Sign in / up

back to article Research: By 2017, a third of home Wi-Fi routers will power passers-by

Companies are going to be selling a lot more public Wi-Fi plans over the next few years and it's going to be home Wi-Fi users who'll be the backbone of the network, according to analysts from Juniper Research. In a new report (registration necessary), Juniper estimates that one in three home Wi-Fi routers will be used as …

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *
  1. Gene Cash Silver badge

    Non-starter, at least here in the US

    Hm. If you look at population distribution, where most people are tightly clustered in suburbs, why would they do this? There *aren't* any random passers-by, there's just your neighbors.

    So this would mean your neighbor could just leech off your wi-fi, and not need to buy his own. I don't see why this would be encouraged.

    7 0 Reply
    1. Ole Juul
      Reply Icon

      Re: Non-starter, at least here in the US

      My small ISP has it in their TOS to not share because it would break their business model. In fact it would probably break their business. And then there's people like me who will not (repeat: will not) run software which I haven't personally chosen and over which I have no control. Add to that the opportunity for MITM attacks that this opens up and yes, it's a non-starter alright.

      2 4 Reply
      1. Lysenko
        Reply Icon

        Re: Non-starter, at least here in the US

        Depends what sort of "security" you are after. If it is hacking that bothers you then I agree but if you are more concerned with snooping and profiling by spooks and Google etc. then a solid chunk of (effectively) random usage over your connection might provide plausible deniability and skew the stats. That's assuming it surfaces over your usual IP address as NAT of course. Anyone know?

        2 0 Reply
        1. Ben Tasker
          Reply Icon

          Re: Non-starter, at least here in the US

          That's assuming it surfaces over your usual IP address as NAT of course. Anyone know?

          I can't remember exactly which of the two it is (I believe the latter) but the way BT's works is either

          - Goes out over a VPN

          - Goes out with specific DSCP markings to differentiate

          (IIRC it changed from one to the other at one point)

          In either case someone downstream will be able to tell the difference - it certainly gets NAT'd away from your WAN IP before it goes anywhere near the net at large so won't help with snooping by Google either

          0 0 Reply
    2. John Tserkezis
      Reply Icon

      Re: Non-starter, at least here in the US

      No, that's not how it works. Your ISP-supplied WiFi router has a factory-baked option, where it opens a secondary WiFi channel for Customers of said ISP, or any third party companies who paid for that.

      These customers pay for this "go-anywhere WiFi option", and they have some kind of authentication that handled by the cloud through this secondary channel.

      Supposedly, the owner (you) would not be paying for this additional data. However, your bandwidth that's hogged is another story. I'm sure there are some controls on that, but, be that as it may, there's going to be some trouble there one way or another.

      Some are claiming an opt-in or opt-out, but I'm also quite sure someone is going to get screwed too.

      Since this firmware is baked in and you have no choice on how they control it, your only option is to short out the WiFi antennas, and use the ethernet cables to hook up to your own network, and use your own regular WiFi router, this one being entirely within your control.

      16 1 Reply
      1. Ole Juul
        Reply Icon

        Re: Non-starter, at least here in the US

        "No, that's not how it works. Your ISP-supplied WiFi router has a factory-baked option, where it opens a secondary WiFi channel for Customers of said ISP, or any third party companies who paid for that."

        Point well taken. Most people won't suffer from this. I seem to recall some British company was doing it and people complaining were shown to be quite silly about their bandwidth complaints. The only thing which came out of their budget was a portion of the electricity to run the router.

        However, I'm probably not the only one who, in this day and age, refuses to have any kind of black box installed in my house. Trust simply isn't part of the equation any more.

        "Since this firmware is baked in and you have no choice on how they control it, your only option is to short out the WiFi antennas, and use the ethernet cables to hook up to your own network, and use your own regular WiFi router, this one being entirely within your control."

        Sounds like a good idea under the circumstances.

        11 2 Reply
      2. ad47uk
        Reply Icon

        Re: Non-starter, at least here in the US

        BT been doing it for years here, it used to be opt in, now it is opt out bu8t to do so you have to go into your account on their website to disable it as there is no way on the router as far as I can see to disable it.

        thankfully I am not with BT and that the router i use is my own.

        2 0 Reply
      3. JetSetJim
        Reply Icon

        Re: Non-starter, at least here in the US

        >Since this firmware is baked in and you have no choice on how they control it, your only option is to short out the WiFi antennas, and use the ethernet cables to hook up to your own network, and use your own regular WiFi router, this one being entirely within your control.

