[CWN-Summit] Re: CWN-Summit Digest, Vol 5, Issue 2

[Harold Feld]

To modify my previous answer, I don't think there is any problem in 
controlling the user experience when a user voluntarily associates with an 
AP, at least from the standpoint of the Communications Act.

Harold

At 03:04 AM 12/20/2004, Stelios Valavanis wrote:
>the feature that blocks user-user traffic is present on several APs now
>especially those made for hotspots such as colubris. now this only works when
>you associate with an AP. you can still create an ad hoc network and share
>files though not while connected to the internet. now if you set it up right
>you can allow users to see each other at layer 3 while blocking layer 2
>traffic and maybe some port such as RPC. this drastically minimizes viruses
>spreading. we've got that going all over on our wired networks and the people
>with the pagers get a lot more sleep. i am going to try something similar
>very soon on a wireless network.
>
>On Wednesday 15 December 2004 01:47 pm, Sascha Meinrath wrote:
> > This is a really sad development.  Basically, it's an artificial limiting
> > of the resources that would otherwise be available to network users.
> > Basically eliminating the LAN aspects of a WAP.  Seems rather foolhardy to
> > me, but then again, the whole pay-for-access business model is pretty
> > silly.
> >
> > But it is strange that Starbucks wants to shoot itself in the other foot
> > -- spending time and money to make the service _less_ useful to customers.
> >
> > --Sascha
> >
> > On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Michael Oh wrote:
> > >> Could Tmobile be doing something sinister here?  Have any of you come
> > >> across similar stories in your cities?
> > >>
> > >> Steveg
> > >> Tremont Wifi Neighborhood
> > >
> > > Something similar, but not directly related.  There was a time that
> > > Starbucks had APs that would allow you to ping the broadcast address and
> > > then find others on the network, presumably allowing you to file share
> > > and things, etc.
> > >
> > > Recently (i.e. in the last few months), Starbucks has increased their
> > > security to include 802.1x as well, which I suspect means either new APs
> > > or new firmware on their boxes.  At the same time, it looks like they do
> > > some sort of blocking between wireless connections, so that even if you
> > > know the other person's IP on wireless, you can't do anything - no file
> > > sharing, pinging, nothing.  Sorry, guys, no more file sharing at
> > > Starbucks.
> > >
> > > [As a side note, the reason that we found this out was for a TV spot
> > > where they wanted us to prove that Starbucks was just as insecure as
> > > other networks.  Imagine our embarrassment.  Luckily, it made for bad TV,
> > > so that section went on the cutting room floor.]
> > >
> > > It's possible that they're using enterprise technologies that do "block"
> > > other APs - a la Airespace (I'm not sure how they do it), but I would
> > > think it would be unlikely for you to even attach to an AP if that was
> > > the case.
> > >
> > > Short story: they're much more secure than you think they are, so it's
> > > possible they're also a lot sneakier.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > -------
> > > Tech Superpowers, Inc. - "Technology for Genius®"
> > > 252 Newbury Street
> > > Boston, MA 02116
> > >
> > > [Phone]   (617) 267-9716   [Email]     oh at techsuperpowers.com
> > > [Fax]     (617) 267-8927   [Email 911] pageoh at techsuperpowers.com
> > > [Pager]   (888) 377-9591   [Web]       http://www.techsuperpowers.com
> > >
> > > [PSST!] Get our monthly e-mail newsletter -
> > > http://www.techsuperpowers.com/TQ
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CWN-Summit mailing list
> > > CWN-Summit at lists.cuwireless.net
> > > http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/cwn-summit
>
>--
>_______________________________________
>stel valavanis  http://www.onshore.com/
>_______________________________________________
>CWN-Summit mailing list
>CWN-Summit at lists.cuwireless.net
>http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/cwn-summit