Slashdot Mirror


A DIYer's Quick Guide To Cheap Wireless Extension

An anonymous reader writes "This piece is described in one of the comments on it as 'a little piece of genius'... and I have to agree! Although Peter Cochrane seems a bit of a crack pot, the ways that he comes up with to get connected when he's out of range in the sticks are pure genius and he makes them appear really simple! Think old satellite dishes, USB dongles and plastic bags and you'd be on the right tracks to upping wi-fi signal by 4 bars." A perfect excuse to link to one of my favorite sites, if you want more details and photos on similar jury-rigged long-distance connections. However, your meterage may vary — I've found USB Wi-Fi devices to be pretty fickle under Linux, with some distros working way better than others.

148 comments

  1. Citywide Wireless by billy901 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wouldn't it be nice if this technology was used to make a free citywide wireless internet? We just need a bunch of people with this ambition and it could be done. I once read a book, called When A Strange Comes To Town, in which some people had the same ambition. You can get the book from Project Gutenberg if you look around. It's a newer book that has never been copyrighted.

    --
    Please visit http://www.mederbil.com/ i7, GTX 275, 4 1TB Caviar Green in RAID 0+1 array, EVGA X58 3X SLI Board, Silver
    1. Re:Citywide Wireless by Nos. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Jury-rigged wifi extenders typically aren't the most reliable things in the world. They also tend to be unidirectional, though omni-direction is possible, you don't get as much gain. You also need to power them, as well as connect them back to the Internet at some point. In the end it all costs money, and someone needs to pay for it.

    2. Re:Citywide Wireless by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't happen to have a link? I searched and all I could find is something by Cory Doctorow.

      --
      The game.
    3. Re:Citywide Wireless by markov_chain · · Score: 1

      Heh. We've had people talking this talk since 1998 now, but whoever had tried to walk the walk discovered how hard it is to make work. These guys actually implemented something along those lines.

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    4. Re:Citywide Wireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't it be nice if this technology was used to make a free citywide wireless internet? We just need a bunch of people with this ambition and it could be done. I once read a book, called When A Strange Comes To Town, in which some people had the same ambition. You can get the book from Project Gutenberg if you look around. It's a newer book that has never been copyrighted.

      I need to go back to china town and sneak in the kitchen's restaurant and find the antennae

    5. Re:Citywide Wireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      What does "never been copyrighted" mean? It was copyrighted when it was produced. Maybe it was released into the public domain, but unless that actually happened...

    6. Re:Citywide Wireless by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      yes it would be nice.

      Oh wait, I've been helping a group locally do just that for over 6 years now. It used to be possible before the Cable companies and telcos started making it illegal.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:Citywide Wireless by Bob+The+Magic+Camel · · Score: 1

      Welcome to Norwich, home of free WiFi. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5297884.stm

      --
      This signature is esoteric
    8. Re:Citywide Wireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would be much more helpful to protect people from litigation when they open up their wireless networks to strangers. The only thing preventing me from providing free wifi is the tremendous risk of being sued and eventually having to pay for someone else's crimes.

      If you've been wardriving lately, you know that we don't need more access points, we need existing access points to be opened.

    9. Re:Citywide Wireless by cbreaker · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I pay for a certain amount of bandwidth from my ISP and I'll be damned if I'm going to just open it - litigation fears be damned - and let some dude download porn all day and saturate my connection, my equipment, my network.

      No thx. They can pay the cable company and get their own line.

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    10. Re:Citywide Wireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have absolutely no problem with that. Also, if you don't have the know-how to secure your network while allowing strangers to use the internet connection, don't open it.

      But there are people who want to provide free wireless internet and know how to do it safely. As long as these people have to risk their livelihood providing a free service, it's not going to happen.

    11. Re:Citywide Wireless by ssintercept · · Score: 1

      that would be "afro-engineered" for those with more genteel sensibilities.

      --
      "You can kill the revolutionary, but you can't kill the revolution."-- Fred Hampton
    12. Re:Citywide Wireless by ssintercept · · Score: 1
      --
      "You can kill the revolutionary, but you can't kill the revolution."-- Fred Hampton
    13. Re:Citywide Wireless by Endo13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's nice in sentiment. In reality though, it doesn't work. See, ISPs do need to be profitable to stay in business. The way they do that is by making money on the bandwidth they sell. At the price bandwidth goes for these days, they really cannot stay profitable if every single person were to use every mbit of their bandwidth all the time. People who torrent a lot or keep their bandwidth use maxed otherwise generally cost the ISP more than the monthly payment. It's those other low-use customers who simply don't want to wait on dialup for eBay or Yahoo to load that make them money. If every user were allowed to open their wireless and allow everyone to use their connection for free instead of paying for it, ISPs would have no choice but to raise prices to stay afloat. Personally, I'm happy with the current situation where those low-use customers pay for some of my bandwidth.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    14. Re:Citywide Wireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eastern Standard Tribe

    15. Re:Citywide Wireless by a_real_bast... · · Score: 4, Informative

      on sailing ships a jury rig is a replacement mast and yards improvised in case of damage or loss of the original mast.

      From Wikipedia. Used in the 1800's, at least. Would you like to reconsider your previous statement?

      --
      You're making me think. You won't like me when I'm thinking.
    16. Re:Citywide Wireless by Solemn+Bob · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be nice if this technology was used to make a free citywide wireless internet? We just need a bunch of people with this ambition and it could be done. I once read a book, called When A Strange Comes To Town, in which some people had the same ambition. You can get the book from Project Gutenberg if you look around. It's a newer book that has never been copyrighted.

      This is probably a garbled memory of Cory Doctorow's Someone Comes to Town, Someone Leaves Town. It is copyrighted, but you can indeed download it from Cory's website; it was released under a Creative Commons license.

      (I liked it.)

    17. Re:Citywide Wireless by Medievalist · · Score: 2

      The description you and the author are looking for is NOT "jury-rigged" - rigging a jury is a completely different thing!

      The phrase you are looking for is "jerry-rigging", a racist term that comes from the even more racist "nigger-rigging" - just so you know.

      Epic Fail.

    18. Re:Citywide Wireless by Nos. · · Score: 2
    19. Re:Citywide Wireless by Xeger · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, jerry-rigging comes from the closing days of WWII when the Allies were advancing through western Europe. They would often find vehicles, structures and equipment that had been hastily repaired or assembled, or used in a way that differed from its original purpose. "Jerry" was a very common nickname for the collective German forces, hence any equipment found in this condition was "jerry-rigged."

    20. Re:Citywide Wireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I believe jerry-rigging refers to Jerrys a.k.a. Germans in WWII, and how they would kludge together technical solutions in the field. The term Jerry has nothing to do with blacks as far as I know (and I'm from the South US, so I've heard most the black-white racial epithets against).

    21. Re:Citywide Wireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    22. Re:Citywide Wireless by horatiocain · · Score: 1

      Link please? I searched on Gutenberg and the Googles but maybe I'm low on kung fu today.

    23. Re:Citywide Wireless by HardCase · · Score: 1

      Crap, an anonymous coward. And a good thing, I guess, because you're mostly wrong.

      "Jury-rigged" has been around for a few hundred years. Just ask any sailor (in the classic, wind-powered sense). A jury rig is a makeshift mast and sail arrangement that's put together when the main gear is damaged or destroyed. I can't quote definitively, but I'm pretty sure that "jerry-rigged" is a corruption of jury-rigged. ...aha! Google is my friend. And it will be yours, too. Look up the term. I'm right.

    24. Re:Citywide Wireless by dontmakemethink · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Saskatoon Saskatchewan Canada has free citywide internet. It's slow as a dog during the day but quite usable at night for basic browsing/emailing etc. Great for us touring musicians!

      Here is another smaller scale hack using a metal strainer/steamer as a collector.

      But a satellite dish will only help the reception, not the access point on a city-wide basis, so it's benefits are limited. However, it might give hope to cottagers where wifi is close but not quite.

      What the article describes as going from zero bars to five, sounds like range extension by a factor of at least five, so let's use 100m as an unmodified standard range, that's about 1/16th of a mile.

      It would also help by almost as great a margin to have a small reflective dish in front of the transceivers to direct forward signals back into the larger dish (a forward collector), or else most of the transmission will travel away from the intended target. That strainer hack would be about the right size for the job, perhaps too big, but imagine that facing back into the satellite dish, directing emissions out the larger dish in a straight line. That should boost the signal strength up by at least another 80%, so call it 9x range extension.

      The same improvements would apply at both ends, so by my math, a well-configured line-of-sight array with dishes and forward collectors at both ends should achieve at least 18x range extension, definitely over a mile.

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    25. Re:Citywide Wireless by Siridar · · Score: 1

      The book you refer to is "Someone Comes to Town, Someone Leaves Town" by Cory Doctorow. It's a excellent book from a excellent author. Check out craphound.com/someone for the (e)book.

    26. Re:Citywide Wireless by sciurus0 · · Score: 1

      The technology discussed in this article wouldn't help much for that. What would help are the $50 open-mesh mini routers.

    27. Re:Citywide Wireless by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 1

      You might be happy having other people subsidising your internet usage, but the other lighter users probably aren't that happy about paying more so you can download whatever it is you download.

      I'm glad you qualified your position with "Personally", but in the scheme of things it seems a bit ridiculous to have pricing that absolutely relies on people not actually using the full service that they're paying for. Put simply: the ISPs are advertising something they cannot possibly deliver, and are relying on people simply not being able to find enough to do on the internet so they don't have to provide the service they sold their customers.

    28. Re:Citywide Wireless by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Ah ha. Thanks, I wondered why I couldn't find it. (Not sure if I'll read it, I was just curious after AC left that note saying it was copyrighted.)

      Also, OP is correct: you can download it from Gutenberg.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    29. Re:Citywide Wireless by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I'm 1/4 German, and I find the term "jerry-rigging" offensive!!1

      ...not really. Actually, I could hardly care less.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    30. Re:Citywide Wireless by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      OP seems to have recalled the title wrong, but somebody else knew what he meant. http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/18224

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    31. Re:Citywide Wireless by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      You might be happy having other people subsidising your internet usage, but the other lighter users probably aren't that happy about paying more so you can download whatever it is you download.

      For the most part, I'm pretty sure those people don't mind. Most of those kinds of people prefer to pay extra for extra capacity they won't use 99% of the time, just so they have it available in that rare situation where they do want it. Not that I'm saying I think it's right or fair that other people help subsidize my own bandwidth usage. But it seems to me, most users like the current situation.

      but in the scheme of things it seems a bit ridiculous to have pricing that absolutely relies on people not actually using the full service that they're paying for. Put simply: the ISPs are advertising something they cannot possibly deliver, and are relying on people simply not being able to find enough to do on the internet so they don't have to provide the service they sold their customers.

      It does *seem* ridiculous, and you'll get no argument from me on that count. But any alternative system will mean that on average everyone pays more. The light users still won't actually pay less (certainly not by any significant amount); the heavy users will just pay more. Also worthy of note is that most industries with such a type of supply will always outsell the supply, simply because they need to to compete in the current market. Airlines do this, theaters do this, ballparks do this, concerts do this. They all sell a certain percentage more than they can actually deliver, because they know a certain number of paying customers will not show up for delivery of their purchase. We can thank the low-price Walmart mentality for this trend.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    32. Re:Citywide Wireless by tooth · · Score: 1

      about 8 years ago this was tried in my area, everyone said they were interested, but waiting on others. In the end, everyone was waiting for everyone else and no one did anything.

    33. Re:Citywide Wireless by cbreaker · · Score: 1

      It has nothing to do with securing my network, and everything to do with using up my bandwidth, dumbass. Comprehend much?

      Besides, you can't just provide free wireless Internet unless your ISP tells you that you can. Providing Internet access to your home has a cost involved, you know. It's not just "providing a service" - it's breaking the rules. So, even if nobody ever got you in trouble by doing illegal things online, on your connection, or if you were immune to such charges - you can still get sued by your ISP.

      ISP's work on an economy of scale. The only way they can stay in business is by getting as many customers in an area as possible. By giving away free Internet from your connection, you undermine the market and can hurt your chances of ever seeing affordable 100Mbit or faster connections in the future.

      Free WiFi being provided by some municipalities (or being considered by some) isn't free either. It's paid for by your tax dollars and an ISP to connect the network to the Internet. So don't you go try and compare you having a public AP and municipal WiFi.

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
  2. Coral Cache link... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
  3. Rhombic Antennas by hardburn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does anyone know of any attempts to use Rhombic Antennas with WiFi? They're very simple and provide huge gain. Their typical downside is that the length of one leg needs to be 8-12 wavelengths, which means they're the size of a football field when you're dealing with most radio frequencies, but 2 GHz has a 0.15m wavelength. A point-to-point rhombic should easily fit on the roof of a house.

    --
    Not a typewriter
    1. Re:Rhombic Antennas by elgatozorbas · · Score: 3, Informative

      I suspect these antennas are typically aimed at much lower frequencies (say HF/VHF), and require a ground plane. The reason why I think so is that for (super) high frequencies, antennas are mostly self-contained (one piece you can attach to a pole) and don't require a large garden and poles and the like.This is not the kind of structure you use for pleasure, but because you have to (at low frequencies).

    2. Re:Rhombic Antennas by Born2bwire · · Score: 2, Informative

      I suspect these antennas are typically aimed at much lower frequencies (say HF/VHF), and require a ground plane. The reason why I think so is that for (super) high frequencies, antennas are mostly self-contained (one piece you can attach to a pole) and don't require a large garden and poles and the like.This is not the kind of structure you use for pleasure, but because you have to (at low frequencies).

      There wouldn't be any reason why this would be worse at high frequencies than low frequencies. I could envision making a printed version of this on a very thick PCB and using the bottom copper cladding as your ground plane. Heck, a sheet of aluminum foil could probably do it in a pinch. The ground plane size at Wifi frequencies is not very large. I would guess the main reason that people haven't done this is why bother? The short wavelength of 2.4 GHz compared to everyday length scales means that it is easy and space efficient to build simple antenna arrays. In addition, you can easily create the antenna array as a printed antenna further simplifying the build process. With the rhombus though, you're talking about an antenna footprint of several wavelengths, like 8-12 as the OP stated. Why bother having such a large footprint when you could easily make a simple printed antenna array with spacings of sub-wavelength between elements? Or, if you are just a garage enthusiast, a waveguide or reflector antenna provides excellent gain. A parabolic dish requires minimal assembly and gives you 10's of dBi in gain.

  4. !news by Thelasko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    everybody knows that old satellite dishes and Asian parabolic cookware can be used to boost wifi signals.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    1. Re:!news by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Dont forget Pringles cans.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:!news by b96miata · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      How is this a troll? This *isn't* news. 2003 called, they want their slashdot stories back:

      http://mobile.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/19/0053233

    3. Re:!news by maxume · · Score: 3, Funny

      Dude, what carrier is offering a temporal calling plan?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:!news by Thelasko · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      How is this a troll? This *isn't* news. 2003 called, they want their slashdot stories back:

      http://mobile.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/19/0053233

      Read the first post on the article you lined to:

      Jeez....this is an obvious dupe...

      It was modded +5 insightful! If it's not news in 2003, it definitely isn't news in 2008.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    5. Re:!news by emag · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dude, what carrier is offering a temporal calling plan?

      TARDIS Telecom, for one...

      --
      "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
  5. if you have a few bucks to spend by dickens · · Score: 2, Informative

    Check out.

    1. Re:if you have a few bucks to spend by dickens · · Score: 1

      Did I mention I haven't gotten used to the new editor yet ? Duh. I meant to check "these guys" at gnswireless.com out.

    2. Re:if you have a few bucks to spend by steveo777 · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of used satellite dishes on Craigslist and such for $20-50. Just pick up one of those and do as in TFA. Sure, you may not get a whole mile out of the deal, but if you can direct that at a nice neighbor's house...?

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
  6. Free... Really? by gamanimatron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I get nervous when folks start talking about "free" services. Seems that more often than not, "free" actually means that I end up paying for power, bandwidth, and the army of bureaucrats that makes sure those bills get paid on time, and that their uncle's brother's company wins next year's bid.

    So, please, count me out. I'll rig my own parabolic signal booster if and when I feel like it.

    --
    cogito ergo dubito
    1. Re:Free... Really? by stranger_to_himself · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...I'll rig my own parabolic signal booster if and when I feel like it.

      That's my new sig sorted out then.

    2. Re:Free... Really? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      I get nervous when folks start talking about "free" services.

      Really? Do fire engines make you nervous, then? Or public water fountains? Street lights?

      You must be a nervous wreck in any city.

      As a practical matter, for humans to live in cities (and at this level of population and industry, a lot of us have to - more than half the human race now lives in cities), a number of public goods and common goods must be provided.

      We can certainly debate whether "free" wi-fi should be one of them, but to get upset at the very idea of "free" services is pointless. (Unless perhaps you've got a time machine and plan to go back and either stop or radically change the course of, the industrial/urban revolution.)

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    3. Re:Free... Really? by phorm · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'd be fairly happy with "free, as in use" with perhaps some injected google-ads or something of the sort on the http stream (not other ports/procols, of course, since that could break stuff).

      You'd probably have to block or severely limit P2P/torrents as well in many cases, but it would be great for those that need quick access to check some information online.

    4. Re:Free... Really? by orasio · · Score: 1

      The cold war has really messed you up. Corporations are not the only way to do things efficiently.

      Cooperation can work easily, in some very particular cases. Public doesn't mean state-run.
      An antenna by itself is useless. If you get together with other people who share your interests, you can build a small network, that allows you to reach other people and for example play low latency games.
      In rural areas, it's better to have a free, fast alternative to whatever there is available, even if it's not up 24/7.

    5. Re:Free... Really? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He doesn't get nervous around "free" services, he gets nervous when people talk about "free" services. You see, he understands that all those "free" services you mention are paid for by somebody. I wonder where you live that get the fire engines for free. The last time the fire company near me was talking about getting a new fire truck, the cost was a couple hundred thousand dollars.
      You see the poster you were replying to was a productive member of society and therefore he pays taxes. That means that all of those "free" services you were talking about are paid for out of his pocket.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    6. Re:Free... Really? by gamanimatron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Allow me to clarify, then: Discussion of novel "free" services makes me nervous.

      Every "free" (meaning, of course, tax-supported in one way or another) service I could possibly want, and a great many more I believe should not be "free", are already provided by my current city.

      --
      cogito ergo dubito
    7. Re:Free... Really? by karbyn-aceous · · Score: 0

      > and that their uncle's brother's company wins next year's bid.

      isn't that still their uncle?

    8. Re:Free... Really? by ssintercept · · Score: 1

      several people, including myself, in my apartment building broadcast our wifi for the rest of the people. i have never had any bandwidth hogs. never any nefarious activities everyone seems to be so paranoid about. we just consider ourselves good neighbors. i do live in an area where we are all equally poor and those of us that can share - do share. as per the comments here it seems that there are more like minded individuals than i would have thought.

      --
      "You can kill the revolutionary, but you can't kill the revolution."-- Fred Hampton
    9. Re:Free... Really? by SBrach · · Score: 1

      No, it's their Dad!!

    10. Re:Free... Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now imagine if that fire company was paid, including overtime and benefits. the cost of that truck doesn't seem so much any more (actually, a couple-hundred K is rather low for fire apparatus these days).

