Re: Have you heard of this yet?
Well, I'm not so certain they're necessarily going to make it a well known fact that "anyone" can hop onto your modem now. Yes it will be separate bandwidth, but I'm not keen that a modem hack wouldn't allow someone to bridge themselves into my network path too, redirecting, tcpdumping, etc. At very least doing so with ap firmware bothers me having "others" connecting to my terminal I don't know, owning it gives them entire control over an embedded linux to work, normally just to run the ap. Not to mention any inherent "lawful interception" features native anyways, but they do that upstream themselves already tapping every packet traversing them. The other thing is people can/do still hack their modems, spoof macs, literally steal bandwidth pretending to be someone else, etc. As much as cable companies don't like to hear that, there are always reasons/circumstances they never quite fully secure them, and they get actively exploited. Adding now some sort of wireless terminal into it, and receiving endpoints that can join into bigger networks (think att, tmo, vzw, cellcos public wifi) seems problematic to leave as a cpe in homes to be toyed with. Motorola modems are/were always good for allowing cracking and jtag reprogramming/control, wonder how those would be with this feature. Not to mention now you turn one of those magic modems on, suddenly you see 50+ssid's with every house flooding 2.4ghz (plus their own of course), that's gotta be lovely for anyone still stuck using their own in 2.4 b/g/n. Good thing the 802.11ac spec is driving everyone to 5ghz, at least until cable co's want in on that too. -mb On 05/07/2015 02:45 PM, Stephen Partington wrote: As long as the customer hasi their paid for bandwidth there should be no issue with that service set up. I would take it the next step and provide the modem for free with the profision that this Antenna, X we call it will be used for that purpose so you save the cash on modem rental. cox manages the modem and wifi for you. gives you wifi to use as yours, and then wifi X will be used for their service. but its all about agreed expectations and service. Comcast was not telling anyone about this. or giveing the option to opt in/out. --- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
Re: Have you heard of this yet?
As long as the customer hasi their paid for bandwidth there should be no issue with that service set up. I would take it the next step and provide the modem for free with the profision that this Antenna, X we call it will be used for that purpose so you save the cash on modem rental. cox manages the modem and wifi for you. gives you wifi to use as yours, and then wifi X will be used for their service. but its all about agreed expectations and service. Comcast was not telling anyone about this. or giveing the option to opt in/out. On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Michael Butash wrote: > Interesting concept... > > Cisco and all the other vendors are building and branding wireless for > seamless roaming, given carrier-grade wireless is provided (ie. vendor > selling the solution). Most cell hardware vendors (cisco, alcatel, juniper, > etc) also sell wireless solutions, so why not blend the two for mobile > roaming with carrier solution backhaul and roaming capabilities? > > > http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/service-provider-wi-fi/white_paper_c11-701018.html > > I was chatting with someone from cox, guess they're doing what every other > last-mile provider is, building wifi into their next-gen modems to not only > service local traffic (for customers), but also reusing bandwidth for their > own free wifi service. This is the same thing Comcast is being sued for > currently by the way. > > If you think about it it, Cox, Comcast, all the MSO's driven by vendor are > pushing to use your connection for reselling, or giving "value-add" service > for "everyone", giving they're using your last-mile connection for it too. > Comcast is being sued because someone realized they're resusing their > connection they're paying for, but is it wrong? > > What they do is reuse "channels", yes, like old analog channels of rf > spectrum over their closed plant, for this, while giving you otherwise what > you pay for. With 42mb a channel x 24 or 32 channels of docsis 3.0+, > whatever you're not paying for, they see as free game. Since no one buys > actual cable tv now, why not - revenue! > > Again, this is a net neutrality thing. Is it wrong to reuse unused docsis > upstream/downstream channels when you're not paying for full-service > anyways? If it's logically secure, who cares? Does it impede on your > service really? > > Exactly what the cable MSO's are looking for, and Google trying to > piggy-back on them. Can't say I blame Google, this is Milo Medin's revenge > for them, as well as google fiber, for scuttling @Home Networks. Death by > a thousand cuts, if they let him in. > > Interesting part is Cable is not regulated like the Baby Bell's are, > curious to see if they just try to push him, google, and everyone else > out. Cox is doing so for playing nice with other cable companies, but I'll > be curious to see if they let Google in on the party. > > -mb > > > On 05/07/2015 09:52 AM, Michael Havens wrote: > > https://fi.google.com/about/ > :-)~MIKE~(-: > > > --- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail > settings:http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > > > > --- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > -- A mouse trap, placed on top of your alarm clock, will prevent you from rolling over and going back to sleep after you hit the snooze button. Stephen --- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
Re: Have you heard of this yet?
Interesting concept... Cisco and all the other vendors are building and branding wireless for seamless roaming, given carrier-grade wireless is provided (ie. vendor selling the solution). Most cell hardware vendors (cisco, alcatel, juniper, etc) also sell wireless solutions, so why not blend the two for mobile roaming with carrier solution backhaul and roaming capabilities? http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/service-provider-wi-fi/white_paper_c11-701018.html I was chatting with someone from cox, guess they're doing what every other last-mile provider is, building wifi into their next-gen modems to not only service local traffic (for customers), but also reusing bandwidth for their own free wifi service. This is the same thing Comcast is being sued for currently by the way. If you think about it it, Cox, Comcast, all the MSO's driven by vendor are pushing to use your connection for reselling, or giving "value-add" service for "everyone", giving they're using your last-mile connection for it too. Comcast is being sued because someone realized they're resusing their connection they're paying for, but is it wrong? What they do is reuse "channels", yes, like old analog channels of rf spectrum over their closed plant, for this, while giving you otherwise what you pay for. With 42mb a channel x 24 or 32 channels of docsis 3.0+, whatever you're not paying for, they see as free game. Since no one buys actual cable tv now, why not - revenue! Again, this is a net neutrality thing. Is it wrong to reuse unused docsis upstream/downstream channels when you're not paying for full-service anyways? If it's logically secure, who cares? Does it impede on your service really? Exactly what the cable MSO's are looking for, and Google trying to piggy-back on them. Can't say I blame Google, this is Milo Medin's revenge for them, as well as google fiber, for scuttling @Home Networks. Death by a thousand cuts, if they let him in. Interesting part is Cable is not regulated like the Baby Bell's are, curious to see if they just try to push him, google, and everyone else out. Cox is doing so for playing nice with other cable companies, but I'll be curious to see if they let Google in on the party. -mb On 05/07/2015 09:52 AM, Michael Havens wrote: https://fi.google.com/about/ :-)~MIKE~(-: --- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss --- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
Have you heard of this yet?
https://fi.google.com/about/ :-)~MIKE~(-: --- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
