PDA

View Full Version : 24dbi 2.4ghz omni directional ?


stormy_clothing
12-16-2009, 4:53 PM
Saw this listing on ebay and due to the fact I can only get charter which crashes all the time while right across the street several super high speed fios wifi signals are freely available I thought this might make a great back-up

any opinions ?



2.4GHz 24dBi N female Wireless Omni Antenna base station repeater

Qty: 60pcs available,

Electrical Specifications
Frequency Range - MHz 2300~2500
Polarization Vertical
Gain - dBi 24
Bandwidth - MHz 83
Input Impedance - Ω 50
VSWR ≤1.5
Maximum Input Power - W 100
Connector Type N Female
Mechanical Specifications
Mounting Mast Diameter - mm Φ30~50mm

JDay
12-16-2009, 5:50 PM
Accessing a network without permission is against the law. Why not just order FiOS?

TSD!
12-16-2009, 6:33 PM
Most Omni antennas are 0-6dbi gain, so either a misprint or error somewhere.

6172crew
12-16-2009, 6:58 PM
Accessing a network without permission is against the law. Why not just order FiOS?

Not calling BS but could you point me to the law? Im a IT student and we talk alot about that stuff and I would have thought I would have heard about it.

ke6guj
12-16-2009, 7:04 PM
Not calling BS but could you point me to the law? Im a IT student and we talk alot about that stuff and I would have thought I would have heard about it.

here, read this thread, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=229758

JDay
12-16-2009, 7:22 PM
Not calling BS but could you point me to the law? Im a IT student and we talk alot about that stuff and I would have thought I would have heard about it.

Here's the federal laws.

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/cclaws.html#fedcode

ETA: It is theft of service. Here's the relevant CA PC, it's a felony.

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/502.html

QuarterBoreGunner
12-16-2009, 7:32 PM
24dBi on an omni? How tall is this sucker?

Cokebottle
12-16-2009, 7:40 PM
Most Omni antennas are 0-6dbi gain, so either a misprint or error somewhere.
Or more likely, a lie.

They may be including the gain in the repeater amplifier to get the 24dbi number.

stormy_clothing
12-16-2009, 9:51 PM
Accessing a network without permission is against the law. Why not just order FiOS?

because laws against monopoly's apparently don't apply to cable companies as they have effectively blocked all other services baring satellite with their no compete contracts for my neighborhood.

There are 3 open off network wifi signals - for customers of a coffee shop with att accounts which I am and have - customers of a local center which our business is in, and our business itself also another shopping center which is a pilot program for open wifi like DT Fontana has.

Also I was told but could not confirm that our neighborhoods wifi signal runs directly off a verizon t1 line under contract from charter different from our other access points which is specifically open to residents.

My intention is not to steal but to supplement when it's critical, like say an emergency

24dBi on an omni? How tall is this sucker?

90 cm and its coming from Hk so I'm not sure of it's legality of use either, however there are omnis from cisco who I'm sure doesnt bs over 14dbi omni - obviously these would work better directional and at these levels likely well over 30mi LOS but this for backup only, and if I can hack it for one hell of a good cell service coverage which can be sub par :)

Cokebottle
12-16-2009, 9:57 PM
In an emergency, the first one to drop is going to be the Starbucks and probably the business park... very unlikely to have a battery backup on those.

Does Starbucks leave their WiFi router running when they're closed?

stormy_clothing
12-16-2009, 10:01 PM
I guess I should clarify but charter has had numerous loss of service especially during summer months while fios and att are pretty stable if the lights go out I don't need to get you tube at that time - starbucks leaves there connection on 24/7 as people stay long after close I never likely to use it there as the non customers whore it out and take all the seats, I only get 2 free hours a day but that would be enough if something big happened like a UFO landing lol and charter was overloaded.

Cokebottle
12-16-2009, 10:07 PM
I guess I should clarify but charter has had numerous loss of service especially during summer months while fios and att are pretty stable - starbucks I leaves there connection on 24/7 as people stay long after close, I only get 2 free hours a day but that would be enough if something big happened and charter was overloaded.
Agreed.

My company gave us Verizon cellular modems for our laptops. It sucked.
That has always been my "last resort" backup if I couldn't find a legal open connection or if my hotel didn't provide WiFi or hardwire connections.

Found out about the deal on the Starbucks card and signed up for that when they were still with T-Mobile. Awesome deal, 2 hours was more than enough to check and respond to email, file my trip reports and site surveys, and even do some forum surfing
Haven't worked since mid June, but I still make sure I buy one drink every 30 days to keep that account active. I loaded the card up with $100 last January so I'll be good for a few years :D

bigmike82
12-16-2009, 11:12 PM
Call it what you want, it's still illegal.

