XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11
From: this@ddress.is.invalid
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> On 2025/11/29 11:22:10, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> []
>
> > Yes, we (in The Netherlands) used to have such ISP WiFi hotspots,
> > including my ISP. But these days most of them have gone, because there
> > are many more 'normal' WiFi hotspots and 'everyone' has a smartphone.
>
> (Not quite - I don't currently, for example!)
I know, hence the scare quotes, i.e. not literally everyone.
> Having a smartphone
> doesn't give your laptop access, though, unless you configure the 'phone
> as a hotspot, which (a) many users wouldn't know how to do, (b) maybe
> some smartphones can't be [I don't know], (c) the service provider may
> prohibit it, (d) the speed might not be as good as a home broadband one.
> (Might be better, of course.)>
I meant that these roaming users will just use their smartphones to do
whatever they want to do, i.e. as they probably would be mostly outside
and 'walking', they wouldn't be using a laptop, tablet, etc..
> > For the ISP WiFi hotspots, bandwidth taken from it's 'owner' was not a
> > problem, because the modems provided a seperate hotspot with its own
> > channel for the public hotspot function.
>
> Well, I presume the two - though entirely separate - shared the
> "bandwidth" available from a home broadband connection; I don't imagine
> the provider paid for a higher-speed connection. The maximum speed they
> promised their home customer might be a little lower?>
No, it was a totally seperate communication channel, at least for our
(coax) cable modems, so the 'local' network could run at its maximum
speed. But you might be right for *DSL modems, if they ever provided
such a service ( I don't know).
(Humorous bit: I type "I fon't know")
> > I think for FON, the public hotspot did (does?) use some of the
> > owner's bandwidth.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
