Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Wireless Internet Finally Coming To London 115

Posted by timothy from the connect-connect dept.
andylaurence writes: "NTL has issued a statement on their site of their intentions to trial highspeed wireless Internet access in London. They don't seem to know whether it will continue after the trial, but they have stated that it will cost £25 a month (the same as their cable modems). One would assume that this will be based on an 802.11b network, and the questions will then arise as to how secure this is. Another company also seem to be pioneering wireless Internet access this month, with a trial due to start soon. Seems to me like this might just take off." Wait -- I thought London already had wireless access.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wireless Internet Finally Coming To London More

Wireless Internet Finally Coming To London

Comments Filter:

  • london privacy (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Of course, in great brittish tradition, your internet use will be monitored by the sanctioned Almightly Monarchy and if you are found doing anything naughty or contradictory to the crown, your name will be cross-referenced with your driver's license, your picture pulled from the database, your face tracked down through the public video camera/privacy invasion systems and publically humiliated and flogged.
    • And this would be different from the FBI how, exactly? :)
    • You're not British, are you?

      We've only been putting photos on driving licences for a few years now (I forget when they were introduced, but it was =5 years ago). Most of the population still doesn't have them. Furthermore, IIRC you can't be hung for treason (e.g. burning bank notes) anymore, though this law was rarely used when it was in place anyway.

      To be honest, the monarchy only has a symbolic power over the government. Technically, the monarch has the final say in which party gets elected, but I don't imagine they'd be too popular if they tried to go against public opinion. And we've got rid of monarchs before after all (search [google.com] for British Civil War).

      You are, however, pretty much spot on about the prevalence of CCTV - I hear us Brits (particularly Londoners) get our picture taken by these cameras more frequently than most Americans. And our government seems to be just as willing as as the US one to eat away at our rights.

      I know you were only joking (or at least both I and the moderators thought so), but I just felt like being pedantic.

      • "I hear us Brits (particularly Londoners) get our picture taken by these cameras more frequently than most Americans"

        Did any other Londoner misread this first time for "by most Americans"? Gentle tourist jibe, no offence meant :-)

        Phillip.
      • I'm a pedant too:

        It was the English Civil War, Britain did not exist as a political enitity until the Act of Union in the 18th Century sometime. The Civil War was the 17th Century.

        Curse those GCSE's!

        Sorry about that.
        • OK, OK. Fair point well made. I never took History GCSE (I chose Geography instead, mainly because the field trips were to York and Mallham instead of some dull industrial museum 10 miles away).

          Perhaps we should form a pedants society.

          I just know you're dying to tell me where the apostrophe should have gone in the last sentence ;)


    • You sound like you've been over here recently :-) Vacation or work?

    • But.... we don't have the DMCA.
  • Isn't is GPRS ? Which is based on GSM technology, but reserving (and sharing) N 9.6kbps slots for every user.
    Rates may go as great as 144 kbps, which for mobile users may be fine, waiting for UMTS.


    • I don't think so; in the FAQ says they are offering 512/128kbps. I'd like to see you try that over GPRS ;-)


      GPRS is a public telephone network and most major operators are deploying it right now or will be in the near future. It is basically a packet-switched, always-on addon to the GSM network.

      Don't get your hopes up on those throughput speeds, though...

    • An outfit called Tele2 [tele2.co.uk] already offers wireless, always on, 512K connections in parts of the UK. I know someone who's got one and runs a web server from it and is happy. Well, as happy as you get round Camberly. Not sure of the exact technical details but "there's a thing on the roof which connects by coax to a box of tricks which has an RJ45 plug on it". Range is pretty limited ,but speed apparently OK.
      • is this 512k upstream, downstream, or both ways??

        • If you'd spend two minutes looking at the website you would see that you can have up to 1Mbps each way, depending on how much you want to pay.

          The absolute basic is 512 up 256 down.
        • Both ways.

          Aparently, the pr0n gets a bit slow just after pub closing time, but apart from that, it's sound.

          Of course, if you live in a valley in Wales then it'll always be quicker to phone someone in Reading, get them to print out the pages and post them to you.
      • spot-on, they just don't offer their service in London. It's NTL that are trialling THIS wireless service, using a licence granted to Mercury which became CWC which sold their consumer infrastructure to NTL. A someone living in W1 all I can say is ABOUT FSCHKING TIME!

