Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Piggybacking --technical and ethical questions

Last response: in Wireless Networking
Share
June 16, 2004 5:33:24 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

I live in a large apartment building. I have a PC laptop with a
wireless card. Some weeks ago, I noticed that I was connected to the
Internet via wireless signals I was picking up from one or more
neighbors. So I then had an Airport card (not Extreme) installed in
our iMac, but it doesn't work. The little radar-looking icon shows a
signal and when you click it, it shows "Verizon Wi-Fi," but the
computer will not connect to the Internet. Clicking on the Airport
icons in Utilities, I got a message that the utility had "unexpectedly
quit."

1. What are the ethics of piggybacking? Should I try to find out
whose signal I'm getting? If so, how? And what if, as I suspect, I am
getting signals from more than one neighbor?

2. Why doesn't the Airport card work? How can I get it to work?
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 17, 2004 2:27:43 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

In article <6fc27add.0406161233.68dee985@posting.google.com>,
jl2109@yahoo.com (Jay) wrote:

> I live in a large apartment building. I have a PC laptop with a
> wireless card. Some weeks ago, I noticed that I was connected to the
> Internet via wireless signals I was picking up from one or more
> neighbors. So I then had an Airport card (not Extreme) installed in
> our iMac, but it doesn't work. The little radar-looking icon shows a
> signal and when you click it, it shows "Verizon Wi-Fi," but the
> computer will not connect to the Internet. Clicking on the Airport
> icons in Utilities, I got a message that the utility had "unexpectedly
> quit."
>
> 1. What are the ethics of piggybacking? Should I try to find out
> whose signal I'm getting? If so, how? And what if, as I suspect, I am
> getting signals from more than one neighbor?

technically, the ISP has not granted you or your neighbor permission to
share their connection with you. At the very minimum you should get
permission from your neighbor.

A utility such as MacStumbler or APGrapher or KisMac
(http://versiontracker.com/macosx) if you had a Mac laptop. I would
suggest you find the equivalent type of signal strength program for your
PC and then use it to find your neighbor's door with the strongest
signal and knock. Assuming you have nice neighbors :-)

> 2. Why doesn't the Airport card work? How can I get it to work?

Get MacStumbler mentioned above. It gives a little additional
information about the WiFi access point. Not much, but there is always
a chance it will give a clue.

If you pull down the Airport signal strength menu item, you can use it
to open the "Internet Connect" utility (Applications -> Internet
Connect). Try to make an Airport connection using Internet Connect. It
might show you more information. If the connection fails, maybe it will
give your more information to work with.

Bob Harris
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 17, 2004 6:13:46 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

"Jay" <jl2109@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6fc27add.0406161233.68dee985@posting.google.com...
> I live in a large apartment building. I have a PC laptop with a
> wireless card. Some weeks ago, I noticed that I was connected to the
> Internet via wireless signals I was picking up from one or more
> neighbors. So I then had an Airport card (not Extreme) installed in
> our iMac, but it doesn't work. The little radar-looking icon shows a
> signal and when you click it, it shows "Verizon Wi-Fi," but the
> computer will not connect to the Internet. Clicking on the Airport
> icons in Utilities, I got a message that the utility had "unexpectedly
> quit."
>
> 1. What are the ethics of piggybacking? Should I try to find out
> whose signal I'm getting? If so, how? And what if, as I suspect, I am
> getting signals from more than one neighbor?
>

If you need to ask about the ethics, then you are not interested in the
answer.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 17, 2004 6:32:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Entity Jay spoke thus:

> 1. What are the ethics of piggybacking?

I have an open access point in a dense neighborhood. I don't care who uses
the service as long as it's used not abused.


-- Gnarlie
http://www.Gnarlodious.com/
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 17, 2004 8:54:44 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Gnarlodious <gnarlodiousNULL@VOID.invalid.yahoo.com> wrote in
news:BCF65ECB.4D9E1%gnarlodiousNULL@VOID.invalid.yahoo.com:

> Entity Jay spoke thus:
>
>> 1. What are the ethics of piggybacking?
>
> I have an open access point in a dense neighborhood. I don't care who
> uses the service as long as it's used not abused.


