Interesting article. I wonder - he doesn't touch on the WEP/encryption side at all - do they just rely on forcing CHAP authentication to prevent someone from sniffing the user's PPP password? Also, he rants and raves about RasPPPOE being a "*FREE* PPPoE client for Windows" (which it is), but the license on their front page says: "...Commercial exploitation, redistribution for commercial purposes, especially redistribution by Internet service providers as "their" service to their customers, is strictly prohibited. Internet service providers must purchase a license for distribution to their customers." It sounds like the author knows that this is a big hit with ISP's, so he has licensed the product such that he can still recover some money from licensing fees from the primary customer, but can still give the product away for non-commercial use. I would think this ISP is grossly violating the license. Now, it's a grey area (just reading the license it's grey, I'm sure the author has a very clear idea of his intentions) if the ISP is just telling their customers to go and download this - since then they aren't really distributing it, but they are still mandating it's use (your average Windows user isn't going to know what a PPP client is, much less where to download one - therefore the ISP is dictating to the customer what software they should use). A novel approach all the same. On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Dave Sherman wrote: > Very interesting whitepaper on how a Colorado ISP developed wireless > access for rural customers. > > http://www.hpi.net/whitepapers/warta/ > > -- > Dave Sherman > MCSE, MCSA, CCNA > I think animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all nervous and > give the wrong answers. > _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list