Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

802.11 RF Amp

Posted by timothy on Sun Dec 22, 2002 05:59 PM
from the from-hobby-bench-to-compusa dept.
Hardware
MikeLRoy writes "Linksys has announced a signal amp, to be available soon, for their wireless ap's/routers. While many people have been using commercial rf amps hacked onto their ap's, linksys now has a commercial solution!" I wonder when ISPs are going to stop soft-pedaling the anti-NATing provisions in their terms of service.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

802.11 RF Amp 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Hmm cool. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 22 2002, @06:01PM (#4941923)
    While many people have been using commercial rf amps hacked onto their ap's, linksys now has a commercial solution!

    Now if they could just come up with a commercial solution, we'd be all set.

  • Anti-WAP? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Motherfucking Shit (636021) on Sunday December 22 2002, @06:05PM (#4941942) Journal
    I wonder when ISPs are going to stop soft-pedaling the anti-NATing provisions in their terms of service
    Check SpeakEasy DSL. Not only don't they care about NAT, they don't mind wireless connecting sharing either, so long as none of the people (ab)using your connection are violating the AUP. As with any ISP you're responsible for anyone using your connection. In other words, setup your WAP, secure it to trusted friends and family only, and you're A-OK.

    And I'm not even a SpeakEasy customer. I wish RoadRunner would implement similarly "with-it" policies...

    • Agreed, SpeakEasy ROCKS (Score:5, Informative)

      by phillymjs (234426) <slashdot&stango,org> on Sunday December 22 2002, @06:26PM (#4942024) Homepage Journal
      I dumped my Comcast cable modem for SpeakEasy DSL just about a year ago, and I've never been happier with an ISP.

      I've never had an outage, I can (and do) run servers in my house to handle my own mail, www, etc. Their phone reps are courteous and don't suffer total brain shutdown when I mention the magic sentence, "I'm using a Mac."-- not that I've needed support beyond a little help sorting out a password issue when I wanted to configure the INCLUDED dial-up access in case I needed it.

      When I needed an additional IP address last year, I called them up and had one in a couple minutes. I just upgraded my service from 608K down/128K up to 1.5M down/384K up, and it was not a hassle at all. Since my employer chips in $50/month of my ISP charges, this higher speed service now costs me $40 per month, the same I was paying a year ago for my cable modem with all of its restrictions.

      To all Slashgeeks who are able: If you have a choice, go with SpeakEasy-- you won't regret it!

      ~Philly
      • not all of us can afford the high costs of DSL. I personally have never been happier than I have been w/cable (ATTBI sucks only a little, RR was great).

        768k/128k is entirely too slow and too expensive. Not all of us have the $50 chip in offer.

        I run servers, I have mutliple NAT'd computers, and I use an AP for my laptops.

        No complaints from ATTBI. Just don't do anything stupid (like hack your modem cfg file) and you are fine.

  • NAT is hard to detect (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gothmolly (148874) on Sunday December 22 2002, @06:12PM (#4941977)
    Unless you start snooping into the data packets, looking for User-Agent strings, etc (if you're NATting 2 different OSes behind it). You can make educated guesses (why do all TCP connects come from port 61000+?) but you really can't KNOW if someone is NATting.
    • This is somewhat easy to find people that are extremely likely to be NAT'ing actually, usually with no extra hardware than what the ISP already has.

      You can look at the source port of the packet (going from the customer to wherever, i.e. ingress to the ISP's network), to be fairly confident that the customer is NAT'ing their traffic.

      Most NAT implimentations change the source port to a very high port number (usually in the 60,000+ range) when they translate (along with changing other info). You can probably be fairly safe to log anything above 40k (although some research into what more popular 'ethernet routers' that do NAT use for port ranges would be prudent). Normal traffic for most implimentations of a TCP/IP stack won't typically source off of ports that are reserved for NAT'ing, so again, you can be fairly sure they are NAT'ing if you 'catch' them (enough to call them to ask them about it anyway.. that way if they aren't, you don't shut down a paying customer for no reason).

