Re: Captive Portal Alternatives (Was: Re: miracle of Firefox in the hotel)
On Sun 13 Feb 2022 at 16:02:53 +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 02:41:31PM +0100, Linux-Fan wrote:
> > Brian writes:
> >
> > > On Sat 12 Feb 2022 at 21:07:10 +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > This is Firefox's captive portal [1] detection [2].
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > [1] Had I a say in it, I'd reserve a very special place in Hell
> > > > for those.
> > >
> > > Could the process to replace them on, say, public transport be outlined?
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > It highly depends on your jurisdiction and other regulatory requirements
> > thus I gather there is no comprehensive answer to this question.
> >
> > Alternatives could be any of the following:
> >
> > * Not using a captive portal at all i.e. having just a free WiFi
> > for everyone near enough to receive the radio signal.
> >
> > * Using WPA Enterprise (RADIUS) to have users login without any
> > website but directly as part of joining the network. This works
> > for very large networks, too. E.g. the `eduroam` common in some
> > universities can be accessed from any of the participating
> > universities' accounts by just entering their campus e-mail address
> > for login.
> >
> > * RFC8910 - Captive-Portal Identification in DHCP and Router
> > Advertisements (RAs). I never never heard of it before searching
> > for “Alternatives to captive portals wifi” online :)
>
> * Joining a local initiative providing free connectivity (and, of
> course, lobbying your local policy makers that this be legal;
> the very idea of providing free stuff tends to be suspect).
>
> Freifunk [1] is one successful example.
Interesting.
Captive portals provide free connectivity. What's the problem?
--
Brian.
Reply to: