The other day I was surfing the web and saw an ad for a
cable modem, which won't do me any good because I don't
have cable, but, the thought crossed my mind, If someone
hooked up a cable modem to a TV antenna, pointed it at
their neighbors house where they had the same setup...
Would you be able to get a network connection between
those two houses?

This might turn out to be an unnecessary expense for me
to try it, if it didn't work, so, I thought someone on
this group might already have the equipment to try it,
without incurring additional expense, or, you might
already know if it will work.

I thought it would be an interesting experiment.

What do you think?

On 1/11/2013 4:26 PM, Texas Dawg wrote:
The other day I was surfing the web and saw an ad for a
cable modem, which won't do me any good because I don't
have cable, but, the thought crossed my mind, If someone
hooked up a cable modem to a TV antenna, pointed it at
their neighbors house where they had the same setup...
Would you be able to get a network connection between
those two houses?

This might turn out to be an unnecessary expense for me
to try it, if it didn't work, so, I thought someone on
this group might already have the equipment to try it,
without incurring additional expense, or, you might
already know if it will work.

I thought it would be an interesting experiment.

What do you think?

This will not work.

Connecting a TV antenna to your coax input on a cable modem will not
bring in a neighbor's anything. It especially will not bring in another
cable modem configured the same way at your neighbor's house.

A waste of time and money.

On 1/11/2013 1:26 PM, Texas Dawg wrote:
The other day I was surfing the web and saw an ad for a
cable modem, which won't do me any good because I don't
have cable, but, the thought crossed my mind, If someone
hooked up a cable modem to a TV antenna, pointed it at
their neighbors house where they had the same setup...
Would you be able to get a network connection between
those two houses?

This might turn out to be an unnecessary expense for me
to try it, if it didn't work, so, I thought someone on
this group might already have the equipment to try it,
without incurring additional expense, or, you might
already know if it will work.

I thought it would be an interesting experiment.

What do you think?

There are lots of ways to steal cable.
That additional expense you incur might be for lawyers.

On 01/11/2013 03:40 PM, mike wrote:
On 1/11/2013 1:26 PM, Texas Dawg wrote:
The other day I was surfing the web and saw an ad for a
cable modem, which won't do me any good because I don't
have cable, but, the thought crossed my mind, If someone
hooked up a cable modem to a TV antenna, pointed it at
their neighbors house where they had the same setup...
Would you be able to get a network connection between
those two houses?

This might turn out to be an unnecessary expense for me
to try it, if it didn't work, so, I thought someone on
this group might already have the equipment to try it,
without incurring additional expense, or, you might
already know if it will work.

I thought it would be an interesting experiment.

What do you think?

There are lots of ways to steal cable.
That additional expense you incur might be for lawyers.
Cable TV doesn't reach this far out of town. I wouldn't
be able to steel cable if I wanted to, which I don't.

I think you don't understand what I was talking about.

On 01/11/2013 03:34 PM, Smarty wrote:
On 1/11/2013 4:26 PM, Texas Dawg wrote:
The other day I was surfing the web and saw an ad for a
cable modem, which won't do me any good because I don't
have cable, but, the thought crossed my mind, If someone
hooked up a cable modem to a TV antenna, pointed it at
their neighbors house where they had the same setup...
Would you be able to get a network connection between
those two houses?

This might turn out to be an unnecessary expense for me
to try it, if it didn't work, so, I thought someone on
this group might already have the equipment to try it,
without incurring additional expense, or, you might
already know if it will work.

I thought it would be an interesting experiment.

What do you think?

This will not work.

Connecting a TV antenna to your coax input on a cable modem will not
bring in a neighbor's anything. It especially will not bring in another
cable modem configured the same way at your neighbor's house.

A waste of time and money.

It was just a thought. I have Internet through ERF wireless, where
their antenna on my roof is pointed at a tower twelve miles away
at the nearest town.

My nearest neighbor lives 1000 feet away, he's old, and sick.
He likes my Android tablet, so, I was thinking about getting
him one, but, he doesn't have Internet. I thought maybe I could
get him Internet that way, where he could watch Netflix and surf
the web without him paying for Internet at $41.11 per month.

In article ,
Texas Dawg wrote:

My nearest neighbor lives 1000 feet away, he's old, and sick.
He likes my Android tablet, so, I was thinking about getting
him one, but, he doesn't have Internet. I thought maybe I could
get him Internet that way, where he could watch Netflix and surf
the web without him paying for Internet at $41.11 per month.

Rather than trying to relay the cable signal via antennas (which would
in effect be creating an unlicensed TV transmitter, and could cause
all sorts of legal and technical grief) you'd be better off setting up
an 802.11 bridge. A 1000-foot link is definitely possible with a gain
antenna on each end, if you have a clear line of sight between the two
houses. That sort of solution would be legal, as long as you
pick 802.11 radio-and-antenna systems which have been properly
certificated. Ubiquiti is one vendor of these sorts of devices.

Your neighbor would have two WiFi devices in his house (one for the
bridge, with a directional antenna, and a second access point or
router indoors with an omni antenna to provide a base for the tablet
and any other device he wants. They would operate on different
channels from one another so as to not interfere. One run of Cat-5
Ethernet cable between them, a bit of setup on each end and you'd be
good to go.

http://wiki.ubnt.com/How_to_bridge_internet_connections

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, alonzo wrote:
On 01/11/2013 03:40 PM, mike wrote:
On 1/11/2013 1:26 PM, Texas Dawg wrote:
The other day I was surfing the web and saw an ad for a
cable modem, which won't do me any good because I don't
have cable, but, the thought crossed my mind, If someone
hooked up a cable modem to a TV antenna, pointed it at
their neighbors house where they had the same setup...
Would you be able to get a network connection between
those two houses?

