On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 08:22:20 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> It is unbelievable how you are bullshitting again. Learn to accept that
> RCS is dead for years.

*Apple only tells the truth in court.*

I wouldn't say RCS is dead so much as it's a non starter, as much as Google
would like it to be otherwise (i.e., it never took off), perhaps mainly
because Apple won't support RCS messaging and that's the end of it.

Apple knows full well what supporting RCS would mean to their iMessage lock
(and they said so, rather clearly, as was revealed in the Epic court case).

Remember, Apple only tells the truth, when forced to, in court.

On Tue, 08 Feb 2022 09:18:11 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> I use my phone als hotspot for computers and tablets. Much faster and
>> more secure.
>
> that's not always an option, sometimes inconvenient when it is an
> option, and not everyone has unlimited bandwidth.

To nospam's point:
<https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg>

I have three iPads.
a. Wi-Fi only
b. Wi-Fi & cellular with 200MB/month for life free SIM
c. Wi-Fi & cellular with 200MB/month for life free SIM

While every day Android gets stronger, all crippled iOS devices weaker
(because Apple's strategy is clearly to inexorably remove basic
functionality year after year so that you are forced to buy it back.

As a result of iOS being crippled, I find less and less and less use for the
iPads other than as mere toys for the grandchildren to play games upon.

Or to check the iKooks wildly fabricated claims of imaginary functionality.

However, if I had wanted to use those overly expensive iPads, I'd have to
resort to an access point to get onto the net after the 400MB are up.

On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 11:26:58 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

>> wifi-only tablets and laptops.
>
> I use tethering from the phone.

Tethering, for me, on T-Mobile anyway, is free (as is hot spotting), but
it's limited to something like 5GB/month/line (as I recall) on my plan.
<https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg> $100 for six lines + $16 tax

After that 5GB/month/line, I'd have to resort to Wi-Fi access points.

On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 08:48:28 -0700, AJL wrote:

> My ISP (Cox) company supplied
> modems have a built in hotspot.

How is that any different than a combined "Wi-Fi modem", which, I think, is
extremely common in the USA, is it not?

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 08.02.22 um 16:48 schrieb AJL:
> > On 2/8/2022 12:10 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> >> and 4G is at least as fast. Not to mention 5G.
> > BTW Cox subscribers can opt out of having their own modem be a hotspot.
> > I did but am not sure why. Paranoia likely.
>
> Many subscriber simply do not accept other users on their
> infrastructure. I wouldn't.

It's not really "their infrastructure" [1], it's their ISPs
infrastructure. The two parts of the modem are completely seperate.

But of course you're free to do as you please.

We have millions of these hotspots, but like you, I don't use them,
except in (very) exceptional circumstances.

[...]

[1] Yes, the modem sits in their home, probably uses their cabling and
uses their power.

On 2/8/2022 7:48 AM, AJL wrote:

<snip>

> There is a 3rd type of hotspot in my area. My ISP (Cox) company supplied
> modems have a built in hotspot. Any nearby Cox subscriber can enter his
> password to use any of these modem hotspots. Since Cox is a large
> company there are thousands of these small hotspots available. (Cox also
> has larger ranging company hotspots in the commercial areas.)

Same with Comcast/Xfinity. Though a lot of subscribers pay the monthly
fee for a modem, or modem/router, with that "feature" a lot buy their
own modem and router since it's less expensive.

> Subscribers (usually) get their contracted Cox speed at these hotspots.

Xfinity hotspots are not that fast. They have to be a little careful to
try to reduce sharing of service.

When traveling I use a VPN if I have to use a hotspot. Public hotspots
are usually slower than LTE data though I've been in some towns where
the LTE network is very slow and the Wi-Fi provided by a hotel is faster.

On 2/8/2022 8:50 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

<snip>

> It's not really "their infrastructure" [1], it's their ISPs
> infrastructure. The two parts of the modem are completely seperate.

Exactly. It's not like you've set up a guest network. Supposedly it
doesn't affect your speeds either. I've never used an ISP supplied modem
so I've never had to worry about this.