  • NTL (Score:1, Informative)

    by Claric ( 316725 )
    Speaking from experience NTL suck royal ass. They have terrible customer service and bad 'digital' cable TV quality too.

    On the other hand they don't cost much really.

    Claric


    • I agree totally. I used to use them for cable, but it was very unreliable. They tried to get me to switch to their phone service, but as bad as BT is, there was no way I was going to trust NTL to look after my modem line!! A friend recently got a cable modem from them - they totally fscked up the installation, and for the first 2 months he was wondering why it was so slow. This guy isn't too technical, but I managed to persuade him it was broken and he should complain - seems they had switched him onto some "basic" 64kbps package, while charging him for 512kbps!

      Anyway, my broadband's going through DSL...

    • I've actually had a really good experience of using NTL. They have just about the only free-free-free ISP that is actually just that. I had a student phone line for 5.50 a month, and could use ntlworld as much as I liked for free (though annoying 2 hr cut-offs). Their connectivity and bandwidth was better than Demon is now - I never had any problems...
  • Let's just hope it turns out better than these guys [ricochet.com] did. Thud! ::ducks::

  • I'm curious as to why "one would assume that this is based on 802.11b" ... ? Their page clearly says that your PC must already be Ethernet-capable; if it were based on 802.11b, I would think they would use one of the widely available 802.11 adapters and an external antenna.

    The fact of the matter is that this is not what 802.11 is intended for. It is intended for local LAN access. While many organizations are trying to (and having some success) move it into the long distance market, that doesn't really make a whole lot of sense for an ISP. There are plenty of other ways to push bits over the airwaves, guys.

    Ethan
    • this is not what 802.11 is intended for
      oh come on, focus your brain and think back to what the internet was intended for...a world wide pr0n stash? a business network? history [isoc.org]
      geeks have always took cool technology and adapted it thats why we have such cool toys to play with.
      • There are other protocols that are better suited towards the larger distances associated with giving everyone internet access to the home wirelessly.

        With 802.11b, sure, you could have access points all over the place... but it's by no means the most efficient or best way to do it.

  • it will cost £25 a month

    Just add the bill onto the taxes and provide it to all citizens in grande British tradition.

    Seriously, it is cool to see this technology spreading. The best way for security to increase is for it to become commonly used.
    • All other communications (telephone, TV, radio ...) are based on a billing system and have nothing to do with taxes (and no, the License fee is NOT a tax) so why should this be any different?
    • From the NTL website (emphasis mine):

      Q. What happens after the trial?
      A. At the end of the trial ntl will evaluate your feedback and decide on whether to continue the service or not. If the service is continued then you will be contacted and asked if you would like to become a customer. If you do, you will be charged the standard high-speed access tariffs (currently £34.99 per month). Installation fees will be waived. If you choose to discontinue the service we will make an appointment to remove the outdoor equipment and retrieve the cable modem and you will owe us nothing.

      so perhaps not as cheap as the original poster suggested. Hopefully the uptake will be sufficient to keep it going. However I have heard pretty bad things regarding customer support from people who currently use NTL.

      I'm quite interested in this since I live in London and fall into a "service is likely" postcode. Anything would be better than my crappy BTInternet dialup service at the moment

      ...now if I can only convince my landlady to let me install the box on the outside of our house...
      • The website has been updated. I registered for the trial yesterday and it definitely said 24.99 then. In fact I showed it to people at work, this morning and I'm pretty sure it was still 24.99. Hmm. 34.99 isn't that bad I suppose but it's much closer to ADSL. We'll have to see just how good this actually is.
  • The article only says it will be compatible with
    Windows 95, 98, ME, and 2000 Professional. What about all other operating systems supporting 802.11 ?

    I'm sure people with a Titanium, iBook, Linux or BSD laptop would like to join in too ...

  • Their claim to be the first wireless Internet service in London may or may not be correct. However the post-production houses of Soho have had their own private wireless network for a number of years now.

    (\/)atthew

    • Yes indeed.

      You are referring to Sohonet, which is a MAN
      catering to media companies in the Soho area.

      It originally started as an ATM network, using fibre connections.

