Hawking HWU8DD Dish any good for extending WIFI range ?

I am interested in a way to extend my laptop range so that I can
connect to WIFI networks that are farther away. Perhaps when I am at
my mother's house and I might want to hook into some neighbors WIFI or
when I am camping. I stay at a campground in Maine and I have to be
close to the main building to get the WIFI, but if I had better range
I could stay at one the nicer sites in the back. This hawking unit
seems to have some good reviews though I guess it's a bit delicate,
any recommendations on this or similar units ?


http://www.amazon.com/Hawking-Techno.../dp/B000DINCIQ

wbsurfver@yahoo.com wrote:
> I am interested in a way to extend my laptop range so that I can
> connect to WIFI networks that are farther away. Perhaps when I am at
> my mother's house and I might want to hook into some neighbors WIFI or
> when I am camping. I stay at a campground in Maine and I have to be
> close to the main building to get the WIFI, but if I had better range
> I could stay at one the nicer sites in the back.

If you don't have a clear line of sight, nothing is going to work more
than a hundred feet or so. If you put it on a plastic box and extend the
USB cable to the roof, it might work.

wbsurfver@yahoo.com wrote:
> I am interested in a way to extend my laptop range so that I can
> connect to WIFI networks that are farther away. Perhaps when I am at
> my mother's house and I might want to hook into some neighbors WIFI or
> when I am camping. I stay at a campground in Maine and I have to be
> close to the main building to get the WIFI, but if I had better range
> I could stay at one the nicer sites in the back. This hawking unit
> seems to have some good reviews though I guess it's a bit delicate,
> any recommendations on this or similar units ?
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Hawking-Techno.../dp/B000DINCIQ
>
I bought one but it has never worked well for me. It shows a boosted
signal, yet is intermittent. Usually I use the MN-510.
LZ

"Lone Haranguer" <linusz@hughes.net> wrote in message
news:5slfoqF19mhqjU1@mid.individual.net...
> wbsurfver@yahoo.com wrote:
>> I am interested in a way to extend my laptop range so that I can
>> connect to WIFI networks that are farther away. Perhaps when I am at
>> my mother's house and I might want to hook into some neighbors WIFI or
>> when I am camping. I stay at a campground in Maine and I have to be
>> close to the main building to get the WIFI, but if I had better range
>> I could stay at one the nicer sites in the back. This hawking unit
>> seems to have some good reviews though I guess it's a bit delicate,
>> any recommendations on this or similar units ?
>>
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Hawking-Techno.../dp/B000DINCIQ
>>
> I bought one but it has never worked well for me. It shows a boosted
> signal, yet is intermittent. Usually I use the MN-510.
> LZ

I bought one a year ago and swear by it. Here's my early review on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1SROFR...cm_cr_rdp_perm

I continue to like it so well that I put in in my Amazon store connected to
my RV travel blog, along with other books, magazines, and camera that I
personally recommend because they were helpful to me.
http://astore.amazon.com/prmorvsere-...ng=UTF8&node=8

Camille

I am slightly confused by the many varying reviews, some bad, many
good.

Can people be more specific what works and doesn't ? I use my laptop
for various web surfing, watching youtube, connecting to work via VPN.

As for 100 feet limitation mentioned in one of the posts - at this
very moment I am connected to my neighbors WIFI which is going through
2 walls of our house a small pine forest and the distance must be 250
feet or more to their house and I am getting a decent signal using the
built in WIFI on my HP laptop, though the strength does seem seems to
vary sometimes, it's usually plenty adequate.

wbsurfver@yahoo.com wrote:
> As for 100 feet limitation mentioned in one of the posts - at this
> very moment I am connected to my neighbors WIFI which is going through
> 2 walls of our house a small pine forest and the distance must be 250
> feet or more to their house and I am getting a decent signal using the
> built in WIFI on my HP laptop, though the strength does seem seems to
> vary sometimes, it's usually plenty adequate.

It might work well weel with a clear line of site.

If you are fine with "seem to vary at time" and "usually" plenty of
signal, then may work for you.

"wbsurfver@yahoo.com" <wbsurfver@gmail.com> hath wroth:

>I am interested in a way to extend my laptop range so that I can
>connect to WIFI networks that are farther away.

Does your laptop have an external antenna connector? How do you feel
about adding one?
<http://repair4laptop.org/wireless_lan_antennae.html>
You might find it useful to disclose the maker and model number of
your laptop.

>Perhaps when I am at
>my mother's house and I might want to hook into some neighbors WIFI or
>when I am camping.

Sure, as long as you have permission from the owner.

>I stay at a campground in Maine and I have to be
>close to the main building to get the WIFI, but if I had better range
>I could stay at one the nicer sites in the back. This hawking unit
>seems to have some good reviews though I guess it's a bit delicate,
>any recommendations on this or similar units ?
>http://www.amazon.com/Hawking-Techno.../dp/B000DINCIQ

Well, let's make some assumption and play with the numbers. The range
of a typical USB device, with a built in 0dBi or worse antenna, is
somewhat worse than what you would get with a typical MiniPCI laptop
using diversity antennas at the top of the LCD frame. The only real
benifit to USB is that you can relocate it and its antenna to a more
favorable location.

