From: Brad Allen on
" > 1. MAC addresses (Bob Metcalfe et al& Std Bodies) are used, not SSIDs.
" As I pointed out the router is being changed and hence the MAC address
" is changed.

Sorry; the almost irrelevant SSID mention threw me off and I didn't do
detailed reading. Your principle is correct: the MAC address
therefore changes.
From: danny burstein on
In <4c1317d5$0$1606$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net> qm(a)sonic.net (Brad Allen) writes:

>" > 1. MAC addresses (Bob Metcalfe et al& Std Bodies) are used, not SSIDs.
>" As I pointed out the router is being changed and hence the MAC address
>" is changed.

>Sorry; the almost irrelevant SSID mention threw me off and I didn't do
>detailed reading. Your principle is correct: the MAC address
>therefore changes.

Are the numbers of people using ISP provided WiFi routers
(for which they probably pay $10 or so/month extra)
that high? And doubly so, is there that huge a turnover
where you (the earlier poster) are?

I'm much more familiar with areas where the WiFi routers
tend to be about 90 percent third party and owned by
the consumer (i.e. Linksys, D-Link, etc.). And the
churn is less than 5 percent/year...




--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb(a)panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
From: Bob on
On 12/06/2010 07:31, danny burstein wrote:
> In<4c1317d5$0$1606$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net> qm(a)sonic.net (Brad Allen) writes:
>
>> "> 1. MAC addresses (Bob Metcalfe et al& Std Bodies) are used, not SSIDs.
>> " As I pointed out the router is being changed and hence the MAC address
>> " is changed.
>
>> Sorry; the almost irrelevant SSID mention threw me off and I didn't do
>> detailed reading. Your principle is correct: the MAC address
>> therefore changes.
>
> Are the numbers of people using ISP provided WiFi routers
> (for which they probably pay $10 or so/month extra)
> that high? And doubly so, is there that huge a turnover
> where you (the earlier poster) are?
>
> I'm much more familiar with areas where the WiFi routers
> tend to be about 90 percent third party and owned by
> the consumer (i.e. Linksys, D-Link, etc.). And the
> churn is less than 5 percent/year...
>
>
>
>
The large ISP's in the UK provide routers each of which comes with
encryption enabled and a unique SSID, the SSID's can be of the type
BT-abc, SKY-xyz etc. Most users do not change their SSID so it is easy
to see when a router has changed. With the advent of 11n I am starting
to see that a lot of the routers are being replaced and as the ISP
packages change and the increase in availablity of higher speed
broadband there is quite a bit of movement between ISP's.
I do have some neighbours who use their own routers but in some cases
the turnover there is quite high as their needs change. My nearest
neighbour has had 8 router/AP's in the last 3 years as his experiments
to improve his access around his house, garden and garage were just not
quite what he had hoped.
From: bod43 on
On 11 June, 02:34, q...(a)sonic.net (Brad Allen) wrote:
> In article <gcf016thal9dvq3e3cl34eupjgtk8in...(a)4ax.com>,
> John Navas  <jn...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
> " Google is "almost certain" to face prosecution for collecting data
> " from unsecured wi-fi networks, according to Privacy International
> " (PI).
>
> What garbage.
>
> 1)  Publically received radio while driving down a public street.
> 2)  They didn't crack the encryption.
> 3)  The content wasn't important.
> 4)  They had no intent to turn all of that completely public unimportant
>     content into a criminal use.
>
> Those aren't "OR".  They are "AND".
>
> The people after Google are politicians (and those fooled by them),
> not good citizens.

I think that what google have done is probably illegal in the UK.
Certainly I have read in the papers that some guy was convicted
of sitting outside a house "borrowing" the WiFi. We have
many, many wide ranging criminal laws and it would seem
impossible that Google are not in breach.

However, in contrast to the Gary McKinnon case where we
are keen and anxious to bundle him off to the USA
after he 'walked' into some unsecured computers (totalling
perhaps 100) we don't seem to care that google has
'walked' into perhaps millions of similarly unsecured
computers in every part of the country.

We send defenceless citizens to jail, influential corporates
can do what they like and we simply turn away.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10278068.stm
"In the UK the ICO has said it is reviewing the audit
but that for the time being it had no plans to pursue
the matter. "

ICO = Information Commissioner's Office

From: John Navas on
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:43:07 -0700, in
<higgy-E0F8F6.15430711062010(a)news.announcetech.com>, John Higdon
<higgy(a)kome.com> wrote:

>In article <rcWdndNTXqZNe4zRnZ2dnUVZ8oqdnZ2d(a)bt.com>,
> Bob <bob(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> And how do you know? Have you actually gone to known reference point and
>> taken several readings or do you assume the adverts are correct?
>> "The declaration of the accuracy by Garmin GPS receivers often leads to
>> confusion.
>
>Their maps aren't very good, either. I got rid of mine when right after
>a map download update, my stick-on Garmin GPS showed me flying across
>the bay rather than riding on the north-bound span of the Benicia
>bridge. The update wasn't free, and I considered that an egregious
>error, even for freeware.
>
>I quit using it as not dependable.

When navigating on the water I use a Garmin GPS, easily the gold
standard in consumer navigation, but when driving I use Google Maps on
my Android phone, which works a treat!

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>