        I prefer the less effort approach of either (a) not even plugging in the supplied router (perhaps having to ring them up saying "your router has died, can you tell me the credentials/parameters needed for my plain white box to connect to my account", or (b) tinfoil + ethernet cable

        4 0 Reply
    3. 404
      Reply Icon

      Re: Non-starter, at least here in the US

      Does_Not_Matter - Comcast has been rolling out xfinity routers all over East Tennessee - dual purpose for drive-by wireless, all you have to do is log in. Amusingly, I've been reliably informed that not paying your bill doesn't kill the xfinity side of the router.

      ;)

      What a bunch of bastards.

      8 0 Reply
    4. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Non-starter, at least here in the US

      "there's just your neighbors"

      And the homeless people camping out on your street.

      0 3 Reply
  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Apparently we've reached the density needed for a mesh network. Time to ditch the ISPs all together.

    5 2 Reply
  3. Someone Else Silver badge
    Devil

    Here's an idea....

    Shit-can the "free" cable modem/wi-fi router "given" to you by the telco/cable company.

    That lovely little outfit know affectionately as "comcast" has been happily supplying its customers in my area with a handy-dandy l'il combination cablemodem-slash-Wifi kit for "no additional charge" that you plug in and connect to the cable coming into your home. Even if you use your own wi-fi router, the one in the modem is surreptitiously enabled to lower the load on their substandard 4GL network.

    /me was not happy.

    So I simply returned their handy-dandy kit, went to CDW and bought my own cable modem. (Oooooh! Scary!) Connected it to my own Wi-fi router and never looked back. Nor have I had to look over my shoulder for leeches.

    Of course, Comcast may eventually lobby the various regulatory agencies to disallow us to be able to supply our own equipment (after all, it is cheaper to invest in politicians than to invest in infrastructure), But as that day is still some distance away, and until then, the investment in your own equipment will pay for itself (mine has).

    8 2 Reply
    1. Kurt Meyer
      Reply Icon

      Re: Here's an idea....

      @ Someone Else - That IS a fine idea. The benefit should be apparent to anyone capable of simple arithmetic, to say nothing of the issues of privacy and security. As of this writing, your post has two downvotes, which says to me that simple arithmetic is not a universally known skill.

      It may help those arithmetically challenged souls to know that the "free" cable modem/wireless router "given" to customers comes with an $8.00 per month rental fee.

      I've had my own modem ever since I became a Comcast customer, over a dozen years ago. The rental fee for a Comcast-supplied modem has gone from $2.00 per month, to its current $8.00. I have never paid it. I will never pay it.

      A new docsis 3.1 cable modem can be puchased for ~$80-90.00 plus sales tax. It pays for itself in saved rental fees in a year's time. I've saved several hundred dollars over the life of my cable subscription. Not a fortune, but not chump change either.

      5 0 Reply
  4. MrDamage Silver badge

    Not gonna happen in my house

    Until the ISP's pony up and reimburse me for MY electricity that is being used for them to service customers other than myself.

    4 0 Reply
  5. inmypjs Silver badge

    Same story from 3 days ago

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/26/broadband_providers_to_expand_piggybacking_on_private_wifi/

    5 0 Reply
    1. Roland6 Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Same story from 3 days ago

      El Reg are obviously running an exercise to see which writers and headline style we, the readers, engage with more. Alternatively, they are carrying out an assessment to determine who gets to keep their job...

      2 0 Reply
  6. Neoc

    Really...

    And who pays for the extra electricity to push that extra WiFi channel to passers-by?

    Thought so.

    2 2 Reply
    1. Roq D. Kasba
      Reply Icon

      Re: Really...

      You're right, that extra kWh or two a year soon adds up

      5 0 Reply
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Really...

        yeah, cause it's like, 1kW per millenium, man! And then, with the inflation rate it'd break me budget!

        3 1 Reply
    2. Neoc
      Reply Icon

      Re: Really...

      And everyone who down-voted me has a really tiny grasp of the concept of extrapolation.

      *YES*, the router only uses a tiny amount of power. For now. And what about when other companies think that since you're happy to subsidise the Wi-FI industry, why not theirs? How soon before your cable TV company decides to use you to stream their shows around?

      Don't think of the current situation, *DO* think of how greedy companies will try to wedge themselves in to make a buck off your back.

      2 0 Reply
  7. Da Weezil

    Leeches

    Given that many rural/coastal areas of the UK suffer with low speeds anyway, I have helped several people on BT internet disable the "leeching service", data - additional to the account holders - traveling across a long & slow ADSL line has to hamper the account holders own use of the service.