For the sake of guesswork, let's assume that the tx power outpuit of
the USB adapter is about the same as the MiniPCI card in your
unspecified laptop. If I assume a 0dBi antenna gain for the laptop,
and 8dBi for the dish thing, then the range improvement will be:
10^(8dBi / 20) = 2.5 times
That's probably worth the effort.

Incidentally, I ran the numbers on the Hawking dish and a flat panel
equivalent and found that it really does have almost 8dBi gain:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/HawkDish08/index.html>
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/FullWavePlateReflector/index.html>

However, I wouldn't do it that way. Methinks you will probably need a
bigger gain antenna, with perhaps 12 to 14dBi gain. That will yield 4
to 5 times improvement in speed. You can do it with your existing
MiniPCI card by adding an external antenna, or using a PCMCIA card, or
USB device with an external antenna connector.

USB radio with connector:
<http://www.fab-corp.com/product.php?productid=16186&cat=0&page=1>
Higher gain panel antennas:
<http://www.fab-corp.com/home.php?cat=255>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

DTC wrote:
> wbsurfver@yahoo.com wrote:
>> As for 100 feet limitation mentioned in one of the posts - at this
>> very moment I am connected to my neighbors WIFI which is going through
>> 2 walls of our house a small pine forest and the distance must be 250
>> feet or more to their house and I am getting a decent signal using the
>> built in WIFI on my HP laptop, though the strength does seem seems to
>> vary sometimes, it's usually plenty adequate.
>
> It might work well weel with a clear line of site.
>
> If you are fine with "seem to vary at time" and "usually" plenty of
> signal, then may work for you.

Even tech support at Hawking couldn't solve my problem. Device Manager
shows the hardware to be working. It shows a 47% signal but refuses to
connect. I can connect to the same signal with my Microsoft MN-510 from
the same location. Any solutions? Otherwise it will continue to
collect dust in the closet.
LZ

>
> >I am interested in a way to extend my laptop range so that I can
> >connect to WIFI networks that are farther away.
>
> Does your laptop have an external antenna connector? How do you feel
> about adding one?
> <http://repair4laptop.org/wireless_lan_antennae.html>

Ok, I'll look into that when I have some time.

> You might find it useful to disclose the maker and model number of
> your laptop.
>

HP Pavilion dv 1000, which I purchased in May of 2006

> >Perhaps when I am at
> >my mother's house and I might want to hook into some neighbors WIFI or
> >when I am camping.
>
> Sure, as long as you have permission from the owner.
>

That's an interesting one ... for one, it depends on how often I
would want to use the network at various places. My sister suggesting
asking the people, but they might say no ..
I do feel funny about it, but what is the legality ? That seems to be
a murky question and from searching the web you get conflicting views,
some saying it's illegal, others saying it's perfectly legal. My
suspicion is that tens of thousands of people are borrowing other
people's WIFI without permission, and I've scarcely heard of any legal
action except a few cases. Perhaps the manufacturers in the future
will make that harder to do, or who knows ?





Thanks also for the many technical details, I will have to look into
that as well when I have time

>
> <wbsurf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That's an interesting one ... for one, it depends on how often I
> >would want to use the network at various places. My sister suggesting
> >asking the people, but they might say no ..
> >I do feel funny about it, but what is the legality ? That seems to be
> >a murky question and from searching the web you get conflicting views,
> >some saying it's illegal, others saying it's perfectly legal. My
> >suspicion is that tens of thousands of people are borrowing other
> >people's WIFI without permission, and I've scarcely heard of any legal
> >action except a few cases. Perhaps the manufacturers in the future
> >will make that harder to do, or who knows ?
>
> Guess if you ignore any legal aspects (which probably vary state by
> state) it comes down to a moral issue...if you are so inclined.

I was sort of saying I wasn't sure what the legal issue was exactly
and that it seemed hard to figure out.

> The other individual has paid to have the service, you have not. Just
> because the individual is not educated thoroughly in how to secure the
> system does that mean it is "free game" for anyone who wants to use it?

No, but I might think of your approach as a capitalist based
approach, a socialist based approach might be in a futuristic
scenario, the hardware detects what users are on your router and if
they use a moderate bandwidth under some amount that the system would
allow for such, possibly credit you some amount of money and charge
them some modest amount.


> I suspect that since you have such a cavalier attitude (or call it
> scofflaw attitude) toward this situation probably are not completely
> honest in other situations!

I actually trespass all over the place walking across farmland in
search of fresh air and excercise along with deer, birds and other
wild animals against landowners knowledge ..
A clear threat to national security.

