Apple's Steve Jobs had vision of building an open Wi-Fi utopia

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 71
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    OT: I'm not sure I'm going to buy an AirPort Extreme in the future if they don't beef them up. I can live with the 3 switch ports but the USB port is 1) only USB 2.0, and 2) doesn't work with my RAID. It also doesn't have any decent network monitoring features. They used to allow SNMP (Simple Network Monitoring Protocol), then it became a hidden feature, and now it doesn't appear to exist at all. I think I'll buy a robust small business router next time.
  • Reply 22 of 71
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

     

    I just checked and you're right. You can set encryption (WPA/WPA2) but these need a password. Of course, it wouldn't take much publicity to get people to use a standard password. This means a user would still have to enter the password for every password-protected guest network but maybe that could be automated. 

     

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if a hacker makes the guest connection using my password-protected guest connection, all they would see is their traffic and possibly other guests, but not mine.




    You are correct.

     

    But in the reverse situation, where you are connecting to somebody else's guest network, WPA2 is not enough.



    Unfortunately, the encryption of data going from device to router with WPA2 ends when it hits the router, so data is prone to a man in the middle attack (the attacker being the owner of the router).

     

    So the only way to protect yourself on others public wifi is to encrypt messages from device to server, as DocNo42 pointed out, either to use SSL for both outgoing and incoming emails, and using websites with signed certificates (via HTTPS/TLS). Or use a VPN to tunnel and encrypt all traffic, which is highly recommended, as not all websites have a signed certificate, and not all email providers support SSL.

  • Reply 23 of 71
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,382member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

    I get the idea, but why should I pay to allow John Q. Public to mooch my Internet speed?


     

    In the case of Comcast, it's not John Q. Public, it's your fellow Comcast customers (even though most customers whose home routers - post 2012 versions - make them "Xfinity Wifi" hotspots - aren't even aware of the fact they are serving up a node - and so certainly aren't personally keeping track of who's accessed it, tho' I suppose Comcast is...???)....

     

    ....so in this implementation of the concept it's more those who've paid up get to scratch each other's backs when out on the road. 

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

     

    I just checked and you're right. You can set encryption (WPA/WPA2) but these need a password. Of course, it wouldn't take much publicity to get people to use a standard password. This means a user would still have to enter the password for every password-protected guest network but maybe that could be automated. 

     

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if a hacker makes the guest connection using my password-protected guest connection, all they would see is their traffic and possibly other guests, but not mine.


     

    I have no idea how secure this system is (it uses your Comcast customer password to log on), but your estimate's reasonable in my eyes.... ...still I don't log onto sites where I have to enter a password.  Though I'm vaguely concerned that my auto-login sites on my phone, including my social nets and email accounts are instantly available to me....

  • Reply 24 of 71
    What's to stop your neighbors from ditching Internet service and using yours?

    Neighborhoods will turn into people who pay for Internet and those who steal from them. Who pays for "free" residential wifi when it's not part of a business like Starbucks?
  • Reply 25 of 71
    mike1mike1 Posts: 1,947member

    Really? I should pay for service so others can freeload off of me? Not happenin'.

     I have a guest network, with a password, for my guests. That's it.

  • Reply 26 of 71
    Wi-Fi utopia is not so utopic

    https://corp.fon.com/maps?lt=41.18805292295816&ln=-8.658046704101592&zm=11
    zoom out out %u2026
    and amaze yourself
  • Reply 27 of 71
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,105member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post



    What's to stop your neighbors from ditching Internet service and using yours?



    Neighborhoods will turn into people who pay for Internet and those who steal from them. Who pays for "free" residential wifi when it's not part of a business like Starbucks?



     
    Originally Posted by mike1 View Post

     

    Really? I should pay for service so others can freeload off of me? Not happenin'.

     I have a guest network, with a password, for my guests. That's it.


    As I suggested above, I wouldn't mind having my HOA (only 50+ houses) set up a neighborhood WiFi network, using WPA2 along with a password known to association members. Everyone who pays dues gets the password. Sound fair? Of course I don't see it happening but it's an idea that might work in certain situations. 

  • Reply 28 of 71
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    The City of Cupertino suggested that Apple provide free WiFi for the entire city as part of the approval process for the Campus 2 project and Steve said no.

  • Reply 29 of 71
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,504member
    It's a shame Google is the only entity out there right now making a significant dent in the high speed Internet fiber game. If I had my druthers, Apple would've been buying up wi-fi access points all over the country and selling reasonable monthly subscriptions for unlimited access. I'd be on that in a heartbeat, versus buying cable or fiber from Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T or anyone else.
  • Reply 30 of 71
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

    The City of Cupertino suggested that Apple provide free WiFi for the entire city as part of the approval process for the Campus 2 project and Steve said no.

     

    Because he recognized that as nonsense, just as making Wi-Fi freely available to the world is. Cupertino does for Apple no more than being the land on which they’ve been for a while.

  • Reply 31 of 71

    that's what Fon does 

     

    I don't need other kind of data here where I live 

    https://corp.fon.com/maps?lt=41.18805292295816&ln=-8.658046704101592&zm=11 ;

    [ zoom the map out and … ]

  • Reply 32 of 71
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,232moderator
    This sort of thing shouldn't be far off with cellular tech:

    https://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/advisor/perlman-pcell-technology-poised-reform-wireless-network-193558849.html

    Getting round the interference issue allows full bandwidth sharing and far more receivers. It can exist as a shared infrastructure so customers would still subscribe to individual service providers but share the same physical network. Service providers would have to find a way to differentiate themselves but this may be done with content deals rather than bandwidth. The people developing that tech have met with telecoms providers and Google and Apple. Perlman used to work at Apple.