      On a cisco, you can setup an extended access list applied to the interface the traffic is hitting, with logging enabled to see who is NAT'ing, see if it continues for a while, and if it does, you can be fairly assured they are NAT'ing traffic.

      Mind you, there are many ways around this for some implimentations of NAT (i.e. changing the port range NAT'd packets source off of), but for average Joe User hooking up an 'ethernet router' that does NAT, they could be caught fairly easily by this (and other methods that work in conjunction with this).

      (this is just a brief summary, don't blame me if it isn't detailed enough).
      • The new NAT mechanism implemented in the Linux 2.4 kernels tries to use the same source port as the translated packet. I suspect other NAT implementations might be doing the same.
  • ...but ours goes up to 11.

  • God forbid. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mwillems (266506) on Sunday December 22 2002, @06:17PM (#4941994) Homepage
    The entire point of 802.11b is that it is low power, allowing a lot of use in a small area. If my neigbours all start to boost their signals (both ways of course), my 2.4 GHz RF environment is going to be be useless. X.10, cordless phones, bluetooth, 802.11b all share this frequency (and I have all four of those at home...)

    In the UK, until recently 802.11b was illegal for commercial use because it was full, making it useless. My car the other day would not open in a high-RF environment (near Toronto's CN tower).

    Can we please keep this frequency useable? Amplifying will kill it. An RF signal of this type can carry 30 miles very easily, making it useless if we all start amplifying.

    Michael (radio amateur, VA3MVW)

    • I don't think you need to worry. What Linksys is doing is not nearly as interesting as people might assume (which is I suppose is par for the course for Slashdot :-) What I'm pretty sure is going on is that the wireless access point on the linksys doesn't have a very strong radio transmitter to begin with (I'm guessing 30-50mW), and the signal amplifer just raises the transmit power to the max legal limit for the 2.4GHz band.

      The Cisco 350 Access Point (and wireless cards) has better receive sensitivity (I don't know if that's due to a better built-in antenna, or better radio circuity, or both), and a stronger transmit power than most other 802.11 cards (selectable from 5mw to 100mW). In contrast, the Lucent Wavelan Silver card has a 31 mW transmitter. I don't know what the transmit power for the Linksys access point, since it's not listed on the web site or in the user's guide, but they claim an outdoor range of 1500 feet at 1 Mbps, and 500 feet at 11 Mbps. For comparison, the Orinocco access point claims 1750 feet at 1 Mbps, and 525 feet at 11 Mbps, and the Cisco 350 access point claims an outdoor range of 2000 feet at 1 Mbps and 800 feet at 11 Mbps. If we assume that both Cisco and Linksys are exagerating to an equal extent for the best case scenario, it seems pretty clear that the Lucent transmitter is less powerful than the Cisco 350.

      Of course, as radio amateurs know, transmitter power doesn't have as much effect on range as some people might think. That's why QRP operators can sometimes communicate with people halfway across the globe with only a Watt or two of power. So the Linksys signal amplifier will probably not make that much of a difference.

      That being said, I would recommend the Cisco 350, not because of the higher transmit power, but because the access point has better manageability (you have much finer control over how the access point operates, with various nice features such as having the AP ask your radius server whether or not a particular MAC address should be allowed, LEAP authentication/encryption, etc.). Also the Cisco 350 PC card has a full-featured Linux driver, which allows you to control the transmit power, scan for all available 802.11 networks, and so on. Another nice feature with the Cisco 350 is that you can store the WEP keys in flash memory, so that you can lend the card to house guests, without needing to reveal the WEP key. (Right now, I haven't been able to find an open source radius server that supports LEAP, so I'm using a combination of 128-bit WEP keys plus MAC address access controls. One nice thing about the 350 Access Point, as compared to the Apple airport, is that you can change WEP keys without needing to reboot the access point. So while I haven't implemented it yet, it should be possible for me to automate changing the WEP key every 24 hours, by calculating a MD5 hash of a secret plus a timestamp. That way, a shell script on my Linux laptop would allow me to get update the WEP key at the same time, automatically.)

