Jump to content

Wi-Fi broadcasting


khammondnm
 Share

Recommended Posts

Since we were in the topic earlier of sharing a Wi-Fi connection it got me thinking. Firstly, this thread isn't meant to condone sharing of Wi-Fi signals or violating tos of any provider. Taking a purely educational and hypothetical approach. First I would like to reiterate what I understand from earlier, sharing an internet connection with a neighbor violates most isps tos. If this is the case, then doesn't it inherently violate said tos by broadcasting a Wi-Fi signal that reaches beyond your property? If that is the case, I find it contradictory that most isps, centurylink in my experience, push all customers to buy/lease a wireless capable dsl modem that had enough power to distribute internet beyond the average households property line. I'm just wondering if anyone has a comment on whether or not broadcasting Wi-Fi beyond ones property is inherently in violation of most isps tos.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we were in the topic earlier of sharing a Wi-Fi connection it got me thinking. Firstly, this thread isn't meant to condone sharing of Wi-Fi signals or violating tos of any provider. Taking a purely educational and hypothetical approach. First I would like to reiterate what I understand from earlier, sharing an internet connection with a neighbor violates most isps tos. If this is the case, then doesn't it inherently violate said tos by broadcasting a Wi-Fi signal that reaches beyond your property? If that is the case, I find it contradictory that most isps, centurylink in my experience, push all customers to buy/lease a wireless capable dsl modem that had enough power to distribute internet beyond the average households property line. I'm just wondering if anyone has a comment on whether or not broadcasting Wi-Fi beyond ones property is inherently in violation of most isps tos.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

I think the only intent of ISP's TOS prohibiting your neighbors from using your WiFi even with your permission is completely economical. They want your neighbors money too.

 

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think the only intent of ISP's TOS prohibiting your neighbors from using your WiFi even with your permission is completely economical. They want your neighbors money too.

 

Robert

yeah, I guess it would be interesting to read the nitty gritty details. I understand their intention, but I wonder if their language leaves loopholes.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could get away with pretty much anything when it comes to sharing your WiFi. For me 12mbps of bandwidth split among six people is already pushing it, if you can deal with roughly half the bandwith and you're cool with it go ahead I guess.

 

When it comes to broadcasting beyond your home I SERIOUSLY doubt you have any risk whatsoever in doing that and it would take one hell of a study on the part of the cable company's legal team to enforce otherwise even if they wanted to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could get away with pretty much anything when it comes to sharing your WiFi. For me 12mbps of bandwidth split among six people is already pushing it, if you can deal with roughly half the bandwith and you're cool with it go ahead I guess.

 

When it comes to broadcasting beyond your home I SERIOUSLY doubt you have any risk whatsoever in doing that and it would take one hell of a study on the part of the cable company's legal team to enforce otherwise even if they wanted to.

I agree that the isp probably would never come upon someone sharing their signal, but others on this forum pointed out that it is technically against most isps tos to do so. I guess what I'm pondering is, if they wish to be so strict about sharing internet, then any broadcast beyond ones property lines is technically opening up the possibility of sharing a signal.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the isp probably would never come upon someone sharing their signal, but others on this forum pointed out that it is technically against most isps tos to do so. I guess what I'm pondering is, if they wish to be so strict about sharing internet, then any broadcast beyond ones property lines is technically opening up the possibility of sharing a signal.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

The idea is to scare people who thought of sharing their connection with a neighbor to save money, Nothing more.

 

Sharing your connection is probably a bad idea for many reasons, it causes tension between those who share it over who gets the equipment, who gets bandwidth priority, who sets it up, telling the one or the other to call CS when there's a problem, diagnosing internal (sharing equipment) network problems, and a whole other slew of sharing issues.

 

Sure you can do it, the providers don't like it and discourage it to get more money but ultimately it's a bad idea anyway fraught with many more points of failure and more chances to create problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, I guess it would be interesting to read the nitty gritty details. I understand their intention, but I wonder if their language leaves loopholes.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

It would be next to impossible to limit the output to fit every customers residence. It would probably make more sense to mandate that nobody broadcast an unsecured signal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be next to impossible to limit the output to fit every customers residence. It would probably make more sense to mandate that nobody broadcast an unsecured signal.
Yeah that's what I'm getting at. Them telling people they can't share is impossible because using a Wi-Fi signal is almost always sharing beyond your property and hence your signal. I understand them making the don't share statements so they can get more customers, but with internet and Wi-Fi I think it's gets very complicated as to what is sharing and what isn't.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd advise not sharing for two reasons:

  • If your neighbor is talking to Chris Hansen over the Internet, you'll be his first stop rather than your neighbor's house.
  • You're giving any passerby the potential ability to crack into any computer or device on your network at their leisure.