>
> Guess if you ignore any legal aspects (which probably vary state by
> state) it comes down to a moral issue...if you are so inclined. The
> other individual has paid to have the service, you have not. Just
> because the individual is not educated thoroughly in how to secure the
> system does that mean it is "free game" for anyone who wants to use it?
> I suspect that since you have such a cavalier attitude (or call it
> scofflaw attitude) toward this situation probably are not completely
> honest in other situations!
>

It also occurred to me that my mother one time told me these same
neighbors (who have the unsecured WIFI going) where dumping grass
cuttings and other things on our property. Going over and complaining
to them, or trying to dispute where the property boundary was didn't
sound like a fun thing for me to do.

Another thing that happened was that when all these new houses where
built, my mother decided to be neighborly and go introduce herself to
the neighbors, these rich people that live over there. When she got to
their door, she told me they wouldn't open the door and called the
police saying there was someone on their property.

On Dec 17, 11:41 am, Pegleg <Peg...@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:23:22 -0800 (PST), "wbsurf...@yahoo.com"
>
> <wbsurf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > No, but I might think of your approach as a capitalist based
> >approach, a socialist based approach might be in a futuristic
> >scenario, the hardware detects what users are on your router and if
> >they use a moderate bandwidth under some amount that the system would
> >allow for such, possibly credit you some amount of money and charge
> >them some modest amount.
>
> Are we currently living under that fantasy scenario? No...so that does
> not apply!
>

Well, we could use all kinds of arguments if we really wanted.
Corporations, lawyers do that all the time. I could claim for instance
that their WIFI device is intruding on my airspace in my house. I
didn't ask them to broadcast WIFI into my living room and did not
grant such right of way. Some elecrtonic traffic such as power lines
emit electromagnetic radiation and would could claim such things might
possibly alter one's cells or brainwaves, who knows. Cell Towers are
another example. I don't know why I'm arguing the case in some sense,
maybe I have been corupted by watchng too much TV, that's it, they are
corrupting my mind and I never granted them that right !!!






> >> I suspect that since you have such a cavalier attitude (or call it
> >> scofflaw attitude) toward this situation probably are not completely
> >> honest in other situations!
>
> > I actually trespass all over the place walking across farmland in
> >search of fresh air and excercise along with deer, birds and other
> >wild animals against landowners knowledge ..
>
> Or their permission! A simple request usually results in a granted
> response (based on my own experiences). A case of personal respect!
>
> You are a piece of work!

On Dec 17, 12:08 pm, Pegleg <Peg...@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:36:43 -0800 (PST), "wbsurf...@yahoo.com"
>
> <wbsurf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Another thing that happened was that when all these new houses where
> >built, my mother decided to be neighborly and go introduce herself to
> >the neighbors, these rich people that live over there. When she got to
> >their door, she told me they wouldn't open the door and called the
> >police saying there was someone on their property.
>
> Please seek professional help!
>
> PLONK!

What kind of professional help are you refering to ?

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:13:55 -0800, Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil>
wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 07:29:42 -0800 (PST), "wbsurfver@yahoo.com"
><wbsurfver@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Guess if you ignore any legal aspects (which probably vary state by
>state) it comes down to a moral issue...if you are so inclined. The
>other individual has paid to have the service, you have not. Just
>because the individual is not educated thoroughly in how to secure the
>system does that mean it is "free game" for anyone who wants to use it?
>I suspect that since you have such a cavalier attitude (or call it
>scofflaw attitude) toward this situation probably are not completely
>honest in other situations!
>
>-


To my knowledge, all WiFi adapters make is an affirmative action to
allow an open source. The default position is to say "NO" and enter
some form of encryption. And encryption is the recommended set-up.

As a lawyer, I would argue that failing to encrypt is tacit approval
of use. I might well lose the case but would gladly take it on.

Additionally, in an area where I can see many un-encrypted signals,
how can I tell one whose owner doesn't want freeloaders from one who
does?

dean

In article <5sm6gtF19ruk5U5@mid.individual.net>,
Lone Haranguer <linusz@hughes.net> wrote:
>DTC wrote:
>> wbsurfver@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> As for 100 feet limitation mentioned in one of the posts - at this
>>> very moment I am connected to my neighbors WIFI which is going through
>>> 2 walls of our house a small pine forest and the distance must be 250
>>> feet or more to their house and I am getting a decent signal using the
>>> built in WIFI on my HP laptop, though the strength does seem seems to
>>> vary sometimes, it's usually plenty adequate.
>>
>> It might work well weel with a clear line of site.
>>
>> If you are fine with "seem to vary at time" and "usually" plenty of
>> signal, then may work for you.
>
>Even tech support at Hawking couldn't solve my problem. Device Manager
>shows the hardware to be working. It shows a 47% signal but refuses to
>connect. I can connect to the same signal with my Microsoft MN-510 from
>the same location. Any solutions? Otherwise it will continue to
>collect dust in the closet.
>LZ

This is one symptom of a date/time mis-match.

Check that the clock is close on the equipment on both ends.

"wbsurfver@yahoo.com" <wbsurfver@gmail.com> hath wroth:

>> <http://repair4laptop.org/wireless_lan_antennae.html>
> Ok, I'll look into that when I have some time.

