Hawking HWU8DD Dish any good for extending WIFI range ?

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

  1. Nice. I wish we had something like that. Locally, the TOS and AUP
    varies all over the map (as others have mentioned). Comcast consumer
    service forbids just about everything you can think of (sharing,
    servers, wireless, etc). Reminder... Comcast was the evil ISP that
    wanted to charge consumers by the number of computers behind your
    firewall and hired a telemarketing company to intimidate customers
    into paying extra. This was long ago, but they're still playing games
    (killing BitTorrent sessions).

    <http://www6.comcast.net/terms/>
    <http://www6.comcast.net/terms/use/>
    under the AUS (Acceptable Use Policy) itemizes 23 "Prohibited Uses and
    Activities". Item #10 is entertaining, which proscribes:

    10. connect multiple computers behind the cable modem to set up a
    LAN (Local Area Network) that in any manner would result in a
    violation of the terms of this Policy or an applicable Service plan;

    I guess you can't have an NAT firewall, despite the minor fact that
    Comcast sells one with their home networking kit. Sigh.

    Items #8 and #20 cover wired and wireless sharing.

    8. resell the Service or otherwise make available to anyone
    outside the Premises the ability to use the Service (i.e. wi-fi,
    or other methods of networking), in whole or in part, directly
    or indirectly, or on a bundled or unbundled basis. The Service
    is for personal and non-commercial use only and you agree not
    to use the Service for operation as an Internet service provider
    or for any business enterprise or purpose, or as an end-point on
    a non-Comcast local area network or wide area network;

    20. connect the Comcast Equipment to any computer outside of your
    Premises;

    I guess that eliminates all the neighborhood LAN's and WLAN's and hot
    spots, wired or wireless.

    I'm too lazy to dig out the various DSL vendors TOS and AUP pages.
    They're probably as bad, if not worse than Comcast.
    Yeah, something like that. Don't hold you breath if you're waiting
    for things to change. I've been waiting years for ISP's to sell
    metered bandwidth and to keep their paws off the content and usage.
    Instead, we're going the other way, with cellular data leading the
    pack by selling "unlimited" bandwidth, which is anything but
    unlimited. Things always get worse before they get better.
     
    Jeff Liebermann, Dec 20, 2007
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. wbsurfver

    Peter Pan Guest



    You may be looking at the residential account TOS then.... and that does
    specifically say "The Service
    You may want to glance at the info at Comcast Business Services
    http://www.comcast.com/corporate/shop/business/default.html
     
    Peter Pan, Dec 20, 2007
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. wbsurfver

    Calif Bill Guest

    All the manufacturers comply with the law. All the law says is instructions
    must be included on how to set up the wireless with security. And all
    routers I know have instructions included.
     
    Calif Bill, Dec 20, 2007
    #43
  4. I was. That's what most users that read this newsgroup also use.
    <http://www.comcast.com/corporate/shop/business/terms.html>
    <http://www.comcast.com/corporate/shop/business/acceptableuse.html>

    In the AUS, Prohibited Uses and Activities mumble:

    x) resell the Service or otherwise make available to anyone outside
    the Premises the ability to use the Service (i.e. wi-fi, "hotspots,"
    or other methods of networking), in whole or in part, directly or
    indirectly, or on a bundled or unbundled basis, or resell the
    Service or otherwise make available to anyone inside the Premises
    the ability to use the Service except for users specifically
    authorized by Comcast in accordance with an applicable Service plan;

    So, you can't use Comcast business class service for wireless
    hotspots.

    You also can't use it for a hotel wired or wireless system:

    xi) make the Service available to anyone other than you or
    your authorized employees or contractors (i.e. members of
    the public, customers of an establishment, hotel or motel
    guests and patrons, or persons in a residence hall or
    apartment building) unless done with Comcast's written
    approval in accordance with an applicable Service plan;

    I forgot to mention that they also do not allow using the service
    (consumer or commercial) as an "end point" for a newtork, which means
    using it to terminate a VPN:
    x) use the Service for operation as an Internet service provider
    or, unless done with Comcast's approval in accordance with an
    applicable Service plan, use the Service as an end-point on a
    non-Comcast local area network or wide area network;

    I'll spare you the long, involved, and stupid story behind that
    nonsense.

    Incidentally, if you ask about running servers on a cable modem
    connection, Comcast will insist that you purchase business class
    service. Just two problems. It requires static IP's, which Comcast
    does not offer locally. Also, business class service is not avaliable
    locally.
     
    Jeff Liebermann, Dec 20, 2007
    #44
  5. Ummm... try that again please? The first part of the law details the
    required documentation. However, I only know of one manufacturer
    (2wire) that does most of the following:

    (3) Provide other protection on the device that does all of the
    following:
    (A) Advises the consumer that his or her wireless network
    connection may be accessible by an unauthorized user.
    (B) Advises the consumer how to protect his or her wireless
    network connection from unauthorized access.
    (C) Requires an affirmative action by the consumer prior to
    allowing use of the product.

    Note that it says "on the device" methinks means imbedded in the
    firmware.
     
    Jeff Liebermann, Dec 20, 2007
    #45
  6. wbsurfver

    wbsurfver Guest

    No, but if there is a law where the punishment seems to exceed any
    damages, that law may be considered unjust
    If her purse was stolen because she left it someplace, then she
    called the police, then it happened several more times and every time
    it happened the police discovered she absentmindedly left it
    someplace, eventually they would probably ignore her calls and tell
    her to stop forgetting to take it with her.



    Property rights aren't really absolute depending on the circumstances
    and other conditions and that also goes back very far.
    Farmers and landowners are expected to abide by certain rules. You
    can't just contaminate groundwater or streams just because the stream
    passes through your property. Farmers have to use approved pesticides
    etc.

