Recommended ISP's
John Kerr Anderson
We've been using SBC Yahoo Dsl, but were so outraged at their arrogance,
poor quality service, and lack of support that we decided to cancel. Can
anyone recommend an ISP that is actually good?
We're thinking of switching to charter cable internet, but rumour is
they're partnered with Micro$oft. Any recommendations???
We would like something that is high-speed if possible such as DSL/cable,
we live in mid-Michigan.
Thanks in advance!
John Anderson
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Mac McCaskie
but after they kept dialing down my speed (I'm at the edge of the
service radius) and the 2nd modem burned up I went with RR. They did
have problems (DNS server issue, they said) this fall locally, but they
eventually got it straightened out.
I agree that bandwidth can get zapped from time to time and it will vary
with your area. However, the company garuntees a certain level of
performance, the rest is bonus.
For security, a $40 - $60 router/hub/firewall works wonders and I have
no complaints with mine.
HTH
Brett Carrington
> We've been using SBC Yahoo Dsl, but were so outraged at their arrogance,
> poor quality service, and lack of support that we decided to cancel. Can
> anyone recommend an ISP that is actually good?
>
> We're thinking of switching to charter cable internet, but rumour is
> they're partnered with Micro$oft. Any recommendations???
I wouldn't recommend cable for the pure fact that you are sharing the
cable line with everyone on your block. Kiddie MP3 trader guys will sap
your bandwidth but malicious hacker #434 can sniff anything on that
line.
As for DSL, you (unfortunately) should stick with the local phone
monopoly. They usually suck but they are the only company who can repair
lines and actual deal with -real- issues. A reseller of DSL can only
report actual problems to the local phone RBOC/monopoly and if the
problemn isn't effecting their actual customers they might just take
their sweet time.
Barring everything else, if you'd like a Linux/server-friendly and
reasonable DSL provider check out <www.speakeasy.net>.
Carl Fink
> I wouldn't recommend cable for the pure fact that you are sharing the
> cable line with everyone on your block. Kiddie MP3 trader guys will sap
In every real case, you still end up with more than 128K, which is
what basic DSL will give you. I tend to get over 4 megabit
downstream.
> .... but malicious hacker #434 can sniff anything on that line.
And who cares? Not me. Anything confidential I encrypt anyway.
--
Carl Fink ca...@fink.to
Jabootu's Minister of Proofreading
http://www.jabootu.com
Brett Carrington
> For security, a $40 - $60 router/hub/firewall works wonders and I have
> no complaints with mine.
>
>
your cable line ANYONE can see ANY DATA (including unencrypted credit
card numbers or passwords) you send over your cable connection.
The only solution to this is a VPN or other end-to-end encryption from
your house/termination to the provider.
No amount of firewalling or NAT-ing will protect plain-text data. No
amount.
Rick Pasotto
>
> reasonable DSL provider check out <www.speakeasy.net>.
I have had SpeakEasy for about 1-year and have been very satisfied. They
are one of the few ISP's that offer static IP's at a reasonable price.
--
"The market is not an invention of capitalism. It has existed for
centuries. It is an invention of civilization." -- Mikhail Gorbachev
Rick Pasotto ri...@niof.net http://www.niof.net
Scott C. Linnenbringer
> We've been using SBC Yahoo Dsl, but were so outraged at their
> arrogance, poor quality service, and lack of support that we decided
> to cancel. Can anyone recommend an ISP that is actually good?
>
> We're thinking of switching to charter cable internet, but rumour is
> they're partnered with Micro$oft. Any recommendations???
>
> We would like something that is high-speed if possible such as
> DSL/cable, we live in mid-Michigan.
SBC and Charter both service my area, St. Louis.
I get connectivity from Charter, but I use a different ISP for actual
services such as mail, news and a conveinient shell. Charter in St.
Louis has been excellent; barring one problem which their support
immediately recognized and came out to my neighborhood to repair, I have
never had any noticable downtime and the connectivity has been superior.
I believe they outsource their news, mail and web hosting services from
Earthlink, but as I don't use it for that, I can't comment on the
quality.
You might also consider talking to a group local in your area; I've
found that some St. Louis-area user groups can be helpful after sending
a quick mail to their respective mailing-list.