    11. Re:Free... Really? by digitalsolo · · Score: 1

      You do realize, of course, that fire fighting services are, in fact, not free, right?

      Most (if not all) fire fighting services bill you for their services when they respond to a fire. Your insurance pays them their fees. Light your house on fire without any fire insurance (part of your homeowners insurance) and see how much that "free" service costs.

      Now back to your regularly scheduled topic...

      --
      Just another ignorant American.
    12. Re:Free... Really? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do realize, of course, that fire fighting services are, in fact, not free, right? Most (if not all) fire fighting services bill you for their services when they respond to a fire.

      Where do you live that this is the case? That's a tremendously stupid way to run things: "Ah, my kitchen is on fire, but it'll cost money for my insurance deductable if I call it in. I'll put it out myself with the garden hose...Whoops! It was a grease fire! It's spreading! Now the whole block will burn down."

      Out in the middle of the country, where houses are isolated, maybe they could get away with that, but in the city (the topic of discussion here) such a policy would get people dead. You never want to provide a disincentive for an honest activation of an emergency service, because delays can make the emergency worse. Therefore they must be tax-funded public or common goods.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    13. Re:Free... Really? by zach_d · · Score: 1

      I do this too. It's nice when I'm somewhere else, and I can use someone's connection, so I provide the same on principle.

    14. Re:Free... Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An uncle's brother is also an uncle. Or a father, I suppose.

    15. Re:Free... Really? by digitalsolo · · Score: 1

      How to you expect that a fire in your house would do anything other than cost you a deductable fee? Are you planning to fix the house out of pocket?

      I live in a non-rural area with both volunteer and professional fire fighting in place, and both charge fees to your insurance for response.

      There has also been discussion about putting fees onto Search & Rescue operations for lost people.

      --
      Just another ignorant American.
    16. Re:Free... Really? by davolfman · · Score: 1

      Have you ever seen an ambulance bill? Heck, I'm used to the police handing out tickets to snow-bound motorists for dangerous driving. No-ones that altruistic anymore.

    17. Re:Free... Really? by el+americano · · Score: 1

      Paranoia sounds about right. Even when there is no measurable harm from using a neighbor's wifi when your service is unavailable, you'll still here people indignant about your "stealing". These fearmongers would be happier if it were criminalized to the point where nobody could share, even if they wanted to.

      It only takes a few nutjobs.

      --
      Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
    18. Re:Free... Really? by ssintercept · · Score: 1

      i cannot believe that guy compared you to a rapist and pulling a twitter. too funny. and i thought i went off on some delusional rants...remember- sharing is caring!

      --
      "You can kill the revolutionary, but you can't kill the revolution."-- Fred Hampton
    19. Re:Free... Really? by mad+flyer · · Score: 1

      In fact in all communities that i've been involved, sharing of ressources known to belong to your neighbourghood have always been much more reasonable than private access (take as much as you can, value for the money versus common 'property' that everybody should be able to enjoy)

    20. Re:Free... Really? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Have you ever seen an ambulance bill?

      Thankfully, I live in a civilized county where we don't have them.

      Again, suthey are a horrible idea; back when I taught CPR classes, we always wanted people to err on the side of calling 911. A bill of several hundred dollars is a strong incentive to dismiss those chest pains as gas - and so wind up dead.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    21. Re:Free... Really? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      with perhaps some injected google-ads or something of the sort on the http stream

      Oh HELL no!

      That's been tried, and abused, and ended up in court...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    22. Re:Free... Really? by phorm · · Score: 1

      I know a bunch of ISP's tried to inject ads and various other things into the content of their paying customers. At times without informing them, at others while informing them will as obtuse terms as possible.

      However, I do remember free dialup ISP's that used the ad-model. I fail to see why it would end up if court if the service was known to be provided gratis based on an ads model?

    23. Re:Free... Really? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      It tends to break things, and it's too vulnerable to abuse by the people who're supposed to be responsible for doing it. I just don't like it. If it was the only alternative, I'd probably have to use it, but I'd still not like it. (Having Adblock, I'd probably not see most of the ads, but it still has a high probability of breaking stuff.)

      Personally, if it was bothersome, I might take the trouble to write a proxy in PHP to strip out the stuff the ISP was adding, but most people wouldn't have that level of technical knowledge (most people don't run Apache just for kicks)...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    24. Re:Free... Really? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Alternatively, you could light your house on fire WITH fire insurance and see how fast your insurance company takes you to court...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    25. Re:Free... Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. I compared him to the kinds of people who play victim by blaming their victims to feel better about their own wrongs, be they rapists or wifi thieves. But who doesn't love to play the victim by crying ad hominem?

      Since he can't come up with a tenable or sound argument he instead goes back through my comments and mods them down, stalks me, and then tries to get everyone to join the campaign against me because, again, he can't persuade me with fallacy and yet thinks an appeal to popularity is going to prove his position is somehow sound. It's tragic on so many levels.

    26. Re:Free... Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, you're a real tough guy, beating a poor, indefensible strawman. I never said sharing is wrong I said stealing, wardriving, and leaching is wrong.

      You can call me anything you want to my face, but STOP abusively moderating my unrelated comments down and STOP now trying to repeatedly point to me in your sig and comments to get others to join forces with your childish campaign to destroy me because I called you a moron.

      You keep declaring the leaching of other people's services, owned by others and the ISP, into ZERO cost upon them and that's not true. You are 100% allowed to protest the cost of said service, but you don't get to decide that it costs ZERO and then steal it. I don't like the cost of phone packages or texting or the price of exotic fruits but deciding they cost less or ZERO doesn't make it okay for me to steal services or shoplift.

      The ISP decides what it costs because they own it, and they've clearly decided in their contracts that they don't want you anonymously sharing with the neighborhood.

      And please don't be childish. I was never saying you're a rapist or a shoplifter; I was saying you blame the victim in the same way and in this case highlighting that a service, even though intangible, and however small of it you leach, costs something to the system, however small. Even if it's just a fraction of a penny on the ISPs server, it's the ISPs right to charge for that service and it's NOT FREE.

      And even if the service is handed out trustily via a contract it doesn't mean that service is free and limitless. It doesn't mean we should skimp on using those services but just because you're going to take advantage of a service doesn't mean you have to go over the top in facilitating others to fleace the system by leaving your system open or leaching others'.

      Now come off it with these silly arguments. You have to accept certain realities in arguing otherwise you're just being difficult and foolish. You know that that service is not ZERO cost and I've told you it's not yours to decide. This whole ZERO COST angle can only be defeated logically then you're forced to concede.