      Now uses a mix of fibre connections and 2Mbps Breezecom wireless links over the roofs of Soho and Fitzrovia.
      See http://www.sohonet.co.uk
  • I wouldn't trust a 'company' without a decent setup as far as I could throw them! Their domain name just contains an embedded FRAME which gets its content from a page on a Free ISP!

    Quality...

    • Their URL is www.askntl.com [askntl.com]. Don't ask me why, probably a squatter. Also take a look at www.broadband-cable.co.uk [broadband-cable.co.uk] for more on their broadband cable modems.

      • Whoops - I didn't read the original properly - my mistake. The second link I posted might still be of interest though.
        • Whoops - I didn't read the original properly - my mistake
          Yeh, I was wondering - I know who NTL are, it seems as if they sponsor half on the English Premiership and the Scottish Premier League!
          The second link I posted might still be of interest though
          NTL and Telewest are promoting this quite a lot on TV currently - their claim of it only costing 25 UKP is quite misleading as you need to already have a cable connection (an additional 9.something UKP for Telewest, for example).

      • You can get a good idea of NTL's competence by looking at that second site (which incidentally is being heavily advertised in newspapers and on tv).

        It includes a broken picture link on the front page, back text on a black background (in netscape 4.7 on mac, ymmv) and when I enter my postcode (the whole point of the site is to see if you are in an area that has broadband cable available by doing a postcode look-up) I get a 400 error.

        If that's not enough to convince you that you shouldn't touch NTL with a bargepole, let me tell you about the cable TV I get from them - they have been deliberately adding noise to the picture on their analogue service to make their 'more-money-for-worse-channel-selection' digital service look better by comparison! I can now get better reception on some terrestrial channels with an old coathanger suffed in the arial socket of my tv than through NTL's cable feed!

        Imho the only thing in NTL's favour is that it isn't BT - who are (if such a thing is possible) even less competent. My office adsl connection (through BT's monopoly) has a mtbf of less than a week over the 3 months I've had it. Well, at least I can add the compensation claims to the £3,000 I've already recieved this year from BT's customer service guarantee scheme :-/
    • Hey,

      I noticed that too. That frameset in full:

      <frame src="http://www.andylaurence.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ wireless/index.html" name="uk2.net">

      But Blueyonder isn't a free ISP; it's a pay ISP. thier website is (Somewhat obviously) blueyonder.co.uk - a look at http://info.blueyonder.co.uk/promo/index.html reveals they resell broadband... Quote from one of thier info pages: "Every blueyonder customer has access to 30MB of free personal webspace."

      My gusee is this guy has a 512kbit/s broadband connection into his house, and he's going to get some long-range 802.11b equiptment, and offer some service along his line. You can jump to http://www.andylaurence.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ and look at other bits on his website.

      Obviously, this could well work. But equally, it could suck royally. We don't really have enough data to come to a firm conclusion.

      Personally, I don't feel that places like London are that important for wireless... In London, you can get all manner of wired solutions, which are actually availiable at the moment. I think fixed wireless access would have more application in locations where it would be too costly to run new cabling (cable modems) and/or BT doesn't think it would be profitable to convert the exchange for ADSL. If someone could arrange a long-range wireless solution that would provide such people with access, the uptake could be quite high.

      That's just my opinion, of course; I could be wrong.

      Michael
      • And of course the andylaurence in the URL address is utterly from the andylaurence who happens to have submitted this story in the first place...

        Cynical in extremis

      • But Blueyonder isn't a free ISP
        Indeed, it is Telewest's 25 UKP a month cablemodem/DSL system - I should have bothered to look at the link!
        My gusee is this guy has a 512kbit/s broadband connection into his house, and he's going to get some long-range 802.11b equiptment, and offer some service along his line
        Willing to bet he's got a 'personal' contract with them and not a commercial one... AUP, Terms of contract, ... WTF? ;)

        Hats off to the guy for being so brass!

  • From the statement: One must "Have unobstructed view of one of our transmitter locations"

    Wonder what kind of technology that is ...

    Given that 802.11 only reaches about a 100-300 meters with an open view, they probably need MANY access points ;-)
    • Errr... the 200-300 metre range only applies to
      cards used without an external antenna.

      I would imagine this service uses directional
      antennas to get the range they need.
      BTW, Guys Hospital, one of the locations, is
      a 27 storey high tower, easily seen from many parts of SE London.