    They need to figure out how the backhaul system will work but if it's shared too, it's not such a big deal.

    Wi-fi unfortunately would never have worked due to the limited range. It needs full coverage everywhere you are. But fast cellular using the above tech is essentially the same thing and won't have the same data caps we see in current cellular tech.
  • Reply 33 of 71
    jetzjetz Posts: 1,293member
    This is one area where you have to appreciate what Google is doing with Google Fiber. There needs to be more efforts like that to shake the telecom industry up. Maybe Apple could sponsor major efforts for muni-Fi efforts?
  • Reply 34 of 71
    vaporlandvaporland Posts: 358member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    OT: I'm not sure I'm going to buy an AirPort Extreme in the future if they don't beef them up. I can live with the 3 switch ports but the USB port is 1) only USB 2.0, and 2) doesn't work with my RAID. It also doesn't have any decent network monitoring features. They used to allow SNMP (Simple Network Monitoring Protocol), then it became a hidden feature, and now it doesn't appear to exist at all. I think I'll buy a robust small business router next time.

    For the price of an AirPort Extreme you could install a Synology NAS which will be compatible with your RAID and provide routing and robust sharing functions...
  • Reply 35 of 71
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,616member
    I get the idea, but why should I pay to allow John Q. Public to mooch my Internet speed?
    Why am I not surprise you'd be the first person to raise this point, looking at it from your own narrow perspective rather than reflect upon the broader picture (there is one).
  • Reply 36 of 71
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by paxman View Post

    Why am I not surprise you'd be the first person to raise this point, looking at it from your own narrow perspective rather than reflect upon the broader picture (there is one).



    Better just enlighten me, since you’re so obviously superior in every conceivable way.

  • Reply 37 of 71
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,348member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    I think I'll buy a robust small business router next time.

    I long ago gave up on using my wireless AP's built in router functions - they are pretty pathetic. Apples AP's are great wifi access points. For routing I currently use pfSense on an HP Micrososerver I got on sale for less than $200 and it works great. But I'm seriously thinking about switching to an EdgeRouter Lite ($99) from Ubiquity since I don't use the majority of the features in pfSense and the EdgeRouter will use a fraction of the power. And I can use the Microserver for something else :)
  • Reply 38 of 71
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,348member
    It's a shame Google is the only entity out there right now making a significant dent in the high speed Internet fiber game.

    In very few locations and with just enough fanfare to ensure that Comcast doesn't even dare to try to treat them like they are Netflix.

    It's far from humanitarian reasons for what they are doing - purely PR. Awesome for people that happen to live in the one or two magical cities, but squat for the rest of us.
  • Reply 39 of 71
    Marvin wrote: »
    This sort of thing shouldn't be far off with cellular tech:

    https://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/advisor/perlman-pcell-technology-poised-reform-wireless-network-193558849.html

    Getting round the interference issue allows full bandwidth sharing and far more receivers. It can exist as a shared infrastructure so customers would still subscribe to individual service providers but share the same physical network. Service providers would have to find a way to differentiate themselves but this may be done with content deals rather than bandwidth. The people developing that tech have met with telecoms providers and Google and Apple. Perlman used to work at Apple.

    They need to figure out how the backhaul system will work but if it's shared too, it's not such a big deal.

    Wi-fi unfortunately would never have worked due to the limited range. It needs full coverage everywhere you are. But fast cellular using the above tech is essentially the same thing and won't have the same data caps we see in current cellular tech.

    Mmm ...

    I was wondering how long it would take for someone, here, to mention pCell.

    From everything I've read, seen and heard, the system works as claimed and Perlman has a 2-year lead on everyone else.

    Several times, Perlman has alluded to "a deal to be announced in late 2014".


    The following

    http://www.artemis.com/pcell

    Contains lots of good info -- including the ability to use a [much less expensive] pCell radio as an alternative to an LTE radio -- in areas with pCell coverage an iPad or iPod could be used instead of an iPhone.

    Another interesting claim is that a pCell receiving the voice/data is about 1 centimeter in diameter ...

    The small size target, and aggregation of signals, could be used to safely transmit power to the remote device ...


    Perlman is quite a performer -- several times he has hinted at something bigger than voice/data transmission -- if you scroll down to the bottom of their site you will see a banner that saysL


    1000


    Finally, another AI thread, today, discusses an Apple patent to charge computer peripherals (keyboard, mouse, etc.) by wirelessly transmitting power within an area of about a meter.

    Apple on Tuesday was officially awarded a patent related to wireless, magnetic power systems that could one day in the future allow low-power devices like keyboards and mice to be powered over the air, without any physical contact or even battery necessary.
  • Reply 40 of 71
    vaporlandvaporland Posts: 358member
    Why am I not surprise you'd be the first person to raise this point, looking at it from your own narrow <span style="line-height:1.4em;">perspective rather than reflect upon the broader picture (there is one).</span>

    Better just enlighten me, since you’re so obviously superior in every conceivable way.

    Perhaps this would appeal to your sense of generosity

    http://lifehacker.com/190441/turn-your-wifi-piggybackers-internet-upside-down

    17ex3q00o5knmpng.png
Sign In or Register to comment.