Open Wi-Fi 'outlawed' in Digital Economy Bill

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communicatio...0057470,00.htm

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

"Graham." <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communicatio...0057470,00.htm

According to the definitions of ISP and subscriber in the article,
someone with an open WiFi meets the definition of an ISP. They, usually
via DHCP, allocate an IP address for the person connected to use for
'Internet Access'. That the IP addresses are (normally) from the
'private' blocks (eg 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12 and 192.168.0.0/16)
rather than publicly routeable ones should not be used as an argument
that they are not ISPs as the mobile phone networks provide these to
people accessing the internet using GPRS and 3G phones. So if the mobile
phone networks meet the definition (as quoted in the article) of an ISP
then so does everyone providing WiFi access.

Graham Murray <(E-Mail Removed)> considered Sun, 28 Feb 2010
17:51:58 +0000 the perfect time to write:

>"Graham." <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communicatio...0057470,00.htm
>
>According to the definitions of ISP and subscriber in the article,
>someone with an open WiFi meets the definition of an ISP. They, usually
>via DHCP, allocate an IP address for the person connected to use for
>'Internet Access'. That the IP addresses are (normally) from the
>'private' blocks (eg 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12 and 192.168.0.0/16)
>rather than publicly routeable ones should not be used as an argument
>that they are not ISPs as the mobile phone networks provide these to
>people accessing the internet using GPRS and 3G phones. So if the mobile
>phone networks meet the definition (as quoted in the article) of an ISP
>then so does everyone providing WiFi access.

Fon is gonna be F'd then.

Phil W Lee wrote:
> Graham Murray <(E-Mail Removed)> considered Sun, 28 Feb 2010
> 17:51:58 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>> "Graham." <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>>> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communicatio...0057470,00.htm
>> According to the definitions of ISP and subscriber in the article,
>> someone with an open WiFi meets the definition of an ISP. They, usually
>> via DHCP, allocate an IP address for the person connected to use for
>> 'Internet Access'. That the IP addresses are (normally) from the
>> 'private' blocks (eg 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12 and 192.168.0.0/16)
>> rather than publicly routeable ones should not be used as an argument
>> that they are not ISPs as the mobile phone networks provide these to
>> people accessing the internet using GPRS and 3G phones. So if the mobile
>> phone networks meet the definition (as quoted in the article) of an ISP
>> then so does everyone providing WiFi access.
>
> Fon is gonna be F'd then.

I doubt it, Fon is centrally managed and controlled by BT, and Fon data
is separated on the dsl link so the ISP (BT) can separate subscribers
data and Fon data on a subscribers dsl link.

Rgds

Denis McMahon

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>Graham Murray <(E-Mail Removed)> considered Sun, 28 Feb 2010
>17:51:58 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>>"Graham." <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>>> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communicatio...0057470,00.htm
>>
>>According to the definitions of ISP and subscriber in the article,
>>someone with an open WiFi meets the definition of an ISP. They, usually
>>via DHCP, allocate an IP address for the person connected to use for
>>'Internet Access'. That the IP addresses are (normally) from the
>>'private' blocks (eg 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12 and 192.168.0.0/16)
>>rather than publicly routeable ones should not be used as an argument
>>that they are not ISPs as the mobile phone networks provide these to
>>people accessing the internet using GPRS and 3G phones. So if the mobile
>>phone networks meet the definition (as quoted in the article) of an ISP
>>then so does everyone providing WiFi access.
>
>Fon is gonna be F'd then.

Rather the opposite - as Fon & Openwallet users are all authenticated.

Nice one, BT ...

Gordon

"Denis McMahon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:4b8b9da0$0$21877$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Phil W Lee wrote:
>> Graham Murray <(E-Mail Removed)> considered Sun, 28 Feb 2010
>> 17:51:58 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>>
>>> "Graham." <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>
>>>> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communicatio...0057470,00.htm
>>> According to the definitions of ISP and subscriber in the article,
>>> someone with an open WiFi meets the definition of an ISP. They, usually
>>> via DHCP, allocate an IP address for the person connected to use for
>>> 'Internet Access'. That the IP addresses are (normally) from the
>>> 'private' blocks (eg 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12 and 192.168.0.0/16)
>>> rather than publicly routeable ones should not be used as an argument
>>> that they are not ISPs as the mobile phone networks provide these to
>>> people accessing the internet using GPRS and 3G phones. So if the mobile
>>> phone networks meet the definition (as quoted in the article) of an ISP
>>> then so does everyone providing WiFi access.
>>
>> Fon is gonna be F'd then.
>
> I doubt it, Fon is centrally managed and controlled by BT, and Fon data
> is separated on the dsl link so the ISP (BT) can separate subscribers
> data and Fon data on a subscribers dsl link.
>
> Rgds
>
> Denis McMahon

Let's just hope the same distinction is also made by the officer with the battering ram.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

Graham. wrote:

>> I doubt it, Fon is centrally managed and controlled by BT, and Fon data
>> is separated on the dsl link so the ISP (BT) can separate subscribers
>> data and Fon data on a subscribers dsl link.

> Let's just hope the same distinction is also made by the officer with the battering ram.

The officer with the battering ram will be getting his information from
the Fon logs, so for Fon data he'll be told the Fon subscriber
information, not the owner of the line the hotspot is connected to.

Data to Fon connected users of the Fon hotspots is a separate data
stream to the device, and logged against the Fon subscriber(s) using the
hotspot.

If you think there's a chance of them getting mixed up, you don't
understand Fon.

Rgds

Denis McMahon

"Denis McMahon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:4b8c0216$0$10471$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Graham. wrote:
>
>>> I doubt it, Fon is centrally managed and controlled by BT, and Fon data
>>> is separated on the dsl link so the ISP (BT) can separate subscribers
>>> data and Fon data on a subscribers dsl link.
>
>> Let's just hope the same distinction is also made by the officer with the battering ram.
>
> The officer with the battering ram will be getting his information from
> the Fon logs, so for Fon data he'll be told the Fon subscriber
> information, not the owner of the line the hotspot is connected to.
>
> Data to Fon connected users of the Fon hotspots is a separate data
> stream to the device, and logged against the Fon subscriber(s) using the
> hotspot.
>
> If you think there's a chance of them getting mixed up, you don't
> understand Fon.

Oh the boffins at the yard told us all about Fon Sir.
What we can't figure out is who you expect to connect to it, living as you
do, at the end of this cul-de sac.

I put it to you that it's *you* who connects to your public logical access point. You do this just before
you commit this heinous crime which we are investigating, in order to cast suspicion elsewhere.
Furthermore we will add to the charge-sheet one under the Computer Misuse Act of 1990,
to wit: using stolen credentials in order to access your own router.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

Graham. wrote:

> [stuff about Fon]

You're either trolling or too thick to understand it.

Rgds

Denis McMahon

> Graham. wrote:
>
>> [stuff about Fon]
>
> You're either trolling or too thick to understand it.

No Denis. I understand it the same as you do. It's not my, or your understanding of the technology
that's at issue, is it?

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%