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
https://cuwireless.net/
Barista,
See if this will help…..PAZ
https://cuwireless.net/
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.
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
Been there, done that. Interference on every friggin’ channel.
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. 😛
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.
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:
https://www.unixwiz.net/techtips/wireless-guide.html
“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.
“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.
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.
“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!
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.
“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.
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.)
Unless you meant the other one of the ten commandments “coveting thy neighbors wifi,” which the barista is certainly guilty of.
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.
Milo,
Coveting thy neighbor’s wifi! That really made me laugh outloud!
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?
oops. by boldness got away from me there.
“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.
I wonder what the arrangement is between an IP and a place (e.g., cafe) that offers free wifi to its customers.
“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.
XOXO
(sound)
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.
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.
>>>I wonder what the arrangement is
>>>between an IP and a place (e.g.,
>>>cafe) that offers free wifi to its customers.
This is part of the problem. If all of the places offering “free wireless” set up some sort of interface that required users to authenticate through a local gateway, it would go a long way toward keeping everything secure. Besides, requiring users to “register” in some way wouldn’t be a bad idea anyway. That way, even legitimate signers-on could be held accountable for their actions while on the cafe’s connection. Libraries won’t let you check out books without a library card. It’s the same sort of principle here (or ought to be).
Also, cafes could change the wifi range setting on their routers to limit the reach of the signal so it wasn’t broadcast TOO far outside their geographic area (like say, 5 blocks over).
Unfortunatley most cafes that offer “FREE wi-fi!” don’t realize that they’re essentially setting up a wide-open door for hackers. That, or they don’t want to pay a network admin. There’s an untapped market of “door-to-door” sysadmin work now that everyone and their second cousin’s great uncle has a wi-fi router. Even a high-school or college kid with a modicum of networking savvy could build a business of weekly or monthly visits to area cafes and homes to secure and troubleshoot networks for a reasonable fee. Anyone who’s not skilled enough to handle that stuff themselves and too cheap to pay for it doesn’t deserve to have a wireless network.
And yes, splitting a cable connection from one residence among users at other residences with a wi-fi router is akin to stealing cable. In fact, it IS stealing cable.
You’re allowed to split among as many computers or devices you have under your own roof, but sharing it with a neighbor would be like running a splitter off your cable line so your uncle down the block could get free HBO.
Also, it’s a bad idea anyway, as a direct cable line into your own house will always be faster and give your more bandwidth than sharing a neighbor’s connection over wi-fi, even at the fastest wi-fi speeds.
Center and Charles –
Comcast sells me no content that I know of in connection with my highspeed access. If they did, or any other intellectual property, I would agree with you. (I’ve spoken to Comcast execs about their internet content strategy. They see Comcast.net as an internet portal, a la Yahoo!, and would pay people to go there, not charge them.)
I disagree that sharing a finite resource is intrinsically stealing. (Although, in this case it would be violating a contract, which is a different type of theft and not the one Center was referring to unless he was being intentionally redundant.) Your cable TV hookup comes with content. In fact, you’re paying for the content, not the hookup. With the internet you’re paying for the connection, not the content. Different business model (and intent) entirely.
My god. Residents of Montclair lock down your wireless!
I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TO DO:
You can modify the firmware on a router using a linux program to increase the low 28 mW radio output to ~280 mW output, blocking your neighbor’s network on the same channel.