Re: Recommended ISP's
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:55:02PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 09:39:33PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote: I do! But when you need a message that absolutely-positively-can't-get-lost because of routing errors, poor DSL connects, no backup MX, or power outage, it helps to have someone else responsible. Actually, that's exactly why I do not trust anybody else with my email. I'll use my ISP for a smarthost for sites that have ineffectual, high-collateral-damage spam defenses, but that's about it. The only problem with that is that you have to have a fairly stable ip number, so that your incoming mail knows where to go. But if yur ip number changes every-so-often, then, no matter how fast you advise your register about it, you may loose some mail... Unless someone knows of a solution (¿...?) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 07:33:05PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:56:57PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote: I do pop3-ssl with comcast. But I don't know how to configure it for exim/smtp. Just install exim-tls and don't bother setting up a smarthost except for those that give you problems. If anybody wants to see how to get around that in exim4, let me know and I'll post it here and someplace on my site. Please do it. Thank you. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 05:25:32AM -0500, Antonio Rodriguez wrote: The only problem with that is that you have to have a fairly stable ip number, so that your incoming mail knows where to go. But if yur ip number changes every-so-often, then, no matter how fast you advise your register about it, you may loose some mail... Unless someone knows of a solution (?...?) http://www.dyndns.org/ - -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFADUUuUzgNqloQMwcRArBDAJ4jXCjqH/tH0xPtWwOeuDO/4/t9oQCfUx+t 6QtU1i2Dxxb56y6sj1BezPo= =vyQ6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 05:28:07AM -0500, Antonio Rodriguez wrote: On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 07:33:05PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:56:57PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote: I do pop3-ssl with comcast. But I don't know how to configure it for exim/smtp. Just install exim-tls and don't bother setting up a smarthost except for those that give you problems. If anybody wants to see how to get around that in exim4, let me know and I'll post it here and someplace on my site. Please do it. Thank you. Wait, mybad, I'm sorry. I don't know where my head was at there...I don't know about the tls part, but I can help out with the selective-smarthost part. - -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFADfUSUzgNqloQMwcRAi8pAKCpdhB2rVBIzFSwTv5JySbalg8JlgCcDFBI O/PrHpEWV5xj9p4zocjAbPE= =lNNI -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
Bijan Soleymani wrote: Let's assume there are 100 channels. That means that if you wanted to do it with analog technology, VHS, you'd need 100 times the capacity. Either 100 tapes in parallel (imagine having to synchronize 100 VCRs), tape rolling at 100 times the speed (tape would wear out, each tape would last 2 minutes instead of 2 hours, etc), tape 100 times as wide (lol, just try to imagine that), or a combination of each (twice as wide, ten times as fast and five in parallel),or of course a better technology. If you were doing it digitally, mpeg capture, then you'd need a tuner per channel each capturing at about 1 mbit/s. So that's about 100mbit/s or about 8 megabytes of video per second. That's not too bad, except you'd have to fit in 100 mpeg encoders into the system (not that unreasonable). You might be able to record the whole thing on a computer with a generic Digital to Analog converter, split it up in software and then reencode in mpeg, don't know how much processor power / bus bandwidth that would take. So the answer is yes it's possible but it probably woulnd't be trivial. i'd be ecstatic if i could trade in that useless television bandwidth that i don't need for an acceptable upload speed on my cable modem :-( -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:36:01 -0500, Roberto Sanchez wrote: Brett Carrington wrote: That is not too difficult. The [U.S.] military (and others, I'm sure) use wide-band recorders for some applications (not sure what, as it is not my field of expertise). Essentially, they record onto 1 or wider tape and capture huge parts of the spectrum. Later, the play the tape back and tune specific freqs to get what they want. However, I'm sure the equipment is not cheap. I suspect that the BBC monitoring folks at Caversham might do something similar, only with a specific set, or sets, of frequencies. A quick search of the bbc web site gave only this, but I'm sure there's a lot more info on the BBC Monitoring Service if anyone cares to dig for it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/milestones/1980s.html Active steerable high frequency receiving array installed at Crowsley Park near Caversham for the BBC Monitoring Service. -- paul It is important to realize that any lock can be picked with a big enough hammer. -- Sun System Network Admin manual -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, Brett Carrington wrote: But how? The lines are -still- shared, they didn't change the entire infastructure. Is each user's cable connection now encrypted end-to-end? I imagine any amount of secure encryption would really hurt people trying to play bandwidth-heavy games. (Not in actual bandwidth but computational time on what I assume are minimally powered cable modems.) Cable companies that