2 ms·

Are the ISPs actually okay with this? Ideally Amazon would check who your ISP is and then check if the ISP will allow this type of usage, before just enabling i

Are the ISPs actually okay with this? Ideally Amazon would check who your ISP is and then check if the ISP will allow this type of usage, before just enabling it. If properly protected I don't see the issue, but it really needs to be opt in. The main issue from my point of view is that companies like Amazon automatically assume that a customer is okay with this, without knowing anything about pricing, security requirement and stability of the customers internet connection.

Tepix 6y ago
How is this different from having a wifi access point?
- fogihujy 6y ago
  I can imagine there's more than one ISP who'd have something to say about open wifi networks.
signal11 6y ago
BT, the UK’s largest ISP, has this feature (Wi-fi sharing on a separate network) built into the routers or “hubs” it supplies, and on by default. The benefit for people is that they can get Wi-fi in many places — free for BT customers, and a small fee for others. Note that anonymous access isn’t allowed. Look for “hub hotspots” here: https://www.btwifi.com/find/ https://www.btwifi.com/find/ For other ISPs who don’t offer something like this, I don’t think they can stop their customers, the main question around customers offering free Wi-fi to others would focus around liability, I think. Who’s responsible if people do naughty things using your Wi-fi? And will Amazon’s solution help identify a potential bad actor?
- 45ure 6y ago
  >The benefit for people is that they can get Wi-fi in many places — free for BT customers, and a small fee for others. I subscribed to a BT Openreach broadband product, a few years ago, in personal capacity. The service you are describing is called BT WiFi, after being rebranded. For residential customers, it is enabled by default i.e. an opt-out feature, as you have noted. Once you manage to find a way to disable it, you lose the 'benefits'. I found the feature to be extremely disconcerting, especially relating to a pattern of random parked vehicles and people loitering around residential premises at various times of the day, essentially to leech bandwidth off my connection. It would seem that the ISP supplied router (HH6) was designed to create a splintered guest/public WiFi over a VPN. Although the matter of anonymity and liability was of great concern. However, I did not pursue it any further, due to numerous red flags, relating to degradation in QoS and security; latency, contention, poor signal, connection logs with dubious entries etc. It felt prudent to cut loose, rather than justify any perceived benefits. To stay on the point, I am not sure if the Sidewalk branding will travel well long-term, might as well drop the facade and call it: Amazon Shodan. https://fon.com/bt-wifi-with-fon-rebranding/ https://fon.com/bt-wifi-with-fon-rebranding/
throwaway3699 6y ago
On the other hand, putting more a ton of pressure on the ancient broadband infrastructure is great. It's one of the few forcing functions we have to push ISPs into actually improving their service.

Tepix 6y ago

How is this different from having a wifi access point?

fogihujy 6y ago
I can imagine there's more than one ISP who'd have something to say about open wifi networks.

signal11 6y ago

BT, the UK’s largest ISP, has this feature (Wi-fi sharing on a separate network) built into the routers or “hubs” it supplies, and on by default. The benefit for people is that they can get Wi-fi in many places — free for BT customers, and a small fee for others. Note that anonymous access isn’t allowed. Look for “hub hotspots” here: https://www.btwifi.com/find/ https://www.btwifi.com/find/ For other ISPs who don’t offer something like this, I don’t think they can stop their customers, the main question around customers offering free Wi-fi to others would focus around liability, I think. Who’s responsible if people do naughty things using your Wi-fi? And will Amazon’s solution help identify a potential bad actor?

45ure 6y ago
>The benefit for people is that they can get Wi-fi in many places — free for BT customers, and a small fee for others. I subscribed to a BT Openreach broadband product, a few years ago, in personal capacity. The service you are describing is called BT WiFi, after being rebranded. For residential customers, it is enabled by default i.e. an opt-out feature, as you have noted. Once you manage to find a way to disable it, you lose the 'benefits'. I found the feature to be extremely disconcerting, especially relating to a pattern of random parked vehicles and people loitering around residential premises at various times of the day, essentially to leech bandwidth off my connection. It would seem that the ISP supplied router (HH6) was designed to create a splintered guest/public WiFi over a VPN. Although the matter of anonymity and liability was of great concern. However, I did not pursue it any further, due to numerous red flags, relating to degradation in QoS and security; latency, contention, poor signal, connection logs with dubious entries etc. It felt prudent to cut loose, rather than justify any perceived benefits. To stay on the point, I am not sure if the Sidewalk branding will travel well long-term, might as well drop the facade and call it: Amazon Shodan. https://fon.com/bt-wifi-with-fon-rebranding/ https://fon.com/bt-wifi-with-fon-rebranding/

throwaway3699 6y ago

On the other hand, putting more a ton of pressure on the ancient broadband infrastructure is great. It's one of the few forcing functions we have to push ISPs into actually improving their service.