4 ms·

Yes, I have wanted to build something like that for Android, mainly to keep my phone from getting confused when it's connected to someone's wifi that demands so

by jerrya 15y ago

Yes, I have wanted to build something like that for Android, mainly to keep my phone from getting confused when it's connected to someone's wifi that demands some check box be checked off for service. It would periodically awaken, see if the wifi is connected, if it is is there connectivity, if there is, go back to sleep, if there is not, turn the wifi off. I've also wanted to build for Android the same piece of code, but if for 2 or 5 urls it gets back the same page with a checkbox, it checks off the box and sends it back off. But I am curious, do all those wifi dns terms and agreements hijacking pages break any sort of RFC? And is there any solution in ip6? Or is there a real fix possible in ip4?

ephemient 15y ago
I'm not sure if you can access its state programmatically, but Android already does detection: the WiFi status icon is green if the system can make a connection to Google's servers, and grey otherwise. IPv[46] have nothing to do with it. "Captive portal" pages are meant to prevent you from getting to the larger Internet, until you do whatever magic is required to dismiss them.
- jerrya 15y ago
  "the WiFi status icon is green if the system can make a connection to Google's servers, and grey otherwise." That's interesting. How does it detect it's at Google's servers? I've often had occasions on my non-rooted, gingerbread, nexus one, where the phone believes it is on the net, on wifi, and shunts all activity to wifi, and yet, it's really stuck on one of those captive portal pages. It even happens if I am just driving down the road. I had thought that perhaps a small bit of technology would fix that, perhaps by turning the wifi off, or by automatically checking in on starbuck's router, but I am beginning to see I may just have a sick-making sense of entitlement. Without being terribly cognizant of the RFCs I am surprised these portal captures are within spec.
  - Duff 15y ago
    I'm not sure about your case, but the free wifi provider my city lets you visit Google without clicking through their portal.
dsl 15y ago
To answer all of your questions: Don't use someone else's wifi if you don't like how it behaves. Your sense of entitlement makes me sick.
- jerrya 15y ago
  Can you expand on that? How is my wanting to either turn my wifi off, or automatically checking a terms and conditions box at a starbucks, or library, or school, or courtroom, or hospital router demonstrating a sick making sense of entitlement? I would think many people would want such behavior from their phones, but I can see that you and whomeever voted my original question down are genuinely disturbed I would want this.
  - kelnos 15y ago
    I think the point the parent is trying to make is that when you're using someone else's wifi network, it's their network, and they get to determine under what terms you're allowed to access it. If that means logging in, or viewing a page where you're required to explicitly agree to terms, that's the network operator's prerogative. Annoying? Sure, a little. A "violation of spec" or something to get overly pissed about? Eh, there are far bigger fish to fry.
    - shinratdr 15y ago
      > or something to get overly pissed about? Eh, there are far bigger fish to fry. It's easy to say that when it isn't your responsibility to deal with rightfully frustrated & confused end users that simply want to be able to use this WiFi network like they use every other WiFi network. Connect and forget. I also have a never-ending hate for WiFi networks that use portals as they break tons of functionality and always have caveats & problems like the ones parent described. The worst part? Acting very arrogant about it is the standard IT response, and it blatantly and demonstrably decreases security. Users keep splitters, ethernet cables & routers in their offices, in their laptop bags and around the building. So go ahead, take this attitude towards the end users of your network. Just don't be surprised if the next IT crisis is caused by someone who "just didn't want to deal with the WiFi hassle".
telcodud 15y ago
Check out this open source application sbautologin (link: http://code.google.com/p/sbautologin/ http://code.google.com/p/sbautologin/) that automatically logs into Starbucks (AT&T really) WiFi.
- jerrya 15y ago
  Thank you!

by jerrya 15y ago

ephemient 15y ago

I'm not sure if you can access its state programmatically, but Android already does detection: the WiFi status icon is green if the system can make a connection to Google's servers, and grey otherwise. IPv[46] have nothing to do with it. "Captive portal" pages are meant to prevent you from getting to the larger Internet, until you do whatever magic is required to dismiss them.

jerrya 15y ago
"the WiFi status icon is green if the system can make a connection to Google's servers, and grey otherwise." That's interesting. How does it detect it's at Google's servers? I've often had occasions on my non-rooted, gingerbread, nexus one, where the phone believes it is on the net, on wifi, and shunts all activity to wifi, and yet, it's really stuck on one of those captive portal pages. It even happens if I am just driving down the road. I had thought that perhaps a small bit of technology would fix that, perhaps by turning the wifi off, or by automatically checking in on starbuck's router, but I am beginning to see I may just have a sick-making sense of entitlement. Without being terribly cognizant of the RFCs I am surprised these portal captures are within spec.
- Duff 15y ago
  I'm not sure about your case, but the free wifi provider my city lets you visit Google without clicking through their portal.

dsl 15y ago

To answer all of your questions: Don't use someone else's wifi if you don't like how it behaves. Your sense of entitlement makes me sick.

jerrya 15y ago
Can you expand on that? How is my wanting to either turn my wifi off, or automatically checking a terms and conditions box at a starbucks, or library, or school, or courtroom, or hospital router demonstrating a sick making sense of entitlement? I would think many people would want such behavior from their phones, but I can see that you and whomeever voted my original question down are genuinely disturbed I would want this.
- kelnos 15y ago
  I think the point the parent is trying to make is that when you're using someone else's wifi network, it's their network, and they get to determine under what terms you're allowed to access it. If that means logging in, or viewing a page where you're required to explicitly agree to terms, that's the network operator's prerogative. Annoying? Sure, a little. A "violation of spec" or something to get overly pissed about? Eh, there are far bigger fish to fry.
  - shinratdr 15y ago
    > or something to get overly pissed about? Eh, there are far bigger fish to fry. It's easy to say that when it isn't your responsibility to deal with rightfully frustrated & confused end users that simply want to be able to use this WiFi network like they use every other WiFi network. Connect and forget. I also have a never-ending hate for WiFi networks that use portals as they break tons of functionality and always have caveats & problems like the ones parent described. The worst part? Acting very arrogant about it is the standard IT response, and it blatantly and demonstrably decreases security. Users keep splitters, ethernet cables & routers in their offices, in their laptop bags and around the building. So go ahead, take this attitude towards the end users of your network. Just don't be surprised if the next IT crisis is caused by someone who "just didn't want to deal with the WiFi hassle".

telcodud 15y ago

Check out this open source application sbautologin (link: http://code.google.com/p/sbautologin/ http://code.google.com/p/sbautologin/) that automatically logs into Starbucks (AT&T really) WiFi.

jerrya 15y ago
Thank you!