[ale] heads up - warning - you could be sharing comcast wifi without knowing it

[Alex Carver]

You would only burn out the circuit if you connected the can directly to 
the antennas (electrically loading them).  There's certainly some 
reflection of the RF energy involved by hiding the AP inside the can but 
the power levels are low enough that it shouldn't do much to the output 
amplifiers.  The input preamps will probably saturate with the extra 
signal but should also be fine.

Overheating would be a problem but you only need to drill a bunch of 
small holes to let air through.

On 6/11/2013 21:39, Ron Frazier (ALE) wrote:
> I like the don't let them in my house solution.  Wouldn't the ammo can
> 1) burn out the wifi circuit and 2) cause overheating due to lack of
> cooling?  I had actually thought of wrapping aluminum foil around the
> gateway.  At the moment, I have the old style modem, so this is
> hypothetical.
>
> Ron
>
>
> On 6/11/2013 11:43 PM, George Allen wrote:
>> Easy solution for the technically savy:
>> https://www.google.com/search?q=5.56+steel+ammo+can
>> Give it some nice RF shielding, then use your own router.
>> On Jun 11, 2013 9:48 PM, "David Tomaschik" <david at systemoverlord.com
>> <mailto:david at systemoverlord.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Ron Frazier (ALE)
>>     <atllinuxenthinfo at techstarship.com
>>     <mailto:atllinuxenthinfo at techstarship.com>> wrote:
>>     > Hi guys,
>>     >
>>     > I thought you'd like to know about this.  I heard the host on
>>     the Tech News
>>     > Today podcast ( http://twit.tv/tnt ) say something similar to
>>     the following:
>>     > Comcast will be expanding its wifi network by putting wifi
>>     gateways in
>>     > Xfinity users homes. ... Comcast users will get free access. ...
>>     Guests get
>>     > two free accesses. ... If you don't want to participate, you
>>     have to opt
>>     > out.
>>     >
>>     <snip>
>>     >
>>     > Supposedly, they replace your cable modem with this new wifi
>>     gateway device.
>>     > It broadcasts two wifi signals.  You log into one of them and
>>     use YOUR
>>     > service as normal.  Guests login into the other, for free if
>>     they are
>>     > Comcast Xfinity customers, and get two free accesses if they're
>>     not Xfinity
>>     > customers.  SUPPOSEDLY, the 2nd connection is independent of the
>>     main one,
>>     > and it doesn't reduce your bandwidth.  Yeah, I believe that.
>>      The APPARENT
>>     > plan is to replace all the gateways and enable this internet
>>     sharing without
>>     > the customer's knowledge.  That's got to be against the law
>> somehow.
>>
>>     Don't see how it would be against the law.  They're going to
>> replace a
>>     device they own connected to a service they own with another device
>>     they own connected to a service they own?
>>
>>     > Now, I know some people willingly share their wifi.  I'm not one
>>     of them.  I
>>     > have my wfi encrypted with long ugly passwords.  There are 3
>>     main reasons.
>>     > 1) Any other user on my modem is a potential security risk.
>>
>>     I don't know how they have implemented this, but it would be trivial
>>     to assign a 2nd public IP (or even NAT through a single
>>     neighborhood-wifi-network IP) for the 2nd hotspot and route all
>>     traffic over that.  In that case, a user connected to that has the
>>     same amount of access as anyone else on the internet.
>>
>>     > 2) It does
>>     > reduce my bandwidth and performance.
>>
>>     Citation needed.  The biggest limitation to your bandwidth is the
>>     traffic shaping comcast performs at their head end unit.  If the
>>     "public" hotspot is shaped separately, then I don't see how it would
>>     impact your bandwidth.  *Maybe* you could make an argument regarding
>>     wifi interference, but a 2nd hotspot on your device won't be any
>>     different from a 2nd device somewhere nearby.
>>
>>     > 3)  If someone else does something
>>     > illegal while connected to your wifi, the police can ( and HAVE
>>     ) showed up
>>     > at your door and arrest you.  You then have to prove you didn't
>>     do it and
>>     > it's a royal mess.
>>
>>     Actually, no, the prosecution still has to prove you did it (at
>> least,
>>     legally), but yes, I suppose it could cause some headaches, unless
>>     they can look at wifi hotspot vs private network.  Not sure how that
>>     would work.
>>
>>     > Regardless, no ISP should be able to enable this type of access
>>     without the
>>     > user's knowledge and consent.
>>
>>     On this, I agree.  This should be with the user's consent, but I
>> don't
>>     see it as a big bad threat.
>>
>>
>>     --
>>     David Tomaschik
>>     OpenPGP: 0x5DEA789B
>>     http://systemoverlord.com
>>     david at systemoverlord.com <mailto:david at systemoverlord.com>
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>