June 29
...serving up your daily dish.
Baristaville is getting seriously overcrowded. We're not talking McMansions. We're not talking SUV's. No, we're talking wireless internet connections.
We were smoking along just fine, connecting anywhere in the house at speeds of 54 Mbps until a cowboy named Netgear mosied into the neighborhood. Now we can't connect unless we're right on top of the router, and we're lucky if we get a speed of 11 Mbps. Netgear: there ain't room enough in town for the two of us.
Anybody else having this problem? Or, better yet, anyone else know what to do about it? We'd hate to have to go blow away someone's router. You know, if we didn't have to.
Barista,
See if this will help.....PAZ
http://cuwireless.net/
Posted by: PAZonBermudatime | Jun 29, 2005 2:41:31 PM
Barista,
See if this will help.....PAZ
http://cuwireless.net/
Posted by: PAZonBermudatime | Jun 29, 2005 2:42:15 PM
Amazing that all of those are "unsecured" connections. A "packet sniffer" can read data and/or e-mails you send. First thing you ought to do is reset your router to 64 bit encryption, then give your router a cute name, and make it your laptop's preferred connection.
Posted by: JK | Jun 29, 2005 3:03:02 PM
Use the web interface to get into your wireless router configuration. Set your security to WEP and change the channel number you are using. People usually just use the default, and this causes congestion.
Mike
Posted by: Mike P | Jun 29, 2005 5:22:32 PM
Been there, done that. Interference on every friggin' channel.
Posted by: The Barista | Jun 29, 2005 5:37:17 PM
If their ID is "Netgear" they probably never changed the default admin username and password (which can be easily determined for all brands of wireless routers using a simple Google search). Just hack into their router using your laptop's wireless card, change the admin username and password and diable their internet connection. :P
I had a lot of fun last summer randomly disabling ports and blocking and unblocking commonly accessed web sites on a neighbor's unsecured router until they got smart and FINALLY locked it down (which is what I was hoping would happen). Some people even leave their entire home network wide open, so you can print stuff like "Change your admin ID and encrypt your data!!!" to *their* printer from the comfort of your own living room.
Just when internet security had all but ruined the relative ease and fun of the hacking scene, it's like the 80s all over again thanks to wireless networks.
Posted by: Charles B | Jun 29, 2005 7:53:05 PM
If your software will shows what channels the other WAPs are using, you need to pick one that does not overlap. You might want to check this page for more info:
http://www.unixwiz.net/techtips/wireless-guide.html
Posted by: PCsRfun | Jun 30, 2005 12:19:30 AM
"I had a lot of fun last summer randomly disabling ports and blocking and unblocking commonly accessed web sites on a neighbor's unsecured router until they got smart and FINALLY locked it down (which is what I was hoping would happen). Some people even leave their entire home network wide open, so you can print stuff like "Change your admin ID and encrypt your data!!!" to *their* printer from the comfort of your own living room."
What an antisocial crum-bum. You should be ashamed. If someone leaves a window open in their house and you steal their car keys to "teach them a lesson" you are still a theif.
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Jun 30, 2005 8:52:25 AM
"I had a lot of fun last summer randomly disabling ports and blocking and unblocking commonly accessed web sites on a neighbor's unsecured router until they got smart and FINALLY locked it down (which is what I was hoping would happen). Some people even leave their entire home network wide open, so you can print stuff like "Change your admin ID and encrypt your data!!!" to *their* printer from the comfort of your own living room."
What an antisocial crum-bum. You should be ashamed. If someone leaves a window open in their house and you steal their car keys to "teach them a lesson" you are still a thief.
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Jun 30, 2005 8:52:57 AM
I assume what Charles was describing was just in fun, because, as you would imagine, it's both a federal and state offense.
Why not find your neighbor Mr. or Ms. Netgear and suggest you share a single router and internet connection and split the cost? The first GR wifi commune.
Posted by: MiloG | Jun 30, 2005 10:00:28 AM
"Why not find your neighbor Mr. or Ms. Netgear and suggest you share a single router and internet connection and split the cost? The first GR wifi commune."
Also theft!
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Jun 30, 2005 10:11:42 AM
I don't think it's theft if you're using Comcast: they allow more than one computer to use each connection. Have to check the terms of service, though.
Another solution is the infamous Pringles can antenna. Pringles cans make great wifi antennas. Plus, they're cheap. And reasonably easy to build if you know how to use a soldering iron. Also, a good excuse to scarf down a can of Pringles.
I'm sure that there are amplifying antennas in the stores as well.
Posted by: MiloG | Jun 30, 2005 10:23:39 AM
"I don't think it's theft if you're using Comcast: they allow more than one computer to use each connection."
Per household.
But the question is related to both the "letter" of the terms (or law) and the spirit. To use someone else's connection (and pay them half) so one can disconnect one's own connection and save money is most certainly dishonest and is theft. It even violates one the big 10! (which, I think we are allowed to discuss in public, so far.)
I know this kind of simple-minded thinking is a result of my "moralistic-theocratic-fascist" tendencies. Also probably a result of my lack of "terms parsing" ability as well as what some would surely describe as a misguided sense of an external, non-humanistic and objective moral framework. Somewhat alien concepts in these parts, to be sure.
