Wi-Fi Sniffing Question

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

gary wrote:
> "William Warren" <william_warren_nonoise@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:BUxmd.619816$8_6.101379@attbi_s04...
>
[snip]
>>A WiFi hotspot, however, can be used without damage or inconvenience
>>suffered by its owner, and I think there's a societal paradyme shift going
>>on, in which bandwidth is becoming inexpensive enough that it's not worth
>>the cost to deny it to others.
>
>
> As an aside, that's "paradigm", not "paradyme".

Noted, thanks.

[snip]

> There's no free lunch. If every home connection becomes a portal for dozens
> of end users, then two things happen:
>
> 1. Cable/DSL load rises much more rapidly then planned, requiring additional
> buildout.
> 2. The subscriber base to pay for it grows far more slowly then planned.
>
> The net result is that subscriber rates increase. I don't mind at all if
> someone else volunteers to pay more to subsidize free internet access, but
> if this free access raises my rates, it amounts to an unfair tax.

I agree. If I implied that I thought ADSL/Cable/whatever connections
should be shared with "dozens" of end users SO AS TO DENY THE ISP
REVENUE, then I wrote unclearly, and I apologize.

My argument is that when "everybody" has an always on, high speed
connection, that it will become a societal norm for people to share it
via WiFi, so as to afford mobile access to others who ALSO have always
on, high speed connections and who ALSO share them. In this scenario,
the ISP gains by selling pipes to multiple subscribers, and by the
increased revenue from value-added services that only make sense in an
environment where portability is taken for granted, such as paperless
menus in restaurants.

Nobody likes a freeloader, least of all me, but we all make exceptions
for the elderly, the infirm, and the disadvantaged, according to a set
of norms that change over time. I think those norms will change to make
shared WiFi something we all just do, like mowing our lawns.

I may be wrong. I hope not.

William

(Filter noise from my address for direct replies.)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

I am not saying its right but if they cant lock down there wireless
routers then its there own fault. People need to read and learn about
there equipment, if you dont your just an idiot who deserves it.


--
ace420
http://forums.speedguide.net

 

[beretta]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 00:08:29 -0500, ace420
<ace420.1fwibd@no-mx.earth.universe.org> wrote:

>
>I am not saying its right but if they cant lock down there wireless
>routers then its there own fault. People need to read and learn about
>there equipment, if you dont your just an idiot who deserves it.

Good lord. If you are going to refer to other people as idiots, you really need
to get a basic grasp of spelling and punctuation.

-----
I am not saying it's right, but if they can't lock down their wireless routers
then it's their own fault. People need to read and learn about their equipment.
If you don't, then you're just an idiot who deserves it.
-----

Notice the differences?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

"gary" <pleasenospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:_Qymd.17250$fC4.7821@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "William Warren" <william_warren_nonoise@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:BUxmd.619816$8_6.101379@attbi_s04...
>> Walter Roberson wrote:
>> A WiFi hotspot, however, can be used without damage or inconvenience
>> suffered by its owner, and I think there's a societal paradyme shift
>> going on, in which bandwidth is becoming inexpensive enough that it's not
>> worth the cost to deny it to others.
>
> As an aside, that's "paradigm", not "paradyme".
>
>
> I belong to a volunteer wifi group that helps businesses install and
> provision wifi for free use. We council all venues to get business-class

And of course, that should be "counsel".

Pot to kettle, come in... If you really must start criticising other
people's use of English, better make sure you double-check your own posting.
LOL

John

 

[gary]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

"John Blessing" <newsgroup@LbeHelpdesk.com> wrote in message
news:303860F2qthe0U1@uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> "gary" <pleasenospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:_Qymd.17250$fC4.7821@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "William Warren" <william_warren_nonoise@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:BUxmd.619816$8_6.101379@attbi_s04...
>>> Walter Roberson wrote:
>>> A WiFi hotspot, however, can be used without damage or inconvenience
>>> suffered by its owner, and I think there's a societal paradyme shift
>>> going on, in which bandwidth is becoming inexpensive enough that it's
>>> not worth the cost to deny it to others.
>>
>> As an aside, that's "paradigm", not "paradyme".
>>
>>
>> I belong to a volunteer wifi group that helps businesses install and
>> provision wifi for free use. We council all venues to get business-class
>
> And of course, that should be "counsel".
>
> Pot to kettle, come in... If you really must start criticising other
> people's use of English, better make sure you double-check your own
> posting. LOL

Kettle back to pot.

You're right, it's "counsel". Thanks for pointing this out. At least my
misspelling is actually a word, though not the one I intended.

>
> John
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Taking a moment's reflection, Walter Roberson mused:
|
| Could you clarify which 'stipulation' that is?

It was in the FCC charter. However, upon looking at the dates of my
source documents, I see they are likely no longer current (early 80's).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Taking a moment's reflection, Walter Roberson mused:
|
| My spouse doesn't use a steering wheel lock on the car. Does that mean we
| "shouldn't have any complaint" if someone puts a jimmy down the window
| and steals the car?

If there existed a culture of some car owners leaving their cars in
public places for anyone to use, you might not. Of course, that would also
assume the doors were left unlocked too. ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

mhicaoidh <ÆÍmıvÈ_mhic_aoidh@hot—ÓXmailäP‰M.com> wrote:

> Taking a moment's reflection, Walter Roberson mused:
> |
> | My spouse doesn't use a steering wheel lock on the car. Does that mean we
> | "shouldn't have any complaint" if someone puts a jimmy down the window
> | and steals the car?
>
> If there existed a culture of some car owners leaving their cars in
> public places for anyone to use, you might not. Of course, that would also
> assume the doors were left unlocked too. ;-)

Which nicely suggests the basic question at the heart of this thread:
What are the social conventions regarding use of an unencrypted wireless
network by a stranger?

Wi-Fi is still too new to have much in the way of generally accepted
conventions. (Consider that we're still arguing about SSID hiding.) That
newness also means that many owners of access points are quite clueless
about the technology they're using. Such widespread ignorance has to be
taken into account when making inferences about unencrypted networks.
From my home, I can see two other wireless networks. One uses WEP, and
the other has an SSID of "linksys". Can I infer that the owner of
"linksys" doesn't mind if I use it to get Internet access? No. Were the
network named "come and get it" or were I sitting in a restaurant in a
commercial zone, my answer would probably be different.

The only sensible approach, given the current state of public knowledge,
is that any wireless network must be presumed to be private unless its
owner has in some way advertised, by a descriptive SSID or otherwise,
that it is open for public use.