Christian wrote:
> A Linksys WET54GS5 will do what you want to do but I suggest you get
> approval first from the source you want to use.
If the neighbor didn't bother to enable security then no doubt he is
intentionally allowing others to share his connection. There is a whole
movement that believes in open access in order to spread free network
access across the world (similar to open-source software).
Enabling security on a wireless network is an extremely trivial task,
taking just a couple of minutes to set up, so it can be assumed that
anyone that doesn't enable it is intendending to share his connection.
A lot of people could easily share their secured wireless network with
their neighbor(s), and split the cost. As long as you put a firewall on
each PC, which you should do anyway, there is no risk. With POP3 e-mail
access on gmail, there isn't really a need for the ISP's e-mail service.
Some ISPs now include VPN access as well, further increasing security.
In San Francisco there is so much free Wi-Fi, both commercial and
private, that it has got to be affecting sales of DSL and cable broadband.
> If the neighbor didn't bother to enable security then no doubt he is
> intentionally allowing others to share his connection. There is a whole
Totally untrue. There is plenty of doubt based upon the default
configuration and skill set of many home users.
> Enabling security on a wireless network is an extremely trivial task,
> taking just a couple of minutes to set up, so it can be assumed that
> anyone that doesn't enable it is intendending to share his connection.
Nope, no such assumption can be made. Wishful thinking is not enough.
:)
> A lot of people could easily share their secured wireless network with
> their neighbor(s), and split the cost. As long as you put a firewall on
Usually a breach of the ISP T&C's.
> each PC, which you should do anyway, there is no risk. With POP3 e-mail
> access on gmail, there isn't really a need for the ISP's e-mail service.
> In San Francisco there is so much free Wi-Fi, both commercial and
> private, that it has got to be affecting sales of DSL and cable broadband.
David Taylor wrote:
>>If the neighbor didn't bother to enable security then no doubt he is
>>intentionally allowing others to share his connection. There is a whole
>
>
> Totally untrue. There is plenty of doubt based upon the default
> configuration and skill set of many home users.
>
>
>>Enabling security on a wireless network is an extremely trivial task,
>>taking just a couple of minutes to set up, so it can be assumed that
>>anyone that doesn't enable it is intendending to share his connection.
>
>
> Nope, no such assumption can be made. Wishful thinking is not enough.
> :)
>
>
>>A lot of people could easily share their secured wireless network with
>>their neighbor(s), and split the cost. As long as you put a firewall on
>
>
> Usually a breach of the ISP T&C's.
>
>
>>each PC, which you should do anyway, there is no risk. With POP3 e-mail
>>access on gmail, there isn't really a need for the ISP's e-mail service.
>
>
>>In San Francisco there is so much free Wi-Fi, both commercial and
>>private, that it has got to be affecting sales of DSL and cable broadband.
>
>
> I'd welcome figures but I'd doubt it.
I'm sure the people that have the figures are the ones that would never
realease them. But you can deduce something from the effort by cable TV
companies, local phone companies, to pass laws against free municipal
WiFI. They are terrified that this cash cow will be lost to them.
On 31-Jul-2005, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Christian wrote:
> > A Linksys WET54GS5 will do what you want to do but I suggest you get
> > approval first from the source you want to use.
>
> If the neighbor didn't bother to enable security then no doubt he is
> intentionally allowing others to share his connection.
Not necessarily true. For the majority of wireless users, if it works
straight out of the box, that's enough for them. Furthermore, many users are
deftly afraid to tinker with their pc so you know they won't tinker with
their wireless configuration.
>There is a whole
> movement that believes in open access in order to spread free network
> access across the world (similar to open-source software).
Although this may be true, it still doesn't mean that every open wireless
network is an attempt to spread free access. Surely, you agree.
>
> Enabling security on a wireless network is an extremely trivial task,
> taking just a couple of minutes to set up, so it can be assumed that
> anyone that doesn't enable it is intendending to share his connection.
For those of us who enjoy tinkering with our systems, this is true, however,
we are in the minority. What may be trivial to us may be a major source of
irritation to others.
> A lot of people could easily share their secured wireless network with
> their neighbor(s), and split the cost. As long as you put a firewall on
> each PC, which you should do anyway, there is no risk.