    It really is an abuse of ISP's to do this without express permission - it should be "opt in".

    7 1 Reply
    1. Roland6 Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Leeches

      It really is an abuse of ISP's to do this without express permission

      If you read the BT product particulars you will see they are very clear that Public WiFi access forms part of the package.

      0 0 Reply
      1. Tim Jenkins
        Reply Icon

        Re: Leeches

        I think the deal is that if you opt-out your own router from providing BT Wifi (which you have to do through your BT online account management, rather than on the router as used to be possible), you lose the credentials to use all the other BT homehubs which have their BTWifi SSIDs switched on by default (5 million+, they claim).

        0 0 Reply
        1. Alan Brown Silver badge
          Reply Icon

          Re: Leeches

          Instead of opting out, all you need to do is use your own router.

          2 0 Reply
  8. Pen-y-gors

    Share and share alike

    Whilst I have concerns about how well locked down this would be, I have no problem with the principle - depending on exactly how the scheme works.

    I'm happy to let other customers of BT use a second WiFi link from my router when they're passing, provided I can use their WiFi when I'm passing them. It's a simple and sensible arrangement, bit like lending my ladder to a neighbour who then lends me his chainsaw. Everyone benefits. I like the idea of being able to get free WiFi when I'm out and about, rather than relying on dodgy mobile signals.

    I'm less happy if the WiFi is available to people who aren't in 'the club' - with the ISP charging £5 an hour for people to use my connection. Of course, if 25% of the payment comes to me as a credit on my bill, then I might be less concerned.

    8 2 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Nope

      Haven't you heard? The sharing economy is you lend your neighbour a ladder, and they lend you a chainsaw, then some corporation takes an 80% cut. Also you bought the ladder on hire-purchase from the same corp, especially to lend out to people.

      So nothing like sharing whatsoever.

      5 0 Reply
      1. Roland6 Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: Nope

        The sharing economy is you lend your neighbour a ladder, and they lend you a chainsaw

        And where you return the chainsaw after use because, you don't have much use for it, but the neighbour has many reasons why they can't return the ladder, days, weeks, months go by and you find you need the ladder, only to discover the neighbour has lent it to their mates...

        4 0 Reply
  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The other two thirds...

    ... will be routers owned and installed by the customers to avoid exactly that scenario....

    2 0 Reply
  10. x 7

    whatever BT may claim, in some circumstances the "guest" wifi channel can use up part of the contracted bandwidth

    I had a customer who lived opposite a pub, and each month his whole broadband bandwidth was being used up within a week, with BT charging the overage. Funny how once I disabled the "guest" channel everything became normal again

    BT denied the blame, but the facts don't lie. Also there was an El Reg report a couple of years ago in which BT admitted it could happen

    6 0 Reply
    1. Andy Non Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      How do you disable BT's "guest" channel?

      0 0 Reply
      1. James Hughes 1
        Reply Icon

        I'd like to know that too. I assume it's just a option deep in the router set up somewhere, but to save me time digging......

        0 0 Reply
        1. leexgx
          Reply Icon

          its not a "guest function"

          its not a "guest function" its a hotspot

          https://www.bt.com/btfon

          you can log into that page with your BT email and password (the one that you use to access your billing page normally) and you can opt out of it then but you lose access to all of BT wifi as well

          1 0 Reply
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Wow! They actually enable the guest function on a limited connection!?

      P.s: "Bandwidth" is like watts, a measure of maximum flow rate. Not accumulated usage.

      1 0 Reply
  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    not in my backyard?

    in principle, the rules seem fair. I've taken a look at how Virgin (UK) sell this idea - for now:

    1) it's optional (opt in, or opt out, but optional)

    2) it's on a like-for-like basis, i.e. you share your wifi, you get to use the free wifi across the network

    3) bandwidth NOT taken from yours, but somehow, from the "reserve" in the overall speed (in reality, it probably, somehow, does come from yours, but - for now - it's a reasonably unnoticeable percentage)

    4) totally, absolutely, definitely safe, no hacking possible, ever. Nosir, we're absolutely confident about that.

    Of course, they can be as confident as the bestest and confidentest organizations and business in the world - that have been hacked, but that's what they say, and really, what else would you expect them to say.

    Yet, I would be be prepared to participate, because I like the out of the box thinking, and this is a good example.

    2 1 Reply
    1. Roland6 Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: not in my backyard?