Whether you do it is, of course, up to you. :)

On to the technical side of thigns. A 24db gain antenna is quite sizeable. I'm reluctant to believe the 24db clain for an Omni...some of the indoor corner antennas I used were only about 15, and those where partly directional.

How expensive are they?

Cokebottle
12-16-2009, 11:20 PM
Call it what you want, it's still illegal.
If his business is in a business park that offers a connection, it's legal.
If he has an AT&T account and can log into a Starbucks connection, it's legal whether he's in the Starbucks or across the street.
If it's a city-operated connection open to the residents and he simply has a weak signal at his home, it's legal.

All of those are secured connections that require login. If he has a valid login ID, it's legal.

Illegal is "squatting" a connection from a neighbor or a nearby business with an unsecured connection.

bigmike82
12-17-2009, 12:22 AM
Fair 'nuff.

If you have authorized access, definitely go for it. But understand...people have been busted, and convicted, for stealing wifi.

Is it right? Hell no. But that's how it is...just like stupid laws about waiting periods, standard capacity magazines and features on rifles.

Cokebottle
12-17-2009, 12:40 AM
Is it right? Hell no. But that's how it is...just like stupid laws about waiting periods, standard capacity magazines and features on rifles.
Nahh....
Waiting periods, standard cap mags, and featured builds don't cost anyone any money if they are violated. If anything, they stimulate the economy through increased sales of ammo, feature parts, etc....

Bandwidth costs someone money somewhere. CGF pays for the incoming bandwidth on the forum, we pay for our outgoing bandwidth.
If someone taps into your wireless router, they are stealing a portion of your bandwidth. Will you know about it if you're online? No, but the increase in traffic could lead your ISP to raise rates, or like some companies do, restrict bandwidth.

bigmike82
12-17-2009, 8:07 AM
"No, but the increase in traffic could lead your ISP to raise rates, or like some companies do, restrict bandwidth."
That's a pretty big stretch. Most ISPs don't pay per byte transferred...they pay for the size of the out-bound pipe. At least, that's what we do. If our customers actually use their bandwidth...we don't care. There's no need to jack up the prices since it doesn't cost us anything.

Cokebottle
12-17-2009, 9:15 AM
"No, but the increase in traffic could lead your ISP to raise rates, or like some companies do, restrict bandwidth."
That's a pretty big stretch. Most ISPs don't pay per byte transferred...they pay for the size of the out-bound pipe. At least, that's what we do. If our customers actually use their bandwidth...we don't care. There's no need to jack up the prices since it doesn't cost us anything.
There's been a lot of chatter over the last couple of years about ISPs either charging for excessive usage (driven by P2P sites such as Napster and online gaming), or simply dynamically reducing the available bandwidth (primarily cable services).
It's not so much a matter of the bandwidth on each T1/T3 costing the ISP more, it's a matter of the customer base maxing out existing pipes requiring the addition of more hardware and additional pipes.

Cougar
12-17-2009, 10:24 AM
you would be much better served by a directional antenna.

An omni with such an outrageous level of "gain" would have a radiation pattern shaped like a razor thin pancake.

EG: a vertical 3db beamwidth of perhaps one degree.

I can not even think of a good use for such antenna.

bigmike82
12-17-2009, 11:27 AM
"It's not so much a matter of the bandwidth on each T1/T3 costing the ISP more, it's a matter of the customer base maxing out existing pipes requiring the addition of more hardware and additional pipes."
That's been an issue since ISPs have been around...it's nothing new. If you leave your signal unencrypted, there's nothing wrong with someone using it.

Cokebottle
12-17-2009, 11:46 AM
If you leave your signal unencrypted, there's nothing wrong with someone using it.
I'm pretty sure you've got a legal backing on that as well.
The laws as I have seen them written specify "unauthorized" access.
That would certainly apply to someone "hacking" a secured connection, even if the owner is a dummy and the userid/password is "Linksys/Password".

One the one hand, it would probably be defensible if one were to tag onto an unsecured connection.
On the other hand, what is the probability that someone with an unsecured wireless router would even know they were being tapped?

I've got my transmitter shut off for now since I have no need for anything more than a hardware/hardwired router, but when I had it running, it was not only running as secure as you can make a Linksys WRT54GS, but I also filtered by MAC address, so only my wife's and my two laptops cound connect, and I limited the IP assignments so it would not assign more than 2 IPs at the same time.
I could have published my SID and password and still not have been accessible to the casual user.

bigmike82
12-17-2009, 12:59 PM
"I'm pretty sure you've got a legal backing on that as well."
Maybe. I'm fairly certain that, even if unencrypted, accessing the network without prior approval is illegal (unless, of course, the SSID was something like Public...but even then...).

I've had APs that were wide open before...mainly because I just did not care if someone used my connection. Well...that, and my USB adapter can't handle TF2 on encrypted wireless.

Cokebottle
12-17-2009, 1:10 PM
"I'm pretty sure you've got a legal backing on that as well."
Maybe. I'm fairly certain that, even if unencrypted, accessing the network without prior approval is illegal (unless, of course, the SSID was something like Public...but even then...).

I've had APs that were wide open before...mainly because I just did not care if someone used my connection. Well...that, and my USB adapter can't handle TF2 on encrypted wireless.
I checked into a hotel up in Sac for a night a few years ago.
Loaded up to connect to the hotel's system.
Noticed an unsecured connection with the SSID "NSS".
Hmm.... Looked out the window and saw in a strip mall across the street "Network Security Solutions"
Hit it and it was wide open to the internet and local network, including the ability to see 3 or 4 machine names on the network (but no shared resources and couldn't get deeper than "machine name")
With no printers showing, my assumption is that it was an "example" network set up to show clients how an unsecured network might appear to the outside.

bigmike82
12-17-2009, 4:51 PM
Or they were half competent, half not. ;)

JDay
12-17-2009, 4:53 PM
Agreed.

My company gave us Verizon cellular modems for our laptops. It sucked.
That has always been my "last resort" backup if I couldn't find a legal open connection or if my hotel didn't provide WiFi or hardwire connections.


Must not be 3G.

JDay
12-17-2009, 4:56 PM
Fair 'nuff.

If you have authorized access, definitely go for it. But understand...people have been busted, and convicted, for stealing wifi.

Is it right? Hell no. But that's how it is...just like stupid laws about waiting periods, standard capacity magazines and features on rifles.

How is connecting to an unsecured wifi connecting any different from going into a strangers home through an unlocked door and watching their tv?

JDay
12-17-2009, 4:58 PM
If someone taps into your wireless router, they are stealing a portion of your bandwidth. Will you know about it if you're online? No, but the increase in traffic could lead your ISP to raise rates, or like some companies do, restrict bandwidth.

Or you could find out about it when your house gets raided because someone was using your connection to upload/download kiddie porn or send death threats out to public officials.

JDay
12-17-2009, 5:00 PM
"No, but the increase in traffic could lead your ISP to raise rates, or like some companies do, restrict bandwidth."
That's a pretty big stretch. Most ISPs don't pay per byte transferred...they pay for the size of the out-bound pipe. At least, that's what we do. If our customers actually use their bandwidth...we don't care. There's no need to jack up the prices since it doesn't cost us anything.

I pay for both my pipe (100mbps) and bandwidth (10TB/month), anything over that and I get charged an extra $0.35 per GB. Those costs can add up fast.

JDay
12-17-2009, 5:04 PM
I could have published my SID and password and still not have been accessible to the casual user.

Anyone would be able to sniff your traffic though.

Cokebottle
12-17-2009, 6:50 PM
Anyone would be able to sniff your traffic though.
Even the traffic that is on the hardwired connections?

I never did anything on my home WiFi that I didn't already do at Starbucks... and the connection to the company server was encrypted.

artherd
12-17-2009, 7:21 PM
CGF pays for the incoming bandwidth on the forum, we pay for our outgoing bandwidth.

Actually, GeoVario, LLC (http://www.geovario.com/) pays for the bandwidth and donates it to CGN ;)

JDay
12-17-2009, 9:32 PM
Even the traffic that is on the hardwired connections?

I never did anything on my home WiFi that I didn't already do at Starbucks... and the connection to the company server was encrypted.

The wired connections should be fine.

domokun
12-17-2009, 9:36 PM
you would be much better served by a directional antenna.

An omni with such an outrageous level of "gain" would have a radiation pattern shaped like a razor thin pancake.

EG: a vertical 3db beamwidth of perhaps one degree.

I can not even think of a good use for such antenna.

Cougar has a point. The RF radiation pattern for that thing is going to suck and will be impractical. The only practical way to get that much gain out of antenna with a reasonable antenna radiation pattern is a directional antenna. Most of the time it's a Yagi antenna.

bigmike82
12-17-2009, 10:06 PM
"How is connecting to an unsecured wifi connecting any different from going into a strangers home through an unlocked door and watching their tv? "
JDay, this analogy is false.

The fact is...the person does *not* go into the others house. The owner of the WiFi signal BROADCASTS that signal into the other persons house. A better analogy is me putting out a big screen TV onto my lawn, which the screen facing the street. And then, suddenly, complain when the neighbors are watching the TV from their homes.

