|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > July 2006 > All-you-can-eat 3G may not last
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
All-you-can-eat 3G may not last
|
|
|
| Good article about unlimited data plans, and statements from Cingular,
Sprint, and Verizon, see:
"http://www.computerpartner.nl/article.php?news=int&id=3549"
| |
| GomJabbar 2006-06-14, 5:48 pm |
|
Enjoyed the article - sort of - don't like the implications.
A coworker of mine got cut off from Verizon's EV-DO service for
overuse. Read downloading movies. This guy is a video nut. A couple
of months ago he went to the store and bought over $700 in DVD's. He
buys all the latest releases whether he thinks he will like them or
not. I think the reason is, if a friend comes over, he can offer to
show him/her any of the latest movies at his home. Still, he's nuts in
my opinion.
| |
| Frankster 2006-06-14, 5:48 pm |
| The way I read it, the implications in the article are... they will have to
stop freeloaders sooner or later, and, the rates will have to go up to
support the supposed higher network demand in the future.
My personal view is... yes, they will have to stop freeloading, but the
rates will go *down* due to higher consumer demand and use (if everybody
wants data, and pays, the fee will not be so bad). Like the Internet
globally, I believe the infrastructure will increase and eventually support
lots of users on relatively low cost high speed access. Lower than the
$59/mo today.
Especially with all the FREE Internet stuff popping up all over. It will
become harder and harder to pay for away-from-home Internet when it is
available free in so many places with more popping up every day.
Hey, we all can have an opinion. I like mine :)
-Frank
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:44901e14$0$9692
0$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Good article about unlimited data plans, and statements from Cingular,
> Sprint, and Verizon, see:
>
> "http://www.computerpartner.nl/article.php?news=int&id=3549"
| |
|
| Frankster wrote:
> The way I read it, the implications in the article are... they will have to
> stop freeloaders sooner or later, and, the rates will have to go up to
> support the supposed higher network demand in the future.
>
> My personal view is... yes, they will have to stop freeloading, but the
> rates will go *down* due to higher consumer demand and use (if everybody
> wants data, and pays, the fee will not be so bad). Like the Internet
> globally, I believe the infrastructure will increase and eventually support
> lots of users on relatively low cost high speed access. Lower than the
> $59/mo today.
Yes, if they want widespread acceptance, prices will have to come down.
You'll probably end up with a tiered pricing structure, with a lower
cost plan that allows relatively unlimited nights and weekends (a limit
that no one would reach unless they were doing something that violated
the terms of service for unlimited), but limited use during normal
business hours.
| |
| Tinman 2006-06-14, 5:48 pm |
| SMS wrote:
> Good article about unlimited data plans, and statements from Cingular,
> Sprint, and Verizon, see:
>
> "http://www.computerpartner.nl/article.php?news=int&id=3549"
Sprint seems to be OK with it for now:
====================
=====
Sprint Nextel Corp. gives subscribers a wide berth, even selling routers
that let users share a connection to the company's Sprint PCS Vision
service. Sprint believes it can expand network capacity fast enough to
keep up with a growing subscriber base, said Barry Tishgart, director of
marketing.
"We're going to keep our policies simple and straightforward and
encourage people to go out there and find new uses for broadband,"
Tishgart said. For example, the company's terms of service don't forbid
subscribers from making large file transfers to their PCs. If
subscribers have to think about how much data they're using, many will
be scared off by 3G, he said.
====================
=====
I don't see 3G succeeding much, at least in the U.S., if the perception
of value isn't there. I know many people--none who would even think
about posting here--who don't see the value in having data-access on
their phones at all (even at $10-$15 per month).
Should the carriers take action on the bandwidth hogs they risk bad
publicity by not honoring "unlimited." OTOH, if they change the plans so
that "unlimited" is prohibitively expensive, with several other less
expensive limited plans offered, it could be potentially worse
(particularly if it's just too confusing for Joe Anybody).
I think they should just stick with unlimited plans, priced
attractively, and deal with the bandwidth hogs via TOS, particularly
those who use it to tether a laptop. They'll get some bad press, no
doubt. But if they are able to communicate why this is needed, and what
the alternatives are, I think they'll be OK. We shall see...
--
Mike
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-14, 5:48 pm |
| On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 07:32:57 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44901e14$0$96920$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Good article about unlimited data plans, and statements from Cingular,
>Sprint, and Verizon, see:
>
>"http://www.computerpartner.nl/article.php?news=int&id=3549"
The service providers are shooting themselves in the foot by being so
generous in order to pull in users, according to Gartner Inc. analyst
Michael King. Going from all-you-can-eat plans to per-bit charges
effectively would represent a price increase, he said.
"Never in the history of wireless and mobile communications has a
carrier succeeded in bringing prices back up," King said.
And though the technology is there to detect and stop
terms-of-service violations, doing so could tarnish the image of 3G
and lead to a backlash, said In-Stat analyst Allen Nogee.
It may make sense to lock in an unlimited data package (as I have),
since carriers have historically grandfathered in old packages
indefinitely.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-14, 5:48 pm |
| On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:50:30 -0700, "Tinman"
< mlynch@REMOVEMEcitli
nk.net> wrote in < 4fb0i4F1ht5glU1@indi
vidual.net>:
>I think they should just stick with unlimited plans, priced
>attractively, and deal with the bandwidth hogs via TOS, particularly
>those who use it to tether a laptop. They'll get some bad press, no
>doubt. But if they are able to communicate why this is needed, and what
>the alternatives are, I think they'll be OK. We shall see...
Can you say, "fair use" policy? As with satellite Internet. The
carrier throttles heavy users based on how much data they transfer.
I'd say that's quite likely on cellular as well, although only time will
tell.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Frankster 2006-06-14, 5:48 pm |
| > I don't see 3G succeeding much, at least in the U.S., if the perception of
> value isn't there. I know many people--none who would even think about
> posting here--who don't see the value in having data-access on their
> phones at all (even at $10-$15 per month).
It's more than data access on the phone. It's also data access on the
computer.
-Frank
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-14, 5:48 pm |
| On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:24:09 -0600, "Frankster" <Frank@SPAM2TRASH.com>
wrote in < B9udnYQc1InH_w3ZnZ2d
nUVZ_uudnZ2d@giganew
s.com>:
>
>It's more than data access on the phone. It's also data access on the
>computer.
Carriers are trying to differentiate the pricing for untethered (phone)
use and tethered (computer) use.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Frankster 2006-06-14, 5:48 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:hlo092160fb8bs0
nq5r4ba8val8ippikj0@
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:24:09 -0600, "Frankster" <Frank@SPAM2TRASH.com>
> wrote in < B9udnYQc1InH_w3ZnZ2d
nUVZ_uudnZ2d@giganew
s.com>:
>
>
> Carriers are trying to differentiate the pricing for untethered (phone)
> use and tethered (computer) use.
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
Not all computer data access is tethered. In fact, a wireless card is
preferable. Tethered might be okay, that's how I do it now.
-Frank
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-14, 5:48 pm |
| On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:04:59 -0600, "Frankster" <Frank@SPAM2TRASH.com>
wrote in < 4bqdnY7ZN5xy9g3ZnZ2d
nUVZ_rGdnZ2d@giganew
s.com>:
>
>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:hlo092160fb8bs0
nq5r4ba8val8ippikj0@
4ax.com...
[color=darkred]
>Not all computer data access is tethered. In fact, a wireless card is
>preferable. ...
That's still considered "tethered," since the PC Card is the mobile
device.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Frankster wrote:
>
> It's more than data access on the phone. It's also data access on the
> computer.
With so much free wireless available, it'll really limit the number of
non-power users that are willing to pay $60, or even $30, for more
ubiquitous coverage. I.e., I was sitting drinking coffee at a coffee
house near my house, and I was picking up five free wireless networks,
one from the coffee house, one from a Chinese fast food restaurant
across the street, MetroFi-Free, MetroFi-Public, and a network provided
by the city that was from a plaza near the coffee house.
