Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Electronics Repair (sci.electronics.repair) Discussion of repairing electronic equipment. Topics include requests for assistance, where to obtain servicing information and parts, techniques for diagnosis and repair, and annecdotes about success, failures and problems. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
SUMMARY:
What service is it that does the Wi-Fi scanning on Android anyway? http://i.cubeupload.com/lYvIsQ.jpg DETAILS: You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway? In the past few weeks I changed so many things on my Android 4.3 phone that I don't remember what killed WiFi scanning but I just want to ask, in case someone knows, what actually does the WiFi scanning on an Android phone? For example, I have over a half dozen access points at home, all being broadcast in the clear, WPA2/PSK-AES protected, which the third part programs find with no problem (e.g., Fritz! WLAN, WiFi Manager, WiFi Connection, WiFi Analyzer, InSSIDer, WiFi Analysis, WigLe WiFi, etc.). http://i.cubeupload.com/fV8D4d.jpg Some (but not all) of the 3rd-party apps can find all the networks, yet, the scan button in Android 4.3 doesn't find a single network anymore. What on Android does the scanning anyway? http://i.cubeupload.com/TNGRGg.jpg I can certainly manually press the default Android 4.3 "Add Wi-Fi network" and then it will connect to any network I manually type in, but it won't *find* a network on its own anymore, even though the signal strength is clearly in the negative forties, fifties, sixties, and seventies (i.e., the signal strength is just fine). http://i.cubeupload.com/lYvIsQ.jpg I realize probably nobody knows the answer but just in case you do, what service on Android does the WiFi access-point scanning anyway? |
#2
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 18:08:33 -0800, Stijn De Jong
wrote: what allows WiFi scanning anyway? Wrong question. What you should be asking is what disables wi-fi scanning. That's easy, 2 ways. 1. If your phone is setup to act as a hot spot so that others can borrow your cellular data bandwidth, it will kill scanning. That's because a hot spot requires that the channel number be fixed and not a moving target. 2. If your phone is in peer to peer mode instead of infrastructure. There are many reasons for this to happen. For example, printing directly to an HP ePrint printer or Apple Airprint printer. I think (not sure) that a GoPro camera connection does the same thing. Note that the phone cannot be in infrastructure (what you want) and peer-to-peer mode (what you don't want) at the same time. I realize probably nobody knows the answer but just in case you do, what service on Android does the WiFi access-point scanning anyway? I'll take the easy way out and claim ignorance. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#3
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 20:26:25 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
What you should be asking is what disables wi-fi scanning. That's easy, 2 ways. 1. If your phone is setup to act as a hot spot so that others can borrow your cellular data bandwidth, it will kill scanning. That's because a hot spot requires that the channel number be fixed and not a moving target. 2. If your phone is in peer to peer mode instead of infrastructure. There are many reasons for this to happen. For example, printing directly to an HP ePrint printer or Apple Airprint printer. I think (not sure) that a GoPro camera connection does the same thing. Note that the phone cannot be in infrastructure (what you want) and peer-to-peer mode (what you don't want) at the same time. Those are both good answers as to what disables wifi scanning. The phone has never been set up as a hotspot since the last factory reset, although it certainly would be possible to set it up as a hotspot since it's T-Mobile which allows that on all their phones. But it's not currently set up as a hotspot to my knowledge. But that's an interesting observation. I'm not sure what "peer-to-peer mode" is for Android. Googling https://www.google.com/search?q=andr...r-to-peer+mode I found this: https://developer.android.com/guide/...y/wifip2p.html Which says that two Android devices can connect in peer-to-peer mode (aka WiFi Direct). I have never used WiFi Direct so I don't think it's in peer-to-peer mode. Besides, the phone connects to WiFi when I manually type in the (very long complex) SSID. It just won't find any SSID when I press the scan button. I think it's time for a factory reset, which should fix the problem. |
#4
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 10:07:59 PM UTC-4, Stijn De Jong wrote:
SUMMARY: What service is it that does the Wi-Fi scanning on Android anyway? http://i.cubeupload.com/lYvIsQ.jpg DETAILS: You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway? In the past few weeks I changed so many things on my Android 4.3 phone that I don't remember what killed WiFi scanning but I just want to ask, in case someone knows, what actually does the WiFi scanning on an Android phone? For example, I have over a half dozen access points at home, all being broadcast in the clear, WPA2/PSK-AES protected, which the third part programs find with no problem (e.g., Fritz! WLAN, WiFi Manager, WiFi Connection, WiFi Analyzer, InSSIDer, WiFi Analysis, WigLe WiFi, etc.). http://i.cubeupload.com/fV8D4d.jpg Some (but not all) of the 3rd-party apps can find all the networks, yet, the scan button in Android 4.3 doesn't find a single network anymore. What on Android does the scanning anyway? http://i.cubeupload.com/TNGRGg.jpg I can certainly manually press the default Android 4.3 "Add Wi-Fi network" and then it will connect to any network I manually type in, but it won't *find* a network on its own anymore, even though the signal strength is clearly in the negative forties, fifties, sixties, and seventies (i.e., the signal strength is just fine). http://i.cubeupload.com/lYvIsQ.jpg I realize probably nobody knows the answer but just in case you do, what service on Android does the WiFi access-point scanning anyway? The Troll is back. Please don't feed the troll. |
#5
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
"The Troll is back. Please don't feed the troll. "
I don't see any trolling here, I see a perfectly valid question. I don't have any answers for the OP but I read the thread to maybe learn something. Just what is it that indicates a "troll" to you ? The fact that he said maybe nobody has an answer ? Or is it the Oriental sounding name ? What is a troll ? And BTW, I noticed YOU responding to this thread, isn't that feeding the troll ? I don't mind an antagonist, this is Usenet and if that bothered me I would not be here. But I just have questions. |
#6
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
a) The OP changes his handle about as often as the typical individual changes his socks.