      You're so stubborn.

  7. Try this.. the strainer WiFi.. cheap too! by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 5, Informative

    I found this great instruction on Instructables (pops new) on how to create a usb wifi out of a 2.00 strainer from WalMart. Works like a champ!

    My friend lives across the Ohio River and we're able to send the signal across the river that way.

    1. Re:Try this.. the strainer WiFi.. cheap too! by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      I used one of those for almost a year, people laughed at the pictures of it when they saw it.
      They stopped laughing when they realized it worked and worked well.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  8. Simple Brilliance by Ngarrang · · Score: 1

    The simplicity and brilliance of this idea is astounding.

    --
    Bearded Dragon
  9. Old news anyone? by b96miata · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm too lazy to search for how many times the satellite dish wifi setup has been posted on slashdot, but suffice to say I had one on my roof 5 years ago after getting the idea from a web page that was itself a couple of years old. (even the actual useful link added on by the editor is from 2004)

    It's not even a good writeup of the concept. Here's a summary of the "Genius":
    -Stick it on the end of the arm.
    -Electronics don't like water.
    -The sun is hot.

    There's nothing genius about this. It's a rehash of something people have done for years, sans details.

  10. Nobody wants it! by drewzhrodague · · Score: 4, Informative

    I am one of those long-time WiFi zealots, and it is clear to me that people just don't want free ubiquitous wireless internet -- or they just don't care.

    Here in Pittsburgh, there is occasional talk of some group trying to do this. There have been some people who have received funding, but they waste it, and their project evaporates. Between ten and twenty (or more) companies start off here, and either fade away, or move to some other city. telerama, hobnob are the two that stick out (for which I remember URLs to).

    Largest public network here is run by ONE GUY who just went and built it himself, Shadyside WiFi.

    Otherwise, there is chatter on some of the local lists, but by and large, nobody wants free city-wide wireless Internet. Just me.

    --
    Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
    1. Re:Nobody wants it! by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      Heh, we just got one neighborhood in our closest local city-like community a neighborhood-wide wifi setup as phase 1 of a municipal wifi project: http://oncee.blogspot.com/2008/06/free-east-end-wireless-up-and-running.html

      Of course, I'm referring to it as a city-like community despite being our state capitol since if things don't change it'll be off the most declining cities lists by caveat of being too small to qualify. =)

    2. Re:Nobody wants it! by JoeZeppy · · Score: 1

      I am one of those long-time WiFi zealots, and it is clear to me that people just don't want free ubiquitous wireless internet -- or they just don't care. Here in Pittsburgh, there is occasional talk of some group trying to do this.

      Oh, I wanted it, I just didn't want it enough to pay the monthly fee for it, and signing up every other day for two free hours to use it for ten minutes was an aggravation. I have internet at work, but needed to get around my corp firewall to support my moonlighting :')

      If I could have got a deal for a pay-as-you-go plan for a reasonable price I'd have taken it. Then I moved to a different building and couldn't get a signal anymore. So I threw up a Linux box at home listening to SSH on port 443, and tunnel out from work using Putty. I just look like encrypted web traffic to the corp security folks.

    3. Re:Nobody wants it! by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 1
      Are you on crack? Telerama is still all over (mostly Squirell Hill/Oakland, but many further out from there, too). The reason it's not everywhere-everywhere blanketing the whole city is it COSTS TOO MUCH to do that with WiFi. If you want trully ubiquitous "free" wireless, YOU can pay for it.

      WiFi was never designed for ubiquitous coverage. That doesn't mean other people don't want the coverage, they're just aware of the costs/benefits.

      *googelstalks you* Ahh. Maybe I can have Bryan walk over and bop you for your silliness.

      --
      Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
    4. Re:Nobody wants it! by drewzhrodague · · Score: 1

      Are you on crack? Telerama is still all over

      Sure, their hotspots are still all over, but their business shut down and went away, dumped their hosting and ISP customers. Aren't you on the WPLUG list?


      blanketing the whole city is it COSTS TOO MUCH to do that with WiFi

      By using DSL to provide the access at each site, then yes -- it is too expensive. I would think that it would be easier to use bridge/repeaters in convenient places -- but then again you get into saturation, and that ends up being expensive. This is also ignoring the fact that people don't want anything installed on their buildings; airora.com ran into that trouble in Boston (I was one of their customers).


      If you want trully ubiquitous "free" wireless, YOU can pay for it.

      In a similar way that Jon from shadyside wireless is doing -- I am paying for it. I am paying for equipment, batteries, and solar panels. I may not have a bunch of extra grand to throw at equipement, but I have been kinda quietly hacking things together. Then again, there's no one out there to connect to, but at the very least it will make an interesting blog post. It's also too bad that Goodwill no longer sells WiFi equipment.


      *googelstalks you* Ahh. Maybe I can have Bryan walk over and bop you for your silliness.

      As long as it is the Bryan that isn't my boss =_)

      --
      Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
    5. Re:Nobody wants it! by texaport · · Score: 1

      I am one of those long-time WiFi zealots, and it is clear to me that people just don't want free ubiquitous

      When God was handing out WEP passwords ...
      were you in the line getting both #3 and #4 keys?

    6. Re:Nobody wants it! by el+americano · · Score: 1

      So I threw up a Linux box at home listening to SSH on port 443, and tunnel out from work using Putty. I just look like encrypted web traffic to the corp security folks."

      Sometimes a firewall or network monitor will flag that traffic as abnormal. There's often much more upstream traffic on that link than you would expect from https.

      --
      Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
  11. Can I draw your attention to... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 5, Interesting
  12. Not new by drewzhrodague · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This isn't really new, there have been people doing this kind of thing for years. Check Seattle Wireless dot net for their experiences. I'm sure there are others.

    --
    Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
  13. Anyone have any suggestions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I always hear about projects like these. Could this be used to connect my brother and my houses if we don't have LOS? We're in seperate apartments, obfuscated by light trees, about 15 feet of elevation difference, and perhaps 4 brick walls.

    1. Re:Anyone have any suggestions? by thrillseeker · · Score: 1

      Sure - just keep cranking up the power to a big enough number and eventually it'll work.

    2. Re:Anyone have any suggestions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Mine goes to 11.

  14. How to get long distance WiFi to work with ease by viking80 · · Score: 5, Informative

    10 years ago you might have had to improvise, but today you can get cheap high quality antennas and amplifiers that is a lot better than a USB dongle in an old satellite dish.