--
scott c. linnenbringer | s...@panix.com
http://www.moslug.org/~sl | s...@moslug.org
Scott C. Linnenbringer
> I wouldn't recommend cable for the pure fact that you are sharing the
> cable line with everyone on your block. Kiddie MP3 trader guys will
> sap your bandwidth but malicious hacker #434 can sniff anything on
> that line.
I don't think that's a problem these days as it used to be; many Cable
providers have plenty of bandwidth on the local cable circuit especially
after the influx of upgrades, as well as caps of course. And it's
certainly not possible to sniff traffic as it used to be for some Cable
providers.
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 10:47:33AM -0500, John Kerr Anderson wrote:
> We're thinking of switching to charter cable internet, but rumour is
> they're partnered with Micro$oft. Any recommendations???
Actually, they're not partnered with Microsoft. Paul Allen just has
many interests: He's got some major interest in Charter, I think he's
on the board. He owns the Portland Trail Blazers and the Seattle
Seahawks. He's a cofounder of Microsoft. He's in charge of TechTV.
If anything, you want to support Charter, because it gives Allen a
viable exit strategy should he want to de-Borg himself.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFACupnUzgNqloQMwcRAu9uAKDBTKoh8r9LVZ/4pRpWYkqW2Pw5JwCgj6x1
Vzktk+V2o51p1mADmK3Sh3U=
=2BUi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 11:14:23AM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
> I wouldn't recommend cable for the pure fact that you are sharing the
> cable line with everyone on your block. Kiddie MP3 trader guys will sap
> your bandwidth but malicious hacker #434 can sniff anything on that
> line.
You're sharing bandwidth, as in, the same spectrum on the cable line.
If you sit on your cable modem with a packet sniffer, you'll see
broadcasts for the IP subnet you're on and packets destined for you
only. Watch the light on the modem flicker, and it doesn't coincide
with anything else. Meanwhile, DSL, you're just fighting for
bandwidth with all the other DSL users that's left over after all the
customers with gauranteed bandwidth (t1, t3, etc) have had their fill.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFACustUzgNqloQMwcRAvsXAJ97OoScy5E/0sjPITNXhMy0+TMETwCggfXJ
MV9GgjHQyu46345jeE3lVq8=
=2obk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jeffrey L. Taylor
[snip]
> You're sharing bandwidth, as in, the same spectrum on the cable line.
> If you sit on your cable modem with a packet sniffer, you'll see
> broadcasts for the IP subnet you're on and packets destined for you
> only. Watch the light on the modem flicker, and it doesn't coincide
> with anything else. Meanwhile, DSL, you're just fighting for
> bandwidth with all the other DSL users that's left over after all the
> customers with gauranteed bandwidth (t1, t3, etc) have had their fill.
>
Please give instructions on how this is done. I have heard alleged by
some people. I have also heard acknowledged experts in the field say
it is not (or no longer) possible. I have put the NIC on my cable
modem in promiscuous mode and saw nothing but my own traffic.
There may be a way to hack the cable modem itself to be in promiscious
mode, but I haven't heard anyone give any good explanation of this.
In anycase, it is pointless paranoia. A much more plausible scenario
is a disgruntled employee at any of the computers between you and the
destination sniffing packets. Or someone hacking those
computers/routers.
If the data is sensitive, encrypt it. Especially if it goes through
computers you do not control. I use SSH even on my home LAN.
Jeffrey
Nano Nano
[snip]
> In anycase, it is pointless paranoia. A much more plausible scenario
> is a disgruntled employee at any of the computers between you and the
> destination sniffing packets. Or someone hacking those
> computers/routers.
I don't know how it's done, but it's totally true: everything on your
cable modem can be intercepted easily by people on your same subnet.
Brett Carrington
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:57:59PM -0600, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote:
> [snip]
> > In anycase, it is pointless paranoia. A much more plausible scenario
> > is a disgruntled employee at any of the computers between you and the
> > destination sniffing packets. Or someone hacking those
> > computers/routers.
>
> I don't know how it's done, but it's totally true: everything on your
> cable modem can be intercepted easily by people on your same subnet.
>
specifically. The actual cable line still carries all data however and
it's just a simple matter of modulating/demodulating it.
I'm curious to know if you could ARP poision machines on your subnet and
perform attacks based on that.
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 01:07:04PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
> I don't know how it's done, but it's totally true: everything on your
> cable modem can be intercepted easily by people on your same subnet.