> HP Pavilion dv 1000, which I purchased in May of 2006

I have one of those (dead) in my office. Customer plugged the wrong
power supply into it and blew up something. I keep wanting to fix it
but never have the time. Nice laptop. Uses an Intel 2200BG wireless
card with u.FL antenna connectors. You should be able to easily bring
out the antenna port labeled "Main" to the outside using a u.FL to SMA
pigtail. Bug me if you need ideas and sources.

>> Sure, as long as you have permission from the owner.

> That's an interesting one ... for one, it depends on how often I
>would want to use the network at various places. My sister suggesting
>asking the people, but they might say no ..

They usually say it's ok, especially if you're just passing through.
I've gone into businesses and asked for the WPA key for casual use.
Reactions vary from total panic to "no problem". It seems to depend
on what I look like. If I look like a hacker with evil intentions,
results will not be favorable.

Various states have laws making unauthorized use of someone's computer
"network" to be a crime. Prosecution and arrests have been few and
spotty. Mostly the legal establishment doesn't see any money to be
made from such prosecutions and has therefore avoided them. Due to
this lack of interest and due to numerous dropped cases, there are few
decisions and precedents. This creates an atmosphere where pundits
offer widely varying opinions. Eventually, there will be some
clarification but at this time, it's the Wild West of Wireless out
there.

There are also numerous laws that overlap what you're doing. For
example, if you download stolen copyrighted content, you will probably
be charged with a DMCA violation, not a wireless access violation.

There's a web pile that has a list of applicable laws by state, but as
usual, I can't find it.

>I do feel funny about it, but what is the legality?

Dunno. I have a simple rule of thumb. Put yourself in the position
of the broadband owner (or service provider). Would you want someone,
as yourself, in the manner you're proposing, to use your broadband
system? If yes, the proceed. If not, then kindly let your conscience
be your guide, not the hair splitting letter of the law.

Incidentally, laws were made because people couldn't figure out how
they should act. Apparently, we've lost the ability to make such
simple moral decisions and replaced this ability with mountains of
legality.

>That seems to be
>a murky question and from searching the web you get conflicting views,
>some saying it's illegal, others saying it's perfectly legal. My
>suspicion is that tens of thousands of people are borrowing other
>people's WIFI without permission, and I've scarcely heard of any legal
>action except a few cases.

All too true and correct. The current fashion in computer crime is
that anything that is easy to do, difficult to enforce, and expensive
to prosecute, is considered acceptable.

>Perhaps the manufacturers in the future
>will make that harder to do, or who knows ?

I've tried (and partially failed). Search this newsgroup for "secure
by default". The problem is that many wireless routers are totally
insecure out of the box. Unfortunately, they will also function set
to the defaults, so many clueless wireless router owners just plug and
play. Some manufacturers, such as 2wire, have a clue and ship their
products with a preconfigured password, SSID, and WEP/WPA key.
However, most others are wide open on arrival. That may change, but
apparently only after a manufacturer is deemed partially liable for
consequential damaged arising from their default product
configuration.

>Thanks also for the many technical details, I will have to look into
>that as well when I have time

Good luck and get a bigger antenna than 8dBi. Think of it as doubling
your range for every 6dB of antenna gain (minus something for the
coaxial cable losses).

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Lone Haranguer <linusz@hughes.net> hath wroth:

>Even tech support at Hawking couldn't solve my problem. Device Manager
>shows the hardware to be working. It shows a 47% signal but refuses to
>connect.

Connect to what make and model wireless router? Have you tried
connecting to other wireless access points?

How do you have the encryption configured? If WEP encryption, use the
hex key instead of ASCII to avoid a possible ASCII to Hex conversion
incompatibility.

Any particular operating system? Have you tried the HWU8DD on a
different computer?

>I can connect to the same signal with my Microsoft MN-510 from
>the same location. Any solutions? Otherwise it will continue to
>collect dust in the closet.

Does your unspecified router have any logging features? Does your
Hawking HWU8DD have any connection diagnostics? If so, what do they
offer? If running XP or Vista, there are operating systems based
connection diagnostics.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

In article <tcfdm3dqho62jji716gs2f4hr803kkjdas@4ax.com>,
Dean <roamerblog@firstinter.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:13:55 -0800, Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 07:29:42 -0800 (PST), "wbsurfver@yahoo.com"
>><wbsurfver@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Guess if you ignore any legal aspects (which probably vary state by
>>state) it comes down to a moral issue...if you are so inclined. The
>>other individual has paid to have the service, you have not. Just
>>because the individual is not educated thoroughly in how to secure the
>>system does that mean it is "free game" for anyone who wants to use it?
>>I suspect that since you have such a cavalier attitude (or call it
>>scofflaw attitude) toward this situation probably are not completely
>>honest in other situations!
>>
>>-
>
>
>To my knowledge, all WiFi adapters make is an affirmative action to
>allow an open source. The default position is to say "NO" and enter
>some form of encryption. And encryption is the recommended set-up.

