linksysdata.com gone

Might be an oops or a crashed Hard drive, drop them a note and see if they respond. As to the version 5 of the WRT54G(S), keep in mind 99.99% of consumers buying this stuff have no clue why the V5 isn't an 'improved' version of the 1 -4. It's shiney new and sounds good, so it must be better... Seems like prices for version 3's on ebay are climbing (winning bids), don't understand why some bright boy at Cisco hasn't noticed this.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

rico snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Rico) hath wroth:

I forgot to send a nastygram. I just sent one to "support" and to "linksyswebfeedback" (first step). I'll escalate after they return the usual scripted answer.

Incidentally, the domain linksysdata.com expires on July 17, 2006.

Yeah, I know the logic. I've been told that the return rate on V5 routers is much higher than "acceptable". Sorry, no numbers. Cisco has a "hands off" policy when dealing with Linksys, mostly because it's a totally different business model. I'm sure they know about articles like: |

pages) but as long as the GUM (great unwashed masses) keep buying the V5 routers, they're not going to do anything. Fortunately, there are plenty of other hackable routers: | Incidentally, note that the Tom's Hardware reports shows that the V5 does better than the V4 for simultaneous upload and download benchmarks. See Fig 9. | v5 also bombed the Peer to Peer test: | However, there's hope with 3rd party firmware: | |

Yep. I've noticed. It's prima facia proof that the demand for Linux versions are still there.

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 14:01:40 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote in :

But probably not enough of a market to matter.

But there must be enough market for the older versions, or they never would have introduced the GL version. We owe it to them (and us) to buy the GL whenever possible to remind them of the aftermarket.

John Navas hath wroth:

Yep. Looks like they're practically giving away Linksys wireless routers:

for $5/ea.

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:12:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote in :

Interesting, but inventory dumping by Fon would seem to have little to do with the larger market.

Notice that if someone takes them up on the offer they are on the hook for letting them use their DSL gratis for 12 months.

Heck, I'll gladly sell my neighbors routers under the same conditions. ;-)

-wolfgang

Jeff Liebermann hath wroth:

Well, I just received a mostly boilerplate reply from snipped-for-privacy@linksys.com. They claim that the site is accessible and everything is working just fine. That might mean a firewall configuration change, where the web site is now only accessible from inside the Linksys network. Judging by the permissions error, this is highly likely.

I'm seeing the same thing out here on the East coast. 403 permission error on a 404 page.

The server configuration is apparently blocking access. Time to go slap the webmaster around...

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:47:30 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote in :

Ummm... Don't think that's the problem -- can get to the server, and even read the /pub directory, so it is probably a permissions error. (The 404 error simply means that the appropriate error document doesn't exist.) Perhaps the server now requires authentication to access that directory.

yea but they are MODIFIED routers..not OEM...have Some kind of "new firmware" installed.... "Wolfgang S. Rupprecht" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@bonnet.wsrcc.com...

Sure, but can that firmware be whacked in favor of something else like dd-wrt?

Maybe, but then they'll charge you $45 extra for not having your node up.

I was tempted, but couldn't be bothered in the end. I also couldn't find a 12-month agreement, there didn't seem to be any timeout at all.

"DavidT" hath wroth:

The firmware in the FON WRT54GL routers is either OpenWRT or DD-WRT.

'm not sure which they're currently shipping.

If you have dd-wrt v23 sp1, just run: http://192.168.1.1/fon.cgi/in the address bar and the Fon setup pages will appear. Make sure you save your setting BEFORE you do this. Fon makes many obscure changes which are difficult to find and undo.

$45 seems like a reasonable price for the linux version of the unit, assuming it can have it's firmware replaced.

Yeah, all hype no substance on that website. Run away, or at the very least, don't pay with something they can automagically gouge you for at some later date.

I can see a few vexing issues. Will FON indemnify the hotspot host? I'd hate to pay a few 10's of grand of legal fees out of pocket just because someone did something illegal/immoral/fattening via my hotspot. How are the user's identities established? If someone does something illegal, is there some viable way to get a real name/address for the perp?

I really wish someone would do a world-wide wifi-sharing club. I'm not sure FON is it though. If you draw up the checkerboard of from linus/bill/alien, to linus/bill/alien and look at how much money changes hands 3/6 times it goes to fon and 1/6 times it goes to the hotspot host.

paid to fon:

to: linus bill alien from: linus 0 0 - bill 1 1/2 - alien 1 1/2 -

paid to hotspot host:

to: linus bill alien from: linus 0 0 - bill 0 1/2 - alien 0 1/2 -

-wolfgang

No idea if there's actual case law backing it up, but I'd have to imagine this sort of thing would be held as blameless as a regular telco carrier might. We're just transporting the bits, not censoring or monitoring the criminal that might be using them. This seems little different than the phone company not being liable if someone uses a call for criminal activity. It's the CRIME that's illegal, not the communication medium.

That said, I'm sure some jackass lawyer could cause significant financial hassles with an attempt to sue you for liability. You could counter sue, of course, but there you're also bleeding cash.

It would be interesting to hear FON's replies on this potential risk.

When there's money involved it's not long before the lawyers start sniffing around...

As opposed to what other services? Or the nothing one would get now for sharing free access?

Feh, all this grubbing for monies isn't worth my time/effort.

-Bill Kearney

yep it can

As far as I see, indemnity clauses will only cover monetary expenses anyway. Nobody can indemnify someone by offering to sit in the jail cell for them if a criminal court holds them personally culpable.

The real fear is that defending oneself against any civil or criminal charges is going to be expensive, even if the court eventually throws out the charges. The group doing the authentication, authorization and outbound filtering is the only one that is in any position to stop criminal or otherwise actionable activity. It would be silly to put oneself in a position where one was left holding the bag for them and fielding what should be their cost of doing business.

My long standing observation is that whenever money changes hands the whole flavor changes. One no longer has the group trying to do the best job they can from a technical standpoint but one sees all the decisions influenced by the lure of increased revenue flow.

-wolfgang