In article <stu7p3$a9d$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> > Subscribers (usually) get their contracted Cox speed at these hotspots.
>
> Xfinity hotspots are not that fast.

it's more than fast enough for individual users for nearly everything.
some high bandwidth activities might be throttled.

In article <stu82k$cke$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> > It's not really "their infrastructure" [1], it's their ISPs
> > infrastructure. The two parts of the modem are completely seperate.
>
> Exactly. It's not like you've set up a guest network.

it's implemented as a guest network with its own ip block and uses the
same uplink to the isp.

> Supposedly it
> doesn't affect your speeds either.

it doesn't.

> I've never used an ISP supplied modem
> so I've never had to worry about this.

and you also don't know how it works.

On 2/8/2022 10:03 AM, sms wrote:
> On 2/8/2022 7:48 AM, AJL wrote:

>> There is a 3rd type of hotspot in my area. My ISP (Cox) company
>> supplied modems have a built in hotspot. Any nearby Cox subscriber
>> can enter his password to use any of these modem hotspots. Since
>> Cox is a large company there are thousands of these small hotspots
>> available. (Cox also has larger ranging company hotspots in the
>> commercial areas.)
>
> Same with Comcast/Xfinity. Though a lot of subscribers pay the
> monthly fee for a modem, or modem/router, with that "feature" a lot
> buy their own modem and router since it's less expensive.

Yup. The service is only available with Cox rented modems.

I'm fortunate in that I don't have to worry about saving a few dollars a
month so that having a rented company modem that updates itself and has
"free" service if it fails is worth it to me. But it's a good thing that
there are cheaper modems available for those that want or need them...

On 2/8/2022 9:26 AM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 08:48:28 -0700, AJL wrote:

>> My ISP (Cox) company supplied modems have a built in hotspot.

> How is that any different than a combined "Wi-Fi modem", which, I
> think, is extremely common in the USA, is it not?

Because these Cox supplied company modems allow the general Cox
subscriber base (public) to use your private modem without your
knowledge. Is that really common these days? Dunno...

On 2/8/2022 9:31 AM, AJL wrote:
> On 2/8/2022 9:26 AM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 08:48:28 -0700, AJL wrote:
>
>>> My ISP (Cox) company supplied modems have a built in hotspot.
>
>> How is that any different than a combined "Wi-Fi modem", which, I
>> think, is extremely common in the USA, is it not?
>
> Because these Cox supplied company modems allow the general Cox
> subscriber base (public) to use your private modem without your
> knowledge. Is that really common these days? Dunno...

Actually the ISPs make it clear what they're doing and it's easy to opt out.

On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 09:43:11 -0800, sms wrote:

>>>> My ISP (Cox) company supplied modems have a built in hotspot.
>>
>>> How is that any different than a combined "Wi-Fi modem", which, I
>>> think, is extremely common in the USA, is it not?
>>
>> Because these Cox supplied company modems allow the general Cox
>> subscriber base (public) to use your private modem without your
>> knowledge. Is that really common these days? Dunno...
>
> Actually the ISPs make it clear what they're doing and it's easy to opt out.

Just to be clear, are these Cox modems simply providing a Wi-Fi guest access
point?

Or are they cellular femtocells?

I have _both_ in my house, for example, even as I don't have a modem (per
se), as I have a radio transceiver (since I'm on WISP as there is no cable
where I live and no chance for effective ISDN or DSL).

I'm having trouble understanding what the original Cox complaint is about:
a. If it's Wi-Fi, can't the user block the guest network access?
b. If it's cellular, then there is no (known) way to block network access.

Is the OP really talking about a cellular femtocell?
Or is he talking about Wi-Fi?

I ask only because he's complaining it can't be blocked by him.

On Tue, 08 Feb 2022 12:21:58 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> Exactly. It's not like you've set up a guest network.
>
> it's implemented as a guest network with its own ip block and uses the
> same uplink to the isp.