implement DOCSIS 1.1 can use something called Baseline Privacy Interface, which essentially provides for just that. Cox Communications (as an example) has turned it on for most if not all of their cable systems. BPI provides for encryption from the modem to the CMTS (where the cable system meets the rest of the IP network, essentially). I used to work for Cox, and I don't recall hearing any complaints at all in terms of speed or latency issues. A few modems here and there balked at the config changes, but those were issues with those modems, and nothing inherent in BPI or DOCSIS 1.1. Of course, BPI only works (I believe) if the modem is DOCSIS 1.1 compliant or better. Older modems won't be able to use it. In those cases, Cox falls back to ordinary unencrypted transmission. - Aaron -- Aaron Hall : I claim this planet in the name of Mars. [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Hmmm, isn't that lovely? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:39:49PM -0600, Aaron Hall wrote: [snip] Of course, BPI only works (I believe) if the modem is DOCSIS 1.1 compliant or better. Older modems won't be able to use it. In those cases, Cox falls back to ordinary unencrypted transmission. But can you tell if encryption is on? If that technology fails for a moment (service enhancement/repairs!) you are unprotected. I think the obscurity would be equivalent to a circuit-switched line (DSL) but there really ought to be a move to encrypt-or-nothing. (And while IPsec et. al. exist, find me one ISP that requires or even provides an end-point.) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 06:41:29PM -0600, Kent West wrote: Jeff McAdams wrote: Nano Nano wrote: Could a device in theory record every channel simultaneously? Yes. Could it in practice? Depends on what you consider practical, I guess. I would say no. Your typical TV or VCR has one or two receivers or tuners in it. A receiver or tuner is capable of receiving or tuning a single channel at a time, so a dual-receiver or dual-tuner TV or VCR is capable of extracting two channels at once. Software-defined radio (the same principles apply to receiving channels on a wire that they do to receiving channels over radio waves in the air) could, in theory, receiving the whole spectrum at once and extract individual channels out of the stored data at a later time. Again, it becomes a question of what you consider practical. Or with a fast enough processor (does it exist?) controlling the tuner, sample each channel in real time, like a couch potato surfing through the channels and getting a fair idea of everything that's on, only much much faster. It'd have to sample all 155 channels (or whatever) each 30th of a second (for analog TV signals) in order to get a full 30-frames per second for 155 channels. But that's probably closer to the theoretical rather than the practical. It'd be pretty hard to do it quite like that, with one analogue tuner continually being retuned. You'd have to tune it through all 155 channels every 0.125us to get a 4MHz video bandwidth on each channel. As a side effect the selectivity would be reduced and adjacent channels would interfere with each other. You could ease the task by only trying to recover the audio, perhaps at less than the full audio bandwidth. Better to do the whole thing digitally - A-to-D the incoming signal directly and have a fast DSP implement 155 tuners and demodulators in parallel, in software. That's less impractical than it sounds. GPS receivers work vaguely like that, to receive several satellites at the same time. DAB receivers are also vaguely like that, to receive the multiple carriers of the DAB signal simultaneously. Both cases are less demanding, of course, but it's certainly possible in theory. In practice you'd probably have to use a combination of software and hardware parallelism - eg. 15 DSPs doing 10 channels each - with current processor technology. (For an off-the-shelf solution, you could have a room full of 155 VCRs...) -- Pigeon Be kind to pigeons Get my GPG key here: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x21C61F7F pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Recommended ISP's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:39:49PM -0600, Aaron Hall wrote: I used to work for Cox, and I don't recall hearing any complaints at all in terms of speed or latency issues. I used to work for @Home, which gave bandwidth and support to Cox (and many others). Most of the calls we got involving latency issues were from Cox and Charter markets. All of them serious line noise issues also affecting television. No idea if any of those got fixed, Cox and Charter also had this assenine policy that the only way @Home folks could get Cox or Charter to roll a truck was to email them with the customer's information and hope they actually called the customer like they were supposed to but never did. Cox's tier 1 guys were fscking morons, too, since line noise issues are something they weren't even supposed to send up to us tier 2 folk to begin with...bastards. Not uncommon to get five or six calls from the same customer with the same issue before Cox or Charter would pull their head out long enough to fix the problem. Strike 2 against Cox for me is they colluded with ATT and Comcast against @Home to buy @Home's infrastructure for pennies on the dollar. The collapse of Enron distracted the FTC from the collusion case until after time ran out to prosecute for it, IIRC. So they put me and 8000+ of my closest coworkers out of work with illegal, unethical business practices and got away with it scott-free. I've never been a Cox customer and in the last 3 years, they've done quite a bit by