Hawking HWU8DD Dish any good for extending WIFI range ?

Discussion in 'Wireless Internet' started by wbsurfver, Dec 16, 2007.

  1. 100% Backwards. All access points operate in 'open' mode *unless* specific
    action is taken to close access. At a minimum, you have to enter an
    encryption key, before you can use encrypted mode operation.

    Yes, encryption _is_ recommended. To those who bother to read the directions.
    And there's nothing that says anybody _has_ to read the directions before
    hooking an Access point up.
    Arguing "implied permission" is always an uphill battle.

    If there is an 'unsecured' telephone termination block in a public area
    do you have 'tacit' permission to connect a telephone, and dial a call?`

    If a car is stopped, unattended, with the keys in it and the doors
    unlocked, do you have 'tacit' permission to take it for a joy ride?

    How about failure to close the curtains/drapes/shades before undressing...
    is that 'tacit permission' for a peeping tom?

    Heck, competent experts can't even agree as to the 'tacit permission' for
    copying that goes on with posting an article to USENET. are remote servers
    infringing the authors copyright when the forward it to another server?
    Or when they forward it to a mere user? Can _that_ user make copies for others?
    That's easy. Like with copyright, if you don't have express permission,
    *don't* do it.
     
    Robert Bonomi, Dec 17, 2007
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. This is a new revelation to me. Is this a modern snipe hunt?
    LZ
     
    Lone Haranguer, Dec 17, 2007
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Actually there are 3 wifi signals showing up, ALL are open access. The
    one I'm authorized to use is a QWEST DSL belonging to the resort. There
    is also a LINKSYS and BELKIN, all 3 work with my MN-510 with no problem
    or special configuration. Plug it in and it works.
    I'll double check that.
    Yes. Same result.
    Using XP Home and I've run the troubleshooting help without success.
    LZ
     
    Lone Haranguer, Dec 17, 2007
    #23
  4. Good. The eliminates the access point as the source of the problem.
    That leaves the HWU8DD, XP, or some kind of weird incompatibility.

    Incidentally, try connecting to the other two access points. If those
    work, but the Qwest access point does not, it's some kind of
    configuration issue, probably a MAC address filter in the Qwest access
    point.
    WEP is commonly a problem.
    Good. That eliminates XP and the computah as the possible culprit.
    We're down to the HWU8DD, the configuration, filtering, firmware(?),
    and the position of the moon.
    I'll wager that you haven't tried enabling WZC (wireless zero config)
    logging. That's because its a verbose mess of incomprehensible
    gibberish. However, both Microsoft and I consider it great fun to
    drive users nuts, so I'll supply instructions.

    1. Make sure that you are using WZC and not the connection manager
    that comes with the HWU8DD. This may not be possible as some USB
    wireless devices insist that you use their connection manager.

    2. Download and skim (do not read) MS Support Guide for Wireless
    Diagnostics and Troubleshooting:
    <http://www.microsoft.com/technet/network/wifi/wlansupp.mspx>

    3. To enable or disable logging, run:
    netsh ras set tracing * enable
    netsh ras set tracing * disable

    4. You will find various log files in the sub-directory:
    C:\Windoze\tracing\
    Look for:
    Wzctrace.log
    which contains the connection logging data.

    Good luck.
     
    Jeff Liebermann, Dec 17, 2007
    #24
  5. -bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) hath wroth:
    Not all. 2wire Wireless routers arrive secure by default. The
    factory pre-assigns the SSID, WEP/WPA key, and re-configuration
    password, which are printed on a label stuck onto the bottom of the
    device. This is the way it should be done, but the bottom of the line
    wireless manufacturers are waiting for litigatory or divine
    inspiration to do the same.
     
    Jeff Liebermann, Dec 17, 2007
    #25
  6. wbsurfver

    wbsurfver Guest

    I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine you could make a legal argument as
    follows:

    Any unsophisticated user who buys a lap top, if he just sits that
    laptop down in his house and turns it on and does nothing more than
    bring up a web browser, that laptop and any software running on it
    will automatically try to connect to any WI-FI connection that it can
    find virtually all by itself with no help from anyone. All laptops
    have been designed to automatically connect to whatever WI-FI
    connections they find, and the routers have been designed to comply
    likewise. There are probably lots of little old ladies that don't even
    realize they are on the next door neighbors WI-FI. That's how these
    systems have been designed, you practically just turn them on and they
    throw you onto whatever network they are able to.
     
    wbsurfver, Dec 18, 2007
    #26
  7. wbsurfver

    Peter Pan Guest

    So the person with the wap buys it, and hooks it up, but doesnt encrypt
    it.... Seems to me that THAT person is responsible, and by NOT encrypting it
    is giving permission to use it.. after all they take the action to provide
    it... Ever notice the ones you get from a phone or cble company have
    wireless turned OFF by default? it's only the people buying em from 3rd
    party places that install em without encrypting them.
    about the only scenario I can think of is that some nefarious person sneaks
    onto your property, taps into you phone/cable/electric, and installs an open
    wap without your knowledge...