      -Ted (N1ZSU)

    • Re:God forbid. (Score:5, Funny)

      by phunhippy (86447) <zavoid@gmail . c om> on Sunday December 22 2002, @07:20PM (#4942183) Journal
      My car the other day would not open in a high-RF environment

      did ya consider trying the Key?? its a nice shiny metal thing they give you with your new car :)
      • Yes, that's funny :), but a lot of cars these days come with a rudimentary alarm that will get irritated at you if you try to open the doors without having used the remote, and you locked it with the remote. It's a really simplistic defense against slim jims and the like.
      • Mercedes models don't come with the usual shiny, metal things. The "key" is actually a vaguely key-shaped RF and IR transmitter. A small traditional metal key is buried inside it, and can be used to unlock the door in case of a failure... you have to pry a plastic cap off the hidden keyhole on the door. The emergency key won't start the car.
    • RF signal of this type can carry 30 miles very easily, until it hits something that has a strong adsorbtion rate at 2.4Ghz something very uncommon and non-abundant like..... water...

      you haven messed very much with wifi or anything in the microwave range have you.

      I have a 1 watt transmit amp on each end of a 23 DBi gain dish link... IT WILL NOT FIRE THROUGH A TREE because of the adsorption rate of water. I wished I could burn through a tree but I cant not even with the huge power (as far as wifi is concerned) I am using... (shhhh dont tell the FCC I'm violated every fricking law with this expieriement)

      it will NOT travel 30 miles, it will NOT kill everything or cause huge problems for anything but low end gear that barely works anyways... (your car keyfob/car alarm opener for example.. it dont matter who makes it they are low grade junk in regards to the RF functions of it.)

      I can show you at least 5 houses that have a field strength at least 10 times that of anything you could buy in 802.11b equipment... and it's because of MICROWAVE OVENS that are old and leaky..

      please dont fearmonger... these tiny toys that linksys are selling wont hurt anything... and 95% of those out ther eamplifying any of their 802.11 gear are not capable of doing it anywhere remotely correct to get anything but a marginal gain.. Hell some of these people are using the worse feedline and antenna designs that are attenuating more than they gain...

      stop worrying... the no-code ham licenses has more of a chance at ruining the airwaves than amplifying 802.11 traffic.

      • Ah... I open it with an RF-operated key (it's a Mercedes). And no matter how I pressed, nothing happened. MOst disconcerting. From using my radios I know this to be a high-RF environment. I could open the car using a metal 'emergency' key, and once away from that area, all worked OK again.
        • --yes, this is a serious problem, now think on this. Mercedes and similar electronically enhanced & advanced autos are definetly cool, no argument there of course,-until there's a terrorist event. What are you going to do then? Ever think about it? An exosatmospheric EM pulse, or airdropped graphite fibers, or the available plans on the web EM bomb. Then what? The coolness factor is now reduced to OH S|-|!7! Are you sure that's really the vehicle you want, instead of-just for grins-an older 60s muscle car that's been completely restored, or a solid old pickup? Old fashioned "just works" technology?

          This is a SERIOUS consideration anymore, no place in the world is "immune" to terrorist events, and it's only a matter of when-not if- that RF/EM devices start to be used. And to me "who" uses them isn't as important as "they will most likely be used". It's too good of a weapon to think it WON'T be used. This is my opinion of course, but I think it's something to consider.

  • I don't like the idea of amps for 802.11.

    People seem to be getting excellent range out of very low power devices using fairly cheap antennas!