I realize that Silicon Valley is not the rest of the country, but it
isn't terribly far ahead of the rest of the country in many ways, i.e.
much of San Jose is still only analog cable TV.
I might be willing to pay an extra $10 per month for limited usage of
EV-DO or HSDPA, just to check e-mail occasionally, but I don't need to
do big downloads or stream video.
| |
| Tinman 2006-06-14, 5:48 pm |
| Frankster wrote:
>
> It's more than data access on the phone. It's also data access on the
> computer.
I covered that already, and data access on a PC is now being tracked by
most carriers differently than handset usage. There's a reason for that.
The people I referred to above have zero interest in tethering a
laptop--and certainly not to their desktop computer. And we are far from
the point where there is enough bandwidth for 3G to be used as a sole
"broadband" connection to the Internet--at least not for the masses.
Moreover, the carriers have been promoting handsets for data usage which
gives them a much greater pool of prospects to sell to. Whether it is
music, video, streaming radio or whatnot, today's 3G handsets are
perfectly capable of sucking down large amounts of data. It might not be
stored on the handset, but the network doesn't care about that.
--
Mike
| |
|
| Tinman wrote:
> Moreover, the carriers have been promoting handsets for data usage which
> gives them a much greater pool of prospects to sell to. Whether it is
> music, video, streaming radio or whatnot, today's 3G handsets are
> perfectly capable of sucking down large amounts of data. It might not be
> stored on the handset, but the network doesn't care about that.
They've been promoting it, but the adoption rates have been dismal. Do
they really expect a huge market for watching videos on a 2" screen? As
to audio, we all saw the huge flop of the Motorola/Apple handset.
Occasional web browsing and e-mail are what the masses will end up using
their fancy handsets for.
| |
|
| Tinman wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
> Sprint seems to be OK with it for now:
> ====================
=====
> Sprint Nextel Corp. gives subscribers a wide berth, even selling routers
> that let users share a connection to the company's Sprint PCS Vision
> service. Sprint believes it can expand network capacity fast enough to
> keep up with a growing subscriber base, said Barry Tishgart, director of
> marketing.
>
> "We're going to keep our policies simple and straightforward and
> encourage people to go out there and find new uses for broadband,"
> Tishgart said. For example, the company's terms of service don't forbid
> subscribers from making large file transfers to their PCs. If
> subscribers have to think about how much data they're using, many will
> be scared off by 3G, he said.
Sprint seems to have had an attitude adjustment recently. From promoting
plans with unlimited roaming, not gouging for overages, changing the
off-peak start time, and not going non-linear when early adopters use
too much bandwidth, they seem to really be trying to not be jerks like
Cingular and Verizon often are. They are very concerned about bringing
down their high churn.
Unfortunately, I can't move to Sprint, as their coverage in my area is
not great.
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-14, 11:48 pm |
| On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:26:26 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 449070ea$0$96996$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Tinman wrote:
>
>
>They've been promoting it, but the adoption rates have been dismal.
In the USA -- actually doing quite well in Asia, and it's too early to
really tell here, because it's just gotten off the ground.
>Do
>they really expect a huge market for watching videos on a 2" screen?
They do, and with good reason, given the experience in Asia, and now in
Europe, not to mention the success of the Video iPod and millions of
iPod video downloads.
>As
>to audio, we all saw the huge flop of the Motorola/Apple handset.
Again, it's too early to really tell, and that's only one device --
there are clear signs that a combo phone + audio player could do very
well.
>Occasional web browsing and e-mail are what the masses will end up using
>their fancy handsets for.
They're already using them as cameras, and more is sure to follow. Cell
phone manufacturers are now the biggest digital camera companies in the
world as measured by unit sales.
"The IM Generation in Charge - Part 2"
<http://www.alwayson-network.com/com...d=14842_0_1_0_C>
Kids not only taught us how to instant-message and how to program our
mobile phones (and VCRs), but they're demonstrating that the "mobile
PC" is the new client/server model. Of the teens Pew surveyed, 45%
have mobile phones. A third of them have text-message access and use
their mobile phones to access websites and services. They also use
their mobile phones to take and send photos, record and send messages
complemented by graphics and video clips, and serve up other
multimedia content.
The mobile entertainment light bulb has gone off in the traditional
entertainment industry as the result of the new mobile fixation. ABC,
NBC, and the cable networks are now actively cutting deals to offer
up TV shows for $1.99 a pop via Apple's iTunes, for playback on the
new video iPod. Steve Jobs bragged that since he cut the deal with
Disney last October and kicked off the new service to sell popular
hits like Desperate Housewives and Lost, Apple sold more than eight
million videos and TV shows in the service's first three months.
[MUCH MORE]
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Tinman 2006-06-14, 11:48 pm |
| SMS wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
>
>
> They've been promoting it, but the adoption rates have been dismal. Do
> they really expect a huge market for watching videos on a 2" screen?
I think at this point they are willing to throw as much shit against the
wall as they can, and hope something sticks.
>
> Occasional web browsing and e-mail are what the masses will end up
> using their fancy handsets for.
If that. But you never know if the carriers will find that "killer app"
that finally reels in the masses. I'd guess they'd be perfectly happy
with $10-to-$15 data ARPUs. ;-)
--
Mike
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-06-14, 11:48 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
> Carriers are trying to differentiate the pricing for untethered (phone)
> use and tethered (computer) use.
WOW...now where did we hear that first??? SITYS
| |
| Joel Kolstad 2006-06-14, 11:48 pm |
| "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:44906f36$0$9693
4$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> With so much free wireless available, it'll really limit the number of
> non-power users that are willing to pay $60, or even $30, for more
> ubiquitous coverage.
As you allude to, the premise ("so much free wireless available") is not at
all true outside of large cities... and of course WiFi isn't viable at all
while on-the-road. Finally, I guarantee you that there are a lot of people
out there who can, e.g., have a friend setup a shortcut to their e-mail
account such that they can check if from their phone whenever they want, but
aren't quite up to setting up a WiFi connection every time they move to a
new location.
By the way, have you ever visited a *high end* hotel? Unlike the cheaper
ones, where WiFi is usually "free," at high end hotels they often charge you
something like $5-$15 *per day!* Talk about highway robbery...
| |
| Joel Kolstad 2006-06-14, 11:48 pm |
| "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:449071cc$0$9691
4$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Sprint seems to have had an attitude adjustment recently.
Good points, although one move that was definitely in favor of "fast and
easy profits" was Sprint's dropping Vision plans that included unlimited SMS
messaging. Nothing wrong with that, of course, although it's clear what the
motivation is when you take a look at revenue per byte sent... *SMS messages
have the highest cost per byte sent* as well as not really driving network
buildout since they're not a real-time service.
But I would say the people I speak to at Sprint these days seem to try to be
more helpful and friendly than those of, say, 4 years ago.
| |
| Joel Kolstad 2006-06-14, 11:48 pm |
| "John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:gfm092dg80jpf8i
jivsta78ihn8lsmpr5u@
4ax.com...
> And though the technology is there to detect and stop
> terms-of-service violations, doing so could tarnish the image of 3G
> and lead to a backlash, said In-Stat analyst Allen Nogee.
I just don't see a backlash -- the people who Sprint "cut off" from
"unlimited" plans are those who statistically are QUITE the outliars. I
think it's pretty hard to argue that Sprint has "done you wrong" if the
average user downloaded, say, 10MB of data per month with their phone and
you downloaded 10GB.
> It may make sense to lock in an unlimited data package (as I have),
> since carriers have historically grandfathered in old packages
> indefinitely.
Good point...
| |
| Frankster 2006-06-14, 11:48 pm |
| > I covered that already, and data access on a PC is now being tracked by
> most carriers differently than handset usage. There's a reason for that.
You covered it? Okay.
Remember when dialup modems were charged by minutes per month! Wasn't that
long ago was it. It'll go down in price. Guaranteed. Just tell them, in two
years, that Frank guaranteed that it would be lower :) They'll honor it.