b) His handles are typically a close analogy to some moderately famous person - mostly military individuals. c) His trolls are typically wild hair questions on obscure and meaningless points of negligible utility. "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" is a deeply meaningful discussion by comparison. d) When he sets the hook, his threads can go on..... and on.... and on, with no meaningful results. So, my 'response' is to suggest *not* rising to the bait. |
#7
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanninganyway?
On 2017-03-20 04:53, Stijn De Jong wrote:
I have never used WiFi Direct so I don't think it's in peer-to-peer mode. Besides, the phone connects to WiFi when I manually type in the (very long complex) SSID. It just won't find any SSID when I press the scan button. I think it's time for a factory reset, which should fix the problem. My phone finds all SSIDs, but connects to none. If I tap on the home ssid, it asks for the password (which it knows for sure). Instead, I tap "more options", which displays the same list of SSIDs in white background instead of black. There I switch off the WiFi, than on again, and it instantly connects to my WiFi remembering its password. This behaviour started about last November or December. I also noticed that Bluetooth would not automatically connect to my car hands-free device. It has started working again after I received a security update about a week ago. -- Cheers, Carlos E.R. |
#8
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanninganyway?
|
#9
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:53:09 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Instead, I tap "more options", which displays the same list of SSIDs in white background instead of black. There I switch off the WiFi, than on again, and it instantly connects to my WiFi remembering its password. This behaviour started about last November or December. As I recall, my WiFi used to scan and show all the WiFi networks, and for those that I tapped on, it would first ask for the password and then always remember it from thence forward. Now, it won't even scan, and yet, other apps (like Fritz WLAN) see the AP SSIDs quite clearly, and, if I *connect* to the network once manually into Android WiFi settings, then it remembers it from thence forward. Funnily, if I don't connect, then it won't remember neither the SSID nor the passphrase, which is odd to say the least. Anyway, my next factory refresh should solve whatever setting it was that screwed it up. I screw with Android settings often so this is just a nit in the scheme of things. I just don't understand why as what Jeff noted is good but I don't think it applied to my situation (which itself, admittedly, is different than most since I screw with settings all the time). |
#10
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 18:08:33 -0800, Stijn De Jong
wrote: I can certainly manually press the default Android 4.3 "Add Wi-Fi network" and then it will connect to any network I manually type in, but it won't *find* a network on its own anymore, even though the signal strength is clearly in the negative forties, fifties, sixties, and seventies (i.e., the signal strength is just fine). http://i.cubeupload.com/lYvIsQ.jpg I realize probably nobody knows the answer but just in case you do, what service on Android does the WiFi access-point scanning anyway? I cant answer your question, but I want to ask. Do you like Android? I bought one of those low priced generic brand notepad computers. (Android). I personally do not like it. It works, but seems very clumsy, lacks a lot of the things that Windows has, and seems to severely lack any support. That notepad now takes up space in my closet, and I went back to my 8 year old Windows XP laptop computer. It does so much more, does it easier, and has a lot more support. Android seems to be on a lot of devices these days, but I am surely NOT impressed by it. Just my 2 cents! |
#11
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanninganyway?
