<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Making your Ethernet credit card terminal wireless (WiFi)!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.merchantaccountblog.com/archives/263/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.merchantaccountblog.com/archives/263</link>
	<description>Merchant Accounts, Ecommerce, Processing Equipment</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 15:10:21 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: jestep</title>
		<link>http://www.merchantaccountblog.com/archives/263#comment-14089</link>
		<dc:creator>jestep</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2007 18:43:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.merchantaccountblog.com/archives/263#comment-14089</guid>
		<description>I haven't used that adapter before, but anything should work as long as it supports the correct protocol and the encryption. If there is a computer nearby, or other device that needs the internet, the multile ports would definitely come in handy.

The terminal does encrypt everything, so wireless encryption isn't technically required as you stated, but for the sake of good networking practices, I think that it is essential to ensure it is encrypted. So many people are still using WEP encryption, or none at all, that at the least maybe someone will take another look at their wireless network after reading this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I haven&#8217;t used that adapter before, but anything should work as long as it supports the correct protocol and the encryption. If there is a computer nearby, or other device that needs the internet, the multile ports would definitely come in handy.</p>
<p>The terminal does encrypt everything, so wireless encryption isn&#8217;t technically required as you stated, but for the sake of good networking practices, I think that it is essential to ensure it is encrypted. So many people are still using WEP encryption, or none at all, that at the least maybe someone will take another look at their wireless network after reading this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David S.</title>
		<link>http://www.merchantaccountblog.com/archives/263#comment-14080</link>
		<dc:creator>David S.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2007 02:14:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.merchantaccountblog.com/archives/263#comment-14080</guid>
		<description>I hooked up this setup on a First Data terminal a couple of months ago using the Buffalo Ethernet Converter WLI-TX4-G54HP (&lt;a href="http://www.amazon.com/Technology-AirStation-Wireless-Converter-WLI-TX4-G54HP/dp/B000BNDEZY/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3393903-7066500?ie=UTF8&#38;s=electronics&#38;qid=1179280875&#38;sr=8-1" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Technology-AirStation-Wireless-Converter-WLI-TX4-G54HP/dp/B000BNDEZY/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3393903-7066500?ie=UTF8&#38;s=electronics&#38;qid=1179280875&#38;sr=8-1&lt;/a&gt;).

They don't "officially" support wireless yet, but this works fine.  I fully agree with using WPA rather than WEP for your network, but only for network security, not for the credit card terminal.  The terminal already encrypts data from the moment it leaves the terminal all the way to the processor's server.  It's as encrypted on your network before it goes out to the internet as it is when it goes out on the internet, it's the only way it works.  You could run the credit card machine over a public free Wi-Fi connection and it would be just as encrypted even over the air.  I'm not endorsing this, and the credit card company probably won't either (ours doesn't "officially support it").  But like you say; it works.  And we don't have to wait for our provider to get their act together and release direct Wi-Fi support.  Works beautifully!

The Buffalo unit gives you four wired ports for close to the same price as the unit you recommend.  Could also be a security risk with the extra ports as an opening to your network though, so you'd need to keep an eye on it or use the one-port version you mention.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<br />
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
