You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?

Have a question or want to start a discussion? Post it! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
SUMMARY:
What service is it that does the Wi-Fi scanning on Android anyway?
http://i.cubeupload.com/lYvIsQ.jpg

DETAILS:
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?

In the past few weeks I changed so many things on my Android 4.3 phone that
I don't remember what killed WiFi scanning but I just want to ask, in case
someone knows, what actually does the WiFi scanning on an Android phone?

For example, I have over a half dozen access points at home, all being
broadcast in the clear, WPA2/PSK-AES protected, which the third part
programs find with no problem (e.g., Fritz! WLAN, WiFi Manager, WiFi
Connection, WiFi Analyzer, InSSIDer, WiFi Analysis, WigLe WiFi, etc.).
http://i.cubeupload.com/fV8D4d.jpg

Some (but not all) of the 3rd-party apps can find all the networks, yet,
the scan button in Android 4.3 doesn't find a single network anymore.
What on Android does the scanning anyway?
http://i.cubeupload.com/TNGRGg.jpg

I can certainly manually press the default Android 4.3 "Add Wi-Fi network"
and then it will connect to any network I manually type in, but it won't
*find* a network on its own anymore, even though the signal strength is
clearly in the negative forties, fifties, sixties, and seventies (i.e., the
signal strength is just fine).
http://i.cubeupload.com/lYvIsQ.jpg

I realize probably nobody knows the answer but just in case you do, what
service on Android does the WiFi access-point scanning anyway?

Re: You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 18:08:33 -0800, Stijn De Jong

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I cant answer your question, but I want to ask. Do you like Android?  

I bought one of those low priced generic brand notepad computers.
(Android). I personally do not like it. It works, but seems very clumsy,
lacks a lot of the things that Windows has, and seems to severely lack
any support.  

That notepad now takes up space in my closet, and I went back to my 8
year old Windows XP laptop computer. It does so much more, does it
easier, and has a lot more support.

Android seems to be on a lot of devices these days, but I am surely NOT
impressed by it.

Just my 2 cents!


Re: You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On 3/22/2017 1:17 AM, oldschool@tubes.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Summary:  I use my tablet a lot more than I thought I would.

Tablets come in two sizes.
1) too small to read and operate with fat fingers.
2) too big/heavy to hold comfortably.

The obvious solution is to have two or four.

For the first case, portability is a big plus.

Voice capability is amazing.
I almost never have to pull a book off the shelf.
I can get a conversion factor or food recipe just by asking.
Even nonsense questions get answers.  "How many milliliters in a week?"
gets you everything you ever wanted to know about testosterone and baby
formula.  Both the cause and effect are covered. ;-)

I've been experimenting with an app called listnote.
It does a pretty amazing job on English text with normal
sentence structure.  People bitch about how horrible speech
recognition is.  If you want to trip it up, it's certainly easy to
do.
If you try to work at the level it comprehends, it works
amazingly well.
Hmmm, wonder if we could get newsgroup participants to cooperate
that way...but I digress.
I type a lot faster than I can type.
The amount of work needed to fix up my typos and dyslexia is on par
with the amount to fix up voice recognition. Great for
communication, but will be problematic if you need the nuance
required to get that Pulitzer or Nobel-worthy chemistry paper.

Another benefit of typing with one finger is that it forces you to
THINK about what you're saying and present it concisely.  That alone
would greatly enhance the newsgroup experience for all.  Newsgroup
readers also need a big button: "I've purged my indignation, so
shitcan my outrage and move to the next topic."  Or maybe we have
to pay a nickel for each time we hit the send key.  Wouldn't take
long for some of us to reassess the value of our "contribution." ;-)

For the second case, a bluetooth keyboard/mouse solves the user
interface problem.  The screen is big enough to see.
For watching videos, I chuck mine in a vehicle headrest mount
and sit it on my stomach while lying down.

My desktops have their uses, but 90% of my actual screen time
can be handled by a tablet.  I'm gonna get a "convertible" when they
start showing up in the free box at garage sales.

I've moved away from XP.  Once you get used to the changes in
the windows 7 user interface, It has a lot of helpful capability.
Even win10 has settled down to the point that I find it tolerable.
If they'd just quit forcing updates up my ass,
I'd go back to metered internet and switch to win10.


