Mozilla: "MILLIONS OF DOWNLOADS!!! EVERYONE LOVES FIREFOX!!!!"
Google: "CHROME DOWNLOADS ARE SKYROCKETING!! CHROME IS KICKING THE * OUT OF ALL THE BROWSERS"
One week later....
Opera: Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh No one's using Opera, and it's Microsoft's fault.
Google & Mozilla: YEAH!!! Because of IE being bundled NO ONE ON EARTH KNOWS ABOUT OTHER BROWSERS.
Helps a ton that this client might change parts of only five to ten files a day too. The differentials will probably be a barely noticeable blip. It's great that nowadays a small business can insure the safety of their data at a level that was recently only affordable to bigger companies with IT departments.
We went with the Crashplan Pro and chose the unlimited plan, pretty much the best pricing for a single SBS server small business --- what I was confused by earlier was their "choose the best plan" selection wizard becomes stupid apparently if you specify a quantity of "1" computer. So you get an outrageous comparison of "Should I pay $35/mo for 100GB or $7/mo for unlimited? Gee."
It was not until I realized that they really don't intend for you to ever put the number "1" in that text box that it made sense as the prices make more sense when you specify multiple computers.
As far as speed of initial upload goes, I was pretty much assuming it would take a month for this client's data, but I hadn't realized at the time she upgraded her Internet to a 25Mbps upload so her 700GB of data is only going to take a few days with the amount of BW I allocated to Crashplan. That's cool as hell.
I've been trying to find an online backup solution that's affordable for a really small business that happens to have a server. Unfortunately, most are either woefully inadequate (250GB is nothing. Some really small businesses have big files), or if they have a reasonably priced plan at about 2TB or unlimited, their client software will only install on a workstation class PC and not the SBS box where the files are, even though it's advertised as a business plan.
The only one that seems reasonable is CrashplanPro for small business, but I'm really worried about the page where you select your plan ... what it basically boils down to is "Pay $7.49/month for unlimited, or pay thousands a month if you choose a capacity." Huh?
I think the only online backup I'm going to be doing is telling my client to get a PC at her house with enough space and just run the CrashPlan software peer to peer, and it'll only cost the hardware and Windows 7 license.
I actually inadvertently misrepresented what I pay for my high speed Internet at home. The line item on my bill for my 15/5 FiOS Internet is $30.
$130 came out of my fingers because my brain was thinking about the whole package that includes my TV and phone.
Yes, because a Wifi router broadcasting an unencrypted wireless signal with access to the Internet is exactly the same thing as leaving your front door unlocked. When the thread topic is about whether it's okay to enter an unlocked house, your point might have a place.
We get it. You're cheap and don't want to pay for your own connectivity.
I have no problem paying for my own connectivity, and I think it's a bit rude for you to make assumptions like that without any basis. I pay $130/month for high speed Internet access at my home just like everyone else and I pay $60/month for a phone that includes unlimited texts, voice, and data with the hotspot feature. I always have my own Internet access for every device in my bag, regardless of where I am.
I'm simply answering the question the thread brought up. Newsflash: one can have an opinion which finds no problem with using an open wifi router, yet still decide to pay for their own Internet access with their own money. One has nothing to do with the other.
edit: rewrote a little of the last two paragraphs for the slow people.
Another way to phrase my opinion is pretty much this:
Wifi access points have two modes: One for the specific purpose of limiting access to people who are allowed to use it, and one for the specific purpose of announcing to the world "here's some Internet for you."
The fact that router vendors don't communicate this correctly to their customers or that they are configured wrong is, as the person sitting in the car using it across the street, not my fracking problem.
Yes, I could be charged with a crime for doing it in some states, I might have a lawyer that can't get a not guilty verdict, I might be fined, I might be jailed, or whatever. If it's the law, so be it. As to the moral question, however, I'm not having any problems sleeping at night over using an open wifi without scouting the neighborhood for a piece of paper taped on someone's door.
Except that I'm pretty damn certain that 99% of unsecured networks are that way because that's the default configuration of the router and the person who set it up didn't know any better. That's even more likely if they're using the router's default SSID.
These people didn't deliberately configure their router to let anyone connect. The problem is that these people didn't really configure their router at all.
Fair enough point and I'll also concede that the owners of the routers generally aren't given enough information by the router manufacturer to make an informed decision as to how to configure their router as well as having insecure defaults.
Fortunately, ISPs, at least with the wireless devices they provide, have for the most part moved toward installation with secure defaults, which unambiguously declare the intent, at least of those ISPs, that the Wifi is not available to public use, forcing the customer to take affirmative steps to make it available to the public, declaring his intention. With customer supplied routers, it sucks that the out of box defaults on those may or may not be secure, so the owner's intent is ambiguous. I think any wifi access point/wifi router sold in the US should be required to default to a secure setup.
I'm working from the point of view of one overriding truth: In a WiFi environment, where the signal can pass through walls, propagate in any direction, be repeated, and requires specialized equipment to determine the source, the only effective way to determine the identity of the signal's source and that identity's intent is by examining the signal itself. That signal provides us with a network name and what type of security it has -- in my opinion a one to one mapping to source identity and that identity's intent.
I don't know which structure, if there even is one associated with a particular hotspot, that I should be looking for a sign on.