Not these days. Cable companies got a bit more security conscious
about 5 years ago.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFACvoFUzgNqloQMwcRAkU6AJwNSWQFlBv6qcUIAczIp9Y/TRxKjACdEpU1
SNtmVRRWruBLVuqrh2snxh4=
=2FmV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 04:18:48PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
> I'd guess the cable modems are ignoring data not meant for you
> specifically. The actual cable line still carries all data however and
> it's just a simple matter of modulating/demodulating it.
Yeah. More or less, they got smart about routing.
> I'm curious to know if you could ARP poision machines on your subnet and
> perform attacks based on that.
Not sure.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFACvt6UzgNqloQMwcRAj54AJ9nI0RqRJ0USjdokUVkmLjGtpEhdwCfXwWR
0nCSTsgUfEWYI68n0t36zGk=
=zwqT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Brett Carrington
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 01:07:04PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
> > I don't know how it's done, but it's totally true: everything on your
> > cable modem can be intercepted easily by people on your same subnet.
>
> Not these days. Cable companies got a bit more security conscious
> about 5 years ago.
infastructure. Is each user's cable connection now encrypted end-to-end?
I imagine any amount of secure encryption would really hurt people
trying to play bandwidth-heavy games. (Not in actual bandwidth but computational
time on what I assume are minimally powered cable modems.)
Nano Nano
> I'd guess the cable modems are ignoring data not meant for you
> specifically. The actual cable line still carries all data however and
> it's just a simple matter of modulating/demodulating it.
Just how much bandwidth are those cables capable of carrying?
I've always wondered: is every cable channel coming to my house
simultaneously, plus all this broadband traffic? I seem to recall
hearing the number "155 megabit" sometime. Are they using most of it?
It seems like when they planned cable television in the 1970's they
sure planned in a whole heck of a lot of capacity.
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 04:35:37PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
> But how? The lines are -still- shared, they didn't change the entire
> infastructure. Is each user's cable connection now encrypted end-to-end?
> I imagine any amount of secure encryption would really hurt people
> trying to play bandwidth-heavy games. (Not in actual bandwidth but computational
> time on what I assume are minimally powered cable modems.)
Probably just turned on switching on the headend, and giving everyone
a virtual segment.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFACv2uUzgNqloQMwcRAtIjAJ4tkeoexDJhC7Q383zUOY480Nj6xQCeL9E2
6flZEvpzeZVll7lXeYpjing=
=xcGL
Nano Nano
The specification is called Docsis (data over cable specification
something something) 2.0. I know each cable modem has a digital
certificate in it used for authentication - Cisco's cable modems use a
variant of the thing they use for requesting certs for routers.
I wrote a policy module for Windows Certificate Services for Cisco to
handle it. I know they have the *capacity* to basically do IPsec or
encrypt everything, but they're not currently. Won't that be exciting
when they do!
Brett Carrington
> Probably just turned on switching on the headend, and giving everyone
> a virtual segment.
>
I recall the cable system is like this:
H H H H
| | | |
Main --------- <--- Shared Lines
------[_________ <--- Shared Lines
Trunk | | | |
H H H H
I assume the only 'head end', the [ in the diagram, could be off and on
for each of the smaller shared lines but that isn't going to stop those
few H's (houses) from seeing their lines.
If cable could really be turned off like this then "cable theft" would
disappear.
Nano Nano
[snip]
>
> Yes all the channels and the traffic are coming on the same wire. Each
> channel is at a different frequency (kind of like for regular antenna
> reception), and the tv picks out whichever channel you want.
Could a device in theory record every channel simultaneously?
Could it in practice?
Brett Carrington
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 04:56:53PM -0500, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > Yes all the channels and the traffic are coming on the same wire. Each
> > channel is at a different frequency (kind of like for regular antenna
> > reception), and the tv picks out whichever channel you want.
>
> Could a device in theory record every channel simultaneously?
> Could it in practice?
Yes, but it's probably not very cheap. You'd need a seperate tuner for
each channel. When you change the channel your TV just re-tunes to the
freq. of the station on the wire. To record every channel you'd need to
be tuned to every station at the same time and then you'd need to find a
way to record it....
Jeff McAdams
> Could a device in theory record every channel simultaneously?
Yes.
> Could it in practice?
Depends on what you consider "practical", I guess.
