<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
I like the don't let them in my house solution. Wouldn't the ammo can
1) burn out the wifi circuit and 2) cause overheating due to lack of
cooling? I had actually thought of wrapping aluminum foil around the
gateway. At the moment, I have the old style modem, so this is
hypothetical.<br>
<br>
Ron<br>
<br>
<br>
On 6/11/2013 11:43 PM, George Allen wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMKZMjmeK2rdhUkkUCsCU-b2fVS=uM3095m0+V6sT7CdPDR30Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote"> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">Easy solution for the technically savy: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.google.com/search?q=5.56+steel+ammo+can">https://www.google.com/search?q=5.56+steel+ammo+can</a></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">Give it some nice RF shielding, then use
your own router.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Jun 11, 2013 9:48 PM, "David Tomaschik"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:david@systemoverlord.com"
target="_blank">david@systemoverlord.com</a>> wrote:<br
type="attribution">
<blockquote
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Ron Frazier (ALE)<br>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:atllinuxenthinfo@techstarship.com" target="_blank">atllinuxenthinfo@techstarship.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
> Hi guys,<br>
><br>
> I thought you'd like to know about this. I heard the host on the
Tech News<br>
> Today podcast ( <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://twit.tv/tnt" target="_blank">http://twit.tv/tnt</a> ) say
something similar to the following:<br>
> Comcast will be expanding its wifi network by putting wifi
gateways in<br>
> Xfinity users homes. ... Comcast users will get free access. ...
Guests get<br>
> two free accesses. ... If you don't want to participate, you have
to opt<br>
> out.<br>
><br>
<snip><br>
><br>
> Supposedly, they replace your cable modem with this new wifi
gateway device.<br>
> It broadcasts two wifi signals. You log into one of them and use
YOUR<br>
> service as normal. Guests login into the other, for free if they
are<br>
> Comcast Xfinity customers, and get two free accesses if they're
not Xfinity<br>
> customers. SUPPOSEDLY, the 2nd connection is independent of the
main one,<br>
> and it doesn't reduce your bandwidth. Yeah, I believe that. The
APPARENT<br>
> plan is to replace all the gateways and enable this internet
sharing without<br>
> the customer's knowledge. That's got to be against the law
somehow.<br>
<br>
Don't see how it would be against the law. They're going to replace a<br>
device they own connected to a service they own with another device<br>
they own connected to a service they own?<br>
<br>
> Now, I know some people willingly share their wifi. I'm not one
of them. I<br>
> have my wfi encrypted with long ugly passwords. There are 3 main
reasons.<br>
> 1) Any other user on my modem is a potential security risk.<br>
<br>
I don't know how they have implemented this, but it would be trivial<br>
to assign a 2nd public IP (or even NAT through a single<br>
neighborhood-wifi-network IP) for the 2nd hotspot and route all<br>
traffic over that. In that case, a user connected to that has the<br>
same amount of access as anyone else on the internet.<br>
<br>
> 2) It does<br>
> reduce my bandwidth and performance.<br>
<br>
Citation needed. The biggest limitation to your bandwidth is the<br>
traffic shaping comcast performs at their head end unit. If the<br>
"public" hotspot is shaped separately, then I don't see how it would<br>
impact your bandwidth. *Maybe* you could make an argument regarding<br>
wifi interference, but a 2nd hotspot on your device won't be any<br>
different from a 2nd device somewhere nearby.<br>
<br>
> 3) If someone else does something<br>
> illegal while connected to your wifi, the police can ( and HAVE )
showed up<br>
> at your door and arrest you. You then have to prove you didn't do
it and<br>
> it's a royal mess.<br>
<br>
Actually, no, the prosecution still has to prove you did it (at least,<br>
legally), but yes, I suppose it could cause some headaches, unless<br>
they can look at wifi hotspot vs private network. Not sure how that<br>
would work.<br>
<br>
> Regardless, no ISP should be able to enable this type of access
without the<br>
> user's knowledge and consent.<br>
<br>
On this, I agree. This should be with the user's consent, but I don't<br>
see it as a big bad threat.<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
David Tomaschik<br>
OpenPGP: 0x5DEA789B<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://systemoverlord.com"
target="_blank">http://systemoverlord.com</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:david@systemoverlord.com"
target="_blank">david@systemoverlord.com</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
(PS - If you email me and don't get a quick response, you might want to
call on the phone. I get about 300 emails per day from alternate energy
mailing lists and such. I don't always see new email messages very quickly.)
Ron Frazier
770-205-9422 (O) Leave a message.
linuxdude AT techstarship.com
Litecoin: LZzAJu9rZEWzALxDhAHnWLRvybVAVgwTh3
Bitcoin: 15s3aLVsxm8EuQvT8gUDw3RWqvuY9hPGUU
</pre>
</body>
</html>