Does Earthlink allow you to run an open AP off your connection? I wish my
ISP would let me do that.


--
Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 17, 2004 8:54:45 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

In article <BCF68B91.4D9C4%gnarlodiousNULL@VOID.invalid.yahoo.com>,
Gnarlodious <gnarlodiousNULL@VOID.invalid.yahoo.com> wrote:

> > I wish my ISP would let me do that.
> How are they going to know?

same way rental car companies know if you drove the car out of state or
it is driven by someone not listed on the contract. unless something
goes wrong (and there is no gps tracker installed), they won't know.

same with an isp - if usage patterns are 'normal' and nothing bad
happens, they won't know and likely not care.

however, if someone uses your account for illicit purposes or bandwidth
demands are significantly higher than normal then they might notice.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 17, 2004 10:43:15 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Lucas Tam <REMOVEnntp@rogers.com> wrote:

> Does Earthlink allow you to run an open AP off your connection?

"You and members of your household or business, if you have purchased a
business account, are the only authorized users of your EarthLink
account and must comply with this Agreement."
<http://www.earthlink.net/about/policies/dial/&gt;
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 17, 2004 11:55:59 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Jay <jl2109@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 1. What are the ethics of piggybacking?

You're getting commercial service without paying for it. What do you
suppose the ethics of that are?

--
Mike Rosenberg
<http://www.macconsult.com&gt; Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida
<http://bogart-tribute.net&gt; Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
Toyota Prius fans: Check out alt.autos.toyota.prius
June 17, 2004 9:43:47 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid (Mike Rosenberg) wrote in
news:1gfilcr.1bqmjwx481a2yN%mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid:

> Jay <jl2109@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. What are the ethics of piggybacking?
>
> You're getting commercial service without paying for it. What do you
> suppose the ethics of that are?

That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that he's merely accessing
the airwaves above his own property. This is why there are no clear laws
regarding the matter. Yet. Electric companies got it arranged so you
can't have a big copper coil taking electricity from the wires
above/nearby...but then again that could be considered an 'easement'. I
doubt one could get an easement for a radio signal.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 17, 2004 11:03:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Howard <stile99@email.com.> wrote:

> That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that he's merely
> accessing the airwaves above his own property.

True, but looking at it from the ISP's vantage point, they're selling
their service to one household, and that household is then broadcasting
it.

--
Mike Rosenberg
<http://www.macconsult.com&gt; Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida
<http://bogart-tribute.net&gt; Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
Toyota Prius fans: Check out alt.autos.toyota.prius
June 18, 2004 9:50:16 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid (Mike Rosenberg) wrote in
news:1gfjgtn.1x2ma0t1mnwk7mN%mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid:

> Howard <stile99@email.com.> wrote:
>
>> That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that he's merely
>> accessing the airwaves above his own property.
>
> True, but looking at it from the ISP's vantage point, they're selling
> their service to one household, and that household is then broadcasting
> it.

However, at that point it becomes an issue between the ISP and the customer
who is broadcasting it unsecurely. The ISP would have far far more luck
pursuing the customer than the neighbor.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 18, 2004 12:19:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

In article <Xns950C887D6EB8stile@129.250.170.82>,
Howard <stile99@email.com.> wrote:

> mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid (Mike Rosenberg) wrote in
> news:1gfjgtn.1x2ma0t1mnwk7mN%mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid:
>
> > Howard <stile99@email.com.> wrote:
> >
> >> That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that he's merely
> >> accessing the airwaves above his own property.
> >
> > True, but looking at it from the ISP's vantage point, they're selling
> > their service to one household, and that household is then broadcasting
> > it.
>
> However, at that point it becomes an issue between the ISP and the customer
> who is broadcasting it unsecurely. The ISP would have far far more luck
> pursuing the customer than the neighbor.