    Pumping out more power will just increase interference with other 802.11 networks in the area. Not to mention it would almost certainly be illegal in the UK to use one of these things :)
    • I have to agree. I have two high gain directional atennae; one at each end of my wireless link & I get 22Mbps all the time (it's a DLINK using PBCC). Before the antennae, the link was dodgey at best. Now, without increasing the power I'm putting out to the neighborhood, I have exactly what I need. (Well, I suppose some neighors in some particular directions are getting a little more, but some less as well.)

      Amplifiers just make things more & more crowded. I have too much stuff running in the 2.4GHz range already and do occasionally have some interference problems, especially with the cheaper of my cordless phones.

      I know it's legel, I just don't like it much.

  • Is a signal strength war already escalating? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by phr2 (545169) on Sunday December 22 2002, @06:29PM (#4942031)
    A few people are always trying maximize the range of their WLAN's, reach through more walls, etc. But are there enough to support a "mass market" product like this? Or does it mean people are looking for more powerful AP transmitters because they're trying to overcome interference from other WLAN's in the same office building? And will those other WLAN users jack up their own transmitters in response? I wonder if we're seeing the beginning of an RF power output war, sort of like we already have between cell phone carriers with towers along highway 101 (in Calif.) and similar freeways. This is NOT good. We get cooked by enough microwave emissions in our offices already.

    I'd be a lot happier if the FCC got rid of some of those UHF TV channel frequency monopolies and gave the spectrum back to the public that rightfully owns it, to try to lower contention over the narrow strip of bandwidth that 802.11 uses. There's also much more use of wireless these days by non-mobile devices than there really needs to be, when those devices could perfectly well use wired ethernet, or maybe a much lower-powered shorter-range wireless scheme (like a higher-bandwidth Bluetooth) to an access point that's nearby (i.e. in the same room or close to it, not far away in the building). However, that last part is harder. Tragedy of the commons and all that.

    • Since 11Mbps is a tasty target, it's hardly surprising that people will be gunning for maxing out what 802.11 will do.

      Maybe the better thing to have done, rather than come out with a single wireless protocol would be to have two; one that would do 50Mbps but at a range of no more than 50m, and another good for 50 miles but at no more than 250Kbps, with a large number of channels.

      The former would be great for offices or other places that need high bandwidth, but the distance limitation would have kept it from being so popular as a last-mile. The latter would be awesome for linking buildings or other long-range applications, but a large channel count and low bandwidth would keep people from trying to replace T1s between buildings..
      • There's another issue too, which is boosting your AP transmitter doesn't boost your laptop's transmitter. Just because you'll hear your AP better doesn't mean it will hear you.

        You're getting worse performance with your Powerbook than most people I know: in a residential building (drywall, etc.) you should be able to use it everywhere in the unit. If you're using an 802.11 PC card (not built in wifi), an external antenna might help.

  • The Wap11 Hack [seattlewireless.net] courtesy seattle wireless.

    Basically using a different firmware/snmp agent for a different ap based on the same chipset you can up the signal strength at no charge. It is risky however, so I take no responsibility blah blah blah. Maybe thats all the amp does is up the built in power.. ;)
    • Only works for the WAP11 v1.x. Won't work on the WAP11 v2.x or any of the combo router units. I've got a WAP11 v2.2, and I'd be delighted to use my wireless connection in my living room...even 50' away, the connection is sunk.

      I suspect the amplifier isn't limited to LinkSys products either, although its design is meant to fit with them.

  • more info (Score:5, Informative)

    by trb (8509) on Sunday December 22 2002, @06:53PM (#4942108)
    That link didn't show much (at least for me). You might want to try WSB24 [linksys.com], which points to a data sheet. [linksys.com]
    • Peak Gain +14 dBm
    • Receiver Gain +20 dBm (nominal)
    • Tx Input Power +5 dBm (minimum) - +20 dBm (maximum)

  • big deal. ydi.com and rflinx.com have quality amps (Score:5, Informative)

    by puzzled (12525) on Sunday December 22 2002, @06:53PM (#4942112) Journal

    A while ago on slashdot there was breathless coverage of a Linksys hardware 'hack' that raised their 30mw AP to 100mw. Some knowledgeable RF engineer took a look and it *was* putting out 100mw - 31mw in channel, and 69 mw of crap spattered all over 2350 - 2550 MHz. All that 'hack' accomplished was giving more ammunition for those satellite radio folks that want to regulate the ISM band.