Oh. Thanks. Thanks for being an adult in that response of yours above.

In another post I was asking to ascertain if this guest network was
a. cellular, or,
b. wi-fi

Since I have a cellular femtocell, that isn't able (to my knowledge) to
block another cellular phone from using it (as it will allow _any_ T-Mobile
customer to use my femtocell, and hence, my Internet over my router).

I guess the complaint against Cox isn't that.

From your response, nospam, I ascertain that it's kind of a similar
arrangement only for Wi-Fi where any Cox customer can access the Internet
via this WiFi access point that Cox put inside the subscriber's modem.

That's intersting, as I have little experience with modems given I'm on WISP
(but I've set up college kids on modems so I do have some experience).

It doesn't sound too bad though, so I wonder why the person is so upset?
a. The femtocell connected to my router can be used by _any_ T-Mo customer
b. This Cox guest AP in his modem can be used by _any_ Cox customer

As long as there it little to no impact to the user, why does he care?

On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 18:25:20 -0000 (UTC), Andy Burnelli wrote:

> I ask only because he's complaining it can't be blocked by him.

Nevermind.
I was ignorant of these Cox modems because I don't use a modem.
I have a radio transceiver on my rooftop which gets Internet over the air.
From about 3 miles away as the crow flies (about 20 miles by roadway).

I read that this is a connection over Wi-Fi for any Cox customer.
Much like my femtocell is a cellular connection for any T-Mobile customer.

It doesn't sound too bad though, so I wonder why the person is so upset?
a. The femtocell connected to my router can be used by _any_ T-Mo customer
b. This Cox guest AP in his modem can be used by _any_ Cox customer

As long as there it little to no impact to the user, why does he care?

On 2022-02-08 15:18, nospam wrote:
> In article <6as9di-o0q.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> You still have not explained how exactly they do it, only that it is not
>> as I hypothesize.
>
> yes i did. they qos/block specific sites/ip addresses, ports and/or
> protocols, depending on what it is they want to block or throttle. just
> about all public hotspots have some level of restriction.

Please tell those specific sites/ip addresses ports or protocols to stop
whatsap from sending photos or videos or files, but still being able to
send text.

>
> i posted the link to their terms of service, which lists some of what
> they do not allow. basically, they throttle or block anything that can
> adversely affect their network and overall performance, such as video
> streaming, or is unacceptable for a plane, such as voip calls or adult
> content.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 09:03:31 -0800, sms wrote:

> Same with Comcast/Xfinity. Though a lot of subscribers pay the monthly
> fee for a modem, or modem/router, with that "feature" a lot buy their
> own modem and router since it's less expensive.

Usenet is a team sport where we should strive to add value in each post.

Steve is correct in advising buying your own modem is far less expensive
than renting as my own grandkids found out when they got their first
apartment at college.
a. Renting was $10/month plus a $50 one-time setup fee from Comcast
b. Buying was about $120 from Costco & no setup fee from Comcast

Even if Docsys 3.1 moves to some other standard, it won't change in the half
year (or so) that it takes to get all your money back from buying the modem.

>> Subscribers (usually) get their contracted Cox speed at these hotspots.
>
> Xfinity hotspots are not that fast. They have to be a little careful to
> try to reduce sharing of service.

I have something similar in that I have a T-Mobile femtocell connected to my
SOHO router which _anyone_ on T-Mobile can use if they're close enough to.

Does it impact my Internet?
Not that I know of (but how would I even know?).

> When traveling I use a VPN if I have to use a hotspot. Public hotspots
> are usually slower than LTE data though I've been in some towns where
> the LTE network is very slow and the Wi-Fi provided by a hotel is faster.

As Steve astutely noted, VPN is de rigueur at public & hotel hotspots.

Plenty of free VPN servers exist although you can spend the rest of your
life choosing the "best" VPN service for your needs so let's not go there.