This might turn out to be an unnecessary expense for me
to try it, if it didn't work, so, I thought someone on
this group might already have the equipment to try it,
without incurring additional expense, or, you might
already know if it will work.

I thought it would be an interesting experiment.

What do you think?

There are lots of ways to steal cable.
That additional expense you incur might be for lawyers.
Cable TV doesn't reach this far out of town. I wouldn't
be able to steel cable if I wanted to, which I don't.

I think you don't understand what I was talking about.

My bad.
Just use a wireless modem and a cantenna or some such to
increase the range.

On Jan 11, 4:26*pm, Texas Dawg wrote:
The other day I was surfing the web and saw an ad for a
cable modem, which won't do me any good because I don't
have cable, but, the thought crossed my mind, If someone
hooked up a cable modem to a TV antenna, pointed it at
their neighbors house where they had the same setup...
Would you be able to get a network connection between
those two houses?

This might turn out to be an unnecessary expense for me
to try it, if it didn't work, so, I thought someone on
this group might already have the equipment to try it,
without incurring additional expense, or, you might
already know if it will work.

I thought it would be an interesting experiment.

What do you think?

Doing this with a cable modem would never work, for lots of reasons.
If your intention is to create a wireless bridge for sharing internet
service with somebody, use a wireless bridge or long-range wifi
network.

Wifi can be added easily if doesn't already exist, and if distance is
an issue, get a bigger antenna. I've done it: Had two neighboring
farms sharing an expensive satellite internet subscription. Used two
access points driving signal amps with outdoor dish antennas on poles.
One end provided a secured wireless network, other was client. Wasn't
overly fast, but did what was needed and it blew dial-up (only other
option) out of the water. Works well aside from issues caused by
severe weather (dish alignment). Put in several years back, still in
use as of November.

If the intention is to steal cable internet or TV, what you suggested
isn't even remotely close to being a way of doing either.

In article ,
Texas Dawg wrote:

The other day I was surfing the web and saw an ad for a
cable modem, which won't do me any good because I don't
have cable, but, the thought crossed my mind, If someone
hooked up a cable modem to a TV antenna, pointed it at
their neighbors house where they had the same setup...
Would you be able to get a network connection between
those two houses?

No, for several reasons:

Cable modems expect very strong signals; far stronger than you could
ever collect with an antenna.

Cable modems are two-way devices, and will not function at all if the
"upstream" signal doesn't make it back to the headend. You'd probably
need a several-thousand-watt "booster" and a VERY LARGE antenna to send
that signal wirelessly to your neighbor.

All cable modems are "registered", and the provider knows where each and
every one is on the network, in terms of how long it takes the signals
to travel between the modem and the headend. No modem with a time delay
or a registration they didn't have on file would ever be allowed to
operate.

Isaac

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:06:53 -0800, (Dave Platt)
wrote:

Rather than trying to relay the cable signal via antennas (which would
in effect be creating an unlicensed TV transmitter, and could cause
all sorts of legal and technical grief) you'd be better off setting up
an 802.11 bridge. A 1000-foot link is definitely possible with a gain
antenna on each end, if you have a clear line of sight between the two
houses. That sort of solution would be legal, as long as you
pick 802.11 radio-and-antenna systems which have been properly
certificated. Ubiquiti is one vendor of these sorts of devices.

I just came back from a very similar install. 800ft using two Ubiquti
Nanostation Loco M5. The M5 is the 5.7Ghz version, not the 2.4GHz
version. The main application was shared internet access, but also to
stream a common media server for HD movies via wireless.

Using the internal Ubiquiti benchmark tests, I was getting about
150Mbits/sec thruput in both directions (one at a time) and splitting
it in half for full duplex simulation. When the radios were both on
the setup bench, I was getting over 200Mbits/sec. Using Jperf, I was
only able to get about 120Mbits/sec in TCP, half duplex. Some
tweaking should bring it up. Note that is two MIMO streams, one
vertically polarized, and the other horizontally. This is MUCH better
than what I typical get with 2.4Ghz links. Highly recommended.
http://www.ubnt.com/airmax#nanostationm
Hint 1: Make sure all the radios are running the same firmware or
nothing works right.
Hint 2: With bridging, make sure there's exactly one DHCP server
running on the network. You're life will be miserable if there is
more than one.
Hint 3: The mounting bracket does NOT come with the package. The 24v
PoE box is included.

Drivel: Every muscle aches, my cold/flu/crud is far worse, I left my
ladder at the site, got involved in some brush removal to improve the
LOS, and spilled much of my toolbox all over the hillside. I didn't
know that poison oak was active in January. There's a Motorola SP10
walkie talkie somewhere on the hillside. No photos because I left my
camera at home and my Droid X micro-SD card was full. The setup was
fairly easy. The physical installation, not so easy. Sometimes, I
wonder if internet connnectivity is worth the effort.

Your neighbor would have two WiFi devices in his house (one for the
bridge, with a directional antenna, and a second access point or
router indoors with an omni antenna to provide a base for the tablet
and any other device he wants.

Nope. The Ubiquti Nanostation Loco M5 supports WDS (wireless
distribution service), where the radio supports both access point
features and store-and-forward repeater features. More specifically,
WDS is bridging. I was connecting through the local bridge radio,
with my dual band wi-fi equipped laptop, to the other end of the link.
Running bridging, where everything runs at the MAC address level
(layer 2), made connectivity to everything quite easy. They were
rather pleased when I was able to print to a remote laser printer, and
not so pleased when I connected to their Roku streaming media player,
iPod, iPhone, etc via the network. The VLAN configuration is the next
step in order to isolate parts differnt parts of the network (and
reduce broadcast traffic across the wireless link).

http://wiki.ubnt.com/How_to_bridge_internet_connections

Yep. Note that section "E" shows the setup as "access point WDS"
which Ubiquiti lingo for bridging. That should be the device closest
to the main internet router. The client end(s), should be setup as
"station WDS". With this arrangement, you can also have more than one
station.

As for the cable modem antenna idea, it won't work. It will be
spewing the entire 40-1000Mhz CATV spectrum and not just the channel
that you're watching. It's like watering your lawn with a fire hose
at full pressure. Colateral damage (interference) is inevitable. The
cable also works both directions. Ingress (where the cable picks up
over the air radio stations which mix in the cable amplifiers, is a
major problem for the cable company. Ingress will show up on the
management software or fly-over survey, making discovery of your
abomination quite likely. It's futile anyway, because you'll need a
legal cable box to watch digital channels. Analog TV channels are
slowly going away. Also, the signals on the cable are such a low
level, that you'll need an RF power amplifier in order to transmit
more than a few inches. Building a suitable RF power amp with
sufficient linearity to not trash the video is not a trivial exercise.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

The simplest solution is to find someone with a wireless router who hasn't
done anything to prevent unauthorized access.

By the way... It's possible (and quite easy) to set up your local network so
that it will communicate only with devices that you've supplied the MACs for.
This isn't 100%-foolproof, as it's possible for someone to read the MAC when
it's transmitted, then mimic it. But for the average user, it makes your
network effectively inaccessible.

On 1/11/2013 10:17 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:06:53 -0800, (Dave Platt)
wrote:

Rather than trying to relay the cable signal via antennas (which would
in effect be creating an unlicensed TV transmitter, and could cause
all sorts of legal and technical grief) you'd be better off setting up
an 802.11 bridge. A 1000-foot link is definitely possible with a gain
antenna on each end, if you have a clear line of sight between the two
houses. That sort of solution would be legal, as long as you
pick 802.11 radio-and-antenna systems which have been properly
certificated. Ubiquiti is one vendor of these sorts of devices.

I just came back from a very similar install. 800ft using two Ubiquti
Nanostation Loco M5. The M5 is the 5.7Ghz version, not the 2.4GHz
version. The main application was shared internet access, but also to
stream a common media server for HD movies via wireless.

Maybe I just missed it. Could you repeat the total customer cost number
for the install including the links at both ends and installation?

On 1/11/2013 4:06 PM, Dave Platt wrote:
In articletpidnes9q9LsBG3NnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@giganews. com,
Texas wrote:

My nearest neighbor lives 1000 feet away, he's old, and sick.
He likes my Android tablet, so, I was thinking about getting
him one, but, he doesn't have Internet. I thought maybe I could
get him Internet that way, where he could watch Netflix and surf
the web without him paying for Internet at $41.11 per month.

1000 feet is gonna be more than you want to deal with.
But more importantly, how far to HIS nearest neighbor.
Maybe it's more feasible for him to steal their netflix and internet.

For movies, you can load the movies onto a flash card and deliver
it to his tablet.

Rather than trying to relay the cable signal via antennas (which would
in effect be creating an unlicensed TV transmitter, and could cause
all sorts of legal and technical grief) you'd be better off setting up
an 802.11 bridge. A 1000-foot link is definitely possible with a gain
antenna on each end, if you have a clear line of sight between the two
houses. That sort of solution would be legal, as long as you
pick 802.11 radio-and-antenna systems which have been properly
certificated. Ubiquiti is one vendor of these sorts of devices.

Your neighbor would have two WiFi devices in his house (one for the
bridge, with a directional antenna, and a second access point or
router indoors with an omni antenna to provide a base for the tablet
and any other device he wants. They would operate on different
channels from one another so as to not interfere. One run of Cat-5
Ethernet cable between them, a bit of setup on each end and you'd be
good to go.

http://wiki.ubnt.com/How_to_bridge_internet_connections

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:29:05 -0800, mike wrote:

On 1/11/2013 10:17 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:06:53 -0800, (Dave Platt)
wrote:

Rather than trying to relay the cable signal via antennas (which would
in effect be creating an unlicensed TV transmitter, and could cause
all sorts of legal and technical grief) you'd be better off setting up
an 802.11 bridge. A 1000-foot link is definitely possible with a gain
antenna on each end, if you have a clear line of sight between the two
houses. That sort of solution would be legal, as long as you
pick 802.11 radio-and-antenna systems which have been properly
certificated. Ubiquiti is one vendor of these sorts of devices.

I just came back from a very similar install. 800ft using two Ubiquti
Nanostation Loco M5. The M5 is the 5.7Ghz version, not the 2.4GHz
version. The main application was shared internet access, but also to
stream a common media server for HD movies via wireless.

Maybe I just missed it. Could you repeat the total customer cost number
for the install including the links at both ends and installation?

Actually, I haven't added it up yet. Note that this system is for
sharing internet, not remote video.

Prices are off the top of my head as I'm too lazy to look them up and
the pile of receipts are scattered all over my office.
http://www.ubnt.com/airmax#nanostationm

Quan Item Unit cost Exten cost
2 Ubiquity Nanostation Loco M5 $ 90 $180
2 Mounting brackets $ 8 $ 16
1 100ft CMXT (gel filled) CAT5 $ 10 $ 10
2 Through the wall hardware $ 10 $ 20
1 Linksys E2500 wireless router $ 35 $ 35
1 Power strips, wall plates, RJ45 plugs, $ 20 $ 20
sinkers, "P" clamps, etc.
1 Satellite TV "J" mount $ 20 $ 20
===========
Total $301
Add about 12% for sales tax and shipping.
Add about $40/ea for Nanostation M5 HP, if you need more range.
The Linksys E2500 is for redistributing the internet inside the
house on both 2.4 and 5.6Ghz. It is setup as an access point, not as
a router. Price is for a refurb on eBay while retail would be about
$65.

To add remote video, add a Slingbox for $180:
http://www.slingbox.com/go/slingbox-350
and a 2nd CATV digital receiver for whatever the local cable company
charges. Currently, video from the DLNA video server is being watched
on a Roku 2 XS streaming media player:
http://www.dlna.org
http://www.roku.com/roku-products

The internet connection is wireless via Etheric networks in an area
where both cable and DSL are not available. Previous experience with
satellite internet was deemed a waste of money:
http://ethericnetworks.com/service-plans/residential-broadband/
At about $180/month, sharing the cost is certainly a good idea.

I haven't worked out the charges yet. Ignoring several diversions and
stupid mistakes (including getting a cardio workout by chasing the
escaped house cat through the bushes for about 15 minutes), and since
the owner did all the endpoint preperation, I'll probably only charge
for 3 hrs at $75/hr = $225 in labor. About half of that is
preperation, ordering, travel time, and RTFM, which were not directly
involved in the actual installation.

I'll be going back later to add some ethernet lightning arrestors
which did not arrive in time. When the smoke clears, I would guess
that the total will be about $600 for everything including the inside
network, wiring, configuration, SNMP monitoring setup, "training",
system documentation, backups, and of course testing by watching about
15 minutes of a movie on Netflix.

If you do it thyself, it can be done with zero labor cost, scounged
hardware, wire scraps, and used equipment for some savings.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:40:40 -0800, mike wrote:

1000 feet is gonna be more than you want to deal with.

I have 5.7GHz links that are 1.0 miles, 1.5 miles, and 3 miles. They
run a mix of Ubiquiti hardware. Zero problems with the link part of
the puzzle. In the past, I used 2.4GHz links, with bit 24dBi barbeque
dish antennas. Add some interference, and it simply didn't work.
5.7Ghz fixed that. 1000ft (1/5th of a mile) is a no brainer.

But more importantly, how far to HIS nearest neighbor.
Maybe it's more feasible for him to steal their netflix and internet.

If he can get a wireless or wired bridge running, one of these should
be able to provide the necessary video:
http://www.slingbox.com/go/slingbox-350

For movies, you can load the movies onto a flash card and deliver
it to his tablet.

I know very few people who a willing to watch an hour or two long
movie on a tablet screen. Large screen LCD TV's are more common.
Plugging the big LCD TV into the iPad or Android tablet via an HDMI
cable works. At that point, might was well get a streaming medial
player from WD, Netgear, Roku, and others, instead, and leave the
tablet for other things.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 06:17:00 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

By the way... It's possible (and quite easy) to set up your local network so
that it will communicate only with devices that you've supplied the MACs for.
This isn't 100%-foolproof, as it's possible for someone to read the MAC when
it's transmitted, then mimic it. But for the average user, it makes your
network effectively inaccessible.

Actually, it's trivial to hack into a wireless router with MAC address
filtering enabled. Just sniff the traffic to/from that wireless
router and collect the MAC addresses that are being used. The MAC
addresses are NOT encrypted. Then, just change the MAC address of
your computer to one of them, and you're on.
http://www.irongeek.com/i.php?page=security/changemac
MAC address filtering might be effective for the clueless user, but
the average user usually knows someone more knowledgable who can help.

For a wireless router, the only real and effective security is WPA2
encryption. All else, including MAC address spoofing, IP filtering,
SSID hiding, and the disgusting guest mode, are only minor additional
obstacles, which can eventually be circumvented with minimal effort.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 1/12/2013 4:06 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:40:40 -0800, wrote:

1000 feet is gonna be more than you want to deal with.

I have 5.7GHz links that are 1.0 miles, 1.5 miles, and 3 miles. They
run a mix of Ubiquiti hardware. Zero problems with the link part of
the puzzle. In the past, I used 2.4GHz links, with bit 24dBi barbeque
dish antennas. Add some interference, and it simply didn't work.
5.7Ghz fixed that. 1000ft (1/5th of a mile) is a no brainer.

I submit that "no brainer" for you is way more than he would want
to deal with. Spending $600 to redistribute ethernet service and
netflix service in violation of TOS seems like a lot to deal with.

And, with these threads, there seems to always be a gotcha.
50 posts into the thread the OP volunteers, "There's a huge ass
metal building in the way...does that matter?"


But more importantly, how far to HIS nearest neighbor.
Maybe it's more feasible for him to steal their netflix and internet.

If he can get a wireless or wired bridge running, one of these should
be able to provide the necessary video:
http://www.slingbox.com/go/slingbox-350

I'm just too cheap to comprehend stuff like this.
My wireless bridge is a $1 WRT54G with tomato firmware.
I expect 1000 feet would be a stretch. But I can't see more
than about 200' without running into a forest or a big ass metal pole
building.

I administer my neighbor's system. I have many ways to steal his
netflix, with or without his permission...but it puts him at risk
and it's just wrong.

For movies, you can load the movies onto a flash card and deliver
it to his tablet.

I know very few people who a willing to watch an hour or two long
movie on a tablet screen. Large screen LCD TV's are more common.
Plugging the big LCD TV into the iPad or Android tablet via an HDMI
cable works. At that point, might was well get a streaming medial
player from WD, Netgear, Roku, and others, instead, and leave the
tablet for other things.

On 1/12/2013 3:55 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:29:05 -0800, wrote:

On 1/11/2013 10:17 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:06:53 -0800, (Dave Platt)
wrote:

Rather than trying to relay the cable signal via antennas (which would
in effect be creating an unlicensed TV transmitter, and could cause
all sorts of legal and technical grief) you'd be better off setting up
an 802.11 bridge. A 1000-foot link is definitely possible with a gain
antenna on each end, if you have a clear line of sight between the two
houses. That sort of solution would be legal, as long as you
pick 802.11 radio-and-antenna systems which have been properly
certificated. Ubiquiti is one vendor of these sorts of devices.

I just came back from a very similar install. 800ft using two Ubiquti
Nanostation Loco M5. The M5 is the 5.7Ghz version, not the 2.4GHz
version. The main application was shared internet access, but also to
stream a common media server for HD movies via wireless.

Maybe I just missed it. Could you repeat the total customer cost number
for the install including the links at both ends and installation?

Actually, I haven't added it up yet. Note that this system is for
sharing internet, not remote video.

Prices are off the top of my head as I'm too lazy to look them up and
the pile of receipts are scattered all over my office.
http://www.ubnt.com/airmax#nanostationm

Quan Item Unit cost Exten cost
2 Ubiquity Nanostation Loco M5 $ 90 $180
2 Mounting brackets $ 8 $ 16
1 100ft CMXT (gel filled) CAT5 $ 10 $ 10
2 Through the wall hardware $ 10 $ 20
1 Linksys E2500 wireless router $ 35 $ 35
1 Power strips, wall plates, RJ45 plugs, $ 20 $ 20
sinkers, "P" clamps, etc.
1 Satellite TV "J" mount $ 20 $ 20
===========
Total $301
Add about 12% for sales tax and shipping.
Add about $40/ea for Nanostation M5 HP, if you need more range.
The Linksys E2500 is for redistributing the internet inside the
house on both 2.4 and 5.6Ghz. It is setup as an access point, not as
a router. Price is for a refurb on eBay while retail would be about
$65.

To add remote video, add a Slingbox for $180:
http://www.slingbox.com/go/slingbox-350
and a 2nd CATV digital receiver for whatever the local cable company
charges. Currently, video from the DLNA video server is being watched
on a Roku 2 XS streaming media player:
http://www.dlna.org
http://www.roku.com/roku-products

The internet connection is wireless via Etheric networks in an area
where both cable and DSL are not available. Previous experience with
satellite internet was deemed a waste of money:
http://ethericnetworks.com/service-plans/residential-broadband/
At about $180/month, sharing the cost is certainly a good idea.

You are fortunate. Around here, the providers prohibit redistribution
of their service. I could save a bunch of money by
hooking up the whole cul-de-sac to one cable connection.


I haven't worked out the charges yet. Ignoring several diversions and
stupid mistakes (including getting a cardio workout by chasing the
escaped house cat through the bushes for about 15 minutes), and since
the owner did all the endpoint preperation, I'll probably only charge
for 3 hrs at $75/hr = $225 in labor. About half of that is
preperation, ordering, travel time, and RTFM, which were not directly
involved in the actual installation.

I'll be going back later to add some ethernet lightning arrestors
which did not arrive in time. When the smoke clears, I would guess
that the total will be about $600 for everything including the inside
network, wiring, configuration, SNMP monitoring setup, "training",
system documentation, backups, and of course testing by watching about
15 minutes of a movie on Netflix.

If you do it thyself, it can be done with zero labor cost, scounged
hardware, wire scraps, and used equipment for some savings.

Actually, it's trivial to hack into a wireless router with MAC address
filtering enabled. Just sniff the traffic to/from that wireless
router and collect the MAC addresses being used. The MAC
addresses are NOT encrypted. Then, just change the MAC address of
of your computer to one of them, and you're on.

http://www.irongeek.com/i.php?page=security/changemac

That's assuming there's no data encryption. I use both encryption and MAC
filtering.

Nevertheless, I appreciate this information, as the book I read indicated that
you needed hardware to spoof a MAC address. (Perhaps the author was talking
about what was required to sniff it.)

A friend of mine remarked that both he and I were relatively safe from such
attacks. "Why would anyone be interested in accessing //our// computers?"
Indeed. This is true for most users. Of course, it's no excuse for not taking
simple steps to protect yourself.

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 06:58:54 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Actually, it's trivial to hack into a wireless router with MAC address
filtering enabled. Just sniff the traffic to/from that wireless
router and collect the MAC addresses being used. The MAC
addresses are NOT encrypted. Then, just change the MAC address of
of your computer to one of them, and you're on.

http://www.irongeek.com/i.php?page=security/changemac

That's assuming there's no data encryption.

True. However, as I mumbled, encryption is the only truly effective
security method.

I use both encryption and MAC
filtering.

It's helpful to know how the order and sequence of making a wireless
connection. I won't describe the whole process but you can see it
happen if you enable tracing and look at the connection progress logs:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457017.aspx
In order to do the key exchange cerimony for encryption, the devices
need to initially associate using the unencrypted MAC addresses. If
MAC address filtering is active, the initial association will fail. If
you have a valid MAC address, it will connected. It's as simple as
that to detect MAC address filtering and determine if a sniffed MAC
address will work.

Nevertheless, I appreciate this information, as the book I read indicated that
you needed hardware to spoof a MAC address. (Perhaps the author was talking
about what was required to sniff it.)

You need quite a bit of hardware and carnal knowledge of the design in
order to permanently change a MAC address. It's usually in a
protected parts of the firmware flash memory where it's safe from user
screwups. All the various OS's read the MAC address, and then save it
in a configuration file somewhere for later use. Changing the MAC
address is nothing more than changing the saved value.

In the distant past, I was doing some wireless testing which included
determining how many MAC addresses an access point could handle.
(Reminder: All 802.11 wireless networking is done at the MAC address
layer 2 level. Layer 3 or IP addresses are strictly for management
and configuration). I had software that connected to an AP,
disconnnected, changed the MAC address, reconnected, disconnected, and
so on. Each connection had a new spoofed MAC address. The question
was how many connections could it handle before failing, how did it
fail, and how gracefully did it recover. Nobody was very happy when I
reported that the system would hang and die long before the connection
tables were full. Hopefully, things have been fixed in todays
devices.

A friend of mine remarked that both he and I were relatively safe from such
attacks. "Why would anyone be interested in accessing //our// computers?"
Indeed. This is true for most users. Of course, it's no excuse for not taking
simple steps to protect yourself.

I play both sides of the wireless fence, so it's difficult for me to
provide a consistent personal policy. I also hate getting into
security discussions as they always end in acrimonious disagreement.
For the purposes of this discussion, I'll suggest that the
manufacturers of commodity hardware are at fault for NOT providing
routers and access points that are secure by default. Out of the box,
the router should have a pre-assigned secure password and a
pre-assigned secure WPA2 key. Only after the user configures the
router can it be reduced to a lower security level. Currently, all
but 2wire routers are delivered with no password (or a default
password), and encryption turned off. I ran a little mini-campaign
called "Secure by Default" for a few years trying to get the major
players to simply understand the problem. I even suggested that they
might be deemed liable for any financial damages resulting from the
misuse of their routers. Certainly, by looking at the gaudy box
covered with security related buzzwords and acronyms, a casual buyer
would ASSUME that they were well protected. Anyway, I was told that
convenience of setup was more important and not to bother them with
such problems. Oh well.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Windows 7 Annoyances" has a good discussion of wireless security. I had no
trouble configuring my Linksys router.

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 11:16:41 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

"Windows 7 Annoyances" has a good discussion of wireless security.

"Windoze Annoyances" is redundant. Windoze is one big annoyance.

I got into one of those discussions on some forum. It might have been
Annoyances, but I don't recall. My pitch line was the PSK (pre-shared
key) style security sucks, because if I had access to just one machine
on the network, which has the WPA2 pass phrase saved (and encrypted)
in the registry, I could recover the hash and crack the encryption.
Users also tend to write down passwords on post it notes, which can be
found in most offices.
http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wireless_key.html

What's needed is a one time password, with a user unique login and
password. That's exactly what WPA2-Enterprise does. You login with a
user name and password. The RADIUS server authorizes the user, 802.1x
authenticates the connection, and maybe additional authentication with
an X.509 certificate on a flash drive. The wireless access point then
delivers a one time maximum length password. The password is only
good for the current session. Nothing to write down or sniff.

The problem is that few wireless routers and access points have built
in RADIUS servers. You would need either a stand alone Linux box
running FreeRadius:
http://freeradius.org
or an account on one of the assorted online RADIUS servers. For
example:
http://cloudessa.com (Free for up to 10 users)

I had no
trouble configuring my Linksys router.

Router setup is fairly easy, if you know what the buzzwords mean, can
follow instructions, and understand why one needs wireless security.
The sometimes included setup disk is also handy, but I don't use it.

What happens next is somewhat predictable. One day, the internet goes
down. You call your ISP asking for assistance. After dealing with
the basics, it's still down, so support suggest your reset your
router. Just press the little button in back and everything is back
to defaults. Like magic, it works and you're on your way. The
problem is that is also clears all the security. To AT&T's credit,
they no longer do that. Same with most large ISP's. However, I'm
constantly running into users that have reset their routers trying to
solve a problem, and then was wonder why the whole neighborhood is
using their wireless. I suggest you backup your working settings to a
file. When your router goes nuts, reset it, restore the backup, and
it should work.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 11:16:41 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

"Windows 7 Annoyances" has a good discussion of wireless security.

"Windoze Annoyances" is redundant. Windoze is one big annoyance.

As are Apple's filthy lies about their products, for which the company should
be dragged into court and sued. I prefer an operating system where I can see
what's going on.

For the author of this book, the principal "annoyance" is that Windows'
default settings are rarely those that give the best user protection, or take
the best advantage of the operating system's features.


I got into one of those discussions on some forum. It might have been
Annoyances, but I don't recall. My pitch line was the PSK (pre-shared
key) style security sucks, because if I had access to just one machine
on the network, which has the WPA2 pass phrase saved (and encrypted)
in the registry, I could recover the hash and crack the encryption.
Users also tend to write down passwords on post it notes, which can be
found in most offices.
http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wireless_key.html

What's needed is a one-time password, with a user unique login and
password. That's exactly what WPA2-Enterprise does. You login with a
user name and password. The RADIUS server authorizes the user, 802.1x
authenticates the connection, and maybe additional authentication with
an X.509 certificate on a flash drive. The wireless access point then
delivers a one time maximum length password. The password is only
good for the current session. Nothing to write down or sniff.

This isn't new, of course. One Windows encryption scheme uses a permanent 128-
or 256-bit encryption code that's essentially unfactorable (in any reasonable
amount of time). It's used to pass a shorter single-session code that doesn't
slow down the encryption/decryption process too much.


I had no trouble configuring my Linksys router.

Router setup is fairly easy, if you know what the buzzwords mean, can
follow instructions, and understand why one needs wireless security.
The sometimes included setup disk is also handy, but I don't use it.

I used the setup disk, then went back and customized things.

I keep a record of my router settings. As I live by myself, it's not likely
someone will get their hands on it.

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 14:51:24 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 11:16:41 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

"Windows 7 Annoyances" has a good discussion of wireless security.

"Windoze Annoyances" is redundant. Windoze is one big annoyance.

As are Apple's filthy lies about their products, for which the company should
be dragged into court and sued.

Everyone lies, but that's ok because nobody listens.

I have my issues with Apple, few of which have anything to do with the
product. The one that really bugs me is Apple's contention that it is
"green" while it produces intentionally unrepairable and intentionally
obsolescent products. I can take lies, overcharging, and even Made in
China quality, but I don't like hypocrisy.

I prefer an operating system where I can see
what's going on.

I prefer an operating system that works as advertised. I have no
interest in becoming a programmer or hacker simply to use a product.
If Windoze worked as one would expect, then I would have no need to
see what was going on under the covers.

For the author of this book, the principal "annoyance" is that Windows'
default settings are rarely those that give the best user protection, or take
the best advantage of the operating system's features.

Yep. Both MS and Apple seem to believe that user convenience is more
important than security or performance. Apple does a fair job of
anticipating advances in hardware since it controls the hardware used
on Apple products, while MS does it badly. For example, I just had to
increase the size of my icon cache database because I added too many
icons to my new oversized monitor. Such things are slightly worse in
Vista, but better in Windoze 7. Some tweaks, mostly for XP:
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/xp_tweaks.htm

This isn't new, of course. One Windows encryption scheme uses a permanent 128-
or 256-bit encryption code that's essentially unfactorable (in any reasonable
amount of time). It's used to pass a shorter single-session code that doesn't
slow down the encryption/decryption process too much.

I usually get into trouble commenting on security issues, so I'll be
brief. If I can get physical access to a client machine on a wireless
network protected only with a PSK (pre-shared key) encryption key, it
will take me a few seconds to extract the information that I need to
access the wireless network from your computah:
http://www.oxid.it/cain.html
The solution is for wireless router manufacturers to provide RADIUS
services in their products, as I previous ranted. There are several
good reasons why they don't do this, but if you want decent security,
that's what will be required.

I used the setup disk, then went back and customized things.

Good enough. Whatever works. I consider it a sign of weakness for me
to read the documentation. Besides, if the product were any good and
genuinely intuitive, it wouldn't need any documentation.

I recently setup a Linksys E2500 router. I had to read and "approve"
three different repudiation of responsibility web pages before it
would let me manually configure the router. Adding legal documents to
the configuration process does not make it better, easier, or more
secure.

I keep a record of my router settings. As I live by myself, it's not likely
someone will get their hands on it.

The neighbors 17 year old slacker came over to my house and wanted me
to make a color print of one of his class projects. He brought over
the files on a flash drive, which I stupidly plugged into my machine
without first inspecting. I spent part of the evening cleaning out
the virus from my machine. Fortunately, the internet was temporarily
off while I was juggling routers, so my address book didn't escape to
the spammers. It was also the only one of my machines that had
autorun and autoplay enabled. Convenience over security triumphs
again.
http://www.ampercent.com/stop-usb-drive-autorun/2348/



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 01/12/2013 02:40 PM, mike wrote:
On 1/11/2013 4:06 PM, Dave Platt wrote:
In articletpidnes9q9LsBG3NnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@giganews. com,
Texas wrote:

My nearest neighbor lives 1000 feet away, he's old, and sick.
He likes my Android tablet, so, I was thinking about getting
him one, but, he doesn't have Internet. I thought maybe I could
get him Internet that way, where he could watch Netflix and surf
the web without him paying for Internet at $41.11 per month.

1000 feet is gonna be more than you want to deal with.
But more importantly, how far to HIS nearest neighbor.
Maybe it's more feasible for him to steal their netflix and internet.
After the nearest neighbor, the other neighbors are more than
3000 feet away.


For movies, you can load the movies onto a flash card and deliver
it to his tablet.
How would I get the movies downloaded from Netflix to put on
a flash drive to let him watch?


Rather than trying to relay the cable signal via antennas (which would
in effect be creating an unlicensed TV transmitter, and could cause
all sorts of legal and technical grief) you'd be better off setting up
an 802.11 bridge. A 1000-foot link is definitely possible with a gain
antenna on each end, if you have a clear line of sight between the two
houses. That sort of solution would be legal, as long as you
pick 802.11 radio-and-antenna systems which have been properly
certificated. Ubiquiti is one vendor of these sorts of devices.

Your neighbor would have two WiFi devices in his house (one for the
bridge, with a directional antenna, and a second access point or
router indoors with an omni antenna to provide a base for the tablet
and any other device he wants. They would operate on different
channels from one another so as to not interfere. One run of Cat-5
Ethernet cable between them, a bit of setup on each end and you'd be
good to go.

http://wiki.ubnt.com/How_to_bridge_internet_connections

On 01/12/2013 07:20 PM, mike wrote:
On 1/12/2013 4:06 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:40:40 -0800, wrote:

1000 feet is gonna be more than you want to deal with.

I have 5.7GHz links that are 1.0 miles, 1.5 miles, and 3 miles. They
run a mix of Ubiquiti hardware. Zero problems with the link part of
the puzzle. In the past, I used 2.4GHz links, with bit 24dBi barbeque
dish antennas. Add some interference, and it simply didn't work.
5.7Ghz fixed that. 1000ft (1/5th of a mile) is a no brainer.

I submit that "no brainer" for you is way more than he would want
to deal with. Spending $600 to redistribute ethernet service and
netflix service in violation of TOS seems like a lot to deal with.

And, with these threads, there seems to always be a gotcha.
50 posts into the thread the OP volunteers, "There's a huge ass
metal building in the way...does that matter?"


But more importantly, how far to HIS nearest neighbor.
Maybe it's more feasible for him to steal their netflix and internet.

If he can get a wireless or wired bridge running, one of these should
be able to provide the necessary video:
http://www.slingbox.com/go/slingbox-350

I'm just too cheap to comprehend stuff like this.
My wireless bridge is a $1 WRT54G with tomato firmware.
I expect 1000 feet would be a stretch. But I can't see more
than about 200' without running into a forest or a big ass metal pole
building.
There's no obstruction of any kind between the houses.


I administer my neighbor's system. I have many ways to steal his
netflix, with or without his permission...but it puts him at risk
and it's just wrong.

For movies, you can load the movies onto a flash card and deliver
it to his tablet.

I know very few people who a willing to watch an hour or two long
movie on a tablet screen. Large screen LCD TV's are more common.
Plugging the big LCD TV into the iPad or Android tablet via an HDMI
cable works. At that point, might was well get a streaming medial
player from WD, Netgear, Roku, and others, instead, and leave the
tablet for other things.

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 14:51:24 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

I prefer an operating system where I can see
what's going on.

I prefer an operating system that works as advertised. I have no
interest in becoming a programmer or hacker simply to use a product.
If Windoze worked as one would expect, then I would have no need to
see what was going on under the covers.

That isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about operating systems that
keep you from seeing what the computer is actually doing. The best example is
the increasing tendency of Windows to make the hard drive and its contents
"invisible".

mike kom med denne ide:


Personally, I like to tinker a bit.
First thing I do on windows is give myself read/write permission
to everything. For things that won't let me, I take ownership first.


You should still have a "normal" acount and a superuser-account.

when you use the normal account, you will need the superuser-account
password for installing.

Then you have time to think "Hey, why does this website want to install
something to let me access this ... ?"

--
Husk kørelys bagpå, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske
beslutning at undlade det.

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 06:20:18 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 14:51:24 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

I prefer an operating system where I can see
what's going on.

I prefer an operating system that works as advertised. I have no
interest in becoming a programmer or hacker simply to use a product.
If Windoze worked as one would expect, then I would have no need to
see what was going on under the covers.

That isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about operating systems that
keep you from seeing what the computer is actually doing. The best example is
the increasing tendency of Windows to make the hard drive and its contents
"invisible".

Sure. It's called the "Hardware Abstraction Layer" by Microsoft. I
forgot what Apple calls it, but it's part of their policy of "You
don't need to know that". The only time I need to dive that deep into
the system is when something goes awry or I want to trade some speed
for reliability (such as turning on HD write cacheing). As long as
the hardware is working, I don't see any benefit to me or the typical
user of knowing what goes under the covers.

Now, if you mean invisible as in where the OS hides its configuration
files and temporary workspace, yeah I can see a small problem. These
tend to get bloated, corrupted, or undersized. A few days ago, I had
to increase the icon cache database in Windoze because I dumped too
many icons on my desktop. If Windoze (and others) hide some files and
directories from the user, it's usually to protect them from
(accidental) corruption. Not a big problem methinks.

However, if you want to see everything, just download and run
UNHIDE.EXE as in:
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/topic405109.html
It was originally written to help recover from malware that hides file
and directories making the machine unusable. Since there was no way
to know what needed to be unhidden to recover, the program unhides
everything. Have fun, and let me know when you accidentally trash or
edit something important.

Incidentally, I come from a Unix background, where one does as little
as possible as root (superuser). All work is done as an ordinary
user. If a system file needs to be run, edited, erased, or moved, the
user gets a temporary elevation in privledges using the su or sudo
commands. This is not to isolate users, or protect user information.
It's to keep the owner of the machine from accidentally trashing it.
The same philosophy is slowly working its way into Windoze, in the
form of "Run as Administrator". If you can't see every file and every
directory, it's for your own good. I've had the OS catch me before
making a major screwup more times than I care to admit.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

However, if you want to see everything, just download and run
UNHIDE.EXE as in:
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/topic405109.html
It was originally written to help recover from malware that hides file
and directories making the machine unusable. Since there was no way
to know what needed to be unhidden to recover, the program unhides
everything. Have fun, and let me know when you accidentally trash or
edit something important.

Great! Thanks.

I insist on organizing the drives the way //I// wish to. My new machine has a
256GB SSD, plus a 2TB HDD RAID 5 array. I tried to reserve the SSD for the OS
(and related software). I put as much software and data as I could on the HDD.
Fortunately, Microsoft lets you move IE and mail files anywhere you want, so I
moved them to the HDD. Thus, the system isn't constantly writing them to and
erasing them from the "fragile" SSD.


Incidentally, I come from a Unix background, where one does as little
as possible as root (superuser). All work is done as an ordinary
user. If a system file needs to be run, edited, erased, or moved, the
user gets a temporary elevation in privledges using the su or sudo
commands. This is not to isolate users, or protect user information.
It's to keep the owner of the machine from accidentally trashing it.
The same philosophy is slowly working its way into Windoze, in the
form of "Run as Administrator". If you can't see every file and every
directory, it's for your own good. I've had the OS catch me before
making a major screwup more times than I care to admit.

I have no objection to this in Windows, either, as it reduces the chance of
malware installing something nasty. However... there are certain "virtual"
directories I can't look in. I don't like this.