proxy to screw me. I'm not thinking they were out to get me, but rather they're so inconsiderate or incompetent that they could not help themselves. Though Aaron's still cool. 8:o) - -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFADIIHUzgNqloQMwcRAqisAJ0b5fbtn3+IoKpDf9kW496nRf++vQCff8XH D/eUNPrP8OAdLFYRs+1LSmc= =ruBu -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:53:04PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote: But can you tell if encryption is on? What difference does it make? It's still going to hit a fairly public network not protected by the hardware after the very first hop anyway. For some reason, in the last few years, people have developed the misguided idea that your security is somehow your ISP's responsibility. This is completely inept: It's like expecting your landlord to lock and unlock your home for you when you come and go. - -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFADIL7UzgNqloQMwcRArlLAKCMmfRI3GnvA9GFoqz8pqmqKm6xrwCfXRvO 54I6NfwFP+zttNqOZ6kpcI0= =qRpt -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:23:07PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:53:04PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote: But can you tell if encryption is on? What difference does it make? It's still going to hit a fairly public network not protected by the hardware after the very first hop anyway. True. But plain-text POP3 passwords (or heck, your PPPoE login) are more likely to be sniffed in that 'local loop' than anywhere else. Assessing risk is a factor in who to trust. Besides, I've been arguing against any of cable's shared bandwidth vulnerabilities and their new security is only a mild curiosity. I wouldn't use such a connection. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Recommended ISP's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:56:52PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote: True. But plain-text POP3 passwords (or heck, your PPPoE login) are more likely to be sniffed in that 'local loop' than anywhere else. Assessing risk is a factor in who to trust. What difference does it make? Quality mail providers give you IMAP4-SSL and POP3-SSL anyway... Besides, I've been arguing against any of cable's shared bandwidth vulnerabilities and their new security is only a mild curiosity. I wouldn't use such a connection. Since @Home became the leader over RoadRunner in the 1990s on, cable has been just as secure but faster and more reliable for the same money. You're almost 10 years behind on your knowledge about cable networks, it seems. - -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFADJLoUzgNqloQMwcRAoJaAJ45RRLuB4/AWA1po4Jj4Hf1vpFVPwCgpcmX kk6O42aJPynAix3rJaqlmQk= =oFAR -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:31:04PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: What difference does it make? Quality mail providers give you IMAP4-SSL and POP3-SSL anyway... Any major ISP's do this? My RBOC doesn't for DSL. You're almost 10 years behind on your knowledge about cable networks, it seems. There is truth to that. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Recommended ISP's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 09:34:24PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote: On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:31:04PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: What difference does it make? Quality mail providers give you IMAP4-SSL and POP3-SSL anyway... Any major ISP's do this? My RBOC doesn't for DSL. Not that I know of. But who said you had to get everything from one person? Hey, you use Debian: Why not just serve it yourself? - -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFADJReUzgNqloQMwcRAikpAJ983BqQvtX5IE4FfSReAIeE/ZVSfQCeN01D DX3IBeA2c/LP3ZGtw2HzN8U= =7wmp -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:37:18PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 09:34:24PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote: On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:31:04PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: What difference does it make? Quality mail providers give you IMAP4-SSL and POP3-SSL anyway... Any major ISP's do this? My RBOC doesn't for DSL. Not that I know of. But who said you had to get everything from one person? Hey, you use Debian: Why not just serve it yourself? I do! But when you need a message that absolutely-positively-can't-get-lost because of routing errors, poor DSL connects, no backup MX, or power outage, it helps to have someone else responsible. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Recommended ISP's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 09:39:33PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote: I do! But when you need a message that absolutely-positively-can't-get-lost because of routing errors, poor DSL connects, no backup MX, or power outage, it helps to have someone else responsible. Actually, that's exactly why I do not trust anybody else with my email. I'll use my ISP for a smarthost for sites that have ineffectual, high-collateral-damage spam defenses, but that's about it. - -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFADJiGUzgNqloQMwcRAkp0AKCOn0bbroOxUJsP3kzmmn4f9eeSjgCfeeAm oA+QblCyPlzLLPYiCMxMKWY= =J1XR -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 09:34:24PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote: On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:31:04PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: What difference does it make? Quality mail providers give you IMAP4-SSL and POP3-SSL anyway... Any major ISP's do this? My RBOC doesn't for DSL. I do pop3-ssl with comcast. But I don't know how to configure it for exim/smtp. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:56:57PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote: I do pop3-ssl with comcast. But I don't know how to configure it for exim/smtp. Just install exim-tls and don't bother setting up a smarthost except for those that give you problems. If anybody wants to see how to get around that in exim4, let me know and I'll post it here and someplace on my site. - -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFADKFxUzgNqloQMwcRAm8rAJ9M4/iJB3ehCLm3vfay7yJSQM49fwCfStCy 1bIn9uChBIF++vIm4TCmjcA= =nl0F -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 07:33:05PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: Just install exim-tls and don't bother setting up a smarthost except for those that give you problems. If anybody wants to see how to get around that in exim4, let me know and I'll post it here and someplace on my site. exim-tls isn't in sid; what's it called there? I don't want to do much with exim; I like the functionality as is in Woody with eximconfig/Smarthost only, but I would like to turn on the tls/ssl switch to encyrpt it as it uploads. Is the new exim just a drop-in replacement for what ships in Woody? I like using a Smarthost, hell, the government monitors every damn thing anyway; I'm keeping no secrets. No privacy, but it's been 100% reliable for me, and I don't care much. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 07:48:03PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote: On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 07:33:05PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: Just install exim-tls and don't bother setting up a smarthost except for those that give you problems. If anybody wants to see how to get around that in exim4, let me know and I'll post it here and someplace on my site. exim-tls isn't in sid; what's it called there? Hmm, I just looked, and you're right. I see it's in woody now. I don't know, then. I don't want to do much with exim; I like the functionality as is in Woody with eximconfig/Smarthost only, but I would like to turn on the tls/ssl switch to encyrpt it as it uploads. Is the new exim just a drop-in replacement for what ships in Woody? Should be. I like using a Smarthost, hell, the government monitors every damn thing anyway; I'm keeping no secrets. No privacy, but it's been 100% reliable for me, and I don't care much. Nuclear weapons. 8:o) - -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFADKe5UzgNqloQMwcRAtBEAKDdDGWOEu5A/GeSk8vcVf0cEfzUcQCcDI9v K2/XDluk5lXaIzvlK1zPOnc= =qZFM -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 10:47:33AM -0500, John Kerr Anderson wrote: We've been using SBC Yahoo Dsl, but were so outraged at their arrogance, poor quality service, and lack of support that we decided to cancel. Can anyone recommend an ISP that is actually good? We're thinking of switching to charter cable internet, but rumour is they're partnered with Micro$oft. Any recommendations??? I wouldn't recommend cable for the pure fact that you are sharing the cable line with everyone on your block. Kiddie MP3 trader guys will sap your bandwidth but malicious hacker #434 can sniff anything on that line. As for DSL, you (unfortunately) should stick with the local phone monopoly. They usually suck but they are the only company who can repair lines and actual deal with -real- issues. A reseller of DSL can only report actual problems to the local phone RBOC/monopoly and if the problemn isn't effecting their actual customers they might just take their sweet time. Barring everything else, if you'd like a Linux/server-friendly and reasonable DSL provider check out www.speakeasy.net. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Recommended ISP's
I've had very good luck with Road Runner cable. I used to have SBC DSL but after they kept dialing down my speed (I'm at the edge of the service radius) and the 2nd modem burned up I went with RR. They did have problems (DNS server issue, they said) this fall locally, but they eventually got it straightened out. I agree that bandwidth can get zapped from time to time and it will vary with your area. However, the company garuntees a certain level of performance, the rest is bonus. For security, a $40 - $60 router/hub/firewall works wonders and I have no complaints with mine. HTH -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 11:14:23AM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote: I wouldn't recommend cable for the pure fact that you are sharing the cable line with everyone on your block. Kiddie MP3 trader guys will sap your bandwidth ... In every real case, you still end up with more than 128K, which is what basic DSL will give you. I tend to get over 4 megabit downstream. but malicious hacker #434 can sniff anything on that line. And who cares? Not me. Anything confidential I encrypt anyway. -- Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jabootu's Minister of Proofreading http://www.jabootu.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 10:39:05AM -0600, Mac McCaskie wrote: For security, a $40 - $60 router/hub/firewall works wonders and I have no complaints with mine. That router/hub/firewall is giving you no data security. Since you share your cable line ANYONE can see ANY DATA (including unencrypted credit card numbers or passwords) you send over your cable connection. The only solution to this is a VPN or other end-to-end encryption from your house/termination to the provider. No amount of firewalling or NAT-ing will protect plain-text data. No amount. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 11:14:23AM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote: Barring everything else, if you'd like a Linux/server-friendly and reasonable DSL provider check out www.speakeasy.net. I have had SpeakEasy for about 1-year and have been very satisfied. They are one of the few ISP's that offer static IP's at a reasonable price. -- The market is not an invention of capitalism. It has existed for centuries. It is an invention of civilization. -- Mikhail Gorbachev Rick Pasotto[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.niof.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004, at 10:47 -0500, John Kerr Anderson wrote: We've been using SBC Yahoo Dsl, but were so outraged at their arrogance, poor quality service, and lack of support that we decided to cancel. Can anyone recommend an ISP that is actually good? We're thinking of switching to charter cable internet, but rumour is they're partnered with Micro$oft. Any recommendations??? We would like something that is high-speed if possible such as DSL/cable, we live in mid-Michigan. SBC and Charter both service my area, St. Louis. I get connectivity from Charter, but I use a different ISP for actual services such as mail, news and a conveinient shell. Charter in St. Louis has been excellent; barring one problem which their support immediately recognized and came out to my neighborhood to repair, I have never had any noticable downtime and the connectivity has been superior. I believe they outsource their news, mail and web hosting services from Earthlink, but as I don't use it for that, I can't comment on the quality. You might also consider talking to a group local in your area; I've found that some St. Louis-area user groups can be helpful after sending a quick mail to their respective mailing-list. -- scott c. linnenbringer | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.moslug.org/~sl | [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004, at 11:14 -0500, Brett Carrington wrote: I wouldn't recommend cable for the pure fact that you are sharing the cable line with everyone on your block. Kiddie MP3 trader guys will sap your bandwidth but malicious hacker #434 can sniff anything on that line. I don't think that's a problem these days as it used to be; many Cable providers have plenty of bandwidth on the local cable circuit especially after the influx of upgrades, as well as caps of course. And it's certainly not possible to sniff traffic as it used to be for some Cable providers. -- scott c. linnenbringer | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.moslug.org/~sl | [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Recommended ISP's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 10:47:33AM -0500, John Kerr Anderson wrote: We're thinking of switching to charter cable internet, but rumour is they're partnered with Micro$oft. Any recommendations??? Actually, they're not partnered with Microsoft. Paul Allen just has many interests: He's got some major interest in Charter, I think he's on the board. He owns the Portland Trail Blazers and the Seattle Seahawks. He's a cofounder of Microsoft. He's in charge of TechTV. If anything, you want to support Charter, because it gives Allen a viable exit strategy should he want to de-Borg himself. - -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFACupnUzgNqloQMwcRAu9uAKDBTKoh8r9LVZ/4pRpWYkqW2Pw5JwCgj6x1 Vzktk+V2o51p1mADmK3Sh3U= =2BUi -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 11:14:23AM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote: I wouldn't recommend cable for the pure fact that you are sharing the cable line with everyone on your block. Kiddie MP3 trader guys will sap your bandwidth but malicious hacker #434 can sniff anything on that line. You're sharing bandwidth, as in, the same spectrum on the cable line. If you sit on your cable modem with a packet sniffer, you'll see broadcasts for the IP subnet you're on and packets destined for you only. Watch the light on the modem flicker, and it doesn't coincide with anything else. Meanwhile, DSL, you're just fighting for bandwidth with all the other DSL users that's left over after all the customers with gauranteed bandwidth (t1, t3, etc) have had their fill. - -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFACustUzgNqloQMwcRAvsXAJ97OoScy5E/0sjPITNXhMy0+TMETwCggfXJ MV9GgjHQyu46345jeE3lVq8= =2obk -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
Quoting Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [snip] You're sharing bandwidth, as in, the same spectrum on the cable line. If you sit on your cable modem with a packet sniffer, you'll see broadcasts for the IP subnet you're on and packets destined for you only. Watch the light on the modem flicker, and it doesn't coincide with anything else. Meanwhile, DSL, you're just fighting for bandwidth with all the other DSL users that's left over after all the customers with gauranteed bandwidth (t1, t3, etc) have had their fill. Please give instructions on how this is done. I have heard alleged by some people. I have also heard acknowledged experts in the field say it is not (or no longer) possible. I have put the NIC on my cable modem in promiscuous mode and saw nothing but my own traffic. There may be a way to hack the cable modem itself to be in promiscious mode, but I haven't heard anyone give any good explanation of this. In anycase, it is pointless paranoia. A much more plausible scenario is a disgruntled employee at any of the computers between you and the destination sniffing packets. Or someone hacking those computers/routers. If the data is sensitive, encrypt it. Especially if it goes through computers you do not control. I use SSH even on my home LAN. Jeffrey -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:57:59PM -0600, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote: [snip] In anycase, it is pointless paranoia. A much more plausible scenario is a disgruntled employee at any of the computers between you and the destination sniffing packets. Or someone hacking those computers/routers. I don't know how it's done, but it's totally true: everything on your cable modem can be intercepted easily by people on your same subnet. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 01:07:04PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote: On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:57:59PM -0600, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote: [snip] In anycase, it is pointless paranoia. A much more plausible scenario is a disgruntled employee at any of the computers between you and the destination sniffing packets. Or someone hacking those computers/routers. I don't know how it's done, but it's totally true: everything on your cable modem can be intercepted easily by people on your same subnet. I'd guess the cable modems are ignoring data not meant for you specifically. The actual cable line still carries all data however and it's just a simple matter of modulating/demodulating it. I'm curious to know if you could ARP poision machines on your subnet and perform attacks based on that. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Recommended ISP's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 01:07:04PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote: I don't know how it's done, but it's totally true: everything on your cable modem can be intercepted easily by people on your same subnet. Not these days. Cable companies got a bit more security conscious about 5 years ago. - -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFACvoFUzgNqloQMwcRAkU6AJwNSWQFlBv6qcUIAczIp9Y/TRxKjACdEpU1 SNtmVRRWruBLVuqrh2snxh4= =2FmV -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 04:18:48PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote: I'd guess the cable modems are ignoring data not meant for you specifically. The actual cable line still carries all data however and it's just a simple matter of modulating/demodulating it. Yeah. More or less, they got smart about routing. I'm curious to know if you could ARP poision machines on your subnet and perform attacks based on that. Not sure. - -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFACvt6UzgNqloQMwcRAj54AJ9nI0RqRJ0USjdokUVkmLjGtpEhdwCfXwWR 0nCSTsgUfEWYI68n0t36zGk= =zwqT -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 01:26:29PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 01:07:04PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote: I don't know how it's done, but it's totally true: everything on your cable modem can be intercepted easily by people on your same subnet. Not these days. Cable companies got a bit more security conscious about 5 years ago. But how? The lines are -still- shared, they didn't change the entire infastructure. Is each user's cable connection now encrypted end-to-end? I imagine any amount of secure encryption would really hurt people trying to play bandwidth-heavy games. (Not in actual bandwidth but computational time on what I assume are minimally powered cable modems.) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 04:18:48PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote: [snip] I'd guess the cable modems are ignoring data not meant for you specifically. The actual cable line still carries all data however and it's just a simple matter of modulating/demodulating it. Just how much bandwidth are those cables capable of carrying? I've always wondered: is every cable channel coming to my house simultaneously, plus all this broadband traffic? I seem to recall hearing the number 155 megabit sometime. Are they using most of it? It seems like when they planned cable television in the 1970's they sure planned in a whole heck of a lot of capacity. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 04:35:37PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote: But how? The lines are -still- shared, they didn't change the entire infastructure. Is each user's cable connection now encrypted end-to-end? I imagine any amount of secure encryption would really hurt people trying to play bandwidth-heavy games. (Not in actual bandwidth but computational time on what I assume are minimally powered cable modems.) Probably just turned on switching on the headend, and giving everyone a virtual segment. - -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFACv2uUzgNqloQMwcRAtIjAJ4tkeoexDJhC7Q383zUOY480Nj6xQCeL9E2 6flZEvpzeZVll7lXeYpjing= =xcGL -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 04:35:37PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote: On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 01:26:29PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 01:07:04PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote: I don't know how it's done, but it's totally true: everything on your cable modem can be intercepted easily by people on your same subnet. Not these days. Cable companies got a bit more security conscious about 5 years ago. But how? The lines are -still- shared, they didn't change the entire infastructure. Is each user's cable connection now encrypted end-to-end? I imagine any amount of secure encryption would really hurt people trying to play bandwidth-heavy games. (Not in actual bandwidth but computational time on what I assume are minimally powered cable modems.) The specification is called Docsis (data over cable specification something something) 2.0. I know each cable modem has a digital certificate in it used for authentication - Cisco's cable modems use a variant of the thing they use for requesting certs for routers. I wrote a policy module for Windows Certificate Services for Cisco to handle it. I know they have the *capacity* to basically do IPsec or encrypt everything, but they're not currently. Won't that be exciting when they do! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 01:42:06PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: Probably just turned on switching on the headend, and giving everyone a virtual segment. See Nano Nano's response which seems to make my argument moot then. But I recall the cable system is like this: H H H H | | | | Main - --- Shared Lines --[_ --- Shared Lines Trunk | | | | H H H H I assume the only 'head end', the [ in the diagram, could be off and on for each of the smaller shared lines but that isn't going to stop those few H's (houses) from seeing their lines. If cable could really be turned off like this then cable theft would disappear. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 01:40:46PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote: On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 04:18:48PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote: [snip] I'd guess the cable modems are ignoring data not meant for you specifically. The actual cable line still carries all data however and it's just a simple matter of modulating/demodulating it. Just how much bandwidth are those cables capable of carrying? I've always wondered: is every cable channel coming to my house simultaneously, plus all this broadband traffic? I seem to recall hearing the number 155 megabit sometime. Are they using most of it? It seems like when they planned cable television in the 1970's they sure planned in a whole heck of a lot of capacity. Yes all the channels and the traffic are coming on the same wire. Each channel is at a different frequency (kind of like for regular antenna reception), and the tv picks out whichever channel you want. Well they planned at least 100 hundred channels of fullscreen analog video so that's quite a bit of bandwidth, and they're only using the cable a short-distance nowadays for the local-loop, with the main connections being fibre-optics, etc. Bijan -- Bijan Soleymani [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.crasseux.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 04:56:53PM -0500, Bijan Soleymani wrote: [snip] Yes all the channels and the traffic are coming on the same wire. Each channel is at a different frequency (kind of like for regular antenna reception), and the tv picks out whichever channel you want. Could a device in theory record every channel simultaneously? Could it in practice? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:05:02PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote: On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 04:56:53PM -0500, Bijan Soleymani wrote: [snip] Yes all the channels and the traffic are coming on the same wire. Each channel is at a different frequency (kind of like for regular antenna reception), and the tv picks out whichever channel you want. Could a device in theory record every channel simultaneously? Could it in practice? Yes, but it's probably not very cheap. You'd need a seperate tuner for each channel. When you change the channel your TV just re-tunes to the freq. of the station on the wire. To record every channel you'd need to be tuned to every station at the same time and then you'd need to find a way to record it signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Recommended ISP's
Nano Nano wrote: Could a device in theory record every channel simultaneously? Yes. Could it in practice? Depends on what you consider practical, I guess. I would say no. Your typical TV or VCR has one or two receivers or tuners in it. A receiver or tuner is capable of receiving or tuning a single channel at a time, so a dual-receiver or dual-tuner TV or VCR is capable of extracting two channels at once. Software-defined radio (the same principles apply to receiving channels on a wire that they do to receiving channels over radio waves in the air) could, in theory, receiving the whole spectrum at once and extract individual channels out of the stored data at a later time. Again, it becomes a question of what you consider practical. -- Jeff McAdams He who laughs last, thinks slowest. -- anonymous pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:05:02PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote: On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 04:56:53PM -0500, Bijan Soleymani wrote: [snip] Yes all the channels and the traffic are coming on the same wire. Each channel is at a different frequency (kind of like for regular antenna reception), and the tv picks out whichever channel you want. Could a device in theory record every channel simultaneously? Sure you just need to tune in to a wider range of frequencies. Could it in practice? Let's assume there are 100 channels. That means that if you wanted to do it with analog technology, VHS, you'd need 100 times the capacity. Either 100 tapes in parallel (imagine having to synchronize 100 VCRs), tape rolling at 100 times the speed (tape would wear out, each tape would last 2 minutes instead of 2 hours, etc), tape 100 times as wide (lol, just try to imagine that), or a combination of each (twice as wide, ten times as fast and five in parallel),or of course a better technology. If you were doing it digitally, mpeg capture, then you'd need a tuner per channel each capturing at about 1 mbit/s. So that's about 100mbit/s or about 8 megabytes of video per second. That's not too bad, except you'd have to fit in 100 mpeg encoders into the system (not that unreasonable). You might be able to record the whole thing on a computer with a generic Digital to Analog converter, split it up in software and then reencode in mpeg, don't know how much processor power / bus bandwidth that would take. So the answer is yes it's possible but it probably woulnd't be trivial. Bijan -- Bijan Soleymani [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.crasseux.