I would say "no."
Your typical TV or VCR has one or two "receivers" or "tuners" in it. A
receiver or tuner is capable of receiving or tuning a single channel at
a time, so a dual-receiver or dual-tuner TV or VCR is capable of
extracting two channels at once.
Software-defined "radio" (the same principles apply to receiving
channels on a wire that they do to receiving channels over radio waves
in the air) could, in theory, receiving the whole spectrum at once and
extract individual channels out of the stored data at a later time.
Again, it becomes a question of what you consider "practical."
--
Jeff McAdams
"He who laughs last, thinks slowest." -- anonymous
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:05:02PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
> Could a device in theory record every channel simultaneously?
Yes.
> Could it in practice?
No.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFACw4OUzgNqloQMwcRAvZIAKCv6Js7NTmjGwhGrn/Im+LaEsrEmQCeKfQd
BHIMbkXe6b77jtl5l4hVhRY=
=q0qk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Antonio Rodriguez
> [snip]
> >
> > Yes all the channels and the traffic are coming on the same wire. Each
> > channel is at a different frequency (kind of like for regular antenna
> > reception), and the tv picks out whichever channel you want.
>
> Could a device in theory record every channel simultaneously?
> Could it in practice?
>
computer the tv channels that are coming through to your house? Or the
cable modem allows only the frequency of over wich the internet works?
Brett Carrington
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:05:02PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
> Another theoretical question: Is it possible to receive and decode in your
> computer the tv channels that are coming through to your house? Or the
> cable modem allows only the frequency of over wich the internet works?
and modulate/demodulate it back and forth from digital to the regular
analog cable service.
There are plenty of ways you can recieve and decode with a computer
though. Take a look around Google for TV Tuner cards and some of the
Linux TiVo-like setups.
Roberto Sanchez
That is not too difficult. The [U.S.] military (and others, I'm sure)
use wide-band recorders for some applications (not sure what, as it is
not my field of expertise). Essentially, they record onto 1" or wider
tape and capture huge parts of the spectrum. Later, the play the tape
back and tune specific freqs to get what they want. However, I'm sure
the equipment is not cheap.
-Roberto
Kent West
Or with a fast enough processor (does it exist?) controlling the tuner,
sample each channel in real time, like a couch potato surfing through
the channels and getting a fair idea of everything that's on, only much
much faster. It'd have to sample all 155 channels (or whatever) each
30th of a second (for analog TV signals) in order to get a full
30-frames per second for 155 channels.
But that's probably closer to the theoretical rather than the practical.
--
Kent
Wesley J Landaker
> Or with a fast enough processor (does it exist?) controlling the
> tuner, sample each channel in real time, like a couch potato surfing
> through the channels and getting a fair idea of everything that's on,
> only much much faster. It'd have to sample all 155 channels (or
> whatever) each 30th of a second (for analog TV signals) in order to
> get a full 30-frames per second for 155 channels.
Actually, each 60th of a second to get 30-frames per second. Blame it on
Nyquist...
--
Wesley J. Landaker - w...@icecavern.net
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
lloyd
> Let's assume there are 100 channels. That means that if you wanted to
> do it with analog technology, VHS, you'd need 100 times the capacity.
> Either 100 tapes in parallel (imagine having to synchronize 100 VCRs),
> tape rolling at 100 times the speed (tape would wear out, each tape
> would last 2 minutes instead of 2 hours, etc), tape 100 times as wide
> (lol, just try to imagine that), or a combination of each (twice as wide,
> ten times as fast and five in parallel),or of course a better technology.
>
> If you were doing it digitally, mpeg capture, then you'd need a tuner
> per channel each capturing at about 1 mbit/s. So that's about 100mbit/s or
> about 8 megabytes of video per second. That's not too bad, except you'd
> have to fit in 100 mpeg encoders into the system (not that unreasonable).
>
> You might be able to record the whole thing on a computer with a generic
> Digital to Analog converter, split it up in software and then reencode in
> mpeg, don't know how much processor power / bus bandwidth that would take.
>
> So the answer is yes it's possible but it probably woulnd't be trivial.
i'd be ecstatic if i could trade in that useless television bandwidth
that i don't need for an acceptable upload speed on my cable modem :-(
Paul Morgan
> Brett Carrington wrote:
>
> That is not too difficult. The [U.S.] military (and others, I'm sure)
> use wide-band recorders for some applications (not sure what, as it is
> not my field of expertise). Essentially, they record onto 1" or wider
> tape and capture huge parts of the spectrum. Later, the play the tape
> back and tune specific freqs to get what they want. However, I'm sure
> the equipment is not cheap.