      Does anyone know for sure what technology they are planning yo use?
    • Well, licensing issues aside (commercially selling 802.11b would be illegal in the UK, it violates the 2.4GHZ ISM band license), this is entirely possible.

      I've had 802.11b connectison going 10 MILES using the proper antennas (and staying within the regulations). You are only limited to 100-300 meters using 0db gain omnidirectional cheap antennas.

  • not London, but see also www.tele2.co.uk

    NTL's press release says you must "Have unobstructed view of one of our transmitter locations"

    this sounds similar to tele2 as it also requires line-of-sight.

    Duncan
  • The other side of the pond gets to share in the hype too! Let's hope that the provider stays in business longer than ricochet [ricochet.net], has better throughput & connectivity than CDPD [cdpd.com], and the access device is cheaper than a blackberry [amazon.com]

    With the population density of London, I would think that one or two loosely affiliated 802.11b networks [toaster.net]would give coverage would rival any commercial offering.

  • Because in the UK that spectrum is only allocated to non commercial use. You cannot setup a commercial wirless network in this spectrum.

  • Probably fixed-wireless access (Score:3, Informative)

    by Cabby ( 39912 ) on Monday August 20, 2001 @08:53AM (#2197079) Homepage
    I can't find anything to back this up, but I'd imagine that this is using the spectrum recently auctioned in the UK for fixed wireless access. That covers spectrum in the 28GHz, 40 GHz, 3.4 GHz and 10GHz frequencies. See ZDNet article here [zdnet.co.uk] for details.
    We're not talking wireless in the home here, just wireless *to* to the home, replacing the NTL cable. As the FAQ points out:

    "A signal is transmitted from various locations throughout London and is received by the outdoor transceiver on the side of the property. The cable modem recognises this signal and converts it into standard data packets that your PC will recognise."

    As a previous poster has mentioned, charging for 2.4 GHz bandwidth in the UK is currently against the licensing regulations anyway.
  • Why would one assume that a city-wide wireless network would use 802.11b? Aside from the WEP encryption issues, 802.11b is such a short-range system that it would require a tremendous infrastructure to implement, and would also blanket the city with interference for people who wanted to use 802.11b for its intended LAWN (Local area wireless network) uses.

    True, Ricochet failed, and 128Kbps is starting to seem paltry, but there are plenty of other wireless standards out there that are far more suitable for high-speed wide area wireless coverage, G3 being one of them.

    If London is creating a new network from scratch, I would assume they'd use a current technology, and one geared specifically for their type of needs, and not create a piecemeal solution with microcells which either all have to be individually wired to the net via high-speed connection (every 100 yards) or act as repeaters (ala Ricochet) resulting in 500ms ping rates on good days.

    Anyone know any other standards that would better apply to a high-speed wide-coverage omnidirectional wireless net?
  • Surely London, with its high population density, is ideal for cabling up? Why not carry out the trial in an area that is flat but sparsely populated hence uneconomic to run cable to households? And it won't be the whole of London as the franchaise there is split between NTL and Telewest (Cable London was bought by Telewest). Speaking as a consumer I am glad NTL is offering (or for now investigating) a greater choice of solutions.

    I have their cable modem service which is *excellent*. My friend 1 mile away is green with envy as his long country road hasn't been cabled up. If they offered wireless here then he would be able to swap mixes with his fellow DJs over the 'net instead of burning CDs and petrol.

    Phillip.
    • > And it won't be the whole of London as the franchaise there is split between NTL and Telewest


      If you look at some of their coverage maps for this trial NTL are actually ovvering their service across a fairly large part of Croydon from the Crystal Palace transmitter - Croydon is a telewest area!

    • London has lots of problems because ntl and telewest have bought up smaller operators using incompatible, and according to ntl engineers who I've spoken to, cheap equipment. The upshot is it's going to take ages to get it all synchronised... noone I know in london has a cable modems. It seems to be ADSL or nothing at the moment, so hats off to ntl for trying something different.
    • London is a bloody NIGHTMARE to cable, irrespective of the fact that it's already one of the most densely cabled areas of planet Earth. You can already get ADSL or any type of leased line that you can name in central London if you so desire, you can also use one of four state-of-the-art cellular networks if that is your wish. This new wireless service is only novel insofar as its the first such CONSUMER provision, and will enabled NTL to compete with BT's Openwoe in areas that they don't currently operate. We are excited aboput this because most Brits feel the same way about BT as they do about Microsft - a monopoly that does it's utmost to ruin your life at every opportunity.
      • Damn right. I've just moved house and my choice is BT or BT. There's no cable any near me and I don't live at the end of a country lane, I live in a busy street about 5 miles from the centre of London. Any wireless service is fine by me as I'm forced to use Openwoe.
        I guess that the NTL service will operate on the same 3.6/4.2GHz service that Tele2 offers. There will probably be the same LOS problems that keep Tele2 out of London however.
  • The discussion seems to focus on mobile internet, while it seems to me that some kind of fixed wireless solution is more likely what they're talking about. 512 Mbs and line of sigh suggests that, I think. There's a company operating that here in Amsterdam since two years or something.
  • The cool thing about london are that there are loads of tall buildings. A lot of these buildings are on estates. A lot of these buildings have real bad security. These three factors combined mean london has one of the most active pirate radio sceans in the world.

    Will it come to pass that big business will control the internet to such a extent that I'll have to get my mates mate to host my anti-DMCA website in a van doing loops around nelsons colium.

  • Not wireless LANs (Score:4, Informative)

    by Cato ( 8296 ) on Monday August 20, 2001 @09:36AM (#2197254)
    See http://www.radio.gov.uk/publication/press/2000/20o ct00.htm for the spectrum (10 GHz) used by NTL - this rules out 802.11b, which works at 2.4 GHz only.

    They are using some variant of 'fixed wireless', also known as wireless local loop (WLL) - this is intended only to serve fixed sites, as the name implies, and uses a variety of spectrum from 2 GHz up to 30+ GHz - these technologies go by various names including MMDS and LMDS.

    The good news is that this is licensed spectrum, so performance is determined by the network operator, not by the number of people near you with wireless LANs, and coverage is generally much better (802.11b would be quite an expensive way to try to cover a whole city).

    Fixed wireless access (FWA) is already being deployed by various operators in the US (Sprint, Worldcom) and UK (Tele2, around Reading). It has a chequered history with various bankruptcies (Teligent in the US, Ionica in the UK), but if the costs come down and standards are agreed, it could be a useful competitor to Cable and xDSL, particularly for areas they don't address (e.g. industrial/business areas, and rural areas).

    For more information, see http://www.watmag.com/technologies/Broadband/ovum/ broadband_ovum.html

  • Why ntl are doing this (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ducasi ( 106725 )

    The key to understanding this announcement is that ntl own all the transmitters up and down the country that are used to transmit all non-BBC television and radio.

    If ntl can get this trial working in London, they should be able to roll other the service nationwide.

    This would beat anything done on any cabled (both cable TV and phone lines) service, and be cheaper too.

    • "The key to understanding this announcement is that ntl own all the transmitters up and down the country that are used to transmit all non-BBC television and radio."

      Don't want to be pedantic, but that was the case until the 70's or perhaps early 80's - the days of VHF TV, but these days the BBC (or their subcontractors Crown Castle) own about half of the transmitters, NTL the rest, but all of the sites transmit both BBC and commercial services.

      Kind of a reciprocal agreement, so that only half as many masts are needed, and so that you only need one receiving aerial.

      (Transmitter Gallery [mb21.co.uk])

      This means that there are some areas where only Crown Castle/BBC operate transmitter sites who could be left out under your assertion.
  • I most certainly hope they do not use 802.11b. Since there is a known exploit, it would be absurd to even consider 802.11b as it exists currently. While 802.11b is a fine standard, WEP, the encryption which "protects" the transmissions, is terribly weak. 802.11b could be modified to use a different encryption protocol, but that would not interoperate with existing hardware manufacturers. Given that, it is unlikely that manufacturers will update the protocol on their own.

    Some people will doubtless think that 802.11b is still an attractive protocol. These people might argue that people won't be sniffing wireless ethernets anytime soon, as the exploit requires a high degree of technical proficiency. However, it only requires one person to discover a network's password.

    So, I am totally against any move anywhere which entrusts the public's data to a broken standard like 802.11b with WEP. I think it is important to convince people of WEP's almost total lack of value.

    Help convince people not to trust 802.11b WEP. Use AirSnort [sourceforge.net] to crack 802.11b networks. I won't be happy until hardware manufacturers are pressured into releasing a standard which doesn't suck (what a novel idea.)