LOL!
-Frank
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-14, 11:48 pm |
| On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 18:18:52 -0700, "Joel Kolstad"
< JKolstad71HatesSpam@
Yahoo.Com> wrote in
< 1291dbqi8ek5gb3@corp
.supernews.com>:
>... and of course WiFi isn't viable at all
>while on-the-road.
WiMAX is.
>Finally, I guarantee you that there are a lot of people
>out there who can, e.g., have a friend setup a shortcut to their e-mail
>account such that they can check if from their phone whenever they want, but
>aren't quite up to setting up a WiFi connection every time they move to a
>new location.
Google Mail (free) has a slick WAP interface that works great from a
standard cell phone.
>By the way, have you ever visited a *high end* hotel? Unlike the cheaper
>ones, where WiFi is usually "free," at high end hotels they often charge you
>something like $5-$15 *per day!* Talk about highway robbery...
Depends. Some of the high-end hotels do have free Wi-Fi.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-14, 11:48 pm |
| On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 18:26:04 -0700, "Joel Kolstad"
< JKolstad71HatesSpam@
Yahoo.Com> wrote in
< 1291dpa6mp5s4f0@corp
.supernews.com>:
>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:gfm092dg80jpf8i
jivsta78ihn8lsmpr5u@
4ax.com...
For the record, that was a quote -- I didn't write that.
[color=darkred]
>I just don't see a backlash -- the people who Sprint "cut off" from
>"unlimited" plans are those who statistically are QUITE the outliars. I
>think it's pretty hard to argue that Sprint has "done you wrong" if the
>average user downloaded, say, 10MB of data per month with their phone and
>you downloaded 10GB.
There was a pretty big backlash on cable "abusers." Likewise "fair use"
on satellite Internet, which seemed to really chill the enthusiasm.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Joel Kolstad wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:44906f36$0$9693
4$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
> As you allude to, the premise ("so much free wireless available") is not at
> all true outside of large cities... and of course WiFi isn't viable at all
> while on-the-road. Finally, I guarantee you that there are a lot of people
> out there who can, e.g., have a friend setup a shortcut to their e-mail
> account such that they can check if from their phone whenever they want, but
> aren't quite up to setting up a WiFi connection every time they move to a
> new location.
>
> By the way, have you ever visited a *high end* hotel? Unlike the cheaper
> ones, where WiFi is usually "free," at high end hotels they often charge you
> something like $5-$15 *per day!* Talk about highway robbery...
In Asia, a lot of the high end hotels include either wired or wireless
access for the customers that join their rewards programs.
An occasional $5-10 per day isn't unreasonable.
Last time I was in NYC, my $300 per night hotel charged $10 per day for
high speed access, but there were plenty of free networks available.
| |
| GomJabbar 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| I recently stayed at a Hampton Inn in Newark, N.J., and they had free
wired internet access in the room. There was a cable modem with about
10 feet of Cat 5 cable attached, so it could reach from the desk to the
bed.
Interestingly, I received a virus alert from my AV software while I was
browsing "safe" commercial sites. I do not believe the virus came from
a website, but rather straight from the internet connection. My AV
software did it's job, so no harm done. Normally I connect through my
wireless router with it's built-in firewall or through Cingular's
Laptop Connect service, and I do not see virus alerts like this.
| |
| George 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| John Navas wrote:
>
>
>
>
> There was a pretty big backlash on cable "abusers." Likewise "fair use"
> on satellite Internet, which seemed to really chill the enthusiasm.
>
I knew at least a dozen people who had the satellite Internet systems.
The deal breaker was the extremely high latency and low speeds (without
FAP) that weren't even close to what was promised. Also stuff like VPNs
don't work because of the latency.
Like a lot of things in life the most vocal people are always a small
minority especially in the case of someone with an entitlement mentality
who always wants more than their share. Remember the huge press coverage
that family got after being asked to leave a buffet after eating 10
pounds of meat?
Most people just want a reliable always on connection and don't stream
DVDs 24x7 .
Usually people who want AYCE are those who don't want to monitor their
usage but aren't pigs but they don't want surprises with overage charges.
| |
| Isaiah Beard 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| Frankster wrote:
> The way I read it, the implications in the article are... they will have to
> stop freeloaders sooner or later, and, the rates will have to go up to
> support the supposed higher network demand in the future.
You know, I remember everyone saying the same thing about
all-you-can-eat *wired* broadband, such as DSL and cable. People were
worried about the 2-percenters... the fabled small minority of power
users who account for the vast majority of bandwidth usage. Comcast was
(and sometimes still is) down on anyone being a top talker on their
network, even though they never tell you what the threshold is.
Even so, most broadband networks haven't crashed in speed shortages yet.
>
> My personal view is... yes, they will have to stop freeloading, but the
> rates will go *down* due to higher consumer demand and use (if everybody
> wants data, and pays, the fee will not be so bad). Like the Internet
> globally, I believe the infrastructure will increase and eventually support
> lots of users on relatively low cost high speed access. Lower than the
> $59/mo today.
Hopefully so. Sprint's already going in that direction with the $39.99
PAM plan.
> Especially with all the FREE Internet stuff popping up all over. It will
> become harder and harder to pay for away-from-home Internet when it is
> available free in so many places with more popping up every day.
While that's true, WiFi has its issues. It takes a lot of money to
build out a seamless Wifi network. There's still no such thing as a
free lunch, and *someone* has to pay for these "free" networks. In
business establishments, usually it's built into the cost of drinks and
food (many are now requiring that you buy something in order to use the
"free" network). Even the municipal networks that are starting to spring
up are paid through government funds, which end up being paid by taxpayers.
So it's important to be careful when you refer to any network as "free." ;)
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
| |
| Frankster 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| > So it's important to be careful when you refer to any network as "free."
> ;)
Yes, of course. Howevever, most (I thought all, but maybe not) business that
offer "free" access. do so simply for the increased walk-in traffic and
don't have any "minimum" purchase. Much like "free" TV in a sports bar.
-Frank
| |
|
| Isaiah Beard wrote:
> Frankster wrote:
>
> You know, I remember everyone saying the same thing about
> all-you-can-eat *wired* broadband, such as DSL and cable. People were
> worried about the 2-percenters... the fabled small minority of power
> users who account for the vast majority of bandwidth usage. Comcast was
> (and sometimes still is) down on anyone being a top talker on their
> network, even though they never tell you what the threshold is.
>
> Even so, most broadband networks haven't crashed in speed shortages yet.
>
>
> Hopefully so. Sprint's already going in that direction with the $39.99
> PAM plan.
>
>
>
> While that's true, WiFi has its issues. It takes a lot of money to
> build out a seamless Wifi network. There's still no such thing as a
> free lunch, and *someone* has to pay for these "free" networks. In
> business establishments, usually it's built into the cost of drinks and
> food (many are now requiring that you buy something in order to use the
> "free" network).
It's the opposite. The free WiFi is increasing the volume of food and
drink sold, driving down unit prices. In my area, it's good to see
Starbucks at a disadvantage, with their paid hot spots, versus a
plethora of better coffee places that provide free WiFI. If you divide
the cost of providing free WiFi by the number of espresso based drinks,
the burdened cost per drink of the WiFi is lost in the noise, maybe a
couple of cents per drink.
Of course, once every cafe and restaurant has free WiFi, the competitive
advantage may go away slightly, but it still drives more people out to
buy these ridiculously priced drinks.
| |
| Joel Kolstad 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| Hi Johnm
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:jvg192p3j00o87g
oitvhlvinrla7gnin37@
4ax.com...
> There was a pretty big backlash on cable "abusers."
Were they just cut off? That would be poor... the way my mother's DSL
connection works is that she pays for xx GB of data transfer a month at
"high speed," and after that it throttles her to something like 64kbps...
enough that any important e-mail or whatever is still readily checked, but
clearly not enough to keep those DVDs streaming in...
---Joel
| |
| Joel Kolstad 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| "John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:8og192d38tjd5ib
e9or8b6ssku3qgnlv81@
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 18:18:52 -0700, "Joel Kolstad"
> < JKolstad71HatesSpam@
Yahoo.Com> wrote in
> < 1291dbqi8ek5gb3@corp
.supernews.com>:
>
>
> WiMAX is.
I'll believe it when I see it. :-)
WiMax does look posed to replace WiFi, but I think their timelines are way
off... it's only this year and last that a lot of high-end smart phones
started having built-in WiFi (and perhaps 2-3 years for laptops); I think
it'll be around 2008 before you start seeing most laptops with built-in
WiMax.
Realistically competition and technology will insure that sooner or later
high-speed Internet access will be cheaply available ubiquitously, but I
suspect we're still the better part of a decade away from the *average*
person (with an average, say, $30-$50/mo to spend on a "mobile Internet
terminal") being able to assume they'll have Internet access pretty much
everywhere their usual course of a day would take them.
Still, it's hard to complain -- I'm sure you remember back with Telebit
Trailblazers cost an arm and a leg, and people were happy to pay for them
when they could obtain 9600bps vs. 2400bps via dial-up!
---Joel
| |
| Joel Kolstad 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4490dd87$0$9696
4$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> An occasional $5-10 per day isn't unreasonable.
It is when, e.g., Sprint will sell you unlimited EVDO access for
$15/*month*! Yes, EVDO is not as fast as WiFi, but compared with 1x RTT
that I've lived with for so long, it screams.
> Last time I was in NYC, my $300 per night hotel charged $10 per day for
> high speed access, but there were plenty of free networks available.
I just find it ironic that the more you pay for a room, often the less you
get in the way of included "freebies."
---Joel
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:09:32 -0400, Isaiah Beard
< sacredpoet@sacredpoe
t.com> wrote in
< 1292u1djsnvu4f4@corp
.supernews.com>:
>Frankster wrote:
>
>You know, I remember everyone saying the same thing about
>all-you-can-eat *wired* broadband, such as DSL and cable. ...
True, but cellular spectrum is limited and expensive, whereas wired
capacity is relatively easy and cheap to increase.
>
>Hopefully so. Sprint's already going in that direction with the $39.99
>PAM plan.
Cingular has been there for a long time with "unlimited" MEdia for
$20/month.
>
>While that's true, WiFi has its issues. ...
Think WiMAX.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 21:09:49 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 4490dd87$0$96964$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Joel Kolstad wrote:
>
>An occasional $5-10 per day isn't unreasonable.
I disagree, but then I have $20/month unlimited cellular data to fall
back on. Too bad Verizon has nothing comparable for you. ;)
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| On 15 Jun 2006 04:26:51 -0700, "GomJabbar" <dkbatson@earthlink.net>
wrote in <1150370811.757768.202750@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>I recently stayed at a Hampton Inn in Newark, N.J., and they had free
>wired internet access in the room. There was a cable modem with about
>10 feet of Cat 5 cable attached, so it could reach from the desk to the
>bed.
>
>Interestingly, I received a virus alert from my AV software while I was
>browsing "safe" commercial sites. I do not believe the virus came from
>a website, but rather straight from the internet connection. ...
That can't happen unless something on your computer (e.g., web browser)
is actually listening for it.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 08:41:14 -0400, George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote
in < aqidnV0Lw95NyAzZnZ2d
nUVZ_qKdnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>
>I knew at least a dozen people who had the satellite Internet systems.
>The deal breaker was the extremely high latency and low speeds (without
>FAP) that weren't even close to what was promised.
Most of the people I know with satellite have no practical consumer
broadband alternative, and were delighted to have consumer broadband at
all.
>Also stuff like VPNs
>don't work because of the latency.
VPN might not work, but that would be for other reasons (e.g., lack of
public IP address), since it can be made to work over high latency
connections. See "Q: Can I run a VPN over HughesNet?" at
<http://www.rapidsatellite.com/faq_dway.aspx>. See also "Q: Why does
the service slow down when used in conjunction with a VPN?"
>Like a lot of things in life the most vocal people are always a small
>minority ...
True, but there can be backlash far beyond their numbers because of
negative publicity and because they may be trendsetters for others.
>Most people just want a reliable always on connection and don't stream
>DVDs 24x7 .
True, but I see an increasing number doing thins like streaming
(legitimate) Internet "radio" and "TV," a great use for consumer
broadband. (I'm listing to high-quality jazz streamed over the Internet
as I write this.)
>Usually people who want AYCE are those who don't want to monitor their
>usage but aren't pigs but they don't want surprises with overage charges.
True.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 09:06:53 -0700, "Joel Kolstad"
< JKolstad71HatesSpam@
Yahoo.Com> wrote in
< 12931cr2h2g2e24@corp
.supernews.com>:
>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:jvg192p3j00o87g
oitvhlvinrla7gnin37@
4ax.com...
>
>Were they just cut off? That would be poor... the way my mother's DSL
>connection works is that she pays for xx GB of data transfer a month at
>"high speed," and after that it throttles her to something like 64kbps...
>enough that any important e-mail or whatever is still readily checked, but
>clearly not enough to keep those DVDs streaming in...
In at least some cases they were indeed cut off, but it's unclear
whether this was due to bandwidth consumption, or some other form of
abuse (e.g., filesharing of copyrighted materials).
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| SMS wrote:
> It's the opposite. The free WiFi is increasing the volume of food and
> drink sold, driving down unit prices. In my area, it's good to see
> Starbucks at a disadvantage, with their paid hot spots, versus a
> plethora of better coffee places that provide free WiFI. If you divide
> the cost of providing free WiFi by the number of espresso based drinks,
> the burdened cost per drink of the WiFi is lost in the noise, maybe a
> couple of cents per drink.
When you look at the industry magazines..WiFi and food services, there
are article where establishments suffer from cyber squatters sitting at
a table for hours. Customer churn (the good kind) is good for biz...an
empty table or a table "out of service" by a squatter is not.
For you convenience, you may select from the following responses:
#1 - Rubbish
#2 - Unverifiable
#3 - I used to manager a restaurant and know this is not so.
#4 - Citation?
| |
| William Ahern 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:02:45 +0000, John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:09:32 -0400, Isaiah Beard
> < sacredpoet@sacredpoe
t.com> wrote in
> < 1292u1djsnvu4f4@corp
.supernews.com>:
>
>
>
> True, but cellular spectrum is limited and expensive, whereas wired
> capacity is relatively easy and cheap to increase.
>
Spectrum scarcity is artificial. There's effectively no limit (and we
don't need to nitpick qualifications considering the primitive through
puts we see now) on the amount of data that any region of the spectrum can
carry. The only real limit is the quality and performance of our hardware.
Unfortunately, we also have to deal w/ the artificial limit imposed by the
government spectrum monopoly.
Without this monopoly breakthroughs would doubtless occur at a much faster
pace. CDMA, both the theory and most of the practice, were developed in
World War II for heaven's sake.
Things like WiMAX will help to drive cellular technology forward. But we
need more competitors like WiMAX, and we need to open up more free
spectrum so this nascent field can more quickly develop the technology. I
realize the contradiction in saying we need more spectrum for one thing
while saying it's limitless for another, but to get from here to there
engineers still need sufficient wiggle room, and obv certainly regions of
the spectrum are more conducive to certain applications than others.
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:09:34 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <nospam@whutever.boo>
wrote in <yUkkg.50766$Lm5.45810@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>:
>SMS wrote:
>
>When you look at the industry magazines..WiFi and food services, there
>are article where establishments suffer from cyber squatters sitting at
>a table for hours. Customer churn (the good kind) is good for biz...an
>empty table or a table "out of service" by a squatter is not.
Which "industry magazines" would those be, by name?
Which articles would those be, by title and date?
Most hotspot operators seem to feel that the increase in business
outweighs the issues of squatters and leeches, which are fairly easy to
deal with in any event (e.g., by passwords only good for an hour or so).
Otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. (Now there's a thought.)
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:18:18 -0700, William Ahern
< william@25thandCleme
nt.com> wrote in
<pan.2006.06.15.22.18.11. 274044@25thandClemen
t.com>:
>On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:02:45 +0000, John Navas wrote:
>
>Spectrum scarcity is artificial. There's effectively no limit (and we
>don't need to nitpick qualifications considering the primitive through
>puts we see now) on the amount of data that any region of the spectrum can
>carry. ...
I have no idea where you're getting that, but it's simply not true.
It's fairly easy to calculate how much traffic a given amount of
spectrum can handle. For reference, see calculations done for WiMAX.
>Without this monopoly breakthroughs would doubtless occur at a much faster
>pace. CDMA, both the theory and most of the practice, were developed in
>World War II for heaven's sake.
"There is no magic."(c) CDMA has limits (defined by noise) just as TDMA
has limits.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Robert A. Fink, M. D. 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:05:36 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>I disagree, but then I have $20/month unlimited cellular data to fall
>back on. Too bad Verizon has nothing comparable for you. ;)
John,
I assume that you have the Cingular laptop connect system. Why is
yours $20 per month and mine is $59.95? Am I missing something?
Best,
Bob
Robert A. Fink, M. D., FACS, P. C.
Neurological Surgery
2500 Milvia Street Suite 222
Berkeley, CA 94704-2636 USA
510-849-2555
"Ex Tristitia Virtus"
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:53:49 -0700, "Robert A. Fink, M. D."
<lynxer@comcast.net> wrote in
< s0a392d119b2l6t6oc2a
srrvol4lj7pegl@4ax.com>:
>On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:05:36 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
>I assume that you have the Cingular laptop connect system. Why is
>yours $20 per month and mine is $59.95? Am I missing something?
I have the old MEdia Works Unlimited (no longer offered), which includes
unlimited Wireless Internet Express, 1500 SMS messages, and 200 MMS
messages.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Joel Kolstad 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| "John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:96o392p7qs5nhbt
efdko9idjrpe6edj20m@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:18:18 -0700, William Ahern
> < william@25thandCleme
nt.com> wrote in
> <pan.2006.06.15.22.18.11. 274044@25thandClemen
t.com>:
> "There is no magic."(c) CDMA has limits (defined by noise) just as TDMA
> has limits.
As a matter of fact, even the devlopers and propoents of CDMA (folks like
Bob Dixon) will readily admit that CDMA gets you less isolation (and
therefore less ultimate capacity) between multiple subscribers that either
TDMA or FDMA do... it's just that CDMA often ends up being cheaper (even
including the price of spectrum) because a lot of the "smarts" can be
implemented digitally rather than requiring various high-quality analog
components.
| |
|
| DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
> When you look at the industry magazines..WiFi and food services, there
> are article where establishments suffer from cyber squatters sitting at
> a table for hours. Customer churn (the good kind) is good for biz...an
> empty table or a table "out of service" by a squatter is not.
Yes, this is sometimes a problem, but it's on the same level as the
people that are downloading DVDs over there EV-DO or HSDPA connection.
One cafe I was at in Mountain View ensures that no power outlets are
available, so that limits people to a few hours.
There is always the option of using a code on a receipt as a key for a
certain amount of time per dollar spent, but it's probably more trouble
than it's worth, unless cyber-squatting is a huge problem.
Squatting was a problem even before WiFi. I was at a jazz show at a
restaurant/bar a couple of months ago, and the two people at the next
table paid the student cover charge ($5) and never ordered a single
drink in three hours of occupying the table, they just drank water. The
waitress was annoyed, but since there was no minimum, there was nothing
she could do, AND it was a sold-out show so those two people were
affecting her tip income. Clearly they should have had at least a one
drink minimum, or charged a bigger cover charge and included some drink
tickets.
> For you convenience, you may select from the following responses:
>
> #1 - Rubbish
> #2 - Unverifiable
> #3 - I used to manager a restaurant and know this is not so.
> #4 - Citation?
You forgot:
#6 - Nonsense
#7 - Simply not true
#8 - Been there; done that
#9 - Assumes facts not in evidence
| |
|
| Robert A. Fink, M. D. wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:05:36 GMT, John Navas
> < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> John,
>
> I assume that you have the Cingular laptop connect system. Why is
> yours $20 per month and mine is $59.95? Am I missing something?
Some people tether their laptops to their phones, using Cingular
MediaNet (see "https://www.cingular.com/media/media_net"), which costs
$20 per month.
Cingular can cut off your service for tethering. See
"http://www.cingular.com/media/media_legal" which states: "MEdia Net
packages are not available on PDAs, RIM devices, or Laptop Modem Cards.
MEdia Net packages are not intended for tethering. Cingular reserves the
right to remove customers from MEdia Net packages for the use of a
wireless device as an interface to other devices or networks, as
determined by Cingular, including but not limited to device tethering."
The reality is that Cingular probably is not going to cut anyone off for
tethering, as long as they don't abuse it, since they don't say that
tethering is forbidden. Some people have been tethering for a long time,
even before Cingular changed their terms of service (which they have the
right to do) and have not had any problems.
I don't think that Cingular is selling any HSDPA handsets yet (at least
I didn't see any on their web site), so if you want the top speed you
have to use a CardBus card in your notebook.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| SMS wrote:
>
> You forgot:
>
> #6 - Nonsense
> #7 - Simply not true
> #8 - Been there; done that
> #9 - Assumes facts not in evidence
#10 - Google is your friend.
But John wants to know which magazines. Any professional active in the
business would know of them.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| William Ahern wrote:
> Things like WiMAX will help to drive cellular technology forward. But we
> need more competitors like WiMAX
Before I go forward with this, can you define "cellular technology". I
know it seems like a stupid question, but I want to narrow the scope
before I say something.
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 02:27:46 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <nospam@whutever.boo>
wrote in <CGokg.44959$fb2.17722@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>:
>SMS wrote:
>
>#10 - Google is your friend.
>
>But John wants to know which magazines.
You were referring to.
>Any professional active in the
>business would know of them.
You apparently don't, so I guess that says it all.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| Robert A. Fink, M. D. wrote:
> Am I missing something?
You're missing that John is skirting the "edge", pardon the pun.
http://www.cingular.com/media/media_legal
MEdia Net packages are not intended for tethering. Cingular
reserves the right to remove customers from MEdia Net packages
for the use of a wireless device as an interface to other
devices or networks, as determined by Cingular, including but
not limited to device tethering.
Go with the $59.95 Data Plan and not risk getting a $600-$800 bill come
some month as some Dallas market users did.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| SMS wrote:
> The reality is that Cingular probably is not going to cut anyone off for
> tethering, as long as they don't abuse it, since they don't say that
> tethering is forbidden.
As someone posted months ago, a TOS won't come out and use the word
"forbidden", rather use a more gentle term like "not intended", and
still have a fall back excuse to bill you for the data.
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 02:42:13 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <nospam@whutever.boo>
wrote in <9Uokg.44967$fb2.43910@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>:
>Robert A. Fink, M. D. wrote:
>
>You're missing that John is skirting the "edge", pardon the pun.
I'm actually on the "edge" (as in EGPRS). :)
>http://www.cingular.com/media/media_legal
>
> MEdia Net packages are not intended for tethering. Cingular
> reserves the right to remove customers from MEdia Net packages
> for the use of a wireless device as an interface to other
> devices or networks, as determined by Cingular, including but
> not limited to device tethering.
That's MEdia Net. I personally have the old Media Works package, which
isn't the same thing, and thus this doesn't apply.
>Go with the $59.95 Data Plan and not risk getting a $600-$800 bill come
>some month as some Dallas market users did.
Probably just due to error; e.g., data package accidentally removed from
the account, so usage charged pay-as-you-go. That happened to me, and
I got a bill of $8,000 (yes, $8,000). I had that completely reversed,
and the feature (data package) restored to my account. This actually
happened twice, although the other time was "only" about 1/3 of that.