"Those costs can add up fast. "
Then I hope you control your access better than the average consumer. ;)

JDay
12-18-2009, 1:18 AM
"How is connecting to an unsecured wifi connecting any different from going into a strangers home through an unlocked door and watching their tv? "
JDay, this analogy is false.

The fact is...the person does *not* go into the others house. The owner of the WiFi signal BROADCASTS that signal into the other persons house. A better analogy is me putting out a big screen TV onto my lawn, which the screen facing the street. And then, suddenly, complain when the neighbors are watching the TV from their homes.

"Those costs can add up fast. "
Then I hope you control your access better than the average consumer. ;)

No, it really is no different from entering an unlocked house uninvited. You are entering their home network uninvited. Its the same as trespassing in a sense.

bigmike82
12-18-2009, 9:28 AM
"You are entering their home network uninvited."
Not true.

That home network is present in YOUR house. Their radio waves are trespassing, if you will, on YOUR property.

JDay
12-18-2009, 3:51 PM
"You are entering their home network uninvited."
Not true.

That home network is present in YOUR house. Their radio waves are trespassing, if you will, on YOUR property.

Wrong again, it physically resides in their residence. Radio waves also cannot trespass.

bigmike82
12-18-2009, 4:31 PM
Oh, so the radio waves don't penetrate the walls into my house? You're not projecting your network onto your neighbors?

JDay
12-18-2009, 5:14 PM
Oh, so the radio waves don't penetrate the walls into my house? You're not projecting your network onto your neighbors?

Cellular signals, public safety signals, cordless phone frequencies and many others penetrate your walls, that does not give you the right to intercept or transmit over them.

bigmike82
12-18-2009, 5:41 PM
Not on encrypted ones.

But on non-encrypted public-use channels, with the appropriate licensing (which your WiFi card has for the 2.4 or 5 GHz spectrum)...yes you do, and yes you can.

JDay
12-18-2009, 5:50 PM
Not on encrypted ones.

But on non-encrypted public-use channels, with the appropriate licensing (which your WiFi card has for the 2.4 or 5 GHz spectrum)...yes you do, and yes you can.

WRONG! Like I stated earlier CA PC 502 and federal laws both state different. Sounds like you're trying to justify illegal actions. Just because something is on your property doesn't mean you have the rights to it, do you have mineral rights, ownership of utility lines?

bigmike82
12-18-2009, 7:00 PM
Yes, and I agreed with you that using the networks without permission is illegal.

You can transmit on, and utilize, the 2.4 GHz spectrum. You can do the same for the Ham spectrum, or other public-use spectrums. Your analogy about public safety and cell frequencies was wrong in that regard.

No, you are not legally allowed to connect to unencrypted networks without permission. But doing so should not be a crime.

JDay
12-18-2009, 7:29 PM
You can transmit on, and utilize, the 2.4 GHz spectrum. You can do the same for the Ham spectrum, or other public-use spectrums. Your analogy about public safety and cell frequencies was wrong in that regard.


You also need a license to use all of those except 2.4ghz since it falls into the unlicensed spectrum (TX power limits apply among other restrictions).

bigmike82
12-18-2009, 8:37 PM
"You also need a license"
Either you or your eqiupment, depending on the band.

JDay
12-18-2009, 8:49 PM
"You also need a license"
Either you or your eqiupment, depending on the band.

Equipment doesn't need a license it only needs the proper FCC certification.

Cokebottle
12-18-2009, 8:54 PM
Equipment doesn't need a license it only needs the proper FCC certification.
I think he's referring to the "manufacturer licensed" equipment.
Many wireless cameras, as well as both low and higher powered routers (including the Encom units used by cities for WiFi and traffic signal communication) fall under this.
We also had a wireless NTSC camera system that worked this way. There were actually 8 channels licensed to us, but only 4 were for the US. The other 4 were for Canada.

The end customer doesn't need an FCC license, but the manufacturer itself has an license for the products that covers the end-user.

bigmike82
12-18-2009, 9:06 PM
Didn't even think of that...

I was more referring to larger aperature Satellite dishes. They require far more than a simple FCC certification.

stormy_clothing
12-20-2009, 5:43 PM
Another thread that's replaced the actual topic with legal eagle BS - sweet, cal guns is so fun sometimes

Palmaris
12-30-2009, 7:15 AM
Antenna element can have really any gain itself from -20dB to +10 dB (the best ones). On top of element gain there is possible LNA instal (Low Noise Amplifier) and it can boost gain to +45dB (on recieving). So I don't see problem with antenna having gain 24dB. The problen will be only SNR (signal to noise ratio or VSWR). If LNA itself too "noise" then it will be problem with reception.
As it goes on transmitting-it is slightly different and easier-you can pump as much as you want to (in legal limits)