51–60 of 61 posts
This looks like a step toward what is variously called "hotspot 2.0" (Wi-Fi Alliance)[1], "next generation hotspot" (Wireless Broadband Alliance)[2], and "het-net" (4G Americas)[3]. The problem is the exponential growth in demand for cellular bandwidth. Its very expensive for the cellular industry to increase capacity by building new towers. So the idea is to get consumers' cellular devices using wifi data connection…
This looks like a step toward what is variously called "hotspot 2.0" (Wi-Fi Alliance)[1], "next generation hotspot" (Wireless Broadband Alliance)[2], and "het-net" (4G Americas)[3]. The problem is the exponential growth in demand for cellular bandwidth. Its very expensive for the cellular industry to increase capacity by building new towers. So the idea is to get consumers' cellular devices using wifi data connection…
It's not hotspot 2.0, it's just multiple ESSID.
As far as security is concerned, I'm much more worried about ISPs providing WiFi routers that uses WEP encryption AS A DEFAULT. For those who don't know, WEP can be hacked in a matter of minutes with no technical knowledge required. There's plenty on scripts on the internet that automates the whole process for you. Do yourself a favour and use WPA2.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not hotspot 2.0, it's just multiple ESSID.
Hotspot 2.0 is a business strategy. Multiple ESSID is a technology that can be used to further the hotspot 2.0 business model.
Multiple [E|B]SSIDs (which I co-invented, and patented about 14 years ago) are fundamentally different. Hotspot 2.0 requires client changes, whereas multiple SSID does not.
> Visitors who are XFINITY Internet subscribers can simply select the XFINITY WiFi network “xfinitywifi” on their device and open a Web browser to get started. They will be able to sign in with their XFINITY email or username and password.
So now anyone can create a hotspot named "xfinitywifi" and phish for passwords from folks who doesn't look for an https connection. I hope Comcast does some good training beyond "connect and enter your password."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also you have to use their crappy router with DNS hijacking.
Heh. Is there such a thing as a consumer ISP-supplied router that isn't a total POS? Does BT not let you override their DNS servers? I don't know why ISPs seem to think DNS hijacking is such a good idea. I find it hard to believe they could make any substantial amount of money on it, it just pisses people off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In short, at BT, no way. Your IP is your LAN. Other users get different IPs. BT runs three SSIDs. Your network, BT-Wifi (FKA OpenZone), and BT-FON. Your network is your network. Private IP, different encryption. The packets leave your house, travel over the ADSL, exit the DSLAM, into a BRAS. There (more or less) it exits onto the "internet" connectivity of BT, with the IP of your ADSL modem. FON and BT-WiFi leave you…
It's interesting reading about a UK situation, the Australian industry is just starting to take its first stumbling steps towards this: http://www.optus.com.au/network/mobile/homezone The TV side of this can be found by searching TPG IPTV and FetchTV, but on the whole we don't have enough bandwidth for this to be deployed successfully. Where you say 2Mbps reserved, is this set up in the router as a separate virtual c…
It's set up in the router and BRAS, but it will only take that bandwidth away if you're watching IPTV. I should have used the word "allocated" :-)
Something important to note - even if you see sync speeds on your DSL modem of 34.95Mbit down, you're likely to have a DSLAM profile set to something like 31Mbit. Most providers use profiles in the DSLAM to give you a consistent speed, rather than trying to squeeze the last little bits out of what is often quite a lossy line.
So in reality your 20Mbit sync speed might result in an 18Mbit profile, of which 2Mbit is allocated for IP TV traffic.
Oh I'd disable that so fast. It'll mess up gaming latency in a heartbeat.
No it wouldn't. It's a separate WiFi device, using a separate allocation of bandwidth. How would it have any effect?