:)
In any event, the real maximum risk is the price of the unlimited Data
Connect package, currently $60/month, a risk of only $40, because
Cingular would have to charge it's most favorable applicable rate:
<https://onlinecare.cingular.com/my-...e-agreement.jsp>:
If you misrepresent your eligibility for any Rate Plan, you agree to
pay us the additional amount you would have been charged under the
most favorable Rate Plan for which you are eligible.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 02:46:34 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <nospam@whutever.boo>
wrote in <eYokg.44972$fb2.43876@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>:
>SMS wrote:
>
>As someone posted months ago, a TOS won't come out and use the word
>"forbidden", rather use a more gentle term like "not intended", and
>still have a fall back excuse to bill you for the data.
All Cingular can do, according to the Service Agreement, is remove
someone from the MEdia Net package. It probably can't do that
retroactively as a matter of law, but at most the liability is $40, the
current difference between MEdia Net Unlimited and Data Connect
Unlimited. <yawn>
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| John Navas wrote:
>
> You apparently don't, so I guess that says it all.
Stop it..yer killing me. I got more laughs form you to last me a month.
| |
| GomJabbar 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
|
John Navas wrote:
> On 15 Jun 2006 04:26:51 -0700, "GomJabbar" <dkbatson@earthlink.net>
> wrote in <1150370811.757768.202750@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
> That can't happen unless something on your computer (e.g., web browser)
> is actually listening for it.
Oh yeah?
Sophos wrote:
> In line with this substantial increase in virus writing, is the rapidly decreasing
> average time to infection. There is now a 50% chance of being infected by an
> internet worm in just 12 minutes of being online using an unprotected, unpatched
> Windows PC.
http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/n...br />
2005.html
SkyPoint Communications wrote:
> On 2003-08-11, a new computer virus, known as the BLASTER virus (or W32.
> Blaster.Worm, or other names) was detected that is spreading over computer
> networks and infecting computers around the world. This virus may infect
> computers running Windows NT-based operating systems, including Windows
> NT4, Windows 2000 (all versions), Windows XP (all versions), and Windows 2003
> Server. It exploits a Windows security flaw that was highlighted by the US
> Department of Homeland Security several weeks ago. Your computer may
> become infected simply by being connected to a computer network such as a
> home or office local area network or the Internet, even if you do not use the
> computer.
http://www.skypoint.com/bulletins/030815.php
Sprint Broadband wrote:
> Anytime your computer is connected to the Internet it is vulnerable to hackers. It
> does not matter if your connection is always-on or dial-up. The main difference in
> vulnerability is the length of the exposure. Always-on connections provide a
> conduit to the Internet that is a two-way street, allowing hackers to exploit the
> connection and access your system. The longer your computer has uninterrupted
> access to the Internet, the longer it is vulnerable to a potential hacker.
http://www.sprintbroadband.com/securityFAQ.html
Broadband-Help wrote:
> External
> Intrusion attempts come via the Internet whilst you are connected. A remote
> computer will find your computer and begin "probing" for weaknesses that will
> expose your computer data files. If successful, the remote computer will have
> access to your computer files & operating system. How serious this is depends
> on what information you have stored on your computer. Personal letters, bank
> information, security passwords etc may, if you have these stored on hard disk,
> could all be potentially visible to this type of attack.
http://www.broadband-help.com/artic...dband_security/
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| On 15 Jun 2006 22:41:42 -0700, "GomJabbar" <dkbatson@earthlink.net>
wrote in <1150436502.614825.35420@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
>
>John Navas wrote:
>
>Oh yeah?
Yeah.
>[SNIP]
Read those articles more carefully. In all cases something was
listening.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| William Ahern 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:39:06 +0000, John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:18:18 -0700, William Ahern
> < william@25thandCleme
nt.com> wrote in
> <pan.2006.06.15.22.18.11. 274044@25thandClemen
t.com>:
>
>
>
> I have no idea where you're getting that, but it's simply not true. It's
> fairly easy to calculate how much traffic a given amount of spectrum can
> handle. For reference, see calculations done for WiMAX.
>
>
> "There is no magic."(c) CDMA has limits (defined by noise) just as TDMA
> has limits.
Leaving aside the fact that we haven't reached Shannon's limit on channel
bandwidth, and that techniques like code division still haven't been fully
exploited, either in research or in practice, there are other novel
approaches to the problem. To wit:
Recent developments on multi-antenna transceivers (also known as
Multi-Input Multi-Output systems) have shown that for the same bandwidth
and power resources compared to traditional single-antenna communication,
MIMO systems could increase throughput and/or increase reliability of
communication (diversity gain). The extra degree of freedom (apart from
time and frequency) comes from space by exploiting the possible
statistical independence between transmitting-receiving antenna pairs.
-- http://web.media.mit.edu/~aggelos/viral.html
| |
| William Ahern 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 02:23:54 -0700, William Ahern wrote:
> Recent developments on multi-antenna transceivers (also known as
> Multi-Input Multi-Output systems) have shown that for the same bandwidth
> and power resources compared to traditional single-antenna communication,
> MIMO systems could increase throughput and/or increase reliability of
> communication (diversity gain). The extra degree of freedom (apart from
> time and frequency) comes from space by exploiting the possible
> statistical independence between transmitting-receiving antenna pairs.
>
> -- http://web.media.mit.edu/~aggelos/viral.html
And here's real-life use of such a technique (if I understand correctly),
proven and even applied to 3G:
Gerard J. Foschini, a 40-year veteran of Bell Labs, came up with the
theory behind Blast about a decade ago while working on a long-term
project to find the limits of a wide variety of technologies. As part of
that project, he reviewed the work of Claude Shannon, the Bell Labs
mathematician who published a paper in 1948 that established the field of
modern information theory. Dr. Shannon's work still provides the basis
for much information theory, including the notion of system capacity
limits.
''He found the ultimate limits,'' Dr. Foschini said. ''But he was
basically dealing with one transmitter and one receiver. It was obvious
to us that we could deal with many transmitting antennas and many
receiving antennas for the same transmission.''
So Dr. Foschini began developing mathematical models to see whether
sending data through arrays of antennas would expand network capacities.
Antenna arrays have long been used in radar systems. But Dr. Foschini
said that radar arrays are used to focus radio beams, whereas he wanted
to scatter them. He hoped to discover whether wireless capacity could be
boosted by dividing up data in space as well as time. Rather than
point-to-point communications, his plan was to create volume-to-volume
exchanges.
He had found through mathematical research that the concept would not
work if the transmitter had only a single antenna. ''If you send the same
signal from one antenna many times all radiating in the same band, you
come out statistically right where you started,'' Dr. Foschini said.
Instead, he developed a system that divided data into multiple streams
that were then transmitted on the same frequency by several antennas. At
the receiving end, the different streams of data were picked up by other
antenna arrays.
Normally more than one transmission on a single radio frequency produces
nothing but electronic noise. But Blast can make sense out of the noise
because of the physical separation of the antennas sending the messages.
Processing software reassembles the scattered data streams into their
original form.
When Dr. Foschini tested the plan mathematically, the results were
surprising. ''We found the capacities were enormous -- far, far in excess
of what people were thinking of,'' he said. ''If you put more and more
antennas at the transmitting end, the capacity kept increasing. We were
coming out with such ridiculously large capacities that at first, we
didn't believe it.''
Prototype systems proved that the experiments were correct. Each
additional antenna added another element of space and because of that,
additional capacity.
http://tech2.nytimes.com/mem/techno...752C0A9659C8B63
| |
| William Ahern 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 02:30:53 +0000, DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
> William Ahern wrote:
>
> Before I go forward with this, can you define "cellular technology". I
> know it seems like a stupid question, but I want to narrow the scope
> before I say something.
