Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet

Google WiFi+VPN Confirmed 320

Posted by CmdrTaco from the only-a-matter-of-time dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Google is actually (confirmed!) rolling out their wifi network, first in the San Francisco bay area (see the FAQ for details.) They are also including a Secure Access program for use in conjunction with this. So far, as per usual, it's in beta, and only for the San Fran bay area. Soon the entire US, perhaps??"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google WiFi+VPN Confirmed More

Google WiFi+VPN Confirmed

Comments Filter:
  • When I click the link. I'm in the UK.
    • Same here.. In the US. All URLS to wifi.google.com/randomstuff.htm sends you to www.google.com
    • Just go to the FAQ and click the link at the bottom...

    • Note the trailing 'l':
      http://wifi.google.com/download.html [google.com]

      Basically any 404 Not Found gets redirected to your local Google page... so get the link right and it works :)

      And can people please RTFA. It's not free wi-fi, they don't have to roll out tons of gear... it's a VPN. It's to secure your connection from third party sniffers, and to give Google more info, ad insertion capabilities, etc... not a physical hardware network of wi-fi points.

      • If this were simply a software application, why would they refer to "Google WiFi locations"?

        Also, why would it only be available in the SF bay area?

        Where can I go to download Google Secure Access?

        The program can currently be downloaded at certain Google WiFi locations in the San Francisco Bay Area.

  • And then the world! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @09:55AM (#13603560)
    First the city, then the USA, and then: THE WORLD!

    Muwahahahahahahahaha!

  • First post... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dark-br ( 473115 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @09:55AM (#13603561) Homepage
    ... using the google wifi access :)

  • Doesn't work (Score:4, Informative)

    by clinko ( 232501 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @09:55AM (#13603563) Journal
    Not surprisingly, it doesn't work unless you're in that area :)

    Here [cnn.com] is a link to a CNN article about it.
    • I'm in montreal and i was able to download the software.. mind you i've got no google servers to connect to, heh.

    • Re:Doesn't work (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      As an added note, Google gets to see even more user traffic and data since it all routes through their servers. This is a brilliant tool for them to mine user usage and behavior patterns and to build data profiles on individuals. Its a wonderful idea. Imaging combining this information with name, SSN, phone number, what car you drive, you pets name (seriously), etc: a marketers/telemarkets/spammers dream. This is the answer to the rejection of the advertiser's cookies.

  • That was quick... (Score:2, Informative)

    by metaomni ( 667105 )
    CNN broke the story as well, but it seems Google has quickly fixed all the links.
  • They are redirecting to the main google page, as is the base url of http://wifi.google.com/ [google.com]. It's not just slashdotting either, as these were redirecting before the article was available for comment.

  • More info (Score:2, Informative)

    by Andrew Lenahan ( 912846 )
    Since the two links in the article don't seem to work at present, here's a link to a Reuters story for more information.. http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?t ype=topNews&storyID=2005-09-20T113746Z_01_HO038752 _RTRUKOC_0_UK-GOOGLE-WIFI.xml&archived=False [reuters.co.uk]

  • The entire US???? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Nutria ( 679911 )
    Someone doesn't realize how very large the US is.

    All of the densely and moderately populated areas, but there's no money to be made in doing this in towns (large and small) and rural areas.

    • Money? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jpsowin ( 325530 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @10:07AM (#13603693) Homepage
      but there's no money to be made in doing this in towns (large and small) and rural areas.

      Do you think there is money to made at all when they are not charging?

      • Re:Money? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by interiot ( 50685 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @10:27AM (#13603841) Homepage
        Do you think a publicly-trade company is doing something that will lose money over the long term?

        Just because they aren't charging money directly doesn't mean they don't still need to earn money per eyeball. Whatever method they have to make money, it's still going to be dependent on the population density and economic prosperity of the area.

        (they're not going to stick hotspots under the ocean, or in space, for instance)

        • Re:Money? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Brushfireb ( 635997 )
          Dont kid yourself. Public companies are perhaps the BEST at doing something that will lose the money over the short or long term.

          The companies that are best at making money are mid size companies. Hence why they grow into large companies, original management moves out or retires, and corporate stooges step in -- who have no real money invested.

          Thats the real problem with big big big public companies -- all the people invested arent anywhere near or have any idea what goes on in said company.

          It wouldnt supri

          • Re:Money? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Chazmyrr ( 145612 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @11:03AM (#13604200)
            No. The real problem with big big big public companies is that senior executives give themselves huge stock options, sacrifice long term profitability for short term gain, exercise their options, diversify their portfolio, and take a position elsewhere before they have to answer for their actions.

      • Re:Money? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by neoform ( 551705 ) <djneoform@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @10:31AM (#13603865) Homepage
        considering their Privacy Policy states that they'll keep records of what sites you visit along with some other info, yes, yes i do think there is money to be made off this.

        • Re:Money? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Irish_Samurai ( 224931 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @10:51AM (#13604073)
          I'm no networking, web server superstar, but isn't it possible for Google to take this information and create advertising vehicles targeted not only at local demographics, but on time based demographic information as well?

          The little factoid "80% of web users in Seattle view news websites between the hours of 8 - 10. Of these people 30% goto site A, 40% goto site B, 15% goto site C" would be pretty handy for marketers.

          Not only that, but it opens up AdWords and AdSense to having a new layer for bidding - timeframe. AdWords can already be targeted to geographic locations, add the time factor in and you have created a reason for people to start bidding even more money for advertising. It would be extremely costly to "own" a keyword for all timeframes, but a cost some business would be more than willing to pay.

          I'm also not too sure on this point, but can't google sell this traffic information to large marketing firms also? If you strip out all identifiers, you have kept up your side of the privacy agreement, correct?

          • Re:Money? (Score:3, Interesting)

            by gid13 ( 620803 )
            I would assume the answer is yes. More interestingly, though I'm generally fairly into privacy, I think this way of doing it is probably good.

            1. I have no problem with expressing my preferences to marketers.
            2. Most people won't have problems doing that if it's done in a way that doesn't collect personal information, and
            3. Unlike spyware, it doesn't use your computer's resources to do any of it.

            Basically companies will make more things I want, advertising will be more likely to be for things I want, and thus

      • Re:Money? (Score:5, Informative)

        by limber ( 545551 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @10:48AM (#13604037) Homepage
        There's an article in the current issue of Business 2.0 that speculates as to the business model.

        http://www.business2.com/b2/web/articles/0,17863,1 093558,00.html [business2.com]

        Part of it is not a revenue generation thing so much as a cost savings. Google has been buying up a lot of dark fibre... They're trying to eliminate a middleman for IP transit fees. "Millions of dollars per month in savings" etc.

      • Re:Money? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Shaper_pmp ( 825142 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @11:06AM (#13604227)
        Since it sounds like the data is only encrypted between your client and their proxy server, I'd say they'll be making a lot of money from traffic analysis and user-behaviour tracking.

        Knowing Google they'll be able to (=they probably will) track every URL every person enters, and tie this to your Google cookie/GMail account, etc.

        I'm hardly one of the tinfoil-hat brigade, but this is basically the Google Dialup util idea repackaged for broadband:

        Google Dialup: "Slight speed increase in exchange for us looking over your shoulder the whole time you're on-line, tracking your behaviour and spotting patterns."

        Google WiFi Access: "Slight security increase in exchange for us looking over your shoulder the whole time you're on-line, tracking your behaviour and spotting patterns."

        I'm no trendy Google-basher, but it's really starting to rankle how every major initiative from Google seems to have these little hooks attached - even Google Talk (while based on Jabber) apparently doesn't support the server-to-server protocol, so you need to specifically have a GMail account and connect to Google's servers to talk to anyone using it. IE, all your chatting is forced to go through their servers... wonder why?

        And now this - they're supplying free VPN for an entire city (to begin with), spending (conservatively) thousands or millions on hardware, and we're supposed to believe they're getting nothing in return?

        Bullshit - if they aren't invading privacy and tracking user-behaviour I'll eat my hat. And if you don't think they are, then what are they getting out of it?

        • Re:Money? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @02:05PM (#13606309)
          But wait, any ISP you're using now can already track your every move online right now. I don't believe there's any law to stop them. The only difference is, you're paying them $60/mo to do it.

          • Re:Money? (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Shaper_pmp ( 825142 )
            Granted, but my ISP hasn't made it its public stated intention to categorise and present all the data in the world.

            I used to believe that Google had the right idea (after all, more information is almost always good), but they seem to be blind or dismissive of perfectly valid privacy concerns.

            They started off listening to their users (which is why, even now, www.google.com isn't a nasty Yahoo-style portal), but somewhere along the way they've come in grave danger of ignoring their users' privacy concerns, an

  • I'm in China (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @09:58AM (#13603593)
    you insensitive clod!

  • RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BrGaribaldi ( 710238 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @09:58AM (#13603594) Homepage
    So, will google turn over access information to the RIAA when people start using the free WIFI to download music?

    • Not the RIAA... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by flimnap ( 751001 )
      Well, Google probably won't turn over data to the RIAA, but this looks like another "Do your web browsing through a Google proxy! It's free! Don't bother reading our vague privacy policy!" Between this -- which they seem to be also encouraging the use of with non-Google wifi networks -- and Google Accelerator, it seems that a large number of people could be used by Google in a study of web-browsing habits.

  • XP and 2K only... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by yorugua ( 697900 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @09:59AM (#13603597)
    ... is google turning *that* evil ?

    • Re:XP and 2K only... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by generic-man ( 33649 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @10:10AM (#13603716) Homepage Journal
      With the exception of the Gmail Notifier, every piece of end-user software that Google's ever released has been for Windows only.

      Some people here believe that Google has a duty to release for other OSes (especially Linux, which is so oft-used there) but that's not where the end users are. Perhaps when the software comes out of beta it'll be ported.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:XP and 2K only... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      And from their FAQ:
      When I install Google Secure Access, why does it ask if I also want to install the Google Toolbar?<br>
      We've included the option to install the Google Toolbar because it improves your browsing experience.<br>
      Right now it's optional, but will Google one day go the way of the bundling (...) ?
    • Jebus, what a bunch of kneejerk slashdotters. The parent post is funny, not informative, not insightful.

  • The Next Step (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ZurichPrague ( 629877 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @10:00AM (#13603612)
    And the next step (after rolling it out nationwide) is to introduce a cheap ($30?) handset that accesses the network. A "cellphone" with free phone calls -- forever.

    That whistling is the sound of every phone company imploding at once.

  • Just makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by peterjhill2002 ( 578023 ) <peterjhill AT cmu DOT edu> on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @10:00AM (#13603615) Journal
    It could end up being a hugely smart move.... I am sure that 90% of you have already figured out the business model... They will know exactly where you are (or close enough for hand grenades and horse shoes and... ads)...

    Watch out clear channel... Why pay thousands to put your ad on an ugly billboard when you can put your ad less than two feet from a potential customers face... local.adwords.google.com.... (fake url) customers already use gmail and google at the hotspot, even without having some annoying gonna be hacked forced page to surf for free web machine, they can just set all the google sites that people already visit to places right around the corner...

    If podcasts are going to replace radio, google wifi will replace ?
    (a question for all those who recently took the sat)

    • Re:Just makes sense (Score:4, Funny)

      by Keck ( 7446 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @10:18AM (#13603769) Homepage
      If podcasts are going to replace radio, google wifi will replace ? (a question for all those who recently took the sat)

      I thought they removed analogies from the SAT like 10 years ago?

    • Re:Just makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MoogMan ( 442253 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @10:20AM (#13603791)
      On the upshot, properly targeted adverts are useful for the consumer too. If you see an advert for a product that you are likely to buy anyway, then that's probably not a bad thing.

      • Re:Just makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)

        by CommieLib ( 468883 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @11:27AM (#13604492) Homepage
        Amen! What bugs me about commercials is not that I'm being pitched to, but that it's a waste of both of our time! There's no point in showing me an ad for Massengil.

        Show me an ad for Arturo Fuente, a book by Berkely linguistics professor John McWhorter, or a program about the 80's British comedy Yes, Prime Minister, and I'm very likely to bite. At the very least, I will be actively interested in the ad. This level of granularity should make it possible.