>
I suspect that the BBC monitoring folks at Caversham might do something
similar, only with a specific set, or sets, of frequencies. A quick
search of the bbc web site gave only this, but I'm sure there's a lot more
info on the BBC Monitoring Service if anyone cares to dig for it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/milestones/1980s.html
"Active steerable high frequency receiving array installed at Crowsley
Park near Caversham for the BBC Monitoring Service."
--
....................paul
It is important to realize that any lock can be picked with a big
enough hammer.
-- Sun System & Network Admin manual
M.Kirchhoff
>
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 10:47:33AM -0500, John Kerr Anderson wrote:
> > We're thinking of switching to charter cable internet, but rumour is
> > they're partnered with Micro$oft. Any recommendations???
>
> Actually, they're not partnered with Microsoft. Paul Allen just has
> many interests: He's got some major interest in Charter, I think he's
> on the board. He owns the Portland Trail Blazers and the Seattle
> Seahawks. He's a cofounder of Microsoft. He's in charge of TechTV.
> If anything, you want to support Charter, because it gives Allen a
> viable exit strategy should he want to de-Borg himself.
>
We'll soon be picking up DSL soon. Is there a particular DSL/PPPoE "KillerApp"
that is easy to setup and use? One of our two laptops in the house is WinXP,
so I'm not worried about compatibility there, but mine is running Debian Sid.
I've not used DSL under Linux before. Any suggestions?
Thanks,
M. Kirchhoff
Aaron Hall
> But how? The lines are -still- shared, they didn't change the entire
> infastructure. Is each user's cable connection now encrypted
> end-to-end? I imagine any amount of secure encryption would really
> hurt people trying to play bandwidth-heavy games. (Not in actual
> bandwidth but computational time on what I assume are minimally
> powered cable modems.)
Cable companies that implement DOCSIS 1.1 can use something called
Baseline Privacy Interface, which essentially provides for just that.
Cox Communications (as an example) has turned it on for most if not all
of their cable systems. BPI provides for encryption from the modem to
the CMTS (where the cable system meets the rest of the IP network,
essentially).
I used to work for Cox, and I don't recall hearing any complaints at
all in terms of speed or latency issues. A few modems here and there
balked at the config changes, but those were issues with those modems,
and nothing inherent in BPI or DOCSIS 1.1.
Of course, BPI only works (I believe) if the modem is DOCSIS 1.1
compliant or better. Older modems won't be able to use it. In those
cases, Cox falls back to ordinary unencrypted transmission.
- Aaron
--
Aaron Hall : I claim this planet in the name of Mars.
ah...@vitaphone.net : Hmmm, isn't that lovely?
Brett Carrington
[snip]
> Of course, BPI only works (I believe) if the modem is DOCSIS 1.1
> compliant or better. Older modems won't be able to use it. In those
> cases, Cox falls back to ordinary unencrypted transmission.
>
moment (service enhancement/repairs!) you are unprotected. I think the
obscurity would be equivalent to a circuit-switched line (DSL) but there
really ought to be a move to encrypt-or-nothing. (And while IPsec et.
al. exist, find me one ISP that requires or even provides an end-point.)
Pigeon
> Jeff McAdams wrote:
>
> >Nano Nano wrote:
> >
> >>Could a device in theory record every channel simultaneously?
> >
> >
> >Yes.
> >
> >>Could it in practice?
> >
> >
> >Depends on what you consider "practical", I guess.
> >
> >I would say "no."
> >
> >Your typical TV or VCR has one or two "receivers" or "tuners" in it.
> >A receiver or tuner is capable of receiving or tuning a single channel
> >at a time, so a dual-receiver or dual-tuner TV or VCR is capable of
> >extracting two channels at once.
> >
> >Software-defined "radio" (the same principles apply to receiving
> >channels on a wire that they do to receiving channels over radio waves
> >in the air) could, in theory, receiving the whole spectrum at once and
> >extract individual channels out of the stored data at a later time.
> >Again, it becomes a question of what you consider "practical."
>
> Or with a fