USA Has More Open Wi-Fi Hotspots Than EU 274
Mark.JUK writes "Some 40% of wireless (Wi-Fi) Internet access hotspots in the USA are unlocked and do not require a security password, which compares with 25% in Europe; according to WeFi based statistics. Across the world, approximately 30% of recorded Wi-Fi access points are unlocked, while some 70% are locked. Nice to see everybody taking security so seriously, then. It should be perfectly possible to 'share' Wi-Fi while using WPA or WPA2 security measures at the same time."
Truly Open? (Score:4, Interesting)
No wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
because, at least in Germany, you are then liable for everything that is transfered over that hotspot. If someone downloads CP or warez you are fucked.
Re:This isn't a bad thing. (Score:5, Interesting)
I got one of these netgear ones [cnet.com] recently and it works great.
I can set up different access through it...and even click to allow guests, etc.
I have some old computers that just can't get anything stronger than WEP to run on them (an old iBook for instance), so I set up a WEP connection for them, which the router blocks off from direct interaction with any other computer on my system...everything else is WPA2.
There are wireless routers out there that do some neat things, but you gotta be willing to spend more than $20.
And Many wifi open hotspots are secure. (Score:2, Interesting)
I have 2 customers that have 100% open Wifi access points that are secure. Why? you have to be trespassing even with a dish and bi-quad antenna to connect to them. and if you are trespassing, the dogs are eating your butt. Plus we used RF control devices (copper screen) to eliminate signal from going to the direction that would even possibly allow access from outside the estate. (2100 feet is the closest point and still filled with trees, shrubbery that all suck up wifi like sponges)
My home has an Open accesspoint, you have to be inside the house or on the roof to get access. I have aluminum siding and aluminum screens that are grounded. Even my WiSpy pro cant detect the signals from inside the house when I am 5 feet from the front door.
control your RF and you will be more secure.
Re:This isn't a bad thing. (Score:3, Interesting)
By "properly" I mean segregation between the internal LAN, on a secured wireless link, and the open guest wireless; along with QoS prioritization of all internet traffic from the internal LAN above all internet traffic from the open wireless. I have no problem with offering my unused bandwidth in a neighborly spirit; but I don't want my wireless traffic to be unencrypted, I don't want to deal with malicious agents on my LAN, and, when I go to use my bandwidth, I want to have priority over any guest users. This is not a hard problem, technologically; but it isn't something that Joe User could set up without it being largely out-of-box default.
Re:This isn't a bad thing. (Score:4, Interesting)
An alternative to completely open. (Score:5, Interesting)
I moved to France last year and was pleasantly surprised at the ISPs attitudes towards sharing wifi.
My provider, Free.fr, by default enables guest access on my router. However, it's not completely open.
In order to access the connect, you must enter your account details (login and password), and then you are given access to a limited connection.
Should you not want to share your connection with other people, you can easily disable this feature; but doing so also disables your account from being able to access roaming wifi.
I really love that the community sharing feature is enabled by default.
As long as I'm willing to share my connection with other subscribers, then I get access to their bandwidth when I'm away from home. And, as one of the larger providers in the area, this means I have access from just about anywhere I go.
Re:This isn't a bad thing. (Score:3, Interesting)
When I was in Frankfurt last year, i found a nice cafe near our Pension/hotel.. it was basic WEP keyed, but it was the sorta combination some idiot would use on their luggage [youtube.com].
[ unfortunately, I can't see any YouTube iwth the full combination 'skit' in FMV, so here's the audio clip with someones art [youtube.com] ]
Anyway.. point being, just because it's "not open" doesn't mean it's "secure". They 'secured' thier Wifi as a point of precaution, but all I had to do was ask for the key and I got it in two different languages, and they were very helpful.. nor did they rotate the key out or anything during the few days I was there. True, I was a paying customer (indiciently, best non-hands-eating burrito I've ever had was in FFM? go figure..), so they wanted to be helped.
If you're legitimately trying to prevent access, putting a weak WEP password on your AP is almost worse then leaving it open because it generates a false sense of security for your network. Now if you had a low-timer rotating WPA-PSK key, MAC filtered, and didn't advert SSID, then that's a reasonable amount of security (but still not full proof, but the amount of effort goes up to breach it).
On purpose? (Score:2, Interesting)
I take security very seriously but have purposely left my wi-fi accessible to whoever would want to use it. Instead of password protecting the wireless link, I made sure that the access point was secure and isolated from the rest of my network. Want some free wi-fi? Come and use mine for free!
security? (Score:3, Interesting)
Nice to see everybody taking security so seriously then
Why must you assume it's a "security" thing? Isn't it possible that some of us *want* to share our Internet access? This is the same attitude that people only use P2P for piracy. It's only mostly true.
Law of reverse service (Score:4, Interesting)
User from Denmark ( EU) here.
I admire the amout of (deliberately) open wifi hotspots in USA. A couple of friends traveled around the States last year and found free wifi services everywhere - except Las Vegas.
This seem to be an interesting phenomenon. At first it might seem reasonable: wherever you are expected to pay for services you are also expected to pay for Internet access.
However, this leads to some curious cases. I have experienced hotels in Denmark, England and Spain that charge for internet access. But on the other hand it is not uncommon for hostels (that are cheaper and where one would expect a lesser degree of service) to have free wifi.
The economic background is interesting. The cost of putting up a hotspot is pretty low, especially at simple hostels that probably already have internet access and wifi for the employees. But the expenses of putting up a payment solution and handling support is high.
This leads to an interesting paradox: It is the payment solution that might not be feasible at "cheap" places such as hostels; not the Internet connection by itself. The result is that since it is not worthwhile putting up a payment solution the Internet access is simply free!
In some places this leads to even more interesting results:
The suburban railway service in Copenhagen has free wifi on the the trains. These trips are usually short, hence the payment process might itself take too long to be convenient.
However the inter-city trains where travel times are usually about 1½-4 hours there is a wifi payment solution. At first it might make sense but as it is charged per minute any delays underway would lead to a larger travel time and therefore a higher total cost.
Free Internet access could partially make up for a bad travel experience with delays (one would be able to still work online, pass time by casual surf, chat and so on or update successive travel arrangements). Instead passengers are simply punished further economically when the travel is delayed underway.
Re:This isn't a bad thing. (Score:3, Interesting)
Well actually the main reason I disable SSID is to prevent curious neighbors from even seeing it.. they might be inclined to ask me 'hey I see you have Wireless.. can I use it?'.
I agree that it's very easy to spoof a MAC and to sniff out a non-advertised SSIDs, and that a rotating-key WPA is the best and just a good WPA policy will keep your network secure, but I also want to 'hide' it from nosy, but not technically savvy, neighbors.