        I'm a YIMBY for this (Yes, In My BackYard). I have no problem, repeat, no problem having ads targeted to my interests given that I will be presented with ads regardless.

        The flipside of this is privacy, I suppose. That may be the relevancy-killer.

      • Re:Just makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)

        by wcdw ( 179126 )
        Define "useful". Frankly, if I'm looking for a product, I'll go look for it. In the meantime, I do not want YAA (yet another ad) shoved under my face.

        There is no content of which I can conceive that I personally would find useful. For many years I found everything I needed in the yellow pages, without ever once opening any junk mail.

        How is that different now that it's in my face, not even hidden discreetly in an envelope I can discard unopened?

        Ads - targeted or otherwise - are a waste of bandwidth, at be

  • In the entire US - sure... (Score:4, Informative)

    by gyepi ( 891047 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @10:01AM (#13603623)
    From the FAQ [google.com]: "Why did Google develop Google Secure Access?
    One of our engineers recognized that secure WiFi was virtually non-existent at most locations. As a result, he used his 20% project time to begin an initiative to offer users more secure WiFi access. Google Secure Access is the result of this endeavor."
    That guy would need slightly more that 20% project time to help extending the service to the entire US..
    • The reason for the 20% project time is not only to avoid engineer burnout but to come up with new ideas. Google has in the past adopted their engineers' side projects and made them releasable products; this is where Google Maps came from. If the wifi trial is successful, they could easily make it "real" and direct more resources and manpower at it.
  • From TFFAQ:
    >No, Google Secure Access is free.

    I don't they they can possibly do this nation-wide or worldwide (imagine negotiating setup and maintenance with a different local partner in each country).
    I think this is just a scaled up lab test. If they do anything like this, it should happen after WiMax is out.

  • Boston? (Score:4, Funny)

    by kevin.fowler ( 915964 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @10:02AM (#13603632) Homepage
    Google, please roll this out in my area. My neighbors finally got smart and put passwords on their wireless routers.

    • Re:Boston? (Score:4, Funny)

      by el_womble ( 779715 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @10:21AM (#13603794) Homepage
      I'm sorry sir, we're going to have to ask for your geek card. WiFi Passwords are for people that don't have time to crack the network. As a /. member you are expected, ney, demanded to crack that password.

      Now, don't come back until you've cracked that password and distributed to everyone you know. At the very least man, don't admit that you don't know how to break the security!!!

      --
      This is a JOKE. It may not be very funny. But I at least want to know that when people mod it as a troll, they are doing it because its not funny, and not because they think I'm a terrorist.

  • I volunteer my house (Score:4, Interesting)

    by keraneuology ( 760918 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @10:03AM (#13603648) Journal
    I would jump at the opportunity to volunteer my yard the location for a low-powered neighborhood uplink to this service. Instead of expensive towers that provide access to everybody all at once and require various approval from the FCC and FAA (if the tower is tall enough) find people willing to host an uplink for a few square blocks. People like me. No matter which route I go -any- internet access will cost about $60 months - I either need to get a land line + DSL because nobody will provide DSL unless the line has an active phone number or I can get Comcast (and only Comcast because the local township granted them exclusive rights of service. If Google provides the equipment and the link I will be more than happy to ensure that my neighbors have another alternative for internet access.
  • I hope they target rural and outlying areas as well as the cities and suburbs. It seems that all of the new services target areas that are already have multiple broadband providers.

    I'm in a semi-rural area, and DSL was not available until just two years ago. I have a choice of DSL from the local telco or satellite, both very expensive compared to urban and suburban areas with more choices.

    I know that in truly rural areas, they only choice is satellite. It's expensive, with high latency and low download l

  • Where are they? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Yi Ding ( 635572 ) <yiNO@SPAMstudentindebt.com> on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @10:09AM (#13603706)
    I couldn't find a single mention on the Google website of where the access points actually are in the Bay Area. Anybody care to post a link or list?

  • This isn't hardware (Score:5, Informative)

    by daves ( 23318 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @10:12AM (#13603727) Journal
    To those commenting on how hard this is...