We'll, I chumped out on better language. Go ahead and rip into it ;)
I think I was simply getting at an idea (BLAST) that I expounded upon in a
follow-up to John's response.
| |
| Thurman 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:3c8392ld6buoqa6
9dd81o45s5l7a1a4rfe@
4ax.com...
> On 15 Jun 2006 04:26:51 -0700, "GomJabbar" <dkbatson@earthlink.net>
> wrote in <1150370811.757768.202750@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
> That can't happen unless something on your computer (e.g., web browser)
> is actually listening for it.
I had a similar instance on the 14th from my office at home. I got an attack
warning and blocking, but the window that appeared had no URL attached. My
thought at the time was that it may have been injected at the Charter.net
ISP level. In the past, they installed a daemon to simplify their service
calls. It consumed so many resources on a WinME notebook I un-installed it.
It should not be running on my WinXP.
| |
| GomJabbar 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| John Navas wrote:
> Read those articles more carefully. In all cases something was
> listening.
By definition, when you establish a connection to the internet - often
merely by plugging in an ethernet cable that is connected to a modem -
your computer is listening. So your reply to my post was just some
useless drivel to try and make someone appear the fool and
ill-informed. This is your MO. You don't cut anyone posting here any
slack, that is why I don't cut you any slack.
John Navas wrote:
(I wrote)
(To which you responded)[color=dar
kred]
> That can't happen unless something on your computer (e.g., web browser)
> is actually listening for it.
I leave for now with this thought......
> As it is the mark of great minds to say many things in a few words,
> so is it that of little minds to use many words to say nothing.
> La Rochefoucauld, 1665
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| On 16 Jun 2006 04:17:05 -0700, "GomJabbar" <dkbatson@earthlink.net>
wrote in <1150456624.941165.112470@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>
>By definition, when you establish a connection to the internet - often
>merely by plugging in an ethernet cable that is connected to a modem -
>your computer is listening.
Nope. Your computer is listening if and only if a program:
(a) has actually made an outgoing connection to a remote host; or
(b) is listening on an inbound port for connections from remote hosts.
Just hooking up an Ethernet cable to the Internet isn't enough in and of
itself to create real risk. If no outgoing connections have been made,
and if no inbound ports are open, nothing can get in.
>So your reply to my post was just some
>useless drivel to try and make someone appear the fool and
>ill-informed. This is your MO. You don't cut anyone posting here any
>slack, that is why I don't cut you any slack.
What you're actually doing with such wild claims is making yourself look
foolish.
[color=darkred]
>John Navas wrote:
>(I wrote)
>
>(To which you responded)
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-16, 9:56 am |
| On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 05:41:01 -0500, "Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com>
wrote in <2Vvkg.2966$_r4.2041@fe03.lga>:
>
>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:3c8392ld6buoqa6
9dd81o45s5l7a1a4rfe@
4ax.com...
>
>I had a similar instance on the 14th from my office at home. I got an attack
>warning and blocking, but the window that appeared had no URL attached. My
>thought at the time was that it may have been injected at the Charter.net
>ISP level. In the past, they installed a daemon to simplify their service
>calls. It consumed so many resources on a WinME notebook I un-installed it.
>It should not be running on my WinXP.
Nothing can be injected into your computer unless (a) it's in response
to a request made by your computer or (b) something is listening to
receive it. Unless (a) your computer makes an outgoing connection to a
remote host, or (b) an incoming port has been opened, there's no way for
something to get in.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-06-16, 10:33 am |
| William Ahern wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 02:30:53 +0000, DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
>
>
> We'll, I chumped out on better language. Go ahead and rip into it ;)
>
> I think I was simply getting at an idea (BLAST) that I expounded upon in a
> follow-up to John's response.
Well....I really am curious what John Vavas' definition of "cellular
technology" is and if he thinks its referring to companies like
Cingular, Verizon, Sprint or T-Mobile.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-06-16, 10:33 am |
| John Navas wrote:
> On 16 Jun 2006 04:17:05 -0700, "GomJabbar" <dkbatson@earthlink.net>
> wrote in <1150456624.941165.112470@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
> Nope. Your computer is listening if and only if a program:
> (a) has actually made an outgoing connection to a remote host; or
> (b) is listening on an inbound port for connections from remote hosts.
> Just hooking up an Ethernet cable to the Internet isn't enough in and of
> itself to create real risk. If no outgoing connections have been made,
> and if no inbound ports are open, nothing can get in.
Total rubbish. If you really think there are "no outgoing connections
have been made, and if no inbound ports are open", drop a protocol
analyzer in the line and you'll understand.
| |
| Thurman 2006-06-16, 10:33 am |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:hae592p0i4qum25
tcapi5ab4fsjnc5vumh@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 05:41:01 -0500, "Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com>
> wrote in <2Vvkg.2966$_r4.2041@fe03.lga>:
>snip<
>
> Nothing can be injected into your computer unless (a) it's in response
> to a request made by your computer or (b) something is listening to
> receive it. Unless (a) your computer makes an outgoing connection to a
> remote host, or (b) an incoming port has been opened, there's no way for
> something to get in.
I don't take issue with that, but those conditions can exist without the
users knowledge.
I can imagine a Trojan planted in the downstream 'cache' server of the ISP.
In a Google like fashion, it could download triggered by keyword.
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-16, 12:33 pm |
| On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:06:24 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <nospam@whutever.boo>
wrote in <QNzkg.50971$Lm5.20110@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>
>Total rubbish.
Couldn't have put it better myself. :)
>If you really think there are "no outgoing connections
>have been made, and if no inbound ports are open", drop a protocol
>analyzer in the line and you'll understand.
Been there; done that. Likewise more appropriate tools for the job
(e.g., NETSTAT). What I wrote is correct. You can send all the packets
and attempt all the connections you want, but if nothing is listening,
nothing will happen.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-16, 12:33 pm |
| On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:15:09 -0500, "Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com>
wrote in <3Wzkg.14$oc2.9@fe05.lga>:
>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:hae592p0i4qum25
tcapi5ab4fsjnc5vumh@
4ax.com...
>
>I don't take issue with that, but those conditions can exist without the
>users knowledge.
True, which is why it's worth:
1. Running an application-level software firewall; and
2. Checking from time to time with tools like NETSTAT.
>I can imagine a Trojan planted in the downstream 'cache' server of the ISP.
Transparent proxy.
>In a Google like fashion, it could download triggered by keyword.
In response to some request, but will only be a problem if actually
executed (not just received).
A lot of mythology has grown up around viruses and trojans, but the
reality is that the vast majority of infections are due to some explicit
action (or inaction) by the user (e.g., installing that 'cool' software,
opening that interesting attachment, not heeding that popup warning, not
installing all available updates).
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| RNess 2006-06-16, 12:33 pm |
| EXACTLY...!
Fire up a copy of Ethereal and look at all the traffic.
From just being "plugged in".
"DecaturTxCowboy" <nospam@whutever.boo> wrote in message news:QNzkg.50971$Lm5.20110@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> John Navas wrote:
>
> Total rubbish. If you really think there are "no outgoing connections have been made, and if no inbound ports are
> open", drop a protocol analyzer in the line and you'll understand.
| |
| Mij Adyaw 2006-06-16, 3:33 pm |
| Yes, however, CDMA is better than TDMA or GSM.
> "There is no magic."(c) CDMA has limits (defined by noise) just as TDMA
> has limits.
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-16, 3:33 pm |
| [top posting fixed]
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:33:08 -0700, "Mij Adyaw" <mij@spam.com> wrote in
<oXBkg.15$L15.1@fed1read10>:
[color=darkred]
>Yes, however, CDMA is better than TDMA or GSM.
Depends on what you mean by "better." ;)
All technologies involve tradeoffs, and "CDMA" is no exception, with
issues of pilot pollution, cell "breathing," and other forms of call
degradation under high load.