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Jun 30, 2005 10:42:19 AM
Well, if it violates the terms of service, it's out, of course.
But I disagree that it is immoral in and of itself (I assume that by invoking the ten commandments you are making a distinction between the legal definition of theft and the moral one.) It would only be immoral if there was an understanding that you have purchased a service rather than a physical connection and the bandwidth that comes with it. I don't see my connection as a service of this sort.
This is different from theft of cable TV because, in that case, you are buying access to programming, a resource which can be shared inifinitely without loss to yourself (the discussion about sharing of intellectual property is interesting from a moral point of view, but I am not attempting to start one here, I acknowledge that theft of cable TV is immoral as well as illegal.) With cable internet, sharing the service means that you lose a certain amount of bandwidth, so it is more analogous to sharing a pizza with your neighbor. If neither of you can eat a whole pie it would not be immoral to have one delivered and split it even if it deprives the pizza parlor of an additional sale. (There are probably certain arguments you could make about the microeconomics of the cable network to the contrary, but I doubt they make much difference overall, just as the microeconomics of pizza delivery don't.)
Posted by: MiloG | Jun 30, 2005 11:01:24 AM
Unless you meant the other one of the ten commandments "coveting thy neighbors wifi," which the barista is certainly guilty of.
Posted by: MiloG | Jun 30, 2005 11:02:54 AM
When I first read several of the above posts, I found them unintelligible. Thereby rated them tech geek talk,but basically harmless. But thanks to ROC, I now realize one was snivelling, wormy, immoral tech geek talk. By someone obnoxious enough to think that his purported illegality was somehow both "helpful" and ennobling. And I don't think concerns about this sort of thing should be easily dismissed. At the very least, the kid (whatever his age) deserves a good spanking. By way of being helpful back.
Come on, Milo, this isn't a case of "youth must be served," this is a pirate-in-training.
Posted by: cathar | Jun 30, 2005 11:04:39 AM
Milo,
Coveting thy neighbor's wifi! That really made me laugh outloud!
Posted by: The Barista | Jun 30, 2005 11:21:48 AM
Well leave it to us, or perhaps me (I don't mind taking the rap), to turn a tech-support issue into one of morality.
Whether or not Comcast has specifically prohibited the sharing of Wifi with your neighbor (and they have, by the way). It is implicit that they don't sell it that way. The access for the information was paid by someone else. The information being licensed for viewing is not all owned by Comcast or by the neighbor. It is not the neighbor's to give away. It is intellectual property. Like giving (even as gifts) a copy of a music CD, it is immoral.
The gist of Milo's argument seems to be "if you can get away with it (or it is not specifically prohibited), then it is ok".
Now it seems it may be news to some, but Comcast (the bastards I agree they are) has no intention of allowing the multiple-home sharing of connections. If we think really hard, the reason is obvious.
It is wrong to steal even if the proprietor as not specifically asked you not to steal.
But then again, I suppose, it may depend on what the meaning of "is" is?
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Jun 30, 2005 11:58:54 AM
"It would only be immoral if there was an understanding that you have purchased a service rather than a physical connection and the bandwidth that comes with it. I don't see my connection as a service of this sort."
You don't understand that you are purchasing a service from comcast? Really? The "connection" is a plug in the wall and a wire, if I'm not mistaken, which is not much use with out the "service" of the content being provided.
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Jun 30, 2005 12:16:14 PM
I wonder what the arrangement is between an IP and a place (e.g., cafe) that offers free wifi to its customers.
Posted by: Chris | Jun 30, 2005 12:19:52 PM
"Well leave it to us, or perhaps me (I don't mind taking the rap), to turn a tech-support issue into one of morality."
That's why I love you all, bold case and all.
Posted by: walleroo | Jun 30, 2005 2:43:21 PM
ROC,
I was, of course, joking about REALLY hacking a neighbor's connection. The neighbor whose router I was messing with last summer happens to be one I know very well and whom I informed of the "joke" immediately then taught how to properly secure their wireless network from would-be intruders.
My post was intended to be a satirical stab at owners of an ever-growing numer of insecure routers all over the northern Essex County area -- if there WERE unscrupulous "black hat" hackers (and believe me, there ARE plenty) who wanted to go WAR driving or hack into unsecured home networks and steal personal information, it wouldn't be difficult in this area, which is why it's so important to use WEP encryption, and even lock down your router to only allow wireless connections from the MAC addresses of the wireless cards in YOUR computers (which only takes a second).
Sadly, most people say, "oooh! no wires!!!" and never spend the time to become educated about the technology they're using or how to keep dangerous criminals out. It's possible to connect to various unsecured wireless connections from almost any public park in Montclair or Bloomfield. I know MY network is locked down, but it's scary to think of how many of my neighbors don't lock their virtual doors.
Posted by: Charles B | Jun 30, 2005 3:53:37 PM
Now that your network is locked down, Charles B, perhaps someday you'll find yourself in the same state of affairs if you persist in trying to be as "satirical" as you claim you were above. And oh boy but do they have routers in the can. Insecure ones, too.
Posted by: cathar | Jun 30, 2005 3:57:22 PM