Re: You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?

Quoted text here. Click to load it
SInce I'm elderly, I dont have thge best eyesight anymore. Cellphones
are way to small for me to see anything. One guy I know is always
shoving his phone in my face and saying look at this. I repeatedly have
to tell him I cant read it, and if it's a picture, I only see a blur. I
do not make a habit of carrying around my reading glasses. I only have
them on me if I plan to read something. And yea, the keys are too small
on all that stuff. I like a REAL keyboard. I always have a tough time
doing texts on my flipphone.

Anyhow, even if a laptop computer is large and hard to hold, it is much
better for me to use.  

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Nah, too much stuff to buy and maintain.  
My cellphone (flipphone) is just a phone, and that is all I really need
to have with me. But if I want to use a WIFI, I have to plan in advance
and bring my laptop with me. That's not always convenient, but it works.
Besides that, owning a smartphone is too costly for my budget. I mostly
just have a cellphone for emergency calls, but it does come in handy to
call businesses to see if they have what I need, or if they are open,
(when I am not home). But a prepaid cellphone is fairly cheap as long as
the calls are short, whereas a contract for a smartphone is costly,
especially when they allow for enough data to actually watch videos or
spend considerable time shopping ebay or something like that.  

These days, a person almost MUST have at least a basic cellphone,
because there are no longer any pay phones, and in an emergency one
needs some way to contact for help. But if I want to call and talk to a
friend for an hour, I use my landline. I must keep my landline, because
where I live (rural area), cellphone service is poor. Heck, a couple
years ago, I saw smoke coming out of a building and could not get a cell
signal, and there were no pay phones. By the time I drove to a place
where I could get a phone signal, that building was entirely in flames
and it was a total loss.  

I later spoke with someone from the fire dept, and was told that they
have been trying to get a cell tower in that area for years and all they
get is a runaround. He said the population is too small to make it
profitable. I proceeded to complain about why they removed the pay phone
in that town, which was still there about 7 years ago, when they knew
that there is no cell service there. He said they fought that with the
local phone company too, and was told that pay phones were no longer
maintained. Personally, none of that makes any sense.... Why was there
better service back in the days before 2010? And why is maintaining a
pay phone so difficult? It could have prevented a major fire, and could
even save a life. STUPID STUPID....  



Re: You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
oldschool@tubes.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it


    Yes, you are. Pay phones started dying, when cell phones became  
popular. They started to disappear, as they no longer took in enough  
money to pay for the equipment, the line and the labor to service them.  
They finally reached the point where the equipment was worn out, and too  
expense to maintain. Payphone companies started to disappear, in the mid  
'90s. I hauled off trailer loads of aluminum phone booths from one  
company when they downsized to a smaller building. A year later, they  
were bankrupt. That was in 1995.

    As far as cell phone towers, a lot of the cost is in legal fees and  
local governments charging out the ass for permits. So it becomes greed,  
over safety.


--  
Never piss off an Engineer!

They don't get mad.

They don't get even.

They go for over unity! ;-)

Re: You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On 2017-03-25 18:52, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it



Depends on which country you are. In mine, there was a mandate by which
each village must have at least one payphone, specially on small
villages that do not have a phone per house. That is, if the company can
not set a phone at each house that wants one, they must at least install
one payphone (or more, depending on the population).

I don't know if that mandate is still valid.

As for mobile, I think there is another mandate that the dominant
provider must provide service on every village. But I'm unsure.

--  
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.

Re: You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 13:52:57 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Not so much legal fees.  The local cellular operators tend to hire
real estate brokers and such to deal with the local governments.
They're less expensive than lawyers and are more knowledgeable about
local alternative sites, site rental fees, and property costs.
Intentional delays that bordered on extortion became such a problem
that the FCC was forced to require a time limit for acting on proposed
sites new site and modifications.
<http://www.commlawblog.com/2012/01/articles/cellular/fcc-shot-clock-presumptions-for-wireless-tower-permitting-upheld/
<https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-99A1.pdf

It's not just municipal governments that slow things down.  Local
citizens groups that fear the proliferation of RF belching towers also
create delays.  For example, this is our local citizens groups:
<https://www.facebook.com/StopBoulderCreekCellTower/
The Boulder Creek site was never built, but no because of the efforts
of this group.  It was due to the county demanding specific basic
documents from the Verizon representative, which were not produced.

I has several discussions with the Verizon people about this site and
others that were planned locally, which taught me a few things.  For
example, at the time, Verizon had about 1500 new sites in various
stages of planning in Northern California.  Most of these sites are
not for new coverage, but are to increase bandwidth and capacity in
areas that already have service.  New sites require some minimum
prospective user density to be considered worthwhile, which is a
problem for areas with transient usage.  For example, a rather large
lake in the area has nearly zero cellular coverage, despite a large
influx of cell phone users during the summer.  Because the area is
essentially empty during the remaining 9 months of the year, it's
probably not going to be profitable investment.  

Verizon also takes the path of least resistance.  If there's any
impediments caused by government or citizen groups and can't seem to
be resolved, Verizon just moves on to another more hospitable area.
The previously mentioned lake owners/operators offered to pay Verizon
for installing a site to compensate for the limited revenue.  I don't
know if that worked.

Another expensive problem is camouflaged towers, which roughly doubles
the cost of the tower.  Yet another is the time involved in crafting
local tower ordinances, no two of which are identical.  I was involved
in the passage of the Santa Cruz CA county tower ordinance, which in
my never humble opinion was a giant mess.  You really don't want to
know what is involved in making sausage and tower ordinances.
Incidentally, we were saved by the local coastal commission.  They
took our best efforts, cleaned it up dramatically, and actually
produced a readable and workable ordinance.  Other cities and counties
often use the time needed to create such ordinance as a way of
delaying the introduction of new towers.

If you want to slosh through the politics, reading back issues of AGL
(Above Ground Level) magazine should be instructive:
<http://www.aglmediagroup.com

I can go on forever on tower politics, but I'm already late for a
lunch time meeting.



--  
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Re: You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it


    I worked in CATV, Broadcast and Two way radios. The City of  
Middletown Ohio's first tower ordinance banned ALL towers, and outdoor  
antennas. No exemption for the local AM radio station, CATV headend, or  
even the police and fire departments. Their faulty reasoning was if no  
one had an antenna, everyone would have to pay for cable, and they would  
make more money off the franchise fees which were based on the number of  
customers.

    In the early '80s St. Louis, MO sent our CATV manager an order to  
take down their tower and Sat dishes, for the same fool idea. St Lois  
was a real mess. They split the city into seven areas, and gave seven  
different companies a franchise. They also wanted to make cable  
customers pay a large fee to pay for the entire costs to operate the  
landfill, and all garbage collection, since watching TV was a 'luxury'.



--  
Never piss off an Engineer!

They don't get mad.

They don't get even.

They go for over unity! ;-)

Re: You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 01:14:13 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

We do things a little differently on the left coast.  The county cell
tower ordinance was inspired by the local drug dealers in about 2000.
We have a rather large local amusement park.  Nearby is a residential
slum and ghetto.  In the middle of this area, on top of a small hill,
is a two story dilapidated building with a small market downstairs.
It's also the exchange point for most of the local drug deals.  

Two of the cellular providers decided that if they purged and
disinfected the rooms above the market, it would make a good location
for cell sites.  They then applied to the city (not county).  This
information was eventually passed to the various drug dealers, who
somehow (correctly) deduced that a cell site located in the middle of
their stomping grounds could be used to accurately track their
movements around the area.  So, they organized a protest movement,
which turned the first public hearing into a circus.

At this point, someone in city government decided that such things as
tower ordinances was really the job of the county.  Characteristically
interested in more powers, the country agreed and decided to write the
tower ordinance.  A temporary summer intern was hired by the planning
department to research and cut-n-paste an ordinance together out of
pieces he found on the internet from multiple sources.  At the end of
summer he returned to his studies, leaving the county with an
inconsistent and incoherent mess.

The only problem was that they didn't know that it was a mess until
after the squabbling began.  Every possible organization with an
interest in cellular, towers, land use, aesthetics, historical
preservation, electro biological effects of RF, and alien visitations
became involved.  The original drug dealers probably attended the
initial planning department hearings, but were lost in the ever
expanding circus atmosphere.