Strictly from an efficiency standpoint, as measured in Erlangs, "CDMA"
and GSM aren't that far apart. Some time ago, Chris Pearson, Executive
Vice President, 3G Americas, wrote:
Many CDMA operators are currently in the midst of deploying 1XRTT,
an interim step towards 3G that promises to use spectrum more
efficiently. Time will tell whether that is the truth but the fact is
that, based on best-case data from CDMA vendors, 1XRTT with EVRC
handles up to 156 Erlangs per sector. Bearing in mind that GSM with
AMR handles 142 Erlangs, it is a great stretch to argue that 1XRTT
has a major advantage over GSM. GSM operators also can deploy dynamic
frequency and channel allocation (DFCA), which assigns calls to
channels based on conditions such as signal and interference. With
AMR and DFCA, GSM can handle 170 Erlangs per sector - an improvement
on 1XRTT’s 156.
In the near future, 1XRTT operators will probably be able to deploy a
technology called selective mode vocoder (SMV), which could provide
20% more capacity over EVRC. The catch is that SMV-like methods can
be applied to GSM to produce almost identical capacity gains. Thus,
while one technology may have slightly higher capacity gains at one
point in time, another technology is always preparing to leap-frog
over it.
In addition, as I've noted in the past:
Unlike a TDMA/GSM network, a CDMA network is interference-limited
rather than bandwidth-limited, and the Erlang capacity is calculated
according to the probability of blocking by the network, i.e., the
probability that a new mobile is denied access to the network.
The problem is that CDMA Erlang numbers don't take into account the
quality/usability of the call. CDMA networks can be loaded to the
point where quality is truly horrible, whereas TDMA/GSM networks
guarantee bandwidth to every call. Real world RF interference
further muddies the water.
The result is that claimed Erlangs (call capacity metrics) for CDMA
networks tend to be unrealistic (some would say wildly unrealistic);
i.e., they are not directly comparable to the capacity of GSM
networks. When CDMA calls are limited to those with quality
comparable to GSM, then capacity is roughly comparable.
Contrary to the claims of CDMA boosters, there is no magic.(c)
That said, the whole debate about "better" is mostly meaningless and
pointless from a customer point of view -- "CDMA" and GSM are both
capable of very good results in real-world deployments, which is all
that really matters to customers.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Mij Adyaw wrote:
> Yes, however, CDMA is better than TDMA or GSM.
This is true, see "http://www.cellphoneinfo.com/index.html"
"CDMA has the best noise immunity, is the least susceptible to multipath
(fading), and can talk to more than one cell at a time so that
cell-to-cell handovers (a critical cause of dropped calls) are a soft
exchange and not a hard switch."
and
"http://www.wirelessdevnet.com/channels/wireless/training/ mobilewirelesstoday4
.html"
"Advantages of CDMA technology include high user capacity and immunity
from interference by other signals."
| |
|
| DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
> Robert A. Fink, M. D. wrote:
>
> You're missing that John is skirting the "edge", pardon the pun.
>
> http://www.cingular.com/media/media_legal
>
> MEdia Net packages are not intended for tethering. Cingular
> reserves the right to remove customers from MEdia Net packages
> for the use of a wireless device as an interface to other
> devices or networks, as determined by Cingular, including but
> not limited to device tethering.
>
> Go with the $59.95 Data Plan and not risk getting a $600-$800 bill come
> some month as some Dallas market users did.
Did they really bill people for excessive use of tethered MediaNet? I'd
think that they'd just cancel their service rather than trying to charge
them hundreds of dollars.
It's probably more profitable to just ignore tethered use even though
they could get nasty about it. About the only good thing about them
getting nasty would be that users that are violating the T.O.S. would
have to stop bragging about doing so on alt.cellular.cingular!
| |
| Robert A. Fink, M. D. 2006-06-16, 3:33 pm |
| On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 02:42:13 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy
<nospam@whutever.boo> wrote:
>Go with the $59.95 Data Plan and not risk getting a $600-$800 bill come
>some month as some Dallas market users did.
That's what I have now and I will keep it.
Many thanks,
Bob
Robert A. Fink, M. D., FACS, P. C.
Neurological Surgery
2500 Milvia Street Suite 222
Berkeley, CA 94704-2636 USA
510-849-2555
"Ex Tristitia Virtus"
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-16, 10:33 pm |
| On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 13:12:00 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 4493108c$0$96967$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
>
>Did they really bill people for excessive use of tethered MediaNet?
I've seen no real evidence of that. What probably happened is that
MEdia Net got deleted accidentally from the account -- as happened to me
not once but twice -- which could have been corrected (as in my case).
>I'd
>think that they'd just cancel their service rather than trying to charge
>them hundreds of dollars.
I think Cingular would be more likely to switch them to a Data Connect
package.
>It's probably more profitable to just ignore tethered use even though
>they could get nasty about it. About the only good thing about them
>getting nasty would be that users that are violating the T.O.S. would
>have to stop bragging about doing so on alt.cellular.cingular!
Long term I think it's possible that carriers will automatically
throttle people based on bandwidth consumed, much like satellite
Internet "Fair Use."
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| GomJabbar 2006-06-16, 10:33 pm |
|
John Navas wrote:
> A lot of mythology has grown up around viruses and trojans, but the
> reality is that the vast majority of infections are due to some explicit
> action (or inaction) by the user (e.g., installing that 'cool' software,
> opening that interesting attachment, not heeding that popup warning, not
> installing all available updates).
I agree with the above statement. But notice the very important
qualifier inserted: "vast majority".
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-06-16, 10:33 pm |
| RNess wrote:[color=darkred
]
> EXACTLY...!
>
> Fire up a copy of Ethereal and look at all the traffic.
> From just being "plugged in".
>
>
> "DecaturTxCowboy" <nospam@whutever.boo> wrote in message news:QNzkg.50971$Lm5.20110@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
In a perfect world, John is correct. But it isn't a perfect world. In
reality lots of third party things end up on a computer. John's
explanation does not fly in the real world.
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-16, 10:33 pm |
| On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 02:23:51 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <nospam@whutever.boo>
wrote in <XIJkg.24925$VE1.10212@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>:
>RNess wrote:
>
>In a perfect world, John is correct. But it isn't a perfect world. In
>reality lots of third party things end up on a computer. John's
>explanation does not fly in the real world.
Wrong again.
Have a nice day.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-16, 10:33 pm |
| On 16 Jun 2006 19:17:50 -0700, "GomJabbar" <dkbatson@earthlink.net>
wrote in <1150510670.777483.173950@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>
>
>I agree with the above statement. But notice the very important
>qualifier inserted: "vast majority".
Fair enough.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-06-16, 10:33 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
> Wrong again.
Venturing yet another unverifiable opinion? Or is that a redundant question?
| |
|
| DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
> In a perfect world, John is correct. But it isn't a perfect world. In
> reality lots of third party things end up on a computer. John's
> explanation does not fly in the real world.
What I think some users don't understand is that their "inbound port" is
almost always open, unless they've taken explicit action to close it.
Look how XP happily connects to any unsecured wireless network it finds,
unless you take action to prevent it from doing so.
The fact that traffic is seen on the Ethernet cable with a Sniffer or
other protocol analyzer is really immaterial.
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-16, 10:33 pm |
| On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 02:45:31 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <nospam@whutever.boo>
wrote in <f1Kkg.24932$VE1.15040@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>
>Venturing yet another unverifiable opinion? Or is that a redundant question?
Simple statement of fact.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-16, 10:33 pm |
| On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:52:54 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44936e85$0$96946$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
>
>
>What I think some users don't understand is that their "inbound port" is
>almost always open, unless they've taken explicit action to close it.
Wrong again. It's only open if something is listening. (You clearly
have no idea how TCP/IP works.)
>Look how XP happily connects to any unsecured wireless network it finds,
> unless you take action to prevent it from doing so.
Apples versus oranges.
>The fact that traffic is seen on the Ethernet cable with a Sniffer or
>other protocol analyzer is really immaterial.
Not necessarily -- it all depends on what kind of traffic.
You really do need to learn how this stuff works.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| |