    Instead of building a 100mw radio with good sensitivity, Linksys is building a cheesy amp to go with their cheesy AP.

    If you genuinely need some amplification I've used YDI.com and Teletronics.com amps in the 250mw to 1 watt range and not had much trouble with any of them. RFLinx or RFLynx(sp?) has come out with a 750mw amp for $200, but I haven't tried that product yet.

    FYI half of the reason to deploy an amp is for the LNA (low noise amplifier) effect - besides boosting output they pump up the return signal by 10 - 14 dB. There is a real call for a 150mw output amp with a solid LNA for client side problems, but that is a story for another day.
  • I wonder when ISPs are going to stop soft-pedaling the anti-NATing provisions in their terms of service.


    I wonder when ISP's are going to realize that it is futile to say "no NAT" or "no servers" or "max transfer gb per month" and realize that the only sane thing to do is to provide unrestricted access, and simply charge their customers what it actually costs to provide xx mb of bandwidth?

    Let's not beat around the bush. Heavy users pay for heavy bandwidth. Light users pay for less bandwidth, and get less bandwidth. Trying to weasel out of providing less than the amount of data that the pipe can carry is a waste of everyone's time.
  • That amplifiers amplify everything... including the ambient noise PLUS they also insert a certain amount of noise themselves (LNA stands for "low-noise-amplifier not no-noise-amplifier). So while the signals may be amplified, the noise level might also be amplified enough to negate the effect.

    In addition, the FCC has a dba limit on the amount of signal you can have so you cannot just stick power amplifiers on all the devices in the network without incurring some exposure to fines and penalties (for interference).

    It makes a lot more sense to design the wireless system to use numerous low-power devices spread around the area so that you can cover just what you need to cover and not simply saturate the area with signal.

  • Wow, what crap. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Wakko Warner (324) on Sunday December 22 2002, @07:48PM (#4942278) Homepage Journal
    I bought a 12dB omnidirectional wireless antenna for like $100. This thing doesn't even give specs (that I can see) -- and I'm willing to bet it costs more than I paid for mine. Linksys, as usual, sucks.

    - A.P.

  • Linksys (Score:2, Informative)

    by wakeboard (556264)
    What I wish linksys would allow in the firmware was a mac address allow list. Right now you can only set mac addresses to block from the WAP. Kinda stupid if u ask me, why not list the mac addresses you want to allow. I know that they can be spoofed, but it makes it just THAT much harder
  • Most folks I know of here in Columbus who have more than one computer use NAT. Mostly Roadrunner. A tech was out and seen my setup and they said nothing. Only thing they said was t would be slower (BS). In facet I think they support you doing things like NAT. Saves them equipment and IP adresses.
  • YMMV, but SBC Yahoo / Ameritech doesn't care about NAT. In fact they acknowledge that customers may be connecting more than one system in their customer support materials. The downsides:

    -Non windows / mac OS support doesn't exist. They run a don't ask don't tell policy when it comes to multiple PC's, but you need a windows PC for them to do any sort of trouble shooting. (My guess says their support people are reading from a card)

    -Installation (from the telco side) is intermittent. Some people I've talked to get setup in a couple weeks. My setup took just shy of three months. To be fair, my order went in just a few days after my area went DSL ready. half of their systems said I could have DSL, the other half didn't. I had two separate orders canceled by the compliance check.

    SBC Yahoo may be a good option for your area. sure comparing it to Comcast / Roadrunner is like comparing genital warts to Leporasy (you don't really *want* either, but one's probably a bit easier to live with). It may be wrth investigating. I'm running wireless + two regular boxen and they (officially no less) don't care.