    Sure would like to know how you can justify someone taking a positive action
    to install one, that wouldn't be there otherwise, and then try and say it's
    someone elses fault, other than the person that physically installs it.
     
    Peter Pan, Dec 18, 2007
    #27
  8. wbsurfver

    Art Todesco Guest

    I use mine and have had very good
    success with it. I do have a long USB
    extension and sometimes I tape it to the
    top of the batwing TV antenna. I
    put a plastic bag over it to prevent
    rain damage. This lets you adjust it from
    inside. At the last park, they had an
    ordinary wireless router mounted to the
    outside of one of the permanent units in
    the park. It was about 300 feet or
    so, line of site. The signal showed
    very low, however, I was able to stream
    video for about an hour .... not too
    shabby. At the Cedar Point campgrounds,
    they have free Wifi in their hotel
    lobbies. I had a spot which faced the
    hotel.
    I put the antenna inside the MH by the
    window facing the hotel, about 400
    to 500 feet. It worked ok, not
    perfectly, but quite adequately.
     
    Art Todesco, Dec 18, 2007
    #28
  9. wbsurfver

    Peter Pan Guest

    I'm sort of curious why the confusion? It's an willfull act by the person
    with broadband that buys/puts in a wap without reading the instructions and
    securing it.. How can it possibly be the broadband providers fault? They
    didn't add it... Reminds me of the "I was just following orders" defense
    (did that ever work?).. Is that a sign of the times... IE you buy it at a
    big box store so you can get it cheaper than the ones sold by the broadband
    company that are secure, you install it yourself, you either intentionally
    or inadvertantly leave it open, but it's someone elses fault? Doesn't
    anybody take responsibilty for their actions anymore or is it typical to
    claim it wasn't me, it's their fault?

    From what you said above, "put yourself in the position of the broadband
    owner (or service provider)...." don't they usually explicity say in their
    terms that you can buy wireless from them, and for a fee it will be
    installed and secured?
     
    Peter Pan, Dec 18, 2007
    #29
  10. wbsurfver

    Peter Pan Guest

    Ooooops, forgot the scenario where someone breaks into your house, holdS a
    gun to your head, and forces you to install a wap so people can use it...
    I'm sure that happens a whole lot.... :)
     
    Peter Pan, Dec 18, 2007
    #30
  11. What you think, and what the law says, are different things. :)

    Is someone immune from breaking and entering charges, just because you didn't
    lock your back door?

    Was your wife's purse _not_ stolen, if she left it at the restaurant table, and
    it wasn't there when she came back for it? Just because she didn't lock it
    down? Was it her _fault_ it was stolen, or was it the fault of the thief?
    Yes, there _was_ negligence, but how much of the fault lies with whom?
    The justification is _hundreds_ (literally) of years of English common law
    history regarding private property rights. "what's mine is _MINE_, and you
    aren't entitled to use it without getting my permission _first_." I don't
    have to (legally) put locks on it to enforce my rights.

    Formal French common law history on the matter doesn't extend as far back,
    but one can trace relevant property rights all the way back to the 'Code
    of Hamurabi'.

    "Just because it's there" does _not_ imply that you have any legal right to
    use it.
     
    Robert Bonomi, Dec 18, 2007
    #31
  12. Well, I note that you use the words "at fault". That's the problem.
    We're both assuming that some damage has been done, and therefore
    someone must be blamed. In my never humble opinion, neither
    assumption is true. The damage may be nothing more than a violation
    of some arbitrary TOS (terms of service) from the originating ISP. It
    may be an odd variation of Theft of Service(s)
    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_of_services>
    by denying the ISP customer their allegedly just compensation. It may
    also be a victimless crime, where the mere presence of an unwanted
    computer on a LAN may constitute some odd violation of their privacy,
    security, or integrity. The imagination boggles, but the damage is
    minimal and the crime is mostly contractual.

    On the other foot, an evil hacker could setup a Bitorrent server and
    monopolize the available bandwidth to distribute illegal (DMCA)
    content. The owner of the wireless access point could be deemed as an
    "enabler" thus creating legal exposure. More imagination and
    boggling.

    Meanwhile, the ISP's TOS clearly specify that the customer cannot
    resell, share, or redistribute the service (i.e. sell or give away
    bandwidth). Setting up an intentionally public or accidentally open
    wireless hot spot is usually in direct violation of the TOS. However,
    violations of the TOS are not a crime. However, in some states (i.e.
    Florida), the state has apparently decided that a typical ISP customer
    is not able to enforce their own network security and has therefore
    criminalized both intentional and accidental network access. They may
    have a point, but without consequential damages, I see little point in
    making wireless access a crime.