100% Backwards. All access points operate in 'open' mode *unless* specific
action is taken to close access. At a minimum, you have to enter an
encryption key, before you can use encrypted mode operation.

Yes, encryption _is_ recommended. To those who bother to read the directions.
And there's nothing that says anybody _has_ to read the directions before
hooking an Access point up.
>
>As a lawyer, I would argue that failing to encrypt is tacit approval
>of use. I might well lose the case but would gladly take it on.

Arguing "implied permission" is always an uphill battle.

If there is an 'unsecured' telephone termination block in a public area
do you have 'tacit' permission to connect a telephone, and dial a call?`

If a car is stopped, unattended, with the keys in it and the doors
unlocked, do you have 'tacit' permission to take it for a joy ride?

How about failure to close the curtains/drapes/shades before undressing...
is that 'tacit permission' for a peeping tom?

Heck, competent experts can't even agree as to the 'tacit permission' for
copying that goes on with posting an article to USENET. are remote servers
infringing the authors copyright when the forward it to another server?
Or when they forward it to a mere user? Can _that_ user make copies for others?

>Additionally, in an area where I can see many un-encrypted signals,
>how can I tell one whose owner doesn't want freeloaders from one who
>does?

That's easy. Like with copyright, if you don't have express permission,
*don't* do it.

Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <5sm6gtF19ruk5U5@mid.individual.net>,
> Lone Haranguer <linusz@hughes.net> wrote:
>> Even tech support at Hawking couldn't solve my problem. Device Manager
>> shows the hardware to be working. It shows a 47% signal but refuses to
>> connect. I can connect to the same signal with my Microsoft MN-510 from
>> the same location. Any solutions? Otherwise it will continue to
>> collect dust in the closet.
>> LZ
>
> This is one symptom of a date/time mis-match.
>
> Check that the clock is close on the equipment on both ends.

This is a new revelation to me. Is this a modern snipe hunt?
LZ

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Lone Haranguer <linusz@hughes.net> hath wroth:
>
>> Even tech support at Hawking couldn't solve my problem. Device Manager
>> shows the hardware to be working. It shows a 47% signal but refuses to
>> connect.
>
> Connect to what make and model wireless router? Have you tried
> connecting to other wireless access points?

Actually there are 3 wifi signals showing up, ALL are open access. The
one I'm authorized to use is a QWEST DSL belonging to the resort. There
is also a LINKSYS and BELKIN, all 3 work with my MN-510 with no problem
or special configuration. Plug it in and it works.
>
> How do you have the encryption configured? If WEP encryption, use the
> hex key instead of ASCII to avoid a possible ASCII to Hex conversion
> incompatibility.

I'll double check that.
>
> Any particular operating system? Have you tried the HWU8DD on a
> different computer?

Yes. Same result.
>
>> I can connect to the same signal with my Microsoft MN-510 from
>> the same location. Any solutions? Otherwise it will continue to
>> collect dust in the closet.
>
> Does your unspecified router have any logging features? Does your
> Hawking HWU8DD have any connection diagnostics? If so, what do they
> offer? If running XP or Vista, there are operating systems based
> connection diagnostics.

Using XP Home and I've run the troubleshooting help without success.
LZ
>
>

Lone Haranguer <linusz@hughes.net> hath wroth:

>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> Lone Haranguer <linusz@hughes.net> hath wroth:
>>
>>> Even tech support at Hawking couldn't solve my problem. Device Manager
>>> shows the hardware to be working. It shows a 47% signal but refuses to
>>> connect.
>>
>> Connect to what make and model wireless router? Have you tried
>> connecting to other wireless access points?
>
>Actually there are 3 wifi signals showing up, ALL are open access. The
>one I'm authorized to use is a QWEST DSL belonging to the resort. There
>is also a LINKSYS and BELKIN, all 3 work with my MN-510 with no problem
>or special configuration. Plug it in and it works.

Good. The eliminates the access point as the source of the problem.
That leaves the HWU8DD, XP, or some kind of weird incompatibility.

Incidentally, try connecting to the other two access points. If those
work, but the Qwest access point does not, it's some kind of
configuration issue, probably a MAC address filter in the Qwest access
point.

>> How do you have the encryption configured? If WEP encryption, use the
>> hex key instead of ASCII to avoid a possible ASCII to Hex conversion
>> incompatibility.
>
>I'll double check that.

WEP is commonly a problem.

>> Any particular operating system? Have you tried the HWU8DD on a
>> different computer?
>
>Yes. Same result.

Good. That eliminates XP and the computah as the possible culprit.
We're down to the HWU8DD, the configuration, filtering, firmware(?),
and the position of the moon.

>>> I can connect to the same signal with my Microsoft MN-510 from
>>> the same location. Any solutions? Otherwise it will continue to
>>> collect dust in the closet.
>>
>> Does your unspecified router have any logging features? Does your
>> Hawking HWU8DD have any connection diagnostics? If so, what do they
>> offer? If running XP or Vista, there are operating systems based
>> connection diagnostics.
>
>Using XP Home and I've run the troubleshooting help without success.