    In the bible I think it says if a man breaks into your house during
    the day and you kill him, then you are guilty of murder, but if he
    breaks in at night and you kill him, then you are not guilty.
     
    wbsurfver, Dec 20, 2007
    #46
  7. Note that the introduction of 22948.6 (a) says only that the manufacturer
    must provide _ONE_ of the following things -- of which the section you quote
    is the third of three items. Not the _least_ surprising that other
    manufacturers aren't doing that step. <wry grin>

    For what you quoted, A and B can be satisfied with a sticker on the device.
    Saying little more than 'read the d*mn manual'. C is satisfied by an on-off
    switch. <wry grin>

    Reading legal language is 'funny' (in many senses of the word).

    The language you cite does _not_ require that ONE thing provide all those
    functions -- just if you _don't_ comply with (1) or (2) that then then you
    must have 'other' stuff (singular or plural) that "collectively" does all
    the listed things in (3).

    Drawing up language for laws *is* a challenge -- I've done it. To 'get things
    right' you have to look at the wording and figure out the possible ways that
    somebody can *mis-interpret* it to get something _other_ than what you 'intend
    to say' out of =your= words, and then refine the language so that they cannot
    possibly read it in any other way. The verbiage can end up being painfully
    convoluted, but it can be _necessary_ -- English is not a good language for
    expressing 'precise' thoughts.

    Trivial example from, 'motor vehicle' code circa 30 years ago --
    In a particular state it was specified that you could have no more than
    9 persons in a passenger car, unless the car had more than three rows of
    seats.

    Another section specified that you could have no more than 3 persons in
    the _front_ seat.


    The mighty question rises -- how many is it legal to have in the back seat
    of a sedan?

    If there are 3 people in the front, the answer is 'obvious', a max of 6 in
    the back. But, suppose the driver is the ONLY person in the front seat, is
    it _then_ legal to have 8 in the back seat, or not?

    I asked 'officialdom'....
    State drivers-license examining was unable to give an answer.
    (the question tied up the _entire_ local testing facility staff for 10-15
    minutes -- everybody *KNEW* there had to be an obvious answer, but they
    couldn't find it.)
    State police overseeing the facility were unable to give an answer.
    State Department of Motor Vehicles headquarters was unable to give an answer.
    (they call back _3_days_later_, to tell me they were requesting an 'opinion'
    from the state Atty-General as to how those statutes should be interpreted
    in that particular context, and that _that_ could take a month or more.)

    The fact that I gave a Capitol Hill (State Senate, in fact) phone number as
    the call-back (where I was working as a clerk) may have had something to do
    with the effort they went to. The query was _not_ work-related, just a
    'personal' academic curiosity question. I _did_ tell them not to bother the
    Atty-General with the matter, that it wasn't 'that' signficiant.
     
    Robert Bonomi, Dec 20, 2007
    #47
  8. Oops. Y'er correct. They only have to do one. Obviously, the RTFM
    notice thrown into the box is adequate. Dumb...
    One of the more amazing things to watch are laws and ordinance
    manufacture. I had some recent experience throwing together a
    cellular tower and radio antenna ordinance in Santa Cruz County Calif.
    I'll spare you the usual anecdotes and simply say that my suspicions
    surrounding the limited abilities of governments to deal with
    technical matters were confirmed.
    Sigh. I wasn't party to the legislative effort, but my guess(tm) is
    that this was NOT the intent of the law.
    Wait until you try to read technical specifications and procedures
    inscribed in legalese. See the FCC rules-n-regs for examples.
    Ugh. Y'er right. It's a muddle. So much for government inspired
    wireless security.
     
    Jeff Liebermann, Dec 21, 2007
    #48
  9. BTDT, GTTS. I worked as state legislative staff one session.
    Nit: not the intent of the -drafters-, maybe, but the law is clear.
    Hah! you should try military procurement specs.
    Sorry about that. <grin>

    I'm just highly skilled at that kind of "interpretation". those trouble-
    making skills run in th family -- fostered by innate ability, extensive
    training, and diligent practice!!

    I =never= got in trouble for breaking the rules at school when I was a kid....
    I'd already figured out I could cause *much* more commotion while staying
    _inside_ the LETTER of the law, while saying to h*ll with the spirit thereof.

    My folks and I did _not_ endear ourselves to the election judges, the day
    we were standing in line to vote, and discussing how it would be not just
    'doable', but _easily_ doable, to game the system so that we could vote
    in several different precincts in any given election. We -weren't- planning
    it in advance, it was an ad hoc, on-the-spot, analysis of the registration
    and verification process.

    If things are written/done in a way _I_ can't flummox 'em, they're probably
    save from the rest of the world. :)
     
    Robert Bonomi, Dec 21, 2007
    #49
  10. wbsurfver

    Calif Bill Guest

    A note with the packing will do that. On the device would just require a
    sticker. Nothing says it has too be in the F/W. And most the F/W would not
    be readable by the user anyway. That could be in the setup software, or the
    html page it brings up. But at the most would be a sticker required. And
    most males would not read it anyway.
     
    Calif Bill, Dec 21, 2007
    #50
  11. wbsurfver

    Peter Pan Guest

    Sure you can... you are missing the second part of the prohibited use after
    the stuff in parends... in section ix
    ) unless done with Comcast's written approval in accordance with an
    applicable Service plan;

    Get the okay from comcast to do it, you can legally do it, and there are no
    requirements to let people that connect know you have done so, so it's
    IMPOSSIBLE to know when you connect if you are legally doing it or not....
     
    Peter Pan, Dec 21, 2007
    #51
    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.