    My favorite source is http://www.hyperlinktech.com/
    and you can do your link analysis here:
    http://cgi.gbppr.org/wireless.main.cgi

    If you really need big distances, you can use an old 12' sattelite dish, but otherwise stick to the formula above. It will save you a lot of time and trouble.

    I have reliable links over 10km with 10mW running at 50Mb/s

    --
    don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
    1. Re:How to get long distance WiFi to work with ease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on your definition of cheap.
      If you have an old dish already lying around, you can usually pick up a USB wifi dongle for around $10-15. Quite a difference where price is the most important factor.

  15. It's not that easy by Puls4r · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's not that easy - and you might be better off just buying a cheap unidirectional antennae I live in a rural community and a 3G USB dongle several months ago. The low signal strength meant I was on the slow end of the speed for 3G. I tried the exact thing he did, but tried some other options as well. First, I purchased a $50 unidirectional antennae. That improved my signal strength by 10db. That was enough to get me to the range of 1300 down and 400 up consistently, with full "bars". So then I unplugged the antennae, added a couple of active USB cables, and put the dongle on the roof (1 story up). That improved my signal 5 db without the antennae, and 3 db with the antennae. So now I had improved about 13db. Finally, I grabbed my old dish, and aimed it at the cell tower. Then I put the dongle in place of the amp unit. Please note that most dishes have offset amp units, so you dish looks like it's aimed "below" the tower. It helped several decibles. I replaced the unidirection antennae and put in the dishes sweet spot, and it got me nothing more. Short version - I was better off elevating the dongle and attaching a cheap unidirectional antenna than I was playing with the dish. I suspect that will be true of most who play around with this. Final note - I have experience making other antennas - AM, FM, etc. I can assure you it wasn't lack of knowledge that prevented any huge increase in signal when using the dish.

    1. Re:It's not that easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why use a unidirectional antenna with a dish? The dish focuses a wide beam (eg 45 deg) at the amp to a narrow beam (eg 1 deg) at a distance. The unidirectional antenna is already radiating at a narrow beam, so the dish will basically be a flat mirror for the signal, which will not help at all (as you noticed).

      You should try with one or the other, not both.

  16. Access more than one network? by Bombula · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Every year or so I hunt for a simple utility to allow me to connect to more than one wifi network simultaneously and boost bandwidth that way. Never had any luck. Anyone know if this is feasible or not? The apartment complex where I currently live has multiple secure wifi networks set up specifically for residents, plus a bunch of folks have unsecured ones based on local cable broadband they don't mind sharing. If there was a way to connect to all of them at once ... awesome.

    --
    A-Bomb
    1. Re:Access more than one network? by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      > connect to more than one wifi network simultaneously
      That's easy - just get a NIC/Wifi AP for each network you want to use.

    2. Re:Access more than one network? by sleigher · · Score: 1

      I could be wrong on this and probably am, but isn't wireless-N just 2 wireless-G channels bonded together? If this is accurate then the tech exists. It just may not exist in an easily digestible capsule. Although the bonded G channels would be through the same device so maybe using 2 different devices would be the problem......

      You might read this article.

      This might help too....

      --
      All points of time and space are connected.
    3. Re:Access more than one network? by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Mesh networks basically do what your require, so it is feasible. Using a mesh network you will connect all of your neighbors in a big seamless network (i.e. your neighbor to the West will be able to see your neighbor to the East). You would need some sort of firewall to prevent that from happening.

      I'm sure it's possible, I'm also sure you will need two wifi adapters (or one device that has two built in) since your neighbors are likely on different channels. I don't know of any software specifically intended for that application.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  17. Re: Another source by Bovius · · Score: 2, Informative

    A link to an old writeup from one of my favorite professors: http://people.wallawalla.edu/~Rob.Frohne/Airport/Primestar/Primestar.html

    Also, ditto on the !news.

  18. What about sending????? by Caspan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Humm so how you you send when your 500 M out of range. That's fine to receive any signals but screwed if you want to send. good idea but FAIL

    1. Re:What about sending????? by Ferzerp · · Score: 1

      Because as we all know, parabolic dishes only work to receive and will not allow you to direct your emitted RF...

      Oh wait... bouncy bouncy works both ways.

    2. Re:What about sending????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it feel stupid when you think?

    3. Re:What about sending????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are EIRP limits. Basically you can't legally use a directional antenna to improve the signal on the sender side if you're already at the EIRP limit. The only benefit of the directional antenna in that case is that you can lower the emitter power and don't pollute the unused directions with your signal. To establish long-haul wifi connections legally, you need directional antennas on both sides to boost signal reception, not emission.

  19. measuring wifi in ''bars'' ? WTF ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when ''bar'' applies to wifi signal ? I thought ''bars'' were an pressure unit.

    Maybe one should talk about ''Signal/Noise ratio'' to measure that ...

  20. Nothing to See Here by cromar · · Score: 1

    It's jerry-rigged, not "jury-rigged," dammit!

    1. Re:Nothing to See Here by brechin · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's jerry-rigged, not "jury-rigged," dammit!

      Actually, it is "jury-rigged".

    2. Re:Nothing to See Here by kootsoop · · Score: 1
      --
      "Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get" - Jerry Avins
    3. Re:Nothing to See Here by cromar · · Score: 1

      Well, I'll be damned. Learned something about how to correctly look up prefixes in the OED, though :D

    4. Re:Nothing to See Here by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It could be both. Here it's not particularly "jerry-rigged", as the focus with that phrase is on the quality of the construction, instead of the make-shift nature of it.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    5. Re:Nothing to See Here by asoukup · · Score: 1

      Not that Wikipedia is end-all be-all but...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_rig

      It actually is "jury rigged" and "jerry rigged" is a recent bastardization of it.

    6. Re:Nothing to See Here by cromar · · Score: 1

      I get it already ;)

  21. You need load-balancing by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've been looking into a similar setup. You need multiple wireless adapters and a load-balancing utility.

    http://forums.remote-exploit.org/archive/index.php/t-7419.html

    A quick and dirty way to do it with Linux iptables:

    http://tetro.net/misc/multilink.html

    My goal is to create a monster wardriving setup for constant on-the-road connectivity.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  22. how many bars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When did the "Bar" become an SI unit? How long before I can get a KiloBar signal on my iPhone?
    How many bars does NASA have when they connect to the mars rovers?

    1. Re:how many bars? by arbitraryaardvark · · Score: 2, Funny

      NASA uses spacebars.

    2. Re:how many bars? by DanMelks · · Score: 1

      So will they be using Mars bars on the trip to Mars? And what kind of booze do these bars serve? A blind man walks into a bar and says OUCH!