      "3) bandwidth NOT taken from yours, but somehow, from the "reserve" in the overall speed (in reality, it probably, somehow, does come from yours, but - for now - it's a reasonably unnoticeable percentage)"

      This Virgin, not BT et al! Virgin broadband is 'real broadband' in the sense it uses coax cable directly into the Super Hub, which they also own and supply. This configuration permits Virgin to fully utilise the substantial signal carrying capabilities of the cable, namely it's support for concurrent multiple frequency bands; just like terrestrial TV's. So, taking the UK Freeview model where we (currently) have 6 mux's each concurrently delivering 24Mbps over a single coax aerial cable; to deliver a 48Mbps service Virgin only need to allocate: two of the six channels to download, one channel to upload, leaving three spare (remember with Virgin the phone still uses the BT twisted pair hence why I've not mentined it).

      Aside: it is worth noting that data comm's grade coax will support significantly more channels (and higher bit rates/lower noise rates) than standard analogue TV coax (hence why if you are on Freeview, it is worth upgrading the cabling from the back of your TV/PVR/etc.to your aerial to satellite TV grade cable).

      It is this capability to run multiple separate networks over a single cable infrastructure that led to its adoption as the preferred physical carrier for 802.4 and 802.3b. Interestingly, one of the (several) reasons why these implementations failed to take off in the 1980's was because people skilled in CCTV installations, just didn't get data comm's and the data comm's network designers and installers just didn't understand RF and its analogue quirks. It seems with the rise of the Internet and TV going digital a divide has been crossed.

      A similar trick can be performed with fibre optics. However twisted pair, is much more limited in its signalling capacity and hence services such as BT FON will use some of the subscriber's bandwidth. From memory, BT originally capped the BT FON public service at 2Mbps.

      1 0 Reply
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: not in my backyard?

        Looks like your printer needs a new cartridge

        0 0 Reply
  12. Tony Turner

    Unless one absolutely has no choice but to use wireless - turn it off & use hardwired ethernet - try to share that out on the street? I think not. I have all my devices using ethernet, though I also have a WAP (that I control) for the grandkids & guests.

    2 0 Reply
  13. Efros

    Time Warner

    Haven't heard anything about their plans in this area, but knowing those nickel and diming bastards they're probably trying to figure out some way to get this surreptitiously installed and have the consumer pay extra for it.

    2 0 Reply
  14. John Jc

    I am a BT customer in the UK and I have no worries about this. Yes, people can share my bandwidth, when I am travelling I get to do the same. As I spend a lot of time on the road, I use this quite a lot.

    If the router is on 24x7 , I doubt the EXTRA electricity by someone else using it is measurable.

    Jc

    5 0 Reply
    1. James Hughes 1
      Reply Icon

      My concern is that I use all of my bandwidth already, TV streaming, YouTube by the children etc. Anyone else using it causes streaming TV to drop out or lose resolution. We do occasionally get inexplicable bandwidth drops (ie TV quality drops down, even though no-one else in the house is using it), which might be caused by this I suppose. So would prefer this to be off.

      8Mbits connection ADSL btw. SHould I upgrade to fibre? Just been installed in the village.

      2 0 Reply
      1. Roland6 Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: "8Mbits connection ADSL btw. SHould I upgrade to fibre? Just been installed in the village."

        Depends on just how bad your 8Mbps service is. In my village it was and still is, sub-1Mbps. Hence upgrading to 38/80Mbps fibre was a no-brainer, especially as my children were beginning to discover the Internet and Lego movies on YouTube - hence I'm a little surprised you feel the need to ask :)

        However, clarity is needed on what is meant by "just installed". There was a long period (months) between the FTTC cabinets being installed and the engineer doing the fit out, there was then a slightly shorter period (also months) whilst BT completed the exchange end etc. before the cabinet was firstly released to BT Retail and a few weeks later to BT Wholesale. Hence you do need to regularly look at both the BT Retail and Wholesale availability checkers and probably also phone BT and ask about a fibre package and if the cabinet isn't live, they will put a flag on your account and call you back when it is!

        1 0 Reply
  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Err..handovers?

    It starts to get a bit difficult for mobile usage,managing handovers between a pretty random selection of consumer wifi is pretty tricky.

    Router-hosted 4G femotocells could be really useful though.

    Business case is 'cheap as chipsets for a few million customers'. Which is a £lot.

