Slashdot Mirror
1 In 3 Home Routers Will Be Used As Public Wi-Fi Hotspots By 2017
An anonymous reader writes: Juniper Research predicts that at least 1 in 3 home routers will be used as public Wi-Fi hotspots by 2017, and that the total installed base of such dual-use routers will reach 366 million globally by the end of 2020. Major broadband operators such as BT, UPC and Virgin Media in Europe and several of the biggest cable TV operators in the U.S. such as Comcast and Cablevision have adopted the homespot model as a low-cost way of rapidly expanding their domestic Wi-Fi coverage.
Even if the telecoms are not counting the public hotspot use against my caps, it could impact the performance of my network.
But mainly, it's the desire not to attract certain elements into my neighborhood who depend on free services. I wish I could find a pic of the hobo sitting in front of his tent in the 'Seattle Jungle' camp pecking away at his Apple laptop. Probably mooching off a local business' unsecured WiFi. It was run on the local news during a report on some recent drug murders there.
Have gnu, will travel.
Speaking as a BT customer (well, a relative of one...), to use the hotspot, you must log in with your account details.
The router has two networks and two IP addresses, so the ISP knows exactly who is surfing what.
How will ISPs help enforce copyright laws if they don't know who is using your router?
Wouldn't that be a problem when your neighbor has child pr0n on his box?
These are both misunderstandings based upon Juniper's misuse of the term "public wifi hotspot". These hotspots are not usually public, strictly speaking; they are only accessible to other customers of the internet provider, and each of those users have to log into the hotspot with their carrier provided account in order to use it. Thus, their network activity can (theoretically) be tracked back to them, based upon their login credentials.
Another concern often voiced is the notion of random people taking up all of your bandwidth: This is addressed by the simple fact that the providers are all perfectly capable of serving significantly more bandwidth then the (insert-your bandwidth limit here) that you're paying for. However, what that doesn't address is collisions and QoS measures... so one or more customers of your provider, all connecting through your router for some weird reason, (such as a Superbowl party at your neighbor's house, for example) could theoretically establish so many simultaneous connections, as to make it seem like they've saturated all of your bandwidth... when really, they've just maxed out the thread count on the router. The solution to this scenario is not entirely intuitive -- but there is indeed a solution:
First, don't assume that you can trust the configuration software on the provider's router. If they've decided that they want to use their hardware as a hotspot, they'll eventually figure out how to leave "public" access turned on, even if you attempt to turn wifi off entirely. So instead, just disconnect the wifi antenna from the provider's router. If the antenna is internal or otherwise cannot be physically disconnected, then just Faraday cage the heck out of that thing, with multiple layers of heavy duty aluminum foil and cardboard. Once you've verified that no wireless signals can reach the provider's router, you can safely configure (and properly secure) your own personal router, on the inside of your network.
As a few others have said, Comcast home routers cannot be considered public Wi-Fi hotspots in any way, shape, or form. They're private Wi-Fi hotspots for Comcast residential customers only. If this is what the article says, then the author is misinformed.
For phone services, I would suggest looking into an OBi100 or similar device. http://www.amazon.com/OBi100-T...
This is similar hardware to Magicjack, but it works with whatever VoIP provider you choose.
I'm with voip.ms, which is $.01/minute billed in 6-second increments for all calls (in and out). There's an extra $1/month, plus another $1/month for 911 service. If you want caller ID names, it's an extra $.01/call, but only if it's not in the contacts you set up on their web page. There is a fee for porting numbers.
Another option is Google Voice. All calls (US/Canada) are free, but there's no caller ID names, even from your Google Contacts. Also, Google only lets you port mobile numbers, not land-line numbers, but people have managed to do it by first porting their cell phone to a prepaid cell. (I have our outgoing calls set to a Google Voice number, which can be a bit confusing for people.)
But it's not uncompensated access. The principle of these systems is reciprocal. Company XYZ adds a second-channel to the WiFi access points and all of their customers can use them. So if you are across town and need to access the Internet, you can just connect. The compensation is in the form of you getting to use the other APs. Now we could argue that it should be opt-in, but it's not uncompensated. In fact, I'm surprised they don't make it op-in as most people would do so with glee.