Sharing WiFi internet across the street

[Clueless1977]

I live across the street from my brother and want to share the internet. The Wi-Fi connection is, as to be expected, very weak. How can I improve the situation?

 

[LabRat 891]

There's more than a few options. What you're allowed to change @ your brother's place, and how much DIY-ing you want to do will be the biggest deciding factors (besides cost).

Easy, Simple, and Cheap option, low DIY, no changes needed @ Bro's place:
A wifi access point(bridge) or wifi card that has antenna connections, and unidirectional antennas pointed @ your bro's place.

Simple/Easy, no DIY, need Bro's cooperation:
Get a paired set of long range wifi bridges. Preferably with directional antennas.

What band(s) are being used will affect signal quality and strength too:
The 2.4Ghz bands tolerates physical interference far better than 5Ghz bands, *but* many neighborhoods may have the 2.4Ghz band fully saturated or have other sources of 2.4~2.45Ghz interference
(Inverter microwave ovens like to crash/interfere with 2.4Ghz wifi, for instance)

 

[v12dock]

I had good luck using these airMAX NanoStation 5AC Loco - Ubiquiti Store United States I have around 5 years of uptime bridging two buildings. It does require some networking experience, but they work great.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I live across the street from my brother and want to share the internet.

I agree and typically, the best solution to extend range over long distances is with directional antennas.

HOWEVER, in most jurisdictions (including the US, Canada, UK, EU), such sharing is 100% "illegal". In the US, it is called "theft of services" and is illegal even if you have his permission. If he is found to be "cooperating" by knowingly facilitating this theft by him installing directional antennas and/or devices designed to extend his service across the street, then he is complicit in this "conspiracy" to steal these services.

Note this is similar to tapping into a neighbor's electricity service to power your home, or his water line to bring water into your home.

Basically, the law says every address needs it own connection, service agreement and account.

Even in jurisdictions where this practice is not specifically on the books as a crime, it almost always violates the service agreement/contract your brother has with his ISP.

I am not judging, just informing.

 

[R0H1T]

Curious how they'll find out if someone's doing this, especially if it's just high end AP's & not having any antennas.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Curios how they'll fine out if someone's doing this, especially if it's just high end AP's & not having any antennas.

It is not something they could monitor for unless they were sitting in a high-tech detector van in the street. And they would have no "cause" to be doing that UNLESS the offenders were previously reported to the ISP or authorities - perhaps by a vindictive spouse, jilted boyfriend/girlfriend, another neighbor who also want to "share" this connection, or someone else.

Another possibility might be if the account holder needed to have tech support come over for some reason, it might be discovered then, depending on the circumstances and scenarios. A tech troubleshooting might question why would one even need a high-end AP? Or if using directional antennas, why pointed out the window? Most single family homes don't need more than a decent wireless router centrally located.

Of course, there are dozens of unknowns here, including the shape, size, construction and design of the houses, distance between houses, number of connected devices, surrounding wifi networks in the neighborhood, sources of interference, etc. etc.

But whether one could get away with it or not is not the point here. The point is, should we as advisors, or TPU as a tech support site, knowingly be helping someone violate service contracts, or perhaps even commit a crime?

All I will say is, as a radio communications technician for most of my career, if I had a large property and I needed to extend my wifi range, I would use directional antennas. APs or WAPs (wireless access points) are great in large offices or even large homes, for example, because they typically have omni-directional antennas. Omni-directional antennas are great for receiving signals from all around, including long distances.

But for transmitting over long distances, omni-directional antennas are not ideal because the resulting signal strength in any one direction is very weak. By comparison, directional antennas have the distinct advantage of concentrating the RF energy of the transmitted signal into a single beam of much greater signal strength, directed in a single direction for much greater propagation over longer distances.

 

[R0H1T]

I'm not saying this should be enabled, just wondering how it can be monitored by ISP's if at all. For instance my current ISP has DPI enabled for all home connections, I'm assuming this isn't always(?)the case in the West?

 

[Bill_Bright]

For instance my current ISP has DPI enabled

That doesn't mean anything. A single household could easily have 3, 4, 5 or more totally legitimate users all doing different things on that same network and ISP connection.

 

[agent_x007]

I agree and typically, the best solution to extend range over long distances is with directional antennas.

HOWEVER, in most jurisdictions (including the US, Canada, UK, EU), such sharing is 100% "illegal". In the US, it is called "theft of services" and is illegal even if you have his permission. If he is found to be "cooperating" by knowingly facilitating this theft by him installing directional antennas and/or devices designed to extend his service across the street, then he is complicit in this "conspiracy" to steal these services.

Note this is similar to tapping into a neighbor's electricity service to power your home, or his water line to bring water into your home.

Basically, the law says every address needs it own connection, service agreement and account.

Even in jurisdictions where this practice is not specifically on the books as a crime, it almost always violates the service agreement/contract your brother has with his ISP.

I am not judging, just informing.