    Anyway, I can go on like this forever, but I think you get the idea.
    The law is starting to step in due to the apparent inability of the
    customers to enforce their own wireless security, and possibly the
    ISP's unwillingness to enforce their own TOS. I think confusion
    describes the current state of affairs quite adequately.
    You're mixing two separate concepts. The "put yourself in the
    position of the broadband owner (or service provider) was in reference
    to determining the ethics of the situation. It works for any moral
    dilemma, conundrum, or paradox. If you can't see clearly if something
    is right or wrong from your point of view, perhaps looking at it from
    the position of the other side, or the other participants, will offer
    a clearer picture.

    The other comment refers to the TOS which vary widely in quality,
    content, and coherence. Many of them are written in draconian terms,
    with extreme limitations on what a customer can do, and without any
    real attempt to seriously enforce the TOS. They're like the warning
    labels on drugs and other products, that are there strictly to
    minimize liability. "See, we warned you" is the mantra. The TOS are
    also useful for kicking off individual customers that have somehow
    become undesirable. That's how some of the wireless cellular data
    providers dumped a large number of their customers that actually
    believed that "unlimited" meant' "unlimited". It was much cheaper to
    get rid of the heavy users, than to increase capacity so that the more
    conservative users would have some bandwidth left to use.

    I have some ideas on what should be done to clarify the situation.
    However, I have little time and even less interest in pursuing the
    issue in a public forum.
     
    Jeff Liebermann, Dec 19, 2007
    #32
  13. wbsurfver

    LR Guest

    Jeff Liebermann wrote:


    Out of curiosity did AB 2415 have any affect in California or have
    manufacturers ignored it?

    <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2401-2450/ab_2415_bill_20060930_chaptered.pdf>
     
    LR, Dec 19, 2007
    #33
  14. More readable at:
    <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/bpc/22948.5-22948.7.html>

    As near as I can determine, it's being totally ignored by the various
    wireless access point manufacturers. Note that this bill was an
    addition to the Business and Professional Code, and not the Civil or
    Penal Codes. It lacks any specified penalties for non-compliance (as
    an infraction) and is therefore unenforceable. At best, it might be
    used as a guideline for Calif State equipment purchases.

    This should give you a clue as to the extent of the Calif Business and
    Professional Codes:
    <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/bpc.html>

    Some selected sections:
    | CHAPTER 22. INTERNET PRIVACY REQUIREMENTS .................... 22575-22579
    | CHAPTER 22.5. COMMERCIAL DIRECTORIES .............................. 22600
    | CHAPTER 26. TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT ................................... 22760
    | CHAPTER 27. CABLE TELEVISION ...................................... 22770
    | CHAPTER 27.5. COMMERCIAL MAIL RECEIVING AGENCY .................... 22780
    | CHAPTER 30. BILLING PRACTICES ................................ 22940-22941
    | CHAPTER 32. CONSUMER PROTECTION AGAINST COMPUTER SPYWARE ACT 22947-22947.6
    | CHAPTER 33. ANTI-PHISHING ACT OF 2005 ..................... 22948-22948.3
    | CHAPTER 34. Network Security ............................. 22948.5-22948.7
     
    Jeff Liebermann, Dec 19, 2007
    #34
  15. wbsurfver

    Peter Pan Guest

    Actually, I have found that to be false at times... When I was setting up
    hotspots for businesses (rv parks, coffeshops, computer stores etc),
    roadrunner, adelphia, and comcast all have business use accounts (about $100
    more a month than the $50 a month residential accounts) that specifically
    allow you to distribute their service via wireless.... If you connect to an
    ap how do you know if they have residential or business/commercial class
    service? Once again, seems like it shouldn't be up to the person connecting,
    but the entity providing the service....
     
    Peter Pan, Dec 19, 2007
    #35
  16. wbsurfver

    Pegleg Guest

    The good ol "Kingdom of Kalifornia"!
     
    Pegleg, Dec 19, 2007
    #36
  17. wbsurfver

    dold Guest

    I missed the citation of this poster's TOS.
    My TOS says I can't resell it, but it does not prohibit sharing or
    redsitribution.
     
    dold, Dec 19, 2007
    #37
  18. Mine says family only.
    LZ
     
    Lone Haranguer, Dec 19, 2007
    #38
  19. One of the major providers -- Verizon, maybe -- *recently* revised their
    TOS for all DSL renewals that totally forbids running an 'open' wireless
    access-point on any 'residential' service. You have to get business
    service to do that.

    Virtually everybody explicitly forbids reselling on all business _or_
    residential DSL lines.

    Forbidding redistribution or 'sharing' is very common on residential
    DSL and/or cable service.
     
    Robert Bonomi, Dec 20, 2007
    #39
  20. wbsurfver

    DTC Guest

    Embarq publications describe an avenue to resell DSL service (am not
    referring to resell of copper DSL).
     
    DTC, Dec 20, 2007
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.