    The announcement is not about rolling out hotspots. They are just providing an easy-to-set-up VPN connection using downloadable client software. Extending it to the rest of the country would just require distributed VPN host nodes.

    • ARE YOU SURE??? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ferrellcat ( 691126 )
      The language is Google's website is vague at best.

      From their privacy policy...

      http://wifi.google.com/privacy-policy.html [google.com]

      The Google Privacy Policy describes how we treat personal information when you use Google's services, including information provided when you use the Google WiFi or Google Secure Access client. In addition, the following describes our practices that are specific to the Google Secure Access client:

      Notice how they differentiate "Google WiFi" and "Google Secure Access client." Of

  • Why would I cheer. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Irvu ( 248207 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @10:12AM (#13603732)
    Google is rapidly expanding to the point where they seem poised to be the Ma Bell, AT&T, Microsoft, or Verizon of the online world. No criticism of their work and all but I like a little competition in my world.


    • I do think you're a little premature here in your concern over a google-monopoly. So far as yet, they haven't put anyone else out of business. I also can't see any of their products excluding other players from their space. The traditional monopolists like MaBell and Microsoft leveraged product areas where consumers seemingly only have one choice-- local phone provider or OS provider. In the case of Google, consumers will always be able to install other tool bars, use other email services, reference differ
      • Be wary about saying "always" at one time we were "always" free to select competing phone companies over verizon. Now at least in many states the idea has become a joke.

        I agree with you that they haven't put anyone (save googlebombers) out of business yet. But still, why should we be rah rahing everything?

  • "Beta" means . . . (Score:4, Funny)

    by EraserMouseMan ( 847479 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @10:16AM (#13603755)
    Just be happy that you got something for free. You have no right to complain about anything because we put "beta" on it even though it is far beyond beta-grade.

    So 5 years from now if your Google WiFi beta connection drops out you must react in the following manner, "Hmmm. . . that's interesting. I can't communicate with my clients anymore. But I guess I can only blame myself for depending on a Google, ahem, uh, a beta product."

  • This isn't an ISP it's a VPN client. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Mustang Matt ( 133426 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @10:22AM (#13603802)
    It is a VPN client.

    You download the software and it creates a VPN to vpn.google.com. It doesn't even have anything to do with wireless other than using this with wireless allows you to encrypt all your traffic on each end instead of with weak WEP or otherwise.

    I just downloaded the client and just using my normal network card in my PC I was able to successfully connect to google and an ipconfig reveals a second connection:

    PPP adapter vpn.google.com:
    Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
    Description : WAN (PPP/SLIP) Interface
    Physical Address : 00-53-45-00-00-00
    Dhcp Enabled : No
    IP Address : 192.168.201.8
    Subnet Mask : 255.255.255.255
    Default Gateway : 192.168.201.8
    DNS Servers : 66.51.205.100 66.51.206.100

    I only hope they'll create a server version too and give it out. I must say there was zero configuration and a monkey could have installed it. If they release a server version and allow a small amount of configuration this could come in handy.

    I guess one side effect is that I should be able to anonymously browse the web through google.

    Consequently, they must be having DNS issues or something of that nature because nothing seemed to resolve while connected.
  • ...because I'll probably be able to get Google's Wi-Fi here, if anywhere.

  • Always "Beta?" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @10:32AM (#13603885)
    Why is it that Google software is always beta and always freezes once there? Does Google have any software that went beyond this beta label?

  • PPTP VPN (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jacco de Leeuw ( 4646 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @10:36AM (#13603906) Homepage
    Google seems to use PPTP as their VPN protocol. In theory this should mean that you can use other OSes than Windows 2000/XP as well, if you configure the connection manually.

    However, they seem to be generating the username and password on the fly. The username consists of a number. I had expected that you'd have to use your Gmail username and password but this is not the case. There is something fishy about it. Presumably the Google Secure Access client retrieves some credentials over an out-of-band connection (HTTPS? Will have to figure out with a network sniffer).