    3. Re:how many bars? by corsec67 · · Score: 1

      A submarine would have waterbars?

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    4. Re:how many bars? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      I was thinking sandbars.

  23. Also works with WiMax by aharth · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just tried on my balcony: WiMax box in front of old sat dish = ~ 30% higher transfer rate!

  24. MOD THIS UP! by Iron+Condor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I rarely do this, but this AC is making the only point that needs to be made here. My own home router could comfortably serve a block of my neighborhood including the nearby park (I tried) but I'm not going to open it up because under US law I will go to jail if someone uses my open WiFi to download childporn or some such.

    The cost to me would be minimal and I'd set the QOs such that the freeloaders wouldn't interfere with my own activities -- and if everybody did that, we'd already have free ubiquitous wifi in all cities in the US. Because there's always some server around somewhere -- it's been forever since I truly got a "NO networks found". They're just all locked down like crazy because of the absurd US laws that hold a communications provider (me!) responsible for what clients do with the services they provide for free out of the goodness of their hearts...

    --
    We're all born with nothing.
    If you die in debt, you're ahead.
    1. Re:MOD THIS UP! by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      because under US law I will go to jail if someone uses my open WiFi to download childporn or some such.

      Oh really? And you can cite cases of people this has happened to? Or are you just speculating?

    2. Re:MOD THIS UP! by Firehed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the RIAA is able to successfully sue/prosecute people based off of IP logs, you can be damn sure the CP police can. At least when you're in control of the router, you may be able to trawl through logs and find the MAC associated with the illegal download and hunt down the right person, but don't count on it.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    3. Re:MOD THIS UP! by protolith · · Score: 1

      "you may be able to trawl through logs and find the MAC associated with the illegal download and hunt down the right person"

      Or trawl through logs to show that the MAC associated with the illegal download does not belong to any user in the household.

      If a murder suspect leaves footprints to your doorstep, it might make you look like a suspect, if upon inspection there is no match to shoe size or brand of shoe in your home, then you are ruled out as a suspect.

    4. Re:MOD THIS UP! by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      you can be damn sure the CP police can.

      Or in tehr words, groundless speculation and fear mongering.

    5. Re:MOD THIS UP! by Firehed · · Score: 1

      That works a lot better with shoes than it does with MAC addresses. It's a heck of a lot easier to make a computer disappear than change the size of a household member's foot (the shoes themselves are probably easier to get rid of than a computer). I should think that in either situation if the criminal was in the house that he/she would be smart enough to remove the incriminating object, or at least that a jury would assume that this had occurred. That said, we still theoretically have an innocent-until-proven-guilty approach for this kind of thing.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    6. Re:MOD THIS UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think I've ever hit an unsecured wireless network with my native hardware MAC address.

    7. Re:MOD THIS UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sensing a real skeptic amongst us.

      This reminds me of the following:

      "No one has proven that bath houses spread HIV." --Andy Humm

      I remember a relatively recent story of a business man who registered an AOL account in his sons name to look at illicit pr0n. They went to the sons house first before they realized who they were really looking for. But who wants that kind of scrutiny? I can't remember all the details, but I don't really have to.

      It seems reasonably clear that when people are going to commit crimes they typically try to do so in such a way that reduces the possibility of them getting caught.

      The burden of proof goes to those who make extraordinary claims and the notion that people exploit other peoples' identities or computers (heard of botnets?), to commit crimes is not extraordinary. It's been human nature probably forever, and it's been long studied by criminologist before the internet.

      We don't need a panel of scientists to tell us unsafe sex spreads HIV, in bath houses too; or that people conceal their identity behind the identity of others when committing crimes, on the internet too.

      But it obviously opens one up to a witch-hunt type of scrutiny that's hard to defend against and potentially could land one in jail.

    8. Re:MOD THIS UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of those 'free citywide wireless internet's fail because they don't generate enough money to support them. It's nice of you to want this but by paying your ISP and then distributing that to your neighbors you're depriving them of potential customers that might lower the cost.

      Your ISP is not suddenly a charity because you want to give out their 'free' internet out of the 'goodness' of your heart.

  25. 'Wiffy Extreme' mega dish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 'Wiffy Extreme' mega dish works with most types of USB stick WiFi adapters. So simple to make.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=vJwOpJjYKqA

  26. Linux use of Wi-Fire by cmacdona101 · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's getting easier to use USB WiFi adapter with linux lately. Linuxwireless.org has done some great work with the re-written modules, which are included in the recent kernel version. And some companies are paying attention. I've been using the Wi-Fire for long range wifi for a while, and hField Technologies just released a Linux Version, which I've had no problem with on my Suse or Fedora machines.

  27. Mod parents up by Endo13 · · Score: 1

    This is in no way offtopic. The linked articles are about exactly the same thing: using satellite dishes for wifi networking. The original article in fact dates back to June of '02.
    http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/04/211208&mode=nested&tid=99

    Parent, GP, and GGP are all Informative.

    --
    There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
  28. It will send fine too by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    There's a nice symmetry here. Antenna gain/direction works equally for reception and transmission. A good receiver will also be a good radiator.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  29. I did that, and found the MAC address, but... by Medievalist · · Score: 2, Funny

    apparently DE:AD:BE:EF:DE:AD:BE:EF is some guy named Peter Shipley, and he just laughed at me when I called him up and asked him about it.

  30. Best Way to boost WiFi Signals by slashrogue · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Best Way to boost WiFi Signals by markkezner · · Score: 1

      This works well with my new Nokia 3G phone. However, not so much with my little rinky-dink Motorola that I got free from a contract a few years back. The signal for the voice network on that one was never that great anyway.

      I also got good results using a large spaghetti strainer for the dish assembly. That yielded a roughly 10-20% better signal than the ceramic bowl I was using before.

      I'm curious to see how it works with OpenMoko Neo FreeRunner, given that it's a Tri-band phone.

      --
      Dangerous, sexy, turing complete: Femme Bots
  31. Don't confuse "Gerry-rigged" and "jury-rigged" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Jury-rigged" means temporary or makeshift.

    "Gerry-rigged" means shoddy, but permanent.... synonym to the meme "Afro-engineering."

    http://www.yaelf.com/aueFAQ/mifjrrybltjryrggd.shtml

  32. if you want to build one- here's a howto/template by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've done this for years. See http://www.appal.org/biquad/ for a complete howto and template. The biquad mounts on the common satellite dish for additional gain. The biquad alone is c. 10-12 dB, with dish, 16-22 dB.