The "protocol" I recommend, at least for now, is "openVPN".
The software I recommend, unless you know better, is
*OpenVPN Connect client* by OpenVPN (free, ad free, gsf free, etc.)
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.openvpn.openvpn>

If you know of a better free ad-free gsf-free google-free VPN client,
let us know as Usenet is a team sport where everyone tries to add value.

In article <stucig$1n4a$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> Just to be clear, are these Cox modems simply providing a Wi-Fi guest access
> point?

guest wifi access.

<https://www.cox.com/residential/support/understanding-cox-hotspots.html>

> Or are they cellular femtocells?

nope.

> I'm having trouble understanding

yep, and not just this.

In article <stua3d$q75$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> > Because these Cox supplied company modems allow the general Cox
> > subscriber base (public) to use your private modem without your
> > knowledge. Is that really common these days? Dunno...
>
> Actually the ISPs make it clear what they're doing

although they technically do disclose it, it's not in a way where most
people will ever find out, which is intentional because it's a value
added feature to have wifi available away from home and they don't want
people to freak out and disable it.

> and it's easy to opt out.

opting out may be easy for geeks who know what to look for, but not for
average users, who are not comfortable poking around in their modem
settings.

not only that, but many of them don't know the admin password for their
modem, which is often not disclosed by the installer, making it
impossible for them to opt out or make any other change.

In article <jrqadi-52c.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>
> >> You still have not explained how exactly they do it, only that it is not
> >> as I hypothesize.
> >
> > yes i did. they qos/block specific sites/ip addresses, ports and/or
> > protocols, depending on what it is they want to block or throttle. just
> > about all public hotspots have some level of restriction.
>
>
> Please tell those specific sites/ip addresses ports or protocols to stop
> whatsap from sending photos or videos or files, but still being able to
> send text.

firewall rules.

whatsapp uses different servers for multimedia content. some firewalls
make it very easy to block, while others require more effort.

<https://i.redd.it/72i974opbfq71.png>

<https://www.fortiguard.com/appcontrol/37371>
WhatsApp_File.Transfer
Description
This indicates an attempt to transfer a file via WhatsApp.
WhatsApp allows users to upload/download images, documents, audios,
locations or contacts in a conversation.

On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 10:31:03 -0700, AJL wrote:

> I'm fortunate in that I don't have to worry about saving a few dollars a
> month so that having a rented company modem that updates itself and has
> "free" service if it fails is worth it to me. But it's a good thing that
> there are cheaper modems available for those that want or need them...

Even I am shocked at the lack of intelligence of most people on Usenet.

I set up a college kid a few years ago for her first apartment and I
_taught_ her to be exactly the opposite of what was just said to us.

She is highly educated (masters degree) at this point, and she has brought
her modem with her from apartment to apartment and to her recent new home.

Not once did she have to pay the Comcast setup fee of $50 for each move.
And, not once did she pay the Comcast rental fee of $10/month for the modem.

The Motorola Docsys 3.0 modem cost me about $120 (as I recall) from Costco.
They're not Docsys 3.1 but I'm not sure what difference that may make.

On cost saving, she learned only an utter _idiot_ would rent the modem from
Comcast, and on convenience (which is what the poster above touted), every
time she moved to a new apartment, she brought the modem with her.

That's convenience!
(The people left at the old apartments had to fend for themselves, in fact.)

As for cost savings, just compare these figures which intelligent people do:
a. Install 3 times & rent for five years = 3x$50 + 5x$10x12 = $750
b. Buy & install 3x & rent for 5 years = 3x$0 + $120 = $120

Given Comcast sets up the modem, not you, there is no disadvantage in
convenience, and you're even likely to have bought a better modem than what
Comcast provides at least for the first year (this was in Docsys 3.0 days).

Is Docsys 3.1 appreciably better?
If so, then we'd just add another $150 or so for a new Docsys 3.1 modem.

In the end, she learned that only an utter idiot would do what AJL does.
--
Even I am shocked at the lack of intelligence of most people on Usenet.

On Tue, 08 Feb 2022 14:41:27 -0500, nospam wrote:

> guest wifi access.

Thanks.