What is the difference between mate coming in with laptop to hook up to my own WiFi router (ie. not ISP one), and me sharing my internal network (via AP mode) with a friend from across the street ?
Biggest issue I see if interfering with other networks in proximity (radio signals need solid power to go distances, even with directional antenna).

 

[inquisitor1]

thats it, youre sitting 20 years in solitary confinement for collaborating on internet data theft. how dare you scam the isp who scams you first.

 

[Bill_Bright]

What is the difference between mate coming in with laptop to hook up to my own WiFi router (ie. not ISP one), and me sharing my internal network (via AP mode) with a friend from across the street ?

Come on! Don't be silly. You know the difference.

One is a guest in your home, same as if he were watching cable TV in your guest room, or taking a shower or flushing the toilet in your bathroom.

The other is like a neighbor splicing into your cable TV cable, running a line into his home, and watching HBO with your account in his home. Or like him connecting a water pipe to your incoming water line, running it over to his house, then taking showers in his bathroom.

I am not here to debate moral ethics with anyone. Nor will I. This is theft. That is just a fact of the law, not my opinion or passing of judgement. And note this has nothing to do with the fact the local network is WiFi and not Ethernet. The topic is about sharing the "Internet" connection.

Is It Illegal To Use Neighbor's Wi-Fi? (United States) - Law Stuff Explained

But there are other factors that one should be aware of and concerned with here if you are considering allowing someone to share your Internet connection.

• You could take a serious performance hit, if for example, you both are streaming HD content at the same time.
• If your neighbor (or a guest in their house) decides to download something illegal, the authorities will be looking at you!
• Your network could become exposed to malware through their connection and careless activities.
• A "wizkid" guest in their house might try to hack your computers
• If you give your neighbor your Wifi passphrase, you no longer control it.

thats it, youre sitting 20 years in solitary confinement for collaborating on internet data theft. how dare you scam the isp who scams you first.

Hardly the same thing. No argument from me that ISPs overcharge. My cable Internet, cable TV with DVR service (along with all the fees and taxes that go with) is now pushing $300 per month! And I don't even subscribe to any premium channels. It is almost embarrassing to say I pay it. And in over 35 years of subscribing to this service, only once has tech support needed to come to my house, and that was only because a storm took down a tree branch that took out my cable drop. So definitely, they overcharge.

So do drug companies, insurance companies, and gas companies. So does the NFL to see a game (or eat a hotdog), Ticketmaster to see a concert, Or Six Flags, Dollywood and Disneyland. The neighborhood kid just want $30 to shovel my sidewalk which I did in less than 30 minutes.

The gas (petroleum/fuel) companies irritate me the most. Any tiny disturbance of any kind anywhere in the world, even rumors of a disturbance and fuel prices immediately jump $.20 - $.30 per gallon - even for the purchased fuel already in station's storage tanks! But do the prices drop back down just as quickly when that disturbance passes? No way! It takes days or even weeks.

Same with the stock market.

That still does not justify theft.

 

[inquisitor1]

on reddit, I always notice everyone worried about their isp. asking about whats legal or not and its always just usa. and the answer is always use vpn. we dont have those issues. vast majority of eu doesnt care. vast majority of the world isp dont care. doesnt send illegal notices and such. we dont use vpn to circumvent. no one cares. 3rd world isnt so bad hahahaha.



>That still does not justify theft.

I agree. how do they justify $300 theft per month fees.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Oh, by claiming the fastest speeds, the most reliable service and all sorts of other marketing hype.

Truth be told - they don't have to justify it. I want these services, there's no competition where I live, there little to no regulation that will only get worse as forced government downsizing happens. So they got us by the short and curlys.

Access to the Internet via our ISPs has nothing to do with VPNs.

 

[Shrek]

>That still does not justify theft.

I agree. how do they justify $300 theft per month fees.

You pay $300 a month?

 

[inquisitor1]

You pay $300 a month?

not even close. but I dont have the services he uses.

So they got us by the short and curlys.

yea, I have multiple companies I can use. Im still on the slow service internet service. trying to move to fiber optic really soon.

 

[Bill_Bright]

You pay $300 a month?

Close to it.

That's $75/month for Internet "up to 500Mbps" - though actually I'm getting 600.22Mbps so I can't argue with that.

TV is the killer at $190/month for the "preferred" package, which includes the DVR service, DVR box, plus a basic box for a second TV. That gets me over 140 channels, of which I watch, maybe, 20. If I didn't have the DVR service and DVR box, that would be about $45 less each month. But DVR has spoiled me. I can record two channels while watching a 3rd. And during playback of recorded shows, I can fast-forward through the commercials. Not sure how they know this, but the TV stations clearly have conspired against me by having the same show times for different shows I like. For example, tomorrow night at 7PM, there is a new "Tracker", the "SNL50 Anniversary Special", and "Miss Scarlett". This is how they force me into the DVR service.

Then they tack on another $26,39 for "Taxes, Fees and Surcharges".

The "rip off" to me is we cannot "roll your own" bundle. I am forced to get over a 100 channels I never watch just to get the 20 I do.