So, while I'd happily give out my WiFi network access to a family member or close friend visiting the humble abode, I personally wouldn't run anything except WPA2 with a non-default BSSID, a strong, random key (I use http://world.std.com/~reinhold/diceware.html with at least 7 words) and with WPS PIN setup disabled.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can really try to justify it anyway you want, it doesn't fly with any company for residential service. This is part of what is driving the ISPs to their stupid metered service to begin with. It has nothing to do with how far your wireless signal goes. It all depends on if you are sharing it with your friends and family. The method of transport is irrelevant. You could run fiber or CAT5 to all of your neighbors. Do you really think the cable company meant for you to setup a nice strong omni antenna outside your home and broadcast your internet to 10-15 houses? There would be no incentive for the cable company to continue servicing your neighborhood with internet for that price.

 

Trust me, I see both sides of the story and understand where you are coming from. But you have to look at it from a business aspect as if you were the businessman.

 

A few examples based on your terminology of it being okay:

 

1. Buy one unlimited 24/7 gym membership. Leave the gym keycard at the door of the apartment complex and just let anyone go to the gym with it. 10 people could share the one membership right?

 

2. Buy the most expensive digital cable package with all the HBO's, Cinemax, etc. Once the cable guy leaves, bring the digital cable boxes to 3 or 4 of your neighbors. It's the same as if they came to your house and watched it right?

 

3. Order a 6 room install of DirecTV, once the installer leaves, bring the receivers to all of your friends and family. It shouldn't matter right? It's the same as if they were over watching it in your home.

 

4. Setup your SiriusXM satellite receiver on your PC, tune it to Howard Stern, and let your friends and family login to listen. It's the same as if they were in the home right?

 

5. Order 2 buffets for your family of 6 and just let everyone eat instead of just 2 of you. Its okay since your family doesn't eat as much fried chicken as the family next to you that can hardly fit through the door, right?

 

The list goes on and on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd advise not sharing for two reasons:
  • If your neighbor is talking to Chris Hansen over the Internet, you'll be his first stop rather than your neighbor's house.
  • You're giving any passerby the potential ability to crack into any computer or device on your network at their leisure.

So, while I'd happily give out my WiFi network access to a family member or close friend visiting the humble abode, I personally wouldn't run anything except WPA2 with a non-default BSSID, a strong, random key (I use http://world.std.com/~reinhold/diceware.html with at least 7 words) and with WPS PIN setup disabled.

 

I thought we all used "S4GRUFTW" as our WiFi password? Oh well.

 

I use FBIsurveillance as my SSID's. Even though it provides no real additional security, I like the concept of messing with peoples minds. Additionally, I don't think most people want to jump on a WiFi titled FBIsurveillance. I even use that SSID on my Tmo and VZW hotspots. I wish I could see all the reactions of people who have come across it.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I thought we all used "S4GRUFTW" as our WiFi password? Oh well.

 

I use FBIsurveillance as my SSID's. Even though it provides no real additional security, I like the concept of messing with peoples minds. Additionally, I don't think most people want to jump on a WiFi titled FBIsurveillance. I even use that SSID on my Tmo and VZW hotspots. I wish I could see all the reactions of people who have come across it.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

My new Airport Express's WiFi password actually has the word "S4GRU" in it... :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea is to scare people who thought of sharing their connection with a neighbor to save money, Nothing more.

 

Sharing your connection is probably a bad idea for many reasons, it causes tension between those who share it over who gets the equipment, who gets bandwidth priority, who sets it up, telling the one or the other to call CS when there's a problem, diagnosing internal (sharing equipment) network problems, and a whole other slew of sharing issues.

 

Sure you can do it, the providers don't like it and discourage it to get more money but ultimately it's a bad idea anyway fraught with many more points of failure and more chances to create problems.