  33. Not news... by jemenake · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sorry, but this really isn't news. Hell... even *I* have done this, which means that it can't be anywhere near the cutting edge. :P The concept of putting a cantenna or bi-quad at the focal point of the dish has been out there on web pages for years. I fitted *my* dish so that I could interchange a cantenna or a USB dongle as the need arose.

    The advantage of the USB dongle is that you don't incur the line losses of the antenna cable if your laptop/PC is a long way from the dish. You can get around the problem of USB cable-length limitations by using some nifty USB "extension cords" which are basically a long USB cable with a 1-port hub at the end.

    I will add one thing that I haven't seen on any pages, however. Most satellite dishes have the arm positioned away from the centerline axis of the dish... usually below it, which must be accounted for when aiming. For example, if the arm holding your dongle/cantenna is 10 degrees below the centerline of the dish, then you'll be receiving signals from whatever is 10 degrees above the centerline. It's the same concept as flat mirrors... angle of reflection equals angle of incidence.

    Why does this matter? Well, if you are trying to communicate with a station that's at relatively the same elevation as you, then you're going to have to point the dish down toward the ground a bit. This can be very conspicuous... especially if, ahem, the other station's owner doesn't know you're communicating with them (cough, cough). The best solution that I've come across is to turn the dish upside-down so that the arm holding the dongle is on top, which allows you to point the centerline of the dish skyward again, so that it looks more like the other dishes in the neighborhood. Almost nobody will notice that the arm is affixed to the top of the dish rather than the bottom... and even fewer will grasp the ramifications of it.

  34. FYI: it's jerry-rigged by dkarma · · Score: 1

    in reference to the germans (jerrys) in WWII

  35. mod that down by el+americano · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "...under US law I will go to jail if someone uses my open WiFi to download childporn or some such.

    No, you won't go to jail, but you might get investigated and have some equipment confiscated, which is still enough reason for most people not to do it.

    --
    Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
  36. For better future... by rokj · · Score: 1

    Great stuff! Keep it going!

  37. Very old solution! by slydder · · Score: 1

    I've been doing the same for over a year now. that and a netgear wg111v2 in a pringles can works a trick at up to 630 meters (distance from my house to the bar down the street where I help the owner out at times with email and such). and as an aside. the same netgear dongle works great inserted in a waverider diy para.

  38. Is that an ultra ultra strict strawman? by el+americano · · Score: 1

    Ha! That wasn't me. It restores my faith in humanity to see a few people think you take cheap shots, and few find you interesting and insightful. But, who am I to say you won't do better some day? I let you have the last word on our long thread, so take your victory and move on.

    As for my sig, I choose what goes there. I suggest you don't concern yourself with it, since it doesn't misrepresent you.

    --
    Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
    1. Re:Is that an ultra ultra strict strawman? by Domo-Sun · · Score: 1

      Check the time stamps fool. People can't moderate comments they don't see. Which also suggests you're guilty of moderating my comments. It's interesting that you disappeared after I fingered you and asked if you're the big taco.

      Your faith in humanity rests on whether or not someone agrees that I said a bad word to you and not on the lack of humiliation you subject us and your future self to in having to read the nonsense you write?

      Well, if that's all it takes, here's another faith boost: You are a dolphin molesting Nazi. Also you are very ugly and stupid. Now stop calling me anti-generous because that was enough faith-restoring charity to sustain you're flimsy version of humanity into the stratosphere. Or would you prefer your charity in the form of leaching the bandwidth and customers from ISPs, Robin Hood?

      As for your sig, based on the fact that you've come in here calling me a "Paranoid fearmongering nutjob trying to outlaw generosity" and again link to my thread which has already been amended to all of your comments via your sig, it's clear what your intent is.

      Moreover you are "misrepresenting" me: A defendant is found guilty of a crime in court when you demonstrate that their actions are unreasonable. That's what I was saying.

      It sounds pretty unreasonable to me to say you can't tell if it's private or not because it's open so you can only assume that you have permission.

      That sounds like a fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc, which is only acceptable when there is a consequence of being wrong, and in your case the consequence is to the owner and to you when you wrongfully assume permission, therefore your argument is backwards, as Without permission you can only assume that you don't have permission, lest you be criminally wrong and just plain morally wrong.

      There is a gun, therefore the gun is loaded. It may not always be true but the consequence of being wrong makes it foolish to assume otherwise.

      With anonymous leaching, you're subjecting yourself to prosecution when your assumptions are incorrect, and even if it wasn't the law or they don't catch you, you're wrong to use someone else's bandwidth when they don't intend you to, therefore you can only safely assume that you don't have permission.

      You keep dodging that fact by changing the subject to what they should do to prevent that, of course they should do that, that's not permission and we're talking about what YOU should do. Don't change the subject.

      You also claim there's zero harm. What constitutes harm when taking small bits of others' property in your eyes?

      Now's your turn to insert and repeat irrelevant comments. And since you know far more than I about fallacies to be embarrassed, feel free to explain it all to us genius.

      "As for my sig, I choose what goes there. I suggest you don't concern yourself with it, since it doesn't misrepresent you."

      That's an interesting sentence being that I only accused you of that in an e-mail to someone else so it's almost as if you're quoting a private e-mail I sent to someone else.

    2. Re:Is that an ultra ultra strict strawman? by el+americano · · Score: 1

      That sounds like a fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc

      Wrong! There's no assumption of causation. You've butchered a Slashdot favorite (usually phrased as correlation != causation) That's pitiful. I rest my case.

      --
      Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
    3. Re:Is that an ultra ultra strict strawman? by Domo-Sun · · Score: 1

      There's no assumption of causation.

      Exactly, because nothing caused you to have permission. You simply decided you wanted anonymous bandwidth and you stole it. The owner's mistake and the router's configuration simply permitted you to steal it with little effort. Your so-called interpretation of the law, "social norms," and "critical thinking" made you think it was inactionable, but all of that doesn't change the fact that your actions were wrong, and that's what I've been arguing.

      "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" and "correlation != causation" are just fancy terms for false dilemma, which I already called it when you said that you can only assume that you have permission... etc. etc.

      And you still didn't explain why you're answering above to an e-mail I sent to slashdot. My e-mail reported that you're modstalking me, you're misrepresenting me above, and pointing to me in your sig, and you just responded that I shouldn't worry about your sig because it's not misrepresenting me. How is that response possible?

      One explanation is that you are CmdrTaco, as approximately 1 minute after he posted "Confessions of a Wi-Fi Thief" xTrACtO made the same fallacious quibble that you and asdfghjklqwertyuiop repeated ad nauseam. So call me wacky, but it looks like you're all the same person.