To add insult to injury, at times, there is nothing on those 140 channels I want to watch (or have seen before). So I also get Netflix who keep raising their rates too.

 

[JIWIL]

Yep, ATT Gigabit plus a pretty basic DVR plan was ~250$USD/mo.

I finally dropped the TV plan, kept the 50$/mo fiber. Now sub to a revolving door of rip-off streaming services... that don't do me as dirty as the DVR plan did (save ~150$/mo).

What really irks me is how terrible all the streaming apps are. They have one product, a streaming app, and they're all just universally awful.

Sorry topic.

 

[Steevo]

I have a cheapo USB wifi adapter and some aluminum foil in the attic of a couple buildings to create a parabolic antenna 2.4Ghz setup and beam 100+Mbps service to the other location. Total cost less than $50 for USB extension cords and the adapters. The 5Ghz won’t reach but the 2.4 does.

 

[lexluthermiester]

HOWEVER, in most jurisdictions (including the US, Canada, UK, EU), such sharing is 100% "illegal". In the US, it is called "theft of services" and is illegal even if you have his permission.

No, it isn't. If the owner of the Wifi network gives another person permission to access said network, on an ongoing basis, no laws whatsoever are being violated. To say otherwise is nonsensical hullabaloo.

 

[agent_x007]

In criminal law, theft of services refers to a type of crime that may be committed when a person uses a service without providing proper compensation for the service.

If whoever pays the bill ISP sends for Internet services... pays it - it's not a crime of "stealing".
Example : If you can handle (financially) increased traffic due to another person using it [not everyone have uncapped limits], you are pretty much fine (at least from what I understand US law).
ISP doesn't care who pays the bill or how it's payed, it just needs to be payed.

EDIT : Is It Illegal To Use Neighbor's Wi-Fi? (United States) - Law Stuff Explained
Also, about ^this link : It's 90% about doing it WITHOUT permission, OR using public WiFi to do gray/illegal things.
It does NOT mention, that it's illegal to use your neighbors Wi-Fi WITH his permission.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Directional antennas, ideally built into an AP, is what you want in a window in each property, or on the roof/outside of the building.
There are lots of different solutions that should work, even some ready made bridge kits.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Directional antennas, ideally built into an AP, is what you want in a window

Are you aware of any such devices? I am familiar with APs designed for outdoor installation with internal directional antennas because they typically are designed to be mounted on poles, or with a "universal" roof/wall bracket so you can orient (aim) the antenna towards the distant end. With these units, aesthetics is of little to no concern.

But APs designed for indoor use (at least for use in offices and homes) typically must look nice (or not ugly or industrial) too. Good looks can be a huge detriment to function.

We've installed many APs over the years and I've never seen or even heard of an AP designed for indoor use with an "internal" directional antenna. I am not saying they don't exist, only that I have never even heard of one. I sure would never buy one, just like I would never buy a wireless router that only had internal antennas. Any that I buy MUST have external, moveable (preferably detachable) antennas so I can orient the antennas and not the whole router.

Typically, if built in, those we've worked with are omni-directional and to me, that would make sense. If directional, it seems placement/mounting of the AP could become a big problem to ensure the antenna is properly oriented towards the distant end.

Typically, we used APs to extend wifi range to a different area/section of a building. In a home, that might be for the entire basement or top floor. If we needed to extent out to an outbuilding like a detached garage/workshop, or a barn (I live in Nebraska), we ensured the AP supported detachable antennas, then added a pair of directional antennas, one pointing out to the barn and the other back to the main building. Ideally, and in many cases to ensure maximum propagation and receive signal strength, or perhaps if Low-E glass window panes were used we punched holes through walls for the cable and mounted a good Yagi on the exterior of the building.

 

[Ahhzz]

I believe enough statements have been made regarding the questionable legality/breach of contract being discussed to allow the OP to make his own decision regarding that potential issue. Stick to the Original topic, please, or don't post. Thanks!

 

[DudeBeFishing]

For across the street, any cheap point to point wifi bridges, with directional antennas, should work. The last time I setup a wireless bridge was like 10 or 12 years ago. I had to connect two office buildings about 3.5 miles apart. I can't remember what I used, but they were like $80 each. I doubt your street is that wide.

The main thing is they need direct line of sight. If you have bushes, trees, or walls in the way, they might not function, or speed will be limited. I usually mounted them on poles outside, but that's probably not ideal for a residential neighborhood.

I haven't used this model, but this is probably what I'd go with. TP-Link EAP211-BRIDGE K

Omada 5GHz 867Mbps Indoor/Outdoor Wireless Bridge

The Omada wireless bridge, EAP211-Bridge KIT, delivers up to 867 Mbps wireless data rates and gives a long-range transmission up to 1 km. Auto-pairing and centralized management enpower your efficient deployment and management.

www.omadanetworks.com

 

[Clueless1977]

Thank you everyone for all the feedback. I will check with the legalities before making any decision.