|
#13
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 08:11:51 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: What things that you need to do is lacking in Android? That does not mean which programs do you want to run. It's more like "what do you want to do with your computah"? It's been almost 2 years since I bought that Android notebook. It's been in the closet for well over a year now. So, it's hard to remember what all the quirks were. I bought it because I need to use a WIFI spot regularly (only dialup at home). I dont like leaving my laptop computer in the car because it can get damaged, since there is not place to sit it in the car where it's safe. But that notepad fits in the glove box and was pretty safe there. The other reason I bought it was so I always had a camera handy. What I do remember is that I found it would connect to the WIFI, but the browser was not easy to use. I found I could install something more familiar (Firefox), but doing the installation was something I could not figure out. Its not just a matter of downloading it and running the installer, (like in Windows). I did fight with it and managed to watch some youtube videos. Saving them was not possible, like it is with Firefox. When I did save something and wanted to copy it to computer, that again was near impossible. Then came the camera. The stupid thing was only for selfies. I have absolutely no need for that. I turned it around and without seeing what I was shooting, I snapped some pics of my yard, in good light. The pics were absolutely horrid, grainy and lousy. The other thing I remember was that since it'sd owned by Google, I was constantly having google trying to get me to download games. I dont play games at all, and that was very annoying. Overall, it was a waste of money. I should list it on Craigslist and get what I can for it. I just went back to what I have always done. Take my laptop to town when I want to use WIFI, and keep my digital camera in my glove box. I also have an inverter so I can connect my laptop to the car battery to charge the battery. I dont care if XP is not supported. It works, works well, and personally I would not even want any of Microsoft's newer bloated operating systems. I know Windows 10 is filled with MS spyware, but it seemed to me that Android was filled with google spyware too. |
#14
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
In article ,
wrote: It's been almost 2 years since I bought that Android notebook. It's been in the closet for well over a year now. So, it's hard to remember what all the quirks were. I bought it because I need to use a WIFI spot regularly (only dialup at home). I dont like leaving my laptop computer in the car because it can get damaged, since there is not place to sit it in the car where it's safe. But that notepad fits in the glove box and was pretty safe there. The other reason I bought it was so I always had a camera handy. What I do remember is that I found it would connect to the WIFI, but the browser was not easy to use. what about it wasn't easy? I found I could install something more familiar (Firefox), but doing the installation was something I could not figure out. Its not just a matter of downloading it and running the installer, (like in Windows). it's actually easier to install apps since there is no installer. you just download the app directly from the play store. I did fight with it and managed to watch some youtube videos. Saving them was not possible, like it is with Firefox. When I did save something and wanted to copy it to computer, that again was near impossible. not only possible, but fairly easy. Then came the camera. The stupid thing was only for selfies. I have absolutely no need for that. I turned it around and without seeing what I was shooting, I snapped some pics of my yard, in good light. The pics were absolutely horrid, grainy and lousy. use the camera on the back, not the front. The other thing I remember was that since it'sd owned by Google, I was constantly having google trying to get me to download games. I dont play games at all, and that was very annoying. google doesn't own your tablet. Overall, it was a waste of money. I should list it on Craigslist and get what I can for it. I just went back to what I have always done. Take my laptop to town when I want to use WIFI, and keep my digital camera in my glove box. I also have an inverter so I can connect my laptop to the car battery to charge the battery. I dont care if XP is not supported. It works, works well, and personally I would not even want any of Microsoft's newer bloated operating systems. I know Windows 10 is filled with MS spyware, but it seemed to me that Android was filled with google spyware too. oh, so you're a troll. |
#15
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanninganyway?
On 3/22/2017 1:17 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 18:08:33 -0800, Stijn De Jong wrote: I can certainly manually press the default Android 4.3 "Add Wi-Fi network" and then it will connect to any network I manually type in, but it won't *find* a network on its own anymore, even though the signal strength is clearly in the negative forties, fifties, sixties, and seventies (i.e., the signal strength is just fine). http://i.cubeupload.com/lYvIsQ.jpg I realize probably nobody knows the answer but just in case you do, what service on Android does the WiFi access-point scanning anyway? I cant answer your question, but I want to ask. Do you like Android? I bought one of those low priced generic brand notepad computers. (Android). I personally do not like it. It works, but seems very clumsy, lacks a lot of the things that Windows has, and seems to severely lack any support. That notepad now takes up space in my closet, and I went back to my 8 year old Windows XP laptop computer. It does so much more, does it easier, and has a lot more support. Android seems to be on a lot of devices these days, but I am surely NOT impressed by it. Just my 2 cents! Summary: I use my tablet a lot more than I thought I would. Tablets come in two sizes. 1) too small to read and operate with fat fingers. 2) too big/heavy to hold comfortably. The obvious solution is to have two or four. For the first case, portability is a big plus. Voice capability is amazing. I almost never have to pull a book off the shelf. I can get a conversion factor or food recipe just by asking. Even nonsense questions get answers. "How many milliliters in a week?" gets you everything you ever wanted to know about testosterone and baby formula. Both the cause and effect are covered. ;-) I've been experimenting with an app called listnote. It does a pretty amazing job on English text with normal sentence structure. People bitch about how horrible speech recognition is. If you want to trip it up, it's certainly easy to do. If you try to work at the level it comprehends, it works amazingly well. Hmmm, wonder if we could get newsgroup participants to cooperate that way...but I digress. I type a lot faster than I can type. The amount of work needed to fix up my typos and dyslexia is on par with the amount to fix up voice recognition. Great for communication, but will be problematic if you need the nuance required to get that Pulitzer or Nobel-worthy chemistry paper. Another benefit of typing with one finger is that it forces you to THINK about what you're saying and present it concisely. That alone would greatly enhance the newsgroup experience for all. Newsgroup readers also need a big button: "I've purged my indignation, so ****can my outrage and move to the next topic." Or maybe we have to pay a nickel for each time we hit the send key. Wouldn't take long for some of us to reassess the value of our "contribution." ;-) For the second case, a bluetooth keyboard/mouse solves the user interface problem. The screen is big enough to see. For watching videos, I chuck mine in a vehicle headrest mount and sit it on my stomach while lying down. My desktops have their uses, but 90% of my actual screen time can be handled by a tablet. I'm gonna get a "convertible" when they start showing up in the free box at garage sales. I've moved away from XP. Once you get used to the changes in the windows 7 user interface, It has a lot of helpful capability. Even win10 has settled down to the point that I find it tolerable. If they'd just quit forcing updates up my ass, I'd go back to metered internet and switch to win10. |
#16
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:10:15 -0700, mike wrote:
Summary: I use my tablet a lot more than I thought I would. Tablets come in two sizes. 1) too small to read and operate with fat fingers. 2) too big/heavy to hold comfortably. SInce I'm elderly, I dont have thge best eyesight anymore. Cellphones are way to small for me to see anything. One guy I know is always shoving his phone in my face and saying look at this. I repeatedly have to tell him I cant read it, and if it's a picture, I only see a blur. I do not make a habit of carrying around my reading glasses. I only have them on me if I plan to read something. And yea, the keys are too small on all that stuff. I like a REAL keyboard. I always have a tough time doing texts on my flipphone. Anyhow, even if a laptop computer is large and hard to hold, it is much better for me to use. The obvious solution is to have two or four. Nah, too much stuff to buy and maintain. My cellphone (flipphone) is just a phone, and that is all I really need to have with me. But if I want to use a WIFI, I have to plan in advance and bring my laptop with me. That's not always convenient, but it works. Besides that, owning a smartphone is too costly for my budget. I mostly just have a cellphone for emergency calls, but it does come in handy to call businesses to see if they have what I need, or if they are open, (when I am not home). But a prepaid cellphone is fairly cheap as long as the calls are short, whereas a contract for a smartphone is costly, especially when they allow for enough data to actually watch videos or spend considerable time shopping ebay or something like that. These days, a person almost MUST have at least a basic cellphone, because there are no longer any pay phones, and in an emergency one needs some way to contact for help. But if I want to call and talk to a friend for an hour, I use my landline. I must keep my landline, because where I live (rural area), cellphone service is poor. Heck, a couple years ago, I saw smoke coming out of a building and could not get a cell signal, and there were no pay phones. By the time I drove to a place where I could get a phone signal, that building was entirely in flames and it was a total loss. I later spoke with someone from the fire dept, and was told that they have been trying to get a cell tower in that area for years and all they get is a runaround. He said the population is too small to make it profitable. I proceeded to complain about why they removed the pay phone in that town, which was still there about 7 years ago, when they knew that there is no cell service there. He said they fought that with the local phone company too, and was told that pay phones were no longer maintained. Personally, none of that makes any sense.... Why was there better service back in the days before 2010? And why is maintaining a pay phone so difficult? It could have prevented a major fire, and could even save a life. STUPID STUPID.... |
#17
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
That's progress.
|
#18
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
In article ,
says... The obvious solution is to have two or four. Nah, too much stuff to buy and maintain. My cellphone (flipphone) is just a phone, and that is all I really need to have with me. But if I want to use a WIFI, I have to plan in advance and bring my laptop with me. That's not always convenient, but it works. Besides that, owning a smartphone is too costly for my budget. I mostly just have a cellphone for emergency calls, but it does come in handy to call businesses to see if they have what I need, or if they are open, (when I am not home). But a prepaid cellphone is fairly cheap as long as the calls are short, whereas a contract for a smartphone is costly, especially when they allow for enough data to actually watch videos or spend considerable time shopping ebay or something like that. For a smart phone, check out Republic wireless. About $ 15 a month for one plan. You get unlimiated talk and text. When around wifi you get free wifi data. If you are in a bind and really need the internet when there is no wifi around you can instantally switch plans and then back to basic later. I got lucky and got in on some of the first of it and have the plan for $ 10 per month. I find I use my smart phone to keep up the the apointments I have. One thing that almost makes it pay for its self is the Walmart money back app. Take a pix of the bar code and a few dys later Walmart will check to see if any other store has a cheeper price. If so you get the difference. I usually save about $ 2 or more per week on a $ 200 grocery bill. https://republicwireless.com/cell-phone-plans/ |
#19
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 15:06:37 -0400, nospam wrote:
use the camera on the back, not the front. Many's the device with but a single camera, on one side only. -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP. |
#20
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
In article , tlvp
wrote: use the camera on the back, not the front. Many's the device with but a single camera, on one side only. usually on the back, not the front. if there's only a camera on the front and the user wants something other than selfie's, then they have only themselves to blame for buying the wrong product. |
#21
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
In article t, Ralph
Mowery wrote: For a smart phone, check out Republic wireless. About $ 15 a month for one plan. republic wireless requires specific phones which are modified to work with their service. You get unlimiated talk and text. but no data. data costs extra, as much as $90/mo for 10 gig data. When around wifi you get free wifi data. one need not sign up with any service to use wifi, which may not necessarily be free. |
#22
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanninganyway?
|
#23
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 18:55:11 -0400, nospam wrote:
Many's the device with but a single camera, on one side only. usually on the back, not the front. LOL:I think would beg to differ :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP. |
#24
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanninganyway?
On 2017-03-24 00:45, tlvp wrote:
On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 18:55:11 -0400, nospam wrote: Many's the device with but a single camera, on one side only. usually on the back, not the front. LOL:I think would beg to differ :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp He said it was a notepad with Android. It is not strange having only a front camera . for video-conferencing, not for photo taking. -- Cheers, Carlos E.R. |
#25
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 01:35:15 +0100, "Carlos E. R."
wrote: He said it was a notepad with Android. It is not strange having only a front camera . for video-conferencing, not for photo taking. Not really that strange and quite common. For example, all laptops and Chromebooks only have one camera facing the user. That's good for video chat (Skype) but really awkward for taking camera photos. Some feature phones have only a front facing camera, suitable for taking pictures, but not selfies or video chat. For these, there are clip on mirrors for redirecting the image: http://forum.xcitefun.net/front-facing-camera-with-a-clip-on-mirror-t59495.html or for user facing cameras on smartphones: http://walyou.com/blog/2010/12/21/smartphone-video-calling/ No clue if these things are actually useful or if they don't mangle the image. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#26
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
Carlos E. R. wrote:
... On Windows 10 you can easily disable what is generally considered intrusive. You just need a list of those things and disable them, as several howtos in the net explain how to do it. I'm not a Windows lover, my system of choice is Linux. However, I find Windows 10 quite good, considering, once customized. I prefer Windows 7, but 10 is safer. I thought I heard that Windows 10's claim to fame was specialty in the video watching and video game area. |
#27
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanninganyway?
|
#28
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 13:52:57 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote: As far as cell phone towers, a lot of the cost is in legal fees and local governments charging out the ass for permits. So it becomes greed, over safety. Not so much legal fees. The local cellular operators tend to hire real estate brokers and such to deal with the local governments. They're less expensive than lawyers and are more knowledgeable about local alternative sites, site rental fees, and property costs. Intentional delays that bordered on extortion became such a problem that the FCC was forced to require a time limit for acting on proposed sites new site and modifications. http://www.commlawblog.com/2012/01/articles/cellular/fcc-shot-clock-presumptions-for-wireless-tower-permitting-upheld/ https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-99A1.pdf It's not just municipal governments that slow things down. Local citizens groups that fear the proliferation of RF belching towers also create delays. For example, this is our local citizens groups: https://www.facebook.com/StopBoulderCreekCellTower/ The Boulder Creek site was never built, but no because of the efforts of this group. It was due to the county demanding specific basic documents from the Verizon representative, which were not produced. I has several discussions with the Verizon people about this site and others that were planned locally, which taught me a few things. For example, at the time, Verizon had about 1500 new sites in various stages of planning in Northern California. Most of these sites are not for new coverage, but are to increase bandwidth and capacity in areas that already have service. New sites require some minimum prospective user density to be considered worthwhile, which is a problem for areas with transient usage. For example, a rather large lake in the area has nearly zero cellular coverage, despite a large influx of cell phone users during the summer. Because the area is essentially empty during the remaining 9 months of the year, it's probably not going to be profitable investment. Verizon also takes the path of least resistance. If there's any impediments caused by government or citizen groups and can't seem to be resolved, Verizon just moves on to another more hospitable area. The previously mentioned lake owners/operators offered to pay Verizon for installing a site to compensate for the limited revenue. I don't know if that worked. Another expensive problem is camouflaged towers, which roughly doubles the cost of the tower. Yet another is the time involved in crafting local tower ordinances, no two of which are identical. I was involved in the passage of the Santa Cruz CA county tower ordinance, which in my never humble opinion was a giant mess. You really don't want to know what is involved in making sausage and tower ordinances. Incidentally, we were saved by the local coastal commission. They took our best efforts, cleaned it up dramatically, and actually produced a readable and workable ordinance. Other cities and counties often use the time needed to create such ordinance as a way of delaying the introduction of new towers. If you want to slosh through the politics, reading back issues of AGL (Above Ground Level) magazine should be instructive: http://www.aglmediagroup.com I can go on forever on tower politics, but I'm already late for a lunch time meeting. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#29
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanninganyway?
Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2017-03-22 19:45, wrote: When you tack a new gadget with an unfamiliar operating system, Android in this case, you need an open mind. And ask around things that you find difficult to do, maybe you are doing it wrong. What I do remember is that I found it would connect to the WIFI, but the browser was not easy to use. I found I could install something more familiar (Firefox), but doing the installation was something I could not figure out. Its not just a matter of downloading it and running the installer, (like in Windows). Installing an app is trivial in Android, but different than in Windows. Just find the wanted app in "Google Play" app, tap "install", exit "Google Play", tap on the new app icon. Done. I did fight with it and managed to watch some youtube videos. Saving them was not possible, like it is with Firefox. When I did save something and wanted to copy it to computer, that again was near impossible. This is intentional. A tablet is not a laptop, it is different. Then came the camera. The stupid thing was only for selfies. I have absolutely no need for that. I turned it around and without seeing what I was shooting, I snapped some pics of my yard, in good light. The pics were absolutely horrid, grainy and lousy. Most tablets have two cameras, one front, one rear (usually a better one). There is a button on the camera app to choose which. The front camera is not only for selfies; it is intended, as in many laptops, for video conferencing. If your gadget doesn't have a rear camera, well, then, you bought the wrong device. And cheap devices have lousy cameras, that's a fact. That is, you can buy a tablet for 50 euros or dollars. But don't expect much from those. Just entry devices to explore and find out if you want a better one or not. The other thing I remember was that since it'sd owned by Google, No, it is not. I was constantly having google trying to get me to download games. I don't play games at all, and that was very annoying. That wasn't google. That was the vendor of your device. Some brands are bad at that. I dont care if XP is not supported. You should. It is open to viruses. It can be used by hackers as a platform to attack other computers from other people. It works, works well, and personally I would not even want any of Microsoft's newer bloated operating systems. I know Windows 10 is filled with MS spyware, but it seemed to me that Android was filled with google spyware too. Google does want to know what you do, yes, but they don't hide that fact. They are quite open about it. They differentiate what is private and treat it as such. On Windows 10 you can easily disable what is generally considered intrusive. You just need a list of those things and disable them, as several howtos in the net explain how to do it. I'm not a Windows lover, my system of choice is Linux. However, I find Windows 10 quite good, considering, once customized. I prefer Windows 7, but 10 is safer. I have a couple tablets. My favorite is a 10" Irulu with an octacore processor. I have a case for it with a real keyboard, but it spends a lot of time on a stand, on top of my SFF dell computer. I can see the 24" monitor behind it as I stream the news, or another program while using the computer. IRULU X1 Pro 10.1" Android 4.4 Tablet Octa Core 16GB/1GB HDMI 1024*600 /Keyboard and it was $106, delivered. I have a pair of Kocaso MX780 7" tablets that I bought for $100. I carry one to appointments at the VA hospital, since I have about for hours to kill between the DAV shuttle runs. I have a 32 GB micro SD card with thousands of old books to read, and the Android app for Magic Jack to make calls when there is a free hotspot. The twin is a spare, in case the other is lost or damaged. -- Never **** off an Engineer! They don't get mad. They don't get even. They go for over unity! ;-) |
#30
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanninganyway?
On 2017-03-25 18:52, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
wrote: On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:10:15 -0700, mike wrote: I later spoke with someone from the fire dept, and was told that they have been trying to get a cell tower in that area for years and all they get is a runaround. He said the population is too small to make it profitable. I proceeded to complain about why they removed the pay phone in that town, which was still there about 7 years ago, when they knew that there is no cell service there. He said they fought that with the local phone company too, and was told that pay phones were no longer maintained. Personally, none of that makes any sense.... Why was there better service back in the days before 2010? And why is maintaining a pay phone so difficult? It could have prevented a major fire, and could even save a life. STUPID STUPID.... Yes, you are. Pay phones started dying, when cell phones became popular. They started to disappear, as they no longer took in enough money to pay for the equipment, the line and the labor to service them. They finally reached the point where the equipment was worn out, and too expense to maintain. Payphone companies started to disappear, in the mid '90s. I hauled off trailer loads of aluminum phone booths from one company when they downsized to a smaller building. A year later, they were bankrupt. That was in 1995. Depends on which country you are. In mine, there was a mandate by which each village must have at least one payphone, specially on small villages that do not have a phone per house. That is, if the company can not set a phone at each house that wants one, they must at least install one payphone (or more, depending on the population). I don't know if that mandate is still valid. As for mobile, I think there is another mandate that the dominant provider must provide service on every village. But I'm unsure. -- Cheers, Carlos E.R. |
#31
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
|
#32
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 17:54:20 -0400, Ralph Mowery
wrote: Riding down the interstate today and saw a cell tower made to look like a tree. It seemed to be about 100 feet or more tall. The top 1/3 or so had some fake tree things on it to look like a pine tree. Real funny looking as it was about 50 feet or more taller than any trees around it. It would have been less noticable if it had just the cell antennas on it instead of the fake tree top. This is what AT&T (Cingular) installed when they were first forced to disguise a cell tower or monopole and had no clue what they were doing but had to build it in a hurry: http://www.LearnByDestroying.com/jeffl/crud/AmestiAT&T.jpg I'll spare you the jokes about standing lumber trees. People drove for considerable distances to see this abomination when it was first installed about 20(?) years ago. Incidentally, it's 90ft high. There was some official debate over the distinction between a genuine disguise monopine and an attractive nuisance. This created an awkward situation for AT&T, where modifying or rebuilding the tower might be construed as agreeing with their critics. So, it was left unchanged for a few years until the bad jokes died down. A water tank now sits on the location and a new cell site was built somewhere close, but further away from the nearby residential areas. For additional disguise cell towers and associated stories, see: http://www.celltowerphotos.com Then, there's the giant cucumber tower: http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Giant-Cucumber.jpg Anything worth doing, is also worth over-doing: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Cell_Site_Mast_Loaded.jpg -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#33
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanninganyway?
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 13:52:57 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: As far as cell phone towers, a lot of the cost is in legal fees and local governments charging out the ass for permits. So it becomes greed, over safety. Not so much legal fees. The local cellular operators tend to hire real estate brokers and such to deal with the local governments. They're less expensive than lawyers and are more knowledgeable about local alternative sites, site rental fees, and property costs. Intentional delays that bordered on extortion became such a problem that the FCC was forced to require a time limit for acting on proposed sites new site and modifications. http://www.commlawblog.com/2012/01/articles/cellular/fcc-shot-clock-presumptions-for-wireless-tower-permitting-upheld/ https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-99A1.pdf It's not just municipal governments that slow things down. Local citizens groups that fear the proliferation of RF belching towers also create delays. For example, this is our local citizens groups: https://www.facebook.com/StopBoulderCreekCellTower/ The Boulder Creek site was never built, but no because of the efforts of this group. It was due to the county demanding specific basic documents from the Verizon representative, which were not produced. I has several discussions with the Verizon people about this site and others that were planned locally, which taught me a few things. For example, at the time, Verizon had about 1500 new sites in various stages of planning in Northern California. Most of these sites are not for new coverage, but are to increase bandwidth and capacity in areas that already have service. New sites require some minimum prospective user density to be considered worthwhile, which is a problem for areas with transient usage. For example, a rather large lake in the area has nearly zero cellular coverage, despite a large influx of cell phone users during the summer. Because the area is essentially empty during the remaining 9 months of the year, it's probably not going to be profitable investment. Verizon also takes the path of least resistance. If there's any impediments caused by government or citizen groups and can't seem to be resolved, Verizon just moves on to another more hospitable area. The previously mentioned lake owners/operators offered to pay Verizon for installing a site to compensate for the limited revenue. I don't know if that worked. Another expensive problem is camouflaged towers, which roughly doubles the cost of the tower. Yet another is the time involved in crafting local tower ordinances, no two of which are identical. I was involved in the passage of the Santa Cruz CA county tower ordinance, which in my never humble opinion was a giant mess. You really don't want to know what is involved in making sausage and tower ordinances. Incidentally, we were saved by the local coastal commission. They took our best efforts, cleaned it up dramatically, and actually produced a readable and workable ordinance. Other cities and counties often use the time needed to create such ordinance as a way of delaying the introduction of new towers. If you want to slosh through the politics, reading back issues of AGL (Above Ground Level) magazine should be instructive: http://www.aglmediagroup.com I worked in CATV, Broadcast and Two way radios. The City of Middletown Ohio's first tower ordinance banned ALL towers, and outdoor antennas. No exemption for the local AM radio station, CATV headend, or even the police and fire departments. Their faulty reasoning was if no one had an antenna, everyone would have to pay for cable, and they would make more money off the franchise fees which were based on the number of customers. In the early '80s St. Louis, MO sent our CATV manager an order to take down their tower and Sat dishes, for the same fool idea. St Lois was a real mess. They split the city into seven areas, and gave seven different companies a franchise. They also wanted to make cable customers pay a large fee to pay for the entire costs to operate the landfill, and all garbage collection, since watching TV was a 'luxury'. -- Never **** off an Engineer! They don't get mad. They don't get even. They go for over unity! ;-) |
#34
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 01:14:13 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote: I worked in CATV, Broadcast and Two way radios. The City of Middletown Ohio's first tower ordinance banned ALL towers, and outdoor antennas. No exemption for the local AM radio station, CATV headend, or even the police and fire departments. Their faulty reasoning was if no one had an antenna, everyone would have to pay for cable, and they would make more money off the franchise fees which were based on the number of customers. In the early '80s St. Louis, MO sent our CATV manager an order to take down their tower and Sat dishes, for the same fool idea. St Lois was a real mess. They split the city into seven areas, and gave seven different companies a franchise. They also wanted to make cable customers pay a large fee to pay for the entire costs to operate the landfill, and all garbage collection, since watching TV was a 'luxury'. We do things a little differently on the left coast. The county cell tower ordinance was inspired by the local drug dealers in about 2000. We have a rather large local amusement park. Nearby is a residential slum and ghetto. In the middle of this area, on top of a small hill, is a two story dilapidated building with a small market downstairs. It's also the exchange point for most of the local drug deals. Two of the cellular providers decided that if they purged and disinfected the rooms above the market, it would make a good location for cell sites. They then applied to the city (not county). This information was eventually passed to the various drug dealers, who somehow (correctly) deduced that a cell site located in the middle of their stomping grounds could be used to accurately track their movements around the area. So, they organized a protest movement, which turned the first public hearing into a circus. At this point, someone in city government decided that such things as tower ordinances was really the job of the county. Characteristically interested in more powers, the country agreed and decided to write the tower ordinance. A temporary summer intern was hired by the planning department to research and cut-n-paste an ordinance together out of pieces he found on the internet from multiple sources. At the end of summer he returned to his studies, leaving the county with an inconsistent and incoherent mess. The only problem was that they didn't know that it was a mess until after the squabbling began. Every possible organization with an interest in cellular, towers, land use, aesthetics, historical preservation, electro biological effects of RF, and alien visitations became involved. The original drug dealers probably attended the initial planning department hearings, but were lost in the ever expanding circus atmosphere. Unfortunately, I was volunteered to represent the interests of the local ham radio operators. Just one problem. I had recently survived some major surgery and still felt rather lousy. Sitting for hours in a crowded meeting room and lecturing morons on basic RF concepts did not seem very appealing. After the first circus meeting, things settled down to business during the second meeting. Every group cut up its piece of the ordinance for special attention. Speakers of all types and abilities presented their case before the planning