I wonder if this might be treated by the law analogously to a neighbor
making an illegal cable TV hookup, by splicing into the neighbor's cable
without them knowing about it. Most cable modem TOS's say that you
can't redistribute the service to others, but do they say that you have
to take measures to *prevent* others from using the service without your
knowledge or consent?

--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 18, 2004 12:19:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Howard <stile99@email.com.> wrote:

> However, at that point it becomes an issue between the ISP and the
> customer who is broadcasting it unsecurely. The ISP would have far far
> more luck pursuing the customer than the neighbor.

That's true. This is quite different than, say, illegally receiving
satellite signals, where you have to buy equipment to do so. And, of
course, in most cases, the people broadcasting WiFi signals to the
immediate neighborhood are unaware they're doing that. In fact, I'm
sure many of them would be quite horrified to know it's happening.

And yet, I think that someone who knows he's latching onto his
neighbor's signal should also know it's wrong.

--
Mike Rosenberg
<http://www.macconsult.com&gt; Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida
<http://bogart-tribute.net&gt; Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
Toyota Prius fans: Check out alt.autos.toyota.prius
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 18, 2004 6:03:41 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Taking a moment's reflection, Barry Margolin mused:
|
| I wonder if this might be treated by the law analogously to a neighbor
| making an illegal cable TV hookup, by splicing into the neighbor's cable
| without them knowing about it.

To fit here, it would be more like a neighbour splicing his cable TV
line, and running an outlet to your apartment (knowingly or unknowingly).
Even still, it is *your* choice on whether you hook it up or not.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 18, 2004 7:08:19 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Entity Mike Rosenberg spoke thus:

> in most cases, the people broadcasting WiFi signals to the
> immediate neighborhood are unaware they're doing that. In fact, I'm
> sure many of them would be quite horrified to know it's happening.
So, by default all wireless routers should be delivered with WEP enabed?
Sounds good to me. As I stumble around I see hundreds of AP's with names
like "Netgear", or "Apple network jy4602".
Punishment for plug-n- play.

> And yet, I think that someone who knows he's latching onto his
> neighbor's signal should also know it's wrong.
As an amateur radio operator I would dispute that assumption. Waves is waves
is waves.
I do however, spot check who is using the AP. Everyone should.

-- Gnarlie
Currently broadcasting from
N35:40:06/W105:57:51
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 18, 2004 7:08:20 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

In article <BCF86180.4DCA3%gnarlodiousNULL@VOID.invalid.yahoo.com>,
Gnarlodious <gnarlodiousNULL@VOID.invalid.yahoo.com> wrote:

> > And yet, I think that someone who knows he's latching onto his
> > neighbor's signal should also know it's wrong.
>
> As an amateur radio operator I would dispute that assumption. Waves
> is waves is waves.

Um, as an amateur radio operator, you receive waves that were designed
for anyone and everyone to receive. That is not necessarily true with
WiFi.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Vote for John Kerry.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 18, 2004 8:21:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

In article <michelle-577D00.12371318062004@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <BCF86180.4DCA3%gnarlodiousNULL@VOID.invalid.yahoo.com>,
> Gnarlodious <gnarlodiousNULL@VOID.invalid.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > And yet, I think that someone who knows he's latching onto his
> > > neighbor's signal should also know it's wrong.
> >
> > As an amateur radio operator I would dispute that assumption. Waves
> > is waves is waves.
>
> Um, as an amateur radio operator, you receive waves that were designed
> for anyone and everyone to receive. That is not necessarily true with
> WiFi.

there are encrypted amateur radio signals which are not intended for
anyone and everyone to receive.

if you want to prevent unintended users from using a 802.11 base
station, then encrypt the signal.

if you don't want someone using it, don't send it to them. if a signal
enters their property and even their body, why can't they use it?

if essentially no effort is required to do so (for instance, a normal
configuration is for the computer to automatically lock onto a wireless
signal), what evidence do they have that it *isn't* a public network?

it is the same concept as if you don't want people nearby to hear what
you are saying, don't shout.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 18, 2004 8:46:41 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:08:19 -0500, Gnarlodious wrote
(in article <BCF86180.4DCA3%gnarlodiousNULL@VOID.invalid.yahoo.com>):

> As an amateur radio operator I would dispute that assumption. Waves is waves
> is waves.

But the "owner" is also paying for the connection to the internet. At the
very least the person "freeloading" should offer to split the connection
bill.

-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 18, 2004 8:56:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

In article <0001HW.BCF886A100064F6CF03055B0@news.prodigy.net>,
James L. Ryan <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:08:19 -0500, Gnarlodious wrote
> (in article <BCF86180.4DCA3%gnarlodiousNULL@VOID.invalid.yahoo.com>):
>
> > As an amateur radio operator I would dispute that assumption. Waves is waves
> > is waves.
>
> But the "owner" is also paying for the connection to the internet. At the
> very least the person "freeloading" should offer to split the connection
> bill.

Most TOS specifically prohibit reselling the service, and this would
almost certainly count.

--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 19, 2004 6:20:25 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Entity nospam spoke thus:

> there are encrypted amateur radio signals which are not intended for
> anyone and everyone to receive.
Wrong. Encryption of Amateur signals is not allowed. You are allowed
encoding and decoding according to standard schemes but not encryption.

> it is the same concept as if you don't want people nearby to hear what
> you are saying, don't shout.
Good point. Remember that guy a few years ago that got prosecuted for
cursing in a boat on a lake? Guess he should have encrypted his expletives.


-- K5ZN
http://www.qsl.net/k5zn/
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 19, 2004 6:45:31 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:56:29 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote
(in article <barmar-8A9403.16562918062004@comcast.dca.giganews.com>):

[responding to my suggestion that the person "borrowing" his neighbors
connection should split the cost]

> Most TOS specifically prohibit reselling the service, and this would almost
> certainly count.

Good point, but how does this apply to different users in the same household
sharing the same connection?

-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 19, 2004 6:45:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

In article <0001HW.BCF912FA0010257EF03055B0@news.prodigy.net>,
James L. Ryan <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:56:29 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote
> (in article <barmar-8A9403.16562918062004@comcast.dca.giganews.com>):
>
> [responding to my suggestion that the person "borrowing" his neighbors
> connection should split the cost]
>
> > Most TOS specifically prohibit reselling the service, and this would almost
> > certainly count.
>
> Good point, but how does this apply to different users in the same household
> sharing the same connection?

They're generally considered to be one customer, just like people in the
same household sharing a cable TV connection. The prohibition is
usually to selling to third parties, which means someone not living with
you.

--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 19, 2004 9:53:05 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Entity James L. Ryan spoke thus:

>> Most TOS specifically prohibit reselling the service, and this would almost
>> certainly count.
>
> Good point, but how does this apply to different users in the same household
> sharing the same connection?
I'm not too sure. Earthlink offers an optional "home networking" package
with ADSL that includes a wireless router. To my knowledge it is unsecured
by default.
I find it hard to believe ISP's are encouraging customers to violate their
TOS.

-- Gnarlie
June 19, 2004 9:40:31 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Gnarlodious <gnarlodiousNULL@VOID.invalid.yahoo.com> wrote in
news:BCF930E0.4DDBB%gnarlodiousNULL@VOID.invalid.yahoo.com:

> I'm not too sure. Earthlink offers an optional "home networking" package
> with ADSL that includes a wireless router. To my knowledge it is
> unsecured by default.
> I find it hard to believe ISP's are encouraging customers to violate
> their TOS.

Actually, in this situation, ISPs can only turn to themselves if someone
hitchhikes on the wireless connection. Some twit in a suit thought it
would be a good idea to charge a monthly fee to maintain a network, without
considering that that would mean *they have to maintain the network*. This
includes securing it. I have my own home network. I built it, I'm
responsible for it. Those who have accepted the cable/satellite/whatever
company's offer to set up and maintain a home network for it are NOT
responsible if someone else comes along and leeches off of them, for the
simple reason that it is not the CUSTOMER'S network they are leeching off
of.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 20, 2004 12:29:07 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>
> > Um, as an amateur radio operator, you receive waves that were designed
> > for anyone and everyone to receive. That is not necessarily true with
> > WiFi.
>
> there are encrypted amateur radio signals which are not intended for
> anyone and everyone to receive.

Really? When I studied for my ham license 30-odd years ago, encryption
was a no-no. Have the rules changed that much since then?
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 20, 2004 2:04:37 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

James L. Ryan wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:08:19 -0500, Gnarlodious wrote
> (in article <BCF86180.4DCA3%gnarlodiousNULL@VOID.invalid.yahoo.com>):
>
>> As an amateur radio operator I would dispute that assumption. Waves is
>> waves is waves.
>
> But the "owner" is also paying for the connection to the internet.

That is correct, James.

What you have to remember, though, is that there is very little ethics in
the world today. Take a close look at governments and businesses of today
to see an ethicless scenario outplaying in full force.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 1, 2004 8:31:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Hi,

I had someone come to me with a unique airport problem on his titanium G4
laptop. He uses his laptop wireless interchangeably at work and home. So,
he has his laptop configured to the "Automatic" recognition of wireless
networks. Sometime back, he detected another wireless network at home (a
neighbor's) and out of curiosity (to see if the network is password
protected or not), he decided to join it. Sure enough, no passwd
protection.

Now his problem is that at home, the airport software automatically
detects the neighbor's network and logs in there. He has to manually
disconnect and reconnect to his own home network. He would want airport to
"unrecognize" the neighbor's network, so that he can go back to the old
setup. I looked online and I cannot seem to find the solution.

Has anyone come across this problem? Is there a solution to this?

Thanks.

K.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 1, 2004 9:35:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

First of all make that user to use two different profiles for home and work.
In the home profile make him use *preferred* network or AP, this should take
care of his problem.

"Kishalay Kundu" <kish1@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:p ine.LNX.4.58L6.0407011622550.30338@linux2.gl.umbc.edu...
> Hi,
>
> I had someone come to me with a unique airport problem on his titanium G4
> laptop. He uses his laptop wireless interchangeably at work and home. So,
> he has his laptop configured to the "Automatic" recognition of wireless
> networks. Sometime back, he detected another wireless network at home (a
> neighbor's) and out of curiosity (to see if the network is password
> protected or not), he decided to join it. Sure enough, no passwd
> protection.
>
> Now his problem is that at home, the airport software automatically
> detects the neighbor's network and logs in there. He has to manually
> disconnect and reconnect to his own home network. He would want airport to
> "unrecognize" the neighbor's network, so that he can go back to the old
> setup. I looked online and I cannot seem to find the solution.
>
> Has anyone come across this problem? Is there a solution to this?
>
> Thanks.
>
> K.
July 2, 2004 1:35:53 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Kishalay Kundu <kish1@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in
news:p ine.LNX.4.58L6.0407011622550.30338@linux2.gl.umbc.edu:

> Hi,
>
> I had someone come to me with a unique airport problem on his titanium
> G4 laptop. He uses his laptop wireless interchangeably at work and home.
> So, he has his laptop configured to the "Automatic" recognition of
> wireless networks. Sometime back, he detected another wireless network
> at home (a neighbor's) and out of curiosity (to see if the network is
> password protected or not), he decided to join it. Sure enough, no
> passwd protection.
>
> Now his problem is that at home, the airport software automatically
> detects the neighbor's network and logs in there. He has to manually
> disconnect and reconnect to his own home network. He would want airport
> to "unrecognize" the neighbor's network, so that he can go back to the
> old setup. I looked online and I cannot seem to find the solution.
>
> Has anyone come across this problem? Is there a solution to this?

On real computers, you can tell it a specific network to connect to, or
tell it a specific network NOT to connect to. Don't know about macs.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.
!