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Recommended ISP's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:05:02PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote: Could a device in theory record every channel simultaneously? Yes. Could it in practice? No. - -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFACw4OUzgNqloQMwcRAvZIAKCv6Js7NTmjGwhGrn/Im+LaEsrEmQCeKfQd BHIMbkXe6b77jtl5l4hVhRY= =q0qk -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:05:02PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote: On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 04:56:53PM -0500, Bijan Soleymani wrote: [snip] Yes all the channels and the traffic are coming on the same wire. Each channel is at a different frequency (kind of like for regular antenna reception), and the tv picks out whichever channel you want. Could a device in theory record every channel simultaneously? Could it in practice? Another theoretical question: Is it possible to receive and decode in your computer the tv channels that are coming through to your house? Or the cable modem allows only the frequency of over wich the internet works? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 06:35:02PM -0500, Antonio Rodriguez wrote: On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:05:02PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote: Another theoretical question: Is it possible to receive and decode in your computer the tv channels that are coming through to your house? Or the cable modem allows only the frequency of over wich the internet works? The cable modem is only going to give you the actual network data AFAIK and modulate/demodulate it back and forth from digital to the regular analog cable service. There are plenty of ways you can recieve and decode with a computer though. Take a look around Google for TV Tuner cards and some of the Linux TiVo-like setups. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Recommended ISP's
Brett Carrington wrote: On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:05:02PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote: On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 04:56:53PM -0500, Bijan Soleymani wrote: [snip] Yes all the channels and the traffic are coming on the same wire. Each channel is at a different frequency (kind of like for regular antenna reception), and the tv picks out whichever channel you want. Could a device in theory record every channel simultaneously? Could it in practice? Yes, but it's probably not very cheap. You'd need a seperate tuner for each channel. When you change the channel your TV just re-tunes to the freq. of the station on the wire. To record every channel you'd need to be tuned to every station at the same time and then you'd need to find a way to record it That is not too difficult. The [U.S.] military (and others, I'm sure) use wide-band recorders for some applications (not sure what, as it is not my field of expertise). Essentially, they record onto 1 or wider tape and capture huge parts of the spectrum. Later, the play the tape back and tune specific freqs to get what they want. However, I'm sure the equipment is not cheap. -Roberto signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Recommended ISP's
Jeff McAdams wrote: Nano Nano wrote: Could a device in theory record every channel simultaneously? Yes. Could it in practice? Depends on what you consider practical, I guess. I would say no. Your typical TV or VCR has one or two receivers or tuners in it. A receiver or tuner is capable of receiving or tuning a single channel at a time, so a dual-receiver or dual-tuner TV or VCR is capable of extracting two channels at once. Software-defined radio (the same principles apply to receiving channels on a wire that they do to receiving channels over radio waves in the air) could, in theory, receiving the whole spectrum at once and extract individual channels out of the stored data at a later time. Again, it becomes a question of what you consider practical. Or with a fast enough processor (does it exist?) controlling the tuner, sample each channel in real time, like a couch potato surfing through the channels and getting a fair idea of everything that's on, only much much faster. It'd have to sample all 155 channels (or whatever) each 30th of a second (for analog TV signals) in order to get a full 30-frames per second for 155 channels. But that's probably closer to the theoretical rather than the practical. -- Kent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended ISP's
On Sunday 18 January 2004 5:41 pm, Kent West wrote: Or with a fast enough processor (does it exist?) controlling the tuner, sample each channel in real time, like a couch potato surfing through the channels and getting a fair idea of everything that's on, only much much faster. It'd have to sample all 155 channels (or whatever) each 30th of a second (for analog TV signals) in order to get a full 30-frames per second for 155 channels. Actually, each 60th of a second to get 30-frames per second. Blame it on Nyquist... -- Wesley J. Landaker - [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgp0.pgp Description: signature