Unfortunately, I was volunteered to represent the interests of the
local ham radio operators.  Just one problem.  I had recently survived
some major surgery and still felt rather lousy.  Sitting for hours in
a crowded meeting room and lecturing morons on basic RF concepts did
not seem very appealing.  

After the first circus meeting, things settled down to business during
the second meeting.  Every group cut up its piece of the ordinance for
special attention.  Speakers of all types and abilities presented
their case before the planning department board.  There were the usual
comedies, such as one lady who after denouncing cell phones as a
health hazard, had her own cell phone ring while she was at the
podium.  Several speakers presented seriously erroneous technical
information about RF.  However, the real problem came from one of the
planning department members, who decided to add cell site density and
exposure limitations to the ordinance.  Since nobody was interested, I
decided that it was up to me to deal with the problem.

When my turn at the podium came, I presented the board with a
simplified explanation about the relationship between transmit power,
data bandwidth, and range.  Any two can be traded for the third.  If
cellular radio was going to progress, it would need to increase the
data bandwidth.  Power was not going up because the batteries in the
handsets would die too quickly.  The obvious answer was more cell
sites and denser concentrations of cell sites.  Otherwise, the county
was going to be locked into the technical backwaters of 2000.  (It was
also illegal for the county to pass such a technical requirement as
that is the domain of the FCC, but I let county council tell them
that).  The density and exposure clauses were quietly dropped.

I was sitting next to someone who obviously was an attorney.  We
talked a little and I discovered he was there to represent AT&T.  When
I asked why he said nothing during the hearings, he answered that the
important points would be settled after the ordinance is passed
through the usual exemptions and amendments.  He was right.

Several meetings later, an ordinance was hammered out that was
sufficient to present to the board of supervisors.  They did not want
yet another public circus, so they rubber stamped it on the consent
agenda.  Nobody complained.

The next step was to pass it to the Coastal Commission, who's approval
was required because many of the cell sites were within the coastal
zone.  What we got back was something that resembled bloodshed.  There
were so many red marks, corrections, changes, and re-writes on the
various pages, that I barely recognized the ordinance.  The Coastal
Commission had passed it on to what I believe was someone with
considerable experience in writing ordinances, who cleaned it up.  I
was impressed.  The planning board and board of supervisors were less
impressed, but accepted it anyway.  

<http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruzCounty/html/SantaCruzCounty13/SantaCruzCounty1310.html
13.10.660 thru 13.10.668.

In the last 17 years, the ordinance has roughly doubled in size.
Exemptions and exceptions are added regularly to deal with
non-compliant technology and organizations.  Life blunders on.

If adding a cell site in your neighborhood requires a tower ordinance,
you have my sympathies.

--  
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Re: You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On 2017-03-26 08:09, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I wonder why such things are not regulated from the highest level
possibly in any country. Seems absurd to my that anything smaller than a
state has to regulate towers.

--  
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.

Re: You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 21:17:01 +0200, "Carlos E. R."

Quoted text here. Click to load it


I'm not going to speculate why, but the various parts of cell tower
installation are divided between Federal, State, and local authorities
by areas of influence.  Anything that has to do with RF is owned by
the FCC.  Anything that has to do with aviation hazards, is run by the
FAA and managed by the FCC.  The FCC also deals with licenses,
auctions, and protecting monopolies.  If there are local public
utilities commissions involved, then those are run by the State.  Site
selection, co-location, construction practices, aesthetics, compliance
the local general plan, and taxing users, are handled by the local
authorities (city and/or county).

It might be possible to consolidate all these into some kind of
national personal communications bureaucracy, which would run things
at all levels.  To some extent, that's roughly what happened when the
DHS (dept of homeland security) was established in 2001.  I believe
that might be what you're suggesting.  Yes, it could be done, but do
we really need yet another bureaucracy when the inefficient but
tolerably effective existing tangle of overlapping agencies,
departments, and boards are adequate?  Sometimes, they need a kick in
the posterior, as with the FCC imposing a "shot clock" to get things
moving, but mostly, things lurch and blunder forward without bloodshed
or additional taxes.  