    And if you do setup a network remember; http://www.coyotelinux.com, because if you buy a router from best buy, then the terrorists have already won.

    • Re:One way. (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually, this device increases the RX sensitivity and power as well as that of the TX, thus giving a greater range regardless of what you have in your laptop.

    • Re:One way. (Score:4, Informative)

      by ZeLonewolf (197271) on Sunday December 22 2002, @06:07PM (#4941952) Homepage
      To improve the range of a wireless connection you would need an amplifier at both ends. With this large box attached to the access point, the AP can transmit packets further ... but this is useless if you laptop, say, hasn't got the power to transmit packets back. This thing just introduces a zone of one-way communication around the inner zone of 2-way communication.


      Erm, no... it's a signal amp... so if you stick it halfway between a laptop and a wireless AP, it will amplify the signal from both. It's just like using a repeater in a cabled network.
      • Actually, like puzzled (12525) posted: "FYI half of the reason to deploy an amp is for the LNA (low noise amplifier) effect - besides boosting output they pump up the return signal by 10 - 14 dB."

        Give him the karma. And mods, why the hell are you modding up this post's parents, and it's parent's parent?

        The amp doesn't go halfway between anything, and you don't need a similar device on the other end.

        -Berj

      • Re:One way. (Score:3, Informative)

        by div_2n (525075)
        I think you are confused as to what an amp is and what it does and doesn't do.

        An amplifier takes raw signal (including noise) and amplifies the power on it in the direction it is set to amplify. There are bidirectional amplifiers to do it in both directions.

        Amps are best placed as close to the antenna as possible to reduce loss and noise. As a signal travels across cable, noise and loss increase. Thus, a short "jumper" cable is ideal to connect the antenna to the amp.

        Putting an amp on one side of the communication pathway will improve the signal and perhaps the distance a bit. The biggest improvement will be in the quality of the wireless link at the far reaches of the original signal.

        To greatly improve distance, it is absolutely necessary to amplify on both ends. The end goal is to improve your signal to noise ratio. The weaker your signal from the other end, the worse that ratio becomes.
    • Actually, I would presume that this thing has LNA on the receive side, and maybe one for transmit. Many applications like this where the mobile transmitter is small, has low power consumption requirements and inefficient antenna design are reverse link limited, and adding amplification (gain) on the receive side alone can increase range of the overall system. Since the transmitter is stationary and plugged in power is usually not much of a consideration for the transmit side of an access point.

      Balam

    • When you broadcast at higher power, generally you would use a comparable signal amp on on incoming signal. So your underpowered laptop signal is greatly magnified (errors and all) after it is received at the hub. Larger distances then translate into lower available bandwidth as opposed to no connection. This is pushing and pulling signal from one end instead of pushing from both.

      Get yours here! [hazardfactory.org]

    • Re:One way. (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      That's not entirely true. If the signal going FROM the hub to the laptop are strengthened, the data transmission would definately be improved, but in most cases, one can also improve the "reception" capability of the hub by boosting the recieving antenna gain. But by the same token, these systems run full duplex (transmit and recieve at the same time), so if the transmitter is boosted, it COULD concievably de-sensitize the reciever.

      Not sure of the exact machanisms IF the hub actually transmits and recieves at exactly the same time, but now that I think about it, perhaps not (being digital - it COULD be simplex).

      If you've even been near a powerful FM or even a TV transmitter, and try to use an FM radio, you would be hard pressed to pick up anything else BUT the FM transmitter.

      RF can get into ANYTHING... as a 1st class FCC license holder, and former Chief Engineer of a 25KW FN station, I know only too well what RF can do. Ask your food, when you take it out of the Microwave oven.

      • Errr... there is no longer a 1st class FCC Commercial License. Mine turned into a "General Class" a couple of decades ago. Second class also turned into a "General Class."