I'll wager that you haven't tried enabling WZC (wireless zero config)
logging. That's because its a verbose mess of incomprehensible
gibberish. However, both Microsoft and I consider it great fun to
drive users nuts, so I'll supply instructions.

1. Make sure that you are using WZC and not the connection manager
that comes with the HWU8DD. This may not be possible as some USB
wireless devices insist that you use their connection manager.

2. Download and skim (do not read) MS Support Guide for Wireless
Diagnostics and Troubleshooting:
<http://www.microsoft.com/technet/network/wifi/wlansupp.mspx>

3. To enable or disable logging, run:
netsh ras set tracing * enable
netsh ras set tracing * disable

4. You will find various log files in the sub-directory:
C:\Windoze\tracing\
Look for:
Wzctrace.log
which contains the connection logging data.

Good luck.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) hath wroth:

>100% Backwards. All access points operate in 'open' mode *unless* specific
>action is taken to close access. At a minimum, you have to enter an
>encryption key, before you can use encrypted mode operation.

Not all. 2wire Wireless routers arrive secure by default. The
factory pre-assigns the SSID, WEP/WPA key, and re-configuration
password, which are printed on a label stuck onto the bottom of the
device. This is the way it should be done, but the bottom of the line
wireless manufacturers are waiting for litigatory or divine
inspiration to do the same.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Dec 17, 2:46 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> In article <tcfdm3dqho62jji716gs2f4hr803kkj...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
> Dean <roamerb...@firstinter.net> wrote:
> >On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:13:55 -0800, Pegleg <Peg...@usnavyret.mil>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 07:29:42 -0800 (PST), "wbsurf...@yahoo.com"
> >><wbsurf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Guess if you ignore any legal aspects (which probably vary state by
> >>state) it comes down to a moral issue...if you are so inclined. The
> >>other individual has paid to have the service, you have not. Just
> >>because the individual is not educated thoroughly in how to secure the
> >>system does that mean it is "free game" for anyone who wants to use it?
> >>I suspect that since you have such a cavalier attitude (or call it
> >>scofflaw attitude) toward this situation probably are not completely
> >>honest in other situations!
>
> >>-
>
> >To my knowledge, all WiFi adapters make is an affirmative action to
> >allow an open source. The default position is to say "NO" and enter
> >some form of encryption. And encryption is the recommended set-up.
>
> 100% Backwards. All access points operate in 'open' mode *unless* specific
> action is taken to close access. At a minimum, you have to enter an
> encryption key, before you can use encrypted mode operation.
>
> Yes, encryption _is_ recommended. To those who bother to read the directions.
> And there's nothing that says anybody _has_ to read the directions before
> hooking an Access point up.
>
>
>
> >As a lawyer, I would argue that failing to encrypt is tacit approval
> >of use. I might well lose the case but would gladly take it on.
>
> Arguing "implied permission" is always an uphill battle.
>
> If there is an 'unsecured' telephone termination block in a public area
> do you have 'tacit' permission to connect a telephone, and dial a call?`
>
> If a car is stopped, unattended, with the keys in it and the doors
> unlocked, do you have 'tacit' permission to take it for a joy ride?
>
> How about failure to close the curtains/drapes/shades before undressing...
> is that 'tacit permission' for a peeping tom?
>
> Heck, competent experts can't even agree as to the 'tacit permission' for
> copying that goes on with posting an article to USENET. are remote servers
> infringing the authors copyright when the forward it to another server?
> Or when they forward it to a mere user? Can _that_ user make copies for others?
>
> >Additionally, in an area where I can see many un-encrypted signals,
> >how can I tell one whose owner doesn't want freeloaders from one who
> >does?
>
> That's easy. Like with copyright, if you don't have express permission,
> *don't* do it.

I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine you could make a legal argument as
follows:

Any unsophisticated user who buys a lap top, if he just sits that
laptop down in his house and turns it on and does nothing more than
bring up a web browser, that laptop and any software running on it
will automatically try to connect to any WI-FI connection that it can
find virtually all by itself with no help from anyone. All laptops
have been designed to automatically connect to whatever WI-FI
connections they find, and the routers have been designed to comply
likewise. There are probably lots of little old ladies that don't even
realize they are on the next door neighbors WI-FI. That's how these
systems have been designed, you practically just turn them on and they
throw you onto whatever network they are able to.

Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
> That's easy. Like with copyright, if you don't have express
> permission, *don't* do it.

So the person with the wap buys it, and hooks it up, but doesnt encrypt
it.... Seems to me that THAT person is responsible, and by NOT encrypting it
is giving permission to use it.. after all they take the action to provide
it... Ever notice the ones you get from a phone or cble company have
wireless turned OFF by default? it's only the people buying em from 3rd
party places that install em without encrypting them.
about the only scenario I can think of is that some nefarious person sneaks
onto your property, taps into you phone/cable/electric, and installs an open
wap without your knowledge...