    And remember, friends don't let friends fall victim to a partially known key attack.

    • WEP is (as of recently) breakable - that's why you encrypt your traffic with other existing (proven) technologies.

      802.11b gives you basic a TCP/IP connection. It's up to you to make it secure.

      Or something.

      ...j
  • Tele2 [tele2.co.uk] already provide a wireless broadband service to a fair chunk of England (but not London at the moment).

    They charge £39.99 ($60) for 512k downstream/256k upstream, which compares pretty well with the fixed UK broadband (I have a 512/128k cable modem from NTL which is £19.99 ($30) a month).
  • Unfortunately, like their cable registration web page I tried this morning, the wireless trial postcode submission form is broken :-(


    Register interest using email [mailto] instead

  • They already have cable and ADSL in most of London... why would they need (or want) wireless access?

    They should trial things like that over here in the Lake District. The cable companies simply refuse to lay any cable down in most of this area (because it'd cost too much to do so), and BT are dragging their feet too much with ADSL. Which means we're stuck with 56K or (if you're lucky, like me) ISDN.
    But with wireless access, we'd be bypassing the need for expensive cable-laying, and also bypassing the incredibly slow BT. Just what we need.
    • no they don't. Neither my parents nor I can get cable modems - lots of london is on old legacy cable that ntl and telewest are having to update. ADSL is expensive (& if you have ISDN BT aren't yet allowing changes to ADSL) so there's a clear niche in the market which ntl are exploiting... I would imagine the takeup they could get from this in london would be phenomenal, for a relatively low outlay. Sounds like good business sense to me.
  • Slighly Off-topic, but British Telecom [bt.com] are planning to launch a Broadband Satellite [theregister.co.uk] Internet service across the UK in the next couple of years. However BT is currently struggling with a massive debt mountain [ananova.com], so it's not too clear if the timescale will hold.

  • Maybe i'm wrong, but cant someone just jam a signal pretty easily?. Even if its illegal know ones going to catch them if they do it for a few mins then move around the city.. come to think of it that would be true of mobile phones too.. and police and other services, and air-traffic control - why, i could take over the WORLD!!! BA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAA... well, maybe just one city anyway.

    -tfga
  • My guess is that it's similar to Sprint's wireless Broadband offering [sprintbbd.com]

    Sprint has similar "line of sight" requirements, and a range of (last I checked) 35-40 miles from the broadcast point.

  • I used to work for a company [pawireless.com] that offers this very thing. High-speed wireless via several antennas mounted on various cell towers and buildings around the greater Harrisburg (PA, USA) area. Our market was mainly to businesses seeking to eliminate local loop charges for ISDN, T1, etc. Depending on location, the speed was quite nice, from 256k to 3M. We also did VPNs, intranets, extranets, and other assorted buzzwords. And, best of all, our servers were all Linux and FreeBSD (we try to please everybody :)

    Oh yeah, they've also been in business for since 1997ish...

  • Overheard in the phone shoppe just yesterday...
    "Sorry, squire, our wireless is a bit runny."
  • NTL couldn't run a bath. They are the single most incompetent company in the UK. No one likes them. The engineer that came to our house told us that it's a crap company to work for because they wind everyone up so much with their useless "service" that by the time the crews get to the cutomers' houses (usually with the wrong instructions - as in our case) the customers moan at the engineers just to get it off their chests.

    In our particular case it took 23 phone calls and 2 weeks to arrange for a telephone and a cable modem in our new house which the previous occupants had already had NTL installed in!

    NTL are and talk shit.

    TWW

  • Because that's all you've heard of?

    There are other protocols that are more suited towards wide-area distribution of internet access....

    http://www.waverider.com
  • ... it's based on 802.11

    http://www.consume.net/ [consume.net]

    "Fed up with being held to ransom in the local loop, phased by fees to ISP's, concious of community? OK so lets build a fresh network, one
    that is local, global, fast, expanding, public and user-constructed.

    This website outlines the strategy for such a network and the progress being made toward its establishment.

    We now have a searchable database of CONSUME nodes operational or proposed.

    Please Register your NODE..!"

Slashdot Top Deals

"Nuclear war can ruin your whole compile." -- Karl Lehenbauer

Close