 

Your really really really overthinking it. I don't think it would be anywhere near that complicated. The common person would have no idea about half of the things you just said and I don't find downtime on routers to be a major problem. I've had to reset my router maybe a few times since having it. However, I personally prefer my own service due to the high speeds I buy and the amount of banthwidth I could use in a month. I just love having 25mbps+ speeds. :tu:

 

 

 

On another note, its ok for someone to come to your house and use your internet right? What if they come everyday and use it. Wouldn't that be the same as providing them with internet even though they don't pay for it. My question isn't personally directed at you lynyrd65 in case you got the wrong idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • Update just showed up for both of my phones. So far I don't notice any difference, LTE TA is still reporting as 0, I was hoping the new routine might fix that. I sent a diag report from both phones in case you need any of that info. I'll let you know in a day or so if its crashing as frequently or not. 
    • A new SignalCheck Pro beta release is rolling out now, and should become available on Google Play shortly! Some notable changes: New "swipe to refresh" -- flick down on the main screen, and the data will "refresh" -- I put this in quotes because it will *not* force the modem to be polled (that's unfortunately not possible), but it will 'wake up' the app and display the latest information if for some reason your screen did not automatically update. I am still working on improving this. New cell identification methods for Android 12+ devices -- new routines are available in Android 12 and this is my first attempt at implementing them. I have not seen any changes positive or negative on my Pixel 6, but hopefully someone sees improvements. I will continue exploring these methods and adding new features as I get them working. Location service auto-restart -- if your location has not changed in 10 minutes, the background location service should restart itself. This is a work in progress that I intend to optimize during beta testing. Missing/invalid TAC values included in web uploads -- this will need some testing, because I can't replicate it myself. The option to log cells with missing TAC must be enabled for this to have an impact. Feedback welcome as always!
    • Another converted keep site: Sprint eNB 9436 -> T-Mobile eNB 895067 (40.60777246698788,-74.16199692361377) Looks like they're using the FFVV-65A-R2-V1 here, as well!   Edit: Also, I know this technically isn't NYC, but here's a Jersey City conversion. Not 100% sure on either eNB. Sprint eNB 105863 -> T-Mobile eNB 876452 (40.72265196811989,-74.08804945021805)
    • More confirmations incoming! T-Mobile eNB 880561 (40.74176835140717, -73.88364207139453)   Sprint eNB 6191 / T-Mobile eNB 880065 (40.71339007010928, -73.85695387371624) Confirmed this site but was unable to get a photo because the antennas are set back from the edge of the building. I could see them from super far away but there wasn't a good area for me to pull over and snap a pic.   Sprint eNB 6189 / T-Mobile eNB 877995 (40.71183894845567, -73.83529788316665)   Sprint eNB 253741 / T-Mobile eNB 875537/875538 (40.70170960850086,-73.83302208208359)   Sprint eNB 79912 / T-Mobile eNB 875989 (40.86349197342981, -73.923456682535) — — — — — T-Mobile eNB 880536 in the Bronx isn't a Sprint conversion but rather, T-Mobile changed the eNB when they upgraded the site. The nearest Sprint site at 40.8150405321864, -73.93010756429787 still has all of its antennas up and is literally within spitting distance of two other T-Mobile sites in an area that's very industrial as opposed to residential or commercial so a keep site isn't particularly necessary. You can see on Cellmapper that the old eNB stopped broadcasting about two days after the new eNB went live.  — — — — — Also wanted to add that I spotted AT&T C-band antennas quite a bit in both Queens and the Bronx. I would expect a summer C-band launch announcement from them because they're moving FAST. At least in my area, it seem like they're upgrading at a faster pace than Verizon is. Some more pics: AT&T eNB 116408 / T-Mobile eNB 42887 in Woodhaven. This one is interesting because T-Mobile upgraded this site but in the process didn't put any Ericsson n41 antennas. There are just two of the RFS antennas that we normally get.   AT&T eNB 112047, bad pic but the arrows on the billboard are pointing right at the C-band antenna lol   — — — — — Last edit I promise: I noticed T-Mobile submit a permit to convert the keep site I found in Staten Island (Sprint eNB 75141). I 100% guessed it's location since I connected to it literally 4.5 miles across the water while inside a building. Glad to see I was right!
    • Support for the -1 TAC is good to go now, so I'm ready whenever you are!
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...