever connection I have at the time.... Two different
> functions, using two different programs, and doing two different
> things
Ah, you manage to get the videochat working okay even behind NAT and
whatever filtering they have and whatnot. That's great.
> That being said, while there is usually a minimnal latency in doing the
> direct video stuff, I have been in a few (very few luckily) places that use
> sat for internet (mainly h/motels in the rural way north, or in Alaska that
> use sat internet connections, instead of terrestrial cable/dsl, now that is
> a problem, but if in an area with only land connecions, haven't run into a
> problem with latency)... (also have run into a problem when I have to use
> dial-up, not a latency thing, but just the way slow speed of dial-up)
That's good. I think you might be right. I've been running the numbers a
bit more and I think I'd be looking at under 0.2s there-and-back latency
even via the VPN, which would probably be just about okay. I wonder how
much extra latency there is if you go via EDGE or 3G or something.
Mark T.B. Carroll wrote:
> "Peter Pan" <PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com> writes:
> (snip)
>> Sounds like you are confusing the two.. they are two seperate
>> functions... one is the VPN tunnel to my home pc that I control with
>> gotomypc, and the second is the video conferencing that doesn't use
>> the vpn at all, it's just direct over whatever connection I have at
>> the time.... Two different functions, using two different programs,
>> and doing two different
>> things
>
> Ah, you manage to get the videochat working okay even behind NAT and
> whatever filtering they have and whatnot. That's great.
>
>> That being said, while there is usually a minimnal latency in doing
>> the direct video stuff, I have been in a few (very few luckily)
>> places that use sat for internet (mainly h/motels in the rural way
>> north, or in Alaska that use sat internet connections, instead of
>> terrestrial cable/dsl, now that is a problem, but if in an area with
>> only land connecions, haven't run into a problem with latency)...
>> (also have run into a problem when I have to use dial-up, not a
>> latency thing, but just the way slow speed of dial-up)
>
> That's good. I think you might be right. I've been running the
> numbers a bit more and I think I'd be looking at under 0.2s
> there-and-back latency even via the VPN, which would probably be just
> about okay. I wonder how much extra latency there is if you go via
> EDGE or 3G or something.
>
> Mark
My experience with the verizon 3g (both 1x and evdo rev 0) are about
400 -800ms per hop, IE no real problems like you feared (cept when on the
opposite coast and using the cell phone, my ISP is on the west coast, and so
is my verizon contract main site, so add a few hundred ms for a few cross
country legs, but still very usable..... When needed dialup is a tad slow,
but have never noticed talking over each other either even doing that.....
Just an aside, and to give you an example, ever watch the news shows on
cable where the reporters are on site on a videophone? The video and audio
synch is a bit off (but not much), and the video itself is slowscan (ie
watch and things like the background that don't change much, are sort of
static, but the reporters face/mouth that moves is updated more often)...
Unfortunately, the elcheapo netcams don't do that :( .....
"Peter Pan" <PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com> writes:
(snip)
> My experience with the verizon 3g (both 1x and evdo rev 0) are about
> 400 -800ms per hop, IE no real problems like you feared (cept when on
> the opposite coast and using the cell phone, my ISP is on the west
> coast, and so is my verizon contract main site, so add a few hundred
> ms for a few cross country legs, but still very usable..... When
> needed dialup is a tad slow, but have never noticed talking over each
> other either even doing that.....
(snip)
Ah, that's somewhat reassuring. I was worried I was wanting Xohm, a year
early! (-:
![Wireless broadband possible? [USA]](http://www.wirelessforums.org/iconimages/alt-internet-wireless/wireless-broadband-possible-usa_ltr.gif)
Wireless broadband possible? [USA] 
Linear Mode