        (for those who ask, this is a kind of license needed to be a technical person on various kinds of FCC stuff, such as two way radios and broadcast stations). The term "engineer" in broadcasting is like the term "engineer" in trains - it doesn't mean you are an engineer. I started as a broadcast "engineer" when I was in high school with a 1st class FCC License (commonly called "First Phone").

    • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)

      by LostCluster (625375) on Sunday December 22 2002, @06:09PM (#4941964) Homepage
      Because this device emmits at the FCC max, something most APs do not. Yeah, this thing would rock inside a Pringles can, but it's likely even the worst designed can will put the setup over the limit.

    • Are You Daft? (Score:3, Informative)

      by m1a1 (622864)
      It is just a repeater. It doesn't broadcast at any greater strength than your typical 802.11b access point, all it does is repeat whatever it picks up, thus increasing the range.
    • If that would bring down your ISP, get a new ISP.
    • I'm sorry, but that's no way to run an ISP. An ISP should provide some degree of insulation of customers from one another. There are a lot worse things that people can do by accident, or deliberately, than "plug in a NAT backwards".
    • LOL ok yea it's posible allthough doubtfull any DSLM worth it's salt dosent forward DHCP responce packets in from the CPE and dosent forward DHCP requests out to the CPE end either. If a small ISP has missed bridge configuration 101 (Yes most DSLAM's especialy cheap ones are simply bridges) but in my state at least the DSLAM is actualy the Telco's the small ISP gets a single ATM connection into there cloud and PVC's are setup for each port to there router generaly running PPPoE to that router. The first thing you do after you get it working is get it secure (yea I know it's nice ot say secure first but for a small company working is normaly more of a priority than secure) BTW if you were to actualy worry about this they shouldent allow windows boxes turn on ICS the wrong way and you have a DHCP server on your cable modem / DSL. Oh Cable modems may have more of an issue with this they would have to filter at the cable modem or the head end (I dont think any of the cable modems can receive on there transmit frequencies at the same time so any modem to modem connection need to pass through the head end? Would like to be corrected if I'm wrong on this I dont nroamly deal with this low end gear :)
    • > Would you like it if the phone company said you
      > could only have 1 phone on your line,

      The phone company did just that for more than half a century. In fact, they did not allow customers to use their own phones at all. We were supposed to rent phones from them.

      I agree, though. ISPs should sell metered service and charge by the byte.

    • Why does my ISP care how many computers I hook up to my network? I'm paying for the bandwidth.

      No, you're paying for a personal internet connection. If you were paying for bandwidth, it would likely be more expensive and they wouldn't care what you did with the connection. That said, it shouldn't matter what you do, so long as you don't abuse the service, say by downloading stuff 24/7 or having 4 or 5 people using it all the time.

      Would you like it if the phone company said you could only have 1 phone on your line, or the power company said you can't share electricity with your roommates? I didn't think so.

      Well, it's already been mentioned that the phone company did just what you describe. Your analogy is flawed. Having more than 1 phone on the line doesn't affect the load on the phone company - you can only make 1 phone call at a time. The power company charges you based on usage, and at a higher rate if you exceed a set amount per mnonth, so why should they care?

      • > No, you're paying for a personal internet
        > connection.

        But what I want to pay for is bandwidth usage.

        > If you were paying for bandwidth, it would
        > likely be more expensive...

        Why?

        > ...and they wouldn't care what you did with the
        > connection.

        That's the point.

        > ...it shouldn't matter what you do, so long as
        > you don't abuse the service, say by downloading
        > stuff 24/7...

        Not likely with one phone line used for personal calls, business, and the computer.

        > ...or having 4 or 5 people using it all the
        > time.

        Two people, and usage that is probably below average.

    • they're not allowed to. FCC regulations specify that they use a non-standard antenna connector. It's a prerequisite to getting FCC certification.

      The logic goes that you have to certify with a known antenna, so if you use standard connectors anybody could hook up a different antenna and make the device noncompliant...

      and yes, it sounds screwy to me too, but those are the rules

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.