Also, the cellular industry basically started in about 1990 and is now
only 27 years old.  In another 15 years or so, we'll probably be
overly connected at gigabit speeds going to work via virtual reality
and traveling around via augmented reality.  Creating yet another
bureaucracy just to speed up the process doesn't seem like a great
idea.  We may even be communicating by telepathy via implants.  Be
patient.  The future will arrive at the usual erratic pace quite
nicely without faster regulations and additional bureaucracy.

--  
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Re: You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On 2017-03-26 23:17, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I wasn't thinking only or specifically of the USA ;-)

--  
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.

Re: You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
jeffl@cruzio.com says...
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Riding down the interstate today and saw a cell tower made to look like  
a tree.  It seemed to be about 100 feet or more tall.  The top 1/3 or so  
had some fake tree things on it to look like a pine tree.  Real funny  
looking as it was about 50 feet or more taller than any trees around it.

It would have been less noticable if it had just the cell antennas on it  
instead of the fake tree top.

Re: You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 17:54:20 -0400, Ralph Mowery

Quoted text here. Click to load it

This is what AT&T (Cingular) installed when they were first forced to
disguise a cell tower or monopole and had no clue what they were doing
but had to build it in a hurry:
<http://www.LearnByDestroying.com/jeffl/crud/AmestiAT&T.jpg
I'll spare you the jokes about standing lumber trees.

People drove for considerable distances to see this abomination when
it was first installed about 20(?) years ago.  Incidentally, it's 90ft
high.  There was some official debate over the distinction between a
genuine disguise monopine and an attractive nuisance.  This created an
awkward situation for AT&T, where modifying or rebuilding the tower
might be construed as agreeing with their critics.  So, it was left
unchanged for a few years until the bad jokes died down.  A water tank
now sits on the location and a new cell site was built somewhere
close, but further away from the nearby residential areas.

For additional disguise cell towers and associated stories, see:
<http://www.celltowerphotos.com

Then, there's the giant cucumber tower:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Giant-Cucumber.jpg

Anything worth doing, is also worth over-doing:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Cell_Site_Mast_Loaded.jpg


--  
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Re: You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On 2017-03-26 06:46, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

ROTFL!  X'-)


Quoted text here. Click to load it

I can imagine :-)

Quoted text here. Click to load it


--  
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.

Re: You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
jeffl@cruzio.com says...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Just off the interstate in South Carolina where everyone can see it is a  
water tower made to look like a peach.

When it was in its orange primer it looked like a giant butt sticking  
up.  Even after the peach color was added it still looks like a butt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peachoid





Re: You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

We've got something like that here, looming over a small strip mall
parking lot, but it looks more like a giant furry green corn dog.  

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The Watts Towers of telecom. To me, that's actually more esthetically
pleasing than most of the attempts to disguise.  


Re: You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
nmassello@yahoo.com says...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Hmmm. Looks like an overgrown cross between two percussion instruments:  
vibro-slap and tamborine (can't remember what the official one is  
called)...

Mike.

Re: You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On 3/26/2017 4:06 AM, Neill Massello wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Back in the early to mid '90s, the standard albeit incorrect
answer for "no cell phone use on airplanes" was that they would
interfere with the operation of the airplane.

My question was, if that was true, why wasn't Mount Wilson a
smoking crater for the amount of RF it poured out under the
flight path.



--  
Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi
http://www.foxsmercantile.com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


Re: You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Cell phones in airplanes don't work very well because the phone can
see perhaps hundreds of cell sites simultaneously from the air causing
handoff problems:
<http://www.911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Patience.  Your crater might arrive eventually.  An LAX ATC tried by
aiming a Boeing 777 Dreamliner at Mt Wilson in order to produce the
required crater:
<http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-faa-investigation-plane-wrong-direction-20161220-story.html
<http://www.jacdec.de/2016/12/20/2016-12-16-eva-air-b777-flew-astray-and-close-to-terrain-east-of-los-angeles/
Since that failed, it might be possible to attempt to burn it down
again, once the trees and brush grow back:
<http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Mt.-Wilson-with-labeled-names-of-scopes.jpg

The bottom line is that cell phone interference is unlikely, but still
too much of a potential problem to risk a disaster.  Better safe than
sorry.  Besides, I don't want to fly in an airplane full of people
trying to yell over the engine noise into their cell phones.

--  
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Site Timeline