department board. There were the usual comedies, such as one lady who after denouncing cell phones as a health hazard, had her own cell phone ring while she was at the podium. Several speakers presented seriously erroneous technical information about RF. However, the real problem came from one of the planning department members, who decided to add cell site density and exposure limitations to the ordinance. Since nobody was interested, I decided that it was up to me to deal with the problem. When my turn at the podium came, I presented the board with a simplified explanation about the relationship between transmit power, data bandwidth, and range. Any two can be traded for the third. If cellular radio was going to progress, it would need to increase the data bandwidth. Power was not going up because the batteries in the handsets would die too quickly. The obvious answer was more cell sites and denser concentrations of cell sites. Otherwise, the county was going to be locked into the technical backwaters of 2000. (It was also illegal for the county to pass such a technical requirement as that is the domain of the FCC, but I let county council tell them that). The density and exposure clauses were quietly dropped. I was sitting next to someone who obviously was an attorney. We talked a little and I discovered he was there to represent AT&T. When I asked why he said nothing during the hearings, he answered that the important points would be settled after the ordinance is passed through the usual exemptions and amendments. He was right. Several meetings later, an ordinance was hammered out that was sufficient to present to the board of supervisors. They did not want yet another public circus, so they rubber stamped it on the consent agenda. Nobody complained. The next step was to pass it to the Coastal Commission, who's approval was required because many of the cell sites were within the coastal zone. What we got back was something that resembled bloodshed. There were so many red marks, corrections, changes, and re-writes on the various pages, that I barely recognized the ordinance. The Coastal Commission had passed it on to what I believe was someone with considerable experience in writing ordinances, who cleaned it up. I was impressed. The planning board and board of supervisors were less impressed, but accepted it anyway. http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruzCounty/html/SantaCruzCounty13/SantaCruzCounty1310.html 13.10.660 thru 13.10.668. In the last 17 years, the ordinance has roughly doubled in size. Exemptions and exceptions are added regularly to deal with non-compliant technology and organizations. Life blunders on. If adding a cell site in your neighborhood requires a tower ordinance, you have my sympathies. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#35
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Then, there's the giant cucumber tower: http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Giant-Cucumber.jpg We've got something like that here, looming over a small strip mall parking lot, but it looks more like a giant furry green corn dog. Anything worth doing, is also worth over-doing: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Cell_Site_Mast_Loaded.jpg The Watts Towers of telecom. To me, that's actually more esthetically pleasing than most of the attempts to disguise. |
#36
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanninganyway?
On 3/26/2017 4:06 AM, Neill Massello wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote: Anything worth doing, is also worth over-doing: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Cell_Site_Mast_Loaded.jpg The Watts Towers of telecom. To me, that's actually more aesthetically pleasing than most of the attempts to disguise. Back in the early to mid '90s, the standard albeit incorrect answer for "no cell phone use on airplanes" was that they would interfere with the operation of the airplane. My question was, if that was true, why wasn't Mount Wilson a smoking crater for the amount of RF it poured out under the flight path. -- Jeff-1.0 wa6fwi http://www.foxsmercantile.com --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
#37
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 04:20:13 -0500, Foxs Mercantile
wrote: Back in the early to mid '90s, the standard albeit incorrect answer for "no cell phone use on airplanes" was that they would interfere with the operation of the airplane. My question was, if that was true, why wasn't Mount Wilson a smoking crater for the amount of RF it poured out under the flight path. First of all, they didn't say cell phones *would* interfere. They said they *Could* interfere. The transmitters on Mt Wilson are maintained by professionals. If one of those transmitters would suddenly start transmitting on an ATC or navaid frequency, they would figure it out and fix it quickly. Compare that to a few hundred people on an airliner each with their own little transmitter. If one of those devices malfunctions and is spewing harmonics, there is no quick way to find and resolve it. So, asking everyone to turn off their transmitters reduces the chances of an interference problem. Of course, some will forget and others refuse, but having 2 or 3 small transmitters on a plane rather than hundreds reduces the chances of an issue. You said "if that was true". Not only *was* it true back in the mid 90's. It *is* still true today. And, why do you want your phone wasting battery searching for usable cell sites during a long flight, anyway? |
#38
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
|
#39
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
|
#40
Posted to comp.mobile.android,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
In article ,
says... This is what AT&T (Cingular) installed when they were first forced to disguise a cell tower or monopole and had no clue what they were doing but had to build it in a hurry: http://www.LearnByDestroying.com/jeffl/crud/AmestiAT&T.jpg I'll spare you the jokes about standing lumber trees. People drove for considerable distances to see this abomination when it was first installed about 20(?) years ago. Incidentally, it's 90ft high. There was some official debate over the distinction between a genuine disguise monopine and an attractive nuisance. This created an awkward situation for AT&T, where modifying or rebuilding the tower might be construed as agreeing with their critics. So, it was left unchanged for a few years until the bad jokes died down. A water tank now sits on the location and a new cell site was built somewhere close, but further away from the nearby residential areas. For additional disguise cell towers and associated stories, see: http://www.celltowerphotos.com Then, there's the giant cucumber tower: http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Giant-Cucumber.jpg Anything worth doing, is also worth over-doing: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Cell_Site_Mast_Loaded.jpg Just off the interstate in South Carolina where everyone can see it is a water tower made to look like a peach. When it was in its orange primer it looked like a giant butt sticking up. Even after the peach color was added it still looks like a butt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peachoid |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
No wifi but a wifi hotspot | Home Repair | |||
What is cheapest Wifi-enabled device I can buy to test wifi access? | UK diy | |||
Infrared Red Scanning.... | Home Repair | |||
Infrared Red Scanning.... | Home Repair | |||
Infrared Red Scanning.... | Home Repair |