I've read what others and you said (as I can cure my ignorance) where I
appreciate that you've responded on an _adult_ matter as to my concerns.

My femtocell (which, of course, is "cellular" guest access) also allows
anyone close enough on T-Mobile to connect to it for making phone calls
(and for Internet, AFAIK).

But, as nospam said with the Cox Wi-Fi guest access, I assume if people were
to connect to this femtocell (which is connected to my home router)
a. It has negligible (if any) impact on my cellular connection, but, perhaps
b. It might possibly maybe impact my Internet connection...

If the guest were to use a great amount of Internet data over it, I guess.
Since the femtocell goes through the router, there may be a way of tracking.

On Tue, 08 Feb 2022 14:41:28 -0500, nospam wrote:

> not only that, but many of them don't know the admin password for their
> modem, which is often not disclosed by the installer, making it
> impossible for them to opt out or make any other change.

Given Usenet is a team sport where every post should add more value...

That's yet another potential advantage of buying your own modem in addition
to the huge cost savings and the convenience of owning your own modem.
*NETGEAR Nighthawk CM1100 DOCSIS 3.1 Cable Modem*
~$150 plus about 10% sales tax, Item 1290299, Model CM1100
<https://www.costco.com/Netgear-Nighthawk-CM1100-DOCSIS-3.1-Cable-Modem.product.100464287.html>

*Netgear Nighthawk AC1900 Dual-Band Cable Modem Router*
~$180 plus about 10% sales tax, Item 1136869, Model C6900
<https://www.costco.com/netgear-nighthawk-ac1900-dual-band-cable-modem-router.product.100337067.html>

The last modem I bought was Docsys 3.0 years ago (still in use by the kids).
*Arris SB6141 cable modem (Costco item #774054)*

Is 3.1 all that different in terms of what matters to a typical customer?

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 2/8/2022 9:31 AM, AJL wrote:
> > On 2/8/2022 9:26 AM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> >> On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 08:48:28 -0700, AJL wrote:
> >
> >>> My ISP (Cox) company supplied modems have a built in hotspot.
> >
> >> How is that any different than a combined "Wi-Fi modem", which, I
> >> think, is extremely common in the USA, is it not?
> >
> > Because these Cox supplied company modems allow the general Cox
> > subscriber base (public) to use your private modem without your
> > knowledge. Is that really common these days? Dunno...
>
> Actually the ISPs make it clear what they're doing and it's easy to opt out.

Indeed the ISPs make it clear, except - apparently - Mr Know-it-All's
ISP.

And, it gets kind of boring, in the EU it's of course opt *in*.

On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 19:59:37 -0000 (UTC), Andy Burnelli wrote:

> Is Docsys 3.1 appreciably better?
> If so, then we'd just add another $150 or so for a new Docsys 3.1 modem.

Since every Usenet post should add value, this one asks the simple question:
*What's the tangible difference to the user of Docsys 3.0 vs Docsys 3.1?*

The only disadvantage, that I can think of, to owning your own modem is that
it's most likely locked to Docsys 3.whatever (at the time you bought it).

The last modem I bought was Docsys 3.0 years ago (still in use by the kids).
*Arris SB6141 cable modem (Costco item #774054)*

Nowadays Costco sells these two which are Docsys 3.1 modems (not Docsys 3.0)
*NETGEAR Nighthawk CM1100 DOCSIS 3.1 Cable Modem*
~$150 plus about 10% sales tax, Item 1290299, Model CM1100
<https://www.costco.com/Netgear-Nighthawk-CM1100-DOCSIS-3.1-Cable-Modem.product.100464287.html>

*Netgear Nighthawk AC1900 Dual-Band Cable Modem Router*
~$180 plus about 10% sales tax, Item 1136869, Model C6900
<https://www.costco.com/netgear-nighthawk-ac1900-dual-band-cable-modem-router.product.100337067.html>

Does anyone out there have this value to add to this thread?
What's the tangible difference between Docsys 3.0 & 3.1 to the user?