Sure would like to know how you can justify someone taking a positive action
to install one, that wouldn't be there otherwise, and then try and say it's
someone elses fault, other than the person that physically installs it.

wbsurfver@yahoo.com wrote:
> I am slightly confused by the many varying reviews, some bad, many
> good.
>
> Can people be more specific what works and doesn't ? I use my laptop
> for various web surfing, watching youtube, connecting to work via VPN.
>
> As for 100 feet limitation mentioned in one of the posts - at this
> very moment I am connected to my neighbors WIFI which is going through
> 2 walls of our house a small pine forest and the distance must be 250
> feet or more to their house and I am getting a decent signal using the
> built in WIFI on my HP laptop, though the strength does seem seems to
> vary sometimes, it's usually plenty adequate.

I use mine and have had very good
success with it. I do have a long USB
extension and sometimes I tape it to the
top of the batwing TV antenna. I
put a plastic bag over it to prevent
rain damage. This lets you adjust it from
inside. At the last park, they had an
ordinary wireless router mounted to the
outside of one of the permanent units in
the park. It was about 300 feet or
so, line of site. The signal showed
very low, however, I was able to stream
video for about an hour .... not too
shabby. At the Cedar Point campgrounds,
they have free Wifi in their hotel
lobbies. I had a spot which faced the
hotel.
I put the antenna inside the MH by the
window facing the hotel, about 400
to 500 feet. It worked ok, not
perfectly, but quite adequately.

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Dunno. I have a simple rule of thumb. Put yourself in the position
> of the broadband owner (or service provider). Would you want someone,
> as yourself, in the manner you're proposing, to use your broadband
> system? If yes, the proceed. If not, then kindly let your conscience
> be your guide, not the hair splitting letter of the law.
>
> Incidentally, laws were made because people couldn't figure out how
> they should act. Apparently, we've lost the ability to make such
> simple moral decisions and replaced this ability with mountains of
> legality.

I'm sort of curious why the confusion? It's an willfull act by the person
with broadband that buys/puts in a wap without reading the instructions and
securing it.. How can it possibly be the broadband providers fault? They
didn't add it... Reminds me of the "I was just following orders" defense
(did that ever work?).. Is that a sign of the times... IE you buy it at a
big box store so you can get it cheaper than the ones sold by the broadband
company that are secure, you install it yourself, you either intentionally
or inadvertantly leave it open, but it's someone elses fault? Doesn't
anybody take responsibilty for their actions anymore or is it typical to
claim it wasn't me, it's their fault?

From what you said above, "put yourself in the position of the broadband
owner (or service provider)...." don't they usually explicity say in their
terms that you can buy wireless from them, and for a fee it will be
installed and secured?

Peter Pan wrote:
> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>
>> That's easy. Like with copyright, if you don't have express
>> permission, *don't* do it.
>
> So the person with the wap buys it, and hooks it up, but doesnt
> encrypt it.... Seems to me that THAT person is responsible, and by
> NOT encrypting it is giving permission to use it.. after all they
> take the action to provide it... Ever notice the ones you get from a
> phone or cble company have wireless turned OFF by default? it's only
> the people buying em from 3rd party places that install em without
> encrypting them. about the only scenario I can think of is that some
> nefarious person
> sneaks onto your property, taps into you phone/cable/electric, and
> installs an open wap without your knowledge...
>
> Sure would like to know how you can justify someone taking a positive
> action to install one, that wouldn't be there otherwise, and then try
> and say it's someone elses fault, other than the person that
> physically installs it.

Ooooops, forgot the scenario where someone breaks into your house, holdS a
gun to your head, and forces you to install a wap so people can use it...
I'm sure that happens a whole lot.... :)

In article <5sp43nF19qc5cU1@mid.individual.net>,
Peter Pan <PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>
>> That's easy. Like with copyright, if you don't have express
>> permission, *don't* do it.
>
>So the person with the wap buys it, and hooks it up, but doesnt encrypt
>it.... Seems to me that THAT person is responsible, and by NOT encrypting it
>is giving permission to use it..

What you think, and what the law says, are different things. :)

Is someone immune from breaking and entering charges, just because you didn't
lock your back door?

Was your wife's purse _not_ stolen, if she left it at the restaurant table, and
it wasn't there when she came back for it? Just because she didn't lock it
down? Was it her _fault_ it was stolen, or was it the fault of the thief?
Yes, there _was_ negligence, but how much of the fault lies with whom?

>Sure would like to know how you can justify someone taking a positive action
>to install one, that wouldn't be there otherwise, and then try and say it's
>someone elses fault, other than the person that physically installs it.

The justification is _hundreds_ (literally) of years of English common law
history regarding private property rights. "what's mine is _MINE_, and you
aren't entitled to use it without getting my permission _first_." I don't
have to (legally) put locks on it to enforce my rights.

Formal French common law history on the matter doesn't extend as far back,
but one can trace relevant property rights all the way back to the 'Code
of Hamurabi'.

"Just because it's there" does _not_ imply that you have any legal right to
use it.

"Peter Pan" <PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com> hath wroth:

>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> Dunno. I have a simple rule of thumb. Put yourself in the position
>> of the broadband owner (or service provider). Would you want someone,
>> as yourself, in the manner you're proposing, to use your broadband
>> system? If yes, the proceed. If not, then kindly let your conscience
>> be your guide, not the hair splitting letter of the law.
>>
>> Incidentally, laws were made because people couldn't figure out how
>> they should act. Apparently, we've lost the ability to make such
>> simple moral decisions and replaced this ability with mountains of
>> legality.
>
>I'm sort of curious why the confusion? It's an willfull act by the person
>with broadband that buys/puts in a wap without reading the instructions and
>securing it.. How can it possibly be the broadband providers fault? They
>didn't add it... Reminds me of the "I was just following orders" defense
>(did that ever work?).. Is that a sign of the times... IE you buy it at a
>big box store so you can get it cheaper than the ones sold by the broadband
>company that are secure, you install it yourself, you either intentionally
>or inadvertantly leave it open, but it's someone elses fault? Doesn't
>anybody take responsibilty for their actions anymore or is it typical to
>claim it wasn't me, it's their fault?

Well, I note that you use the words "at fault". That's the problem.
We're both assuming that some damage has been done, and therefore
someone must be blamed. In my never humble opinion, neither
assumption is true. The damage may be nothing more than a violation
of some arbitrary TOS (terms of service) from the originating ISP. It
may be an odd variation of Theft of Service(s)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_of_services>
by denying the ISP customer their allegedly just compensation. It may
also be a victimless crime, where the mere presence of an unwanted
computer on a LAN may constitute some odd violation of their privacy,
security, or integrity. The imagination boggles, but the damage is
minimal and the crime is mostly contractual.

On the other foot, an evil hacker could setup a Bitorrent server and
monopolize the available bandwidth to distribute illegal (DMCA)
content. The owner of the wireless access point could be deemed as an
"enabler" thus creating legal exposure. More imagination and
boggling.

Meanwhile, the ISP's TOS clearly specify that the customer cannot
resell, share, or redistribute the service (i.e. sell or give away
bandwidth). Setting up an intentionally public or accidentally open
wireless hot spot is usually in direct violation of the TOS. However,
violations of the TOS are not a crime. However, in some states (i.e.
Florida), the state has apparently decided that a typical ISP customer
is not able to enforce their own network security and has therefore
criminalized both intentional and accidental network access. They may
have a point, but without consequential damages, I see little point in
making wireless access a crime.

Anyway, I can go on like this forever, but I think you get the idea.
The law is starting to step in due to the apparent inability of the
customers to enforce their own wireless security, and possibly the
ISP's unwillingness to enforce their own TOS. I think confusion
describes the current state of affairs quite adequately.

>From what you said above, "put yourself in the position of the broadband
>owner (or service provider)...." don't they usually explicity say in their
>terms that you can buy wireless from them, and for a fee it will be
>installed and secured?

You're mixing two separate concepts. The "put yourself in the
position of the broadband owner (or service provider) was in reference
to determining the ethics of the situation. It works for any moral
dilemma, conundrum, or paradox. If you can't see clearly if something
is right or wrong from your point of view, perhaps looking at it from
the position of the other side, or the other participants, will offer
a clearer picture.

The other comment refers to the TOS which vary widely in quality,
content, and coherence. Many of them are written in draconian terms,
with extreme limitations on what a customer can do, and without any
real attempt to seriously enforce the TOS. They're like the warning
labels on drugs and other products, that are there strictly to
minimize liability. "See, we warned you" is the mantra. The TOS are
also useful for kicking off individual customers that have somehow
become undesirable. That's how some of the wireless cellular data
providers dumped a large number of their customers that actually
believed that "unlimited" meant' "unlimited". It was much cheaper to
get rid of the heavy users, than to increase capacity so that the more
conservative users would have some bandwidth left to use.

I have some ideas on what should be done to clarify the situation.
However, I have little time and even less interest in pursuing the
issue in a public forum.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:



>> Perhaps the manufacturers in the future
>> will make that harder to do, or who knows ?
>
> I've tried (and partially failed). Search this newsgroup for "secure
> by default". The problem is that many wireless routers are totally
> insecure out of the box. Unfortunately, they will also function set
> to the defaults, so many clueless wireless router owners just plug and
> play. Some manufacturers, such as 2wire, have a clue and ship their
> products with a preconfigured password, SSID, and WEP/WPA key.
> However, most others are wide open on arrival. That may change, but
> apparently only after a manufacturer is deemed partially liable for
> consequential damaged arising from their default product
> configuration.
>
Out of curiosity did AB 2415 have any affect in California or have
manufacturers ignored it?

<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2401-2450/ab_2415_bill_20060930_chaptered.pdf>