I beg to differ. Sharing the cost of an internet connection may be in
violation of the agreement between the owner and his or her ISP. Now if
you're just sharing files other than copyrighted material, then that would
be different.
> With POP3 e-mail
> access on gmail, there isn't really a need for the ISP's e-mail service.
> Some ISPs now include VPN access as well, further increasing security.
Still, in order to access the gmail, an ISP provider is needed.
>
> In San Francisco there is so much free Wi-Fi, both commercial and
> private, that it has got to be affecting sales of DSL and cable broadband.
Thus giving ISPs the leverage they need to prosecute violators of their
service agreements and those who illegally access their network.
David Taylor wrote:
>>companies, local phone companies, to pass laws against free municipal
>>WiFI. They are terrified that this cash cow will be lost to them.
>
>
> Where does this WiFi come from? Someone has to install it, who gets the
> money? The provider. Someone, somewhere is paying for it.
This is true, but they are not paying nearly as much as multiplying all
the individual subscribers by the cost per month that each is paying.
The infrastructure is not all that expensive.
> Given that there are no figures it seems, it's a bit pointless debating
> whether they're bothered or not.
Given that they are frantically trying to get a law passed that
prohibits any municipal funding of WiFi, it's clear that they are
bothered. They've even given the bill a Bush-like 1984 name, the
"Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005." It's as if bookstores
tried to pass a law that prohibited municipal funding of libraries.
> Given that they are frantically trying to get a law passed that
> prohibits any municipal funding of WiFi, it's clear that they are
> bothered. They've even given the bill a Bush-like 1984 name, the
Well without any figures, it's pretty pointless discussing it really.
> Given that they are frantically trying to get a law passed that
> prohibits any municipal funding of WiFi, it's clear that they are
> bothered. They've even given the bill a Bush-like 1984 name, the
> "Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005." It's as if bookstores
> tried to pass a law that prohibited municipal funding of libraries.
Sorry to follow up on my own post.
There was just a piece on the news tonight about communities that are
setting up free wi-fi. The initial cost for Alexandria VA was around
$20K for a city of around 130,000 people. This is "naked" access, no
e-mail, VPN, etc, so the monthly cost to maintain the network is low.
Typically, a city of that population would have about 40,000 people with
high speed connections. At an average cost of $30 per month, they would
be spending $1.2 million/month on access.
They had a spokesperson for the cable and DSL coalition that is fighting
municipal WiFi, and he was pretty weak, with the opposition centering
around fire and police services being negatively impacted by the money
being spent on WiFi.
9) PREEMPT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM BUILDING COMPETING NETWORKS. The Act
basically adopts the “Pennsylvania Plan.” If a local or state government
wants to build a network, it must issue a request for proposal (RFP) to
see if any private company wants to build the network instead. Only if
no private provider offers to build a “comparable” network can the state
or local government build and operate the network. Any system in
existence at the time of the act is grandfathered, but only if it does
not expand its network or type of service offered. If you are on the
wrong side of the street when the statute passes, too bad for you."
SMS wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
>> Given that they are frantically trying to get a law passed that
>> prohibits any municipal funding of WiFi, it's clear that they are
>> bothered. They've even given the bill a Bush-like 1984 name, the
>> "Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005." It's as if bookstores
>> tried to pass a law that prohibited municipal funding of libraries.
>
>
> Sorry to follow up on my own post.
>
> There was just a piece on the news tonight about communities that are
> setting up free wi-fi. The initial cost for Alexandria VA was around
> $20K for a city of around 130,000 people. This is "naked" access, no
> e-mail, VPN, etc, so the monthly cost to maintain the network is low.
> Typically, a city of that population would have about 40,000 people with
> high speed connections. At an average cost of $30 per month, they would
> be spending $1.2 million/month on access.
>
> They had a spokesperson for the cable and DSL coalition that is fighting
> municipal WiFi, and he was pretty weak, with the opposition centering
> around fire and police services being negatively impacted by the money
> being spent on WiFi.
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 08:20:45 GMT, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
>There was just a piece on the news tonight about communities that are
>setting up free wi-fi. The initial cost for Alexandria VA was around
>$20K for a city of around 130,000 people.
Moorhead, MN proposes a municipal wifi service costing subscribers
$20/month
Re: Best way to steal neighbor's wireless signal? 
Linear Mode