    There are some curious things in the VPN connectiod that GSA creates. First, they use an IP address (66.28.250.27) instead of vpn.google.com. The IP address is not even owned by Google. The connectiod allows the outdated protocols CHAP and MS-CHAPv1 to be used. Ouch. It also binds the MS Client and File and Printer Sharing to the connection. You better have a firewall on your system before you connect. PublicVPN [publicvpn.net] seems to be a better option but it is not free.

  • It's becoming the AOL of the future... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gopal.V ( 532678 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @10:38AM (#13603925) Homepage Journal
    One window for all your needs. You need an ISP, email service, search, shopping... use Google.

    I see this distinct trend ever since their IPO. They are trying to build a network of their own. It's almost frightening how blind most of my friends are towards this. For example, by using Jabber google becomes the community pet, but they keep a closed community by preventing S2S communication. AOL was massively successful this way building their network on top of telephone lines. Google is doing it on top of the current internet -- google web accelerator and things like this. It is like DRM, sooner or later everyone else will be using it and you'll have a tough choice to make.

    Yahoo ! is no better, but at least people don't blindly trust Y! to do the right thing. I think I still have a couple of mags from 1992 when Bill Gates was the man who could do nothing wrong.

    • There are huge differences (Score:5, Insightful)

      by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <`gro.daetsriek' `ta' `todhsals'> on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @11:33AM (#13604571)
      It is called lock in and choice.

      If I want to use AOL I have no choice but to use their proprietary PPP software. Google's ISP is standards-based VPN, I can use any number of software packages to connect to it.

      If I want to use the MSN Messenger network I have (at least from MS's point of view) no choice but to use MSN messenger. Google's IM network is standards based Jabber, I can use any client and they even promote this.

      If I want to use MSN TV I have to use Windows Media Player. Google Video uses standard open codecs and I can even download the source code for it.

      AOL and MS want to try to lock you in to use only their services. Google wants to *convince* you to use their services by making them the best. This is a huge difference.

  • Tor [eff.org] anyone? Free and random, and no need to worry about some privacy policy.
  • If you use their VPN you'll have a tunnel to their server. You'll have to trust Google that they aren't doing evil with all the traffic you send their way.
    But if you use any old open access point you stumble across, who are you trusting? If you're not doing VPN already from that point you're at the mercy of whomever setup the AP and likely not even using WEP. Are you sure that the AP you connect to is some idiot too stupid to rename it something other than "linksys" or is it a honeypot waiting to sniff wh
    • You'll have to trust Google that they aren't doing evil with all the traffic you send their way.

      Agreed, but isn't this the case for any ISP? Do you trust your current ISP? If so, why not set up your own VPN server to use when you connect over an open access point...

  • Another service that will NEVER cover where I live. Three chears for covering the same areas a different way... yet again.

    Look at coverage maps for the last few years. Note how they have just barely moved further out from where they were 3-5 years ago?

    Instead of "Hey, you can do 'this' now." How about some more "Hey, we just added another 500sq miles of coverage this month!"

    You will impress me more with COVEREAGE than cheap tricks. :\

    (Goes back to browsing on his MAX 24K modem connection.. no wait

  • FAQ on FAQs (Score:2, Funny)

    by layyze ( 216392 )
    Does anyone else find it odd that Google has released a FAQ (frequenty asked questions) on something that they are just now announcing and that doesn't even actually exist yet?

    How were people asking such specific questions on something non-existant? How were people asking these questions frequently?

  • Location Awareness (Score:2, Interesting)

    by bulach ( 810605 )
    With such small cells (WiFi range), google gets location awareness for free (no need to integrate with any sort of GPS system).

    So, froogle can really narrow your searches to the local shops, just two blocks away. And obviously, sell them ad spaces...
  • Oh, goodie: yet another Windows-only Google application.

    So that's Windows-only Google talk (the client, at least); Windows-only Google Desktop 2; Windows-only Google Web Accelerator; Windows-only Google Video Viewer; and Windows-only Google Earth. Now its Windows-only Google Secure Wi-Fi.

    Admittedly, I'm looking a gift horse in the mouth. These services are all provided free, and Google is under no obligation to support Mac or Linux.

    But for a company sworn to do no evil, they're sure in bed with a comp

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close