Re: Hotel networks (Was Re: Security for the IETF wireless network)

Randall Gellens <randy@qti.qualcomm.com> Fri, 01 August 2014 04:47 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53F5C1A03F2; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 21:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0kec2uMn8Mnu; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 21:47:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B9BC1A03F8; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 21:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1406868451; x=1438404451; h=message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:to:from:subject: cc:mime-version; bh=/S6s7ewgT17ovoYX6igDSRlnb7izYjBrFoYQvzW95KE=; b=j1XVsR9ni89jpKU857EV91WzS6SmyfCuk4qo4Dvzzwyi2d9pewdhAJ8Y 2+KphL7rAx1LzU5s+v4Fd7GPlt5bL/tUcPe3Bu+aBLqLff/++qZ898eqt 8ESf2jID82gx7w7mLPscUx5nD5pIu2V4i2WqQanJvoqF5BPfhbaXazL/R g=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5600,1067,7516"; a="146786010"
Received: from ironmsg03-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.17]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 31 Jul 2014 21:47:30 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,777,1400050800"; d="scan'208";a="723633890"
Received: from nasanexhc04.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.17]) by Ironmsg03-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 31 Jul 2014 21:47:29 -0700
Received: from [99.111.97.136] (172.30.48.1) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 21:47:29 -0700
Message-ID: <p06240605d000cb162b5b@[99.111.97.136]>
In-Reply-To: <F4A7C1707FF74B85D3F921CC@JCK-EEE10>
References: <0FE63216-9BE8-450F-80FB-D1DB6166DFEF@ietf.org> <CFF7BBD1.28A2F%wesley.george@twcable.com> <8B1DA3E3-F195-4CBC-B565-85CAFC31CB1B@shinkuro.com> <3708BC187C6387C727398CBB@JCK-EEE10> <53D25E42.1010903@bogus.com> <F4A7C1707FF74B85D3F921CC@JCK-EEE10>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 21:45:50 -0700
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>, Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com>, "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com>
From: Randall Gellens <randy@qti.qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Hotel networks (Was Re: Security for the IETF wireless network)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Originating-IP: [172.30.48.1]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-hiUKrmWlB6BHPR4GeOIBaCuILE
Cc: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 04:47:35 -0000

At 10:04 AM -0400 7/25/14, John C Klensin wrote:

>  I think the world would be a better place (and not just for IETF
>  meetings) if hotels disclosed what they actually were providing
>  when they advertise "Internet service".  But, having seen about
>  zero attention paid to our efforts in that direction almost ten
>  years ago (trying to specify what the words should mean) go
>  exactly nowhere and having a major ISP respond to complaints
>  that a service advertised as "up to 5 Mbps" was delivering under
>  800 kpbs with "speeds not guaranteed", I'm pretty pessimistic
>  about near-term progress in that area. 
>
>  If the IETF could do something about it, I don't know what it
>  would be.  I suppose we could publish post-meeting performance
>  and capability information on the hotels we use (including
>  before and during the switch to our external connections), but
>  that might make some otherwise reasonable hotel choices decide
>  they don't really want us.   On the other hand, some of us
>  could, as individuals, approach some popular travel rating sites
>  and encourage them to create a much more sophisticated category/
>  report for Internet connectivity than "yes" or "no" and start
>  reporting what we find when we travel.

I happened to see this today

"How to Check a Hotel's WiFi Speed Before Checking In"
http://www.frequentflier.com/blog/how-to-check-a-hotels-wifi-speed-before-checking-in/

Which reports that the site http://www.hotelwifitest.com makes speed 
tests and speed test results available:

"The results of user's speed tests are also combined with other 
users' input to create hotel WiFi profiles viewable on the Hotel Wifi 
Test webpage."

Seems like a step in the right direction.  Of course, speed during a 
few samples isn't the complete picture, but it's better than nothing. 
Perhaps IETFers can help the site measure other factors?

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
And still I persist in wondering if folly must always
be man's nemesis.                    --Edgar Pangborn