    0 0 Reply
  16. Mark Errington
    Meh

    Free line rental?

    as long as I get my line rental for free since I would not be the exclusive user anymore

    1 1 Reply
  17. Cuddles

    Priority

    The additional electricity costs are close enough to zero to not be worth worrying about (and if you're that worried about it, why would you be leaving your router switched on when not in use?). So the only way this can potentially affect you is if secondary users reduce your own bandwidth. I don't know how this is currently addressed, but it would be incredibly easy to simply ensure that the home user gets priority, and any secondary users can only use whatever spare bandwidth is left over.

    2 1 Reply
    1. BitDr
      Reply Icon

      Electricity costs....

      That the Electricity costs MIGHT be close to zero is not the point. The point is that a third party is using a resource which is not theirs (your electrical service) and for which they do not pay.

      I did a bit of number crunching. The output of the power supply for the my device is 12V @ 1.0 Amps so that's 12 Watts which is 288 Watts per day if it is on for 24Hrs. Although the device if used by me alone might not draw that much it might come close if it is having to reach out longer distances and serving more people. Lets use 10 Watts as the power consumed, so 240 Watts per day.

      If we use 30.42 as the average number of days in a month then each month sees 7.3008 KW being used by the device. The actual cost of electricity here is equivalent to $0.2221 (yes our utility does carry charges per kWh out to four decimal places), so the monthly operating cost of the device is equivalent to $1.62.

      Not a large sum of money, but is is added to your electrical bill and by extension your overall cost of living. If only you are using the service then that would be fair (you use it you pay for it), but the ISP is using you to extend their infrastructure at zero cost to them, which is somewhat less than fair, and IMHO not exactly ethical, but certainly a profitable.

      1 1 Reply
      1. Cuddles
        Reply Icon

        Re: Electricity costs....

        Ignoring the beauty of your "Watts per day" units, the problem comes from this part:

        "Not a large sum of money, but is is added to your electrical bill and by extension your overall cost of living."

        No it isn't. You've calculated the total cost of having your router used 24/7, not the additional cost caused by other people using your wi-fi. The idle load accounts for a decent fraction of that, your own use also makes up a reasonable fraction, and there will be plenty of dead time during work hours and the small hours when no-one will be using it. Idle use would be maybe 10% (I suspect actually more), call it 2 hours for your own use and a conservative 12 hours when no-one else will be touching it (again I suspect it would be far more than that in reality). That would give you more like $0.60 monthly cost of other people, and that's still a massive over-estimate that assumes people are continuously camping outside your house to leech off your internet for 10 hours a day. Unless you live in a crowded block of flats with lots of horrible neighbours, there's basically no chance of that happening. In a realistic situation, you'll even those 4 decimal places aren't going to be enough to measure the cost of the occasional person making use of it while they happen to be walking past your house. The idea of a long range connection serving tons of people is particularly silly given that most people struggle to get a decent signal through their whole house.

        0 0 Reply
  18. Jamie Kitson

    "while someone else profits from it"

    Surely in a competitive marketplace any profit from the sale of wifi access will be offset against the cost of the internet to the consumer. Presumably if it becomes an issue ISPs will start saying you can pay more and not share or pay less and share, and presumably in our modern society's race to the bottom and preference of cheapness and convenience over anything else, most people will choose to the pay less and share option.

    0 0 Reply
  19. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

    power?

    a third of home Wi-Fi routers will power passers-by

    People moving past my house will be powered by Wi-Fi? How strong is that signal?

    Or is this the contemporary idiotic use of "power" to mean "be used by, but in no way power"?

    No need for Reg scribes to abuse a technical term just because the marketing monkeys at Intel and elsewhere decide to do so. While we can't control how others use the language, we can exercise some judgement over our own employment of it.

    0 0 Reply
  20. Orwell44

    The benefit of opting in (or staying in) the BT scheme is that you can use other people's BT hot-spots for free when out and about. They are low-bandwidth - suitable for Email - not much else.

    0 0 Reply
  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    a little tip:

    You can keep the bt fon function enabled but use your own router so you get access to the fon network but dont share your bandwidth (third party routers are not supported by bt fon) its sneaky to do it this way as you are not contributing to the fon network but it's an option and bt can not detect people using fon but not supplying the service through their router.

    0 0 Reply
    1. x 7
      Reply Icon

      Re: a little tip:

      "and bt can not detect people using fon but not supplying the service through their router"

      are you sure about that? BT regularly update the firmware of the homehubs remotely, suggesting they have a very good idea of who is using one of "their" routers, and who isn't. The line diagnostics should tell them as well, as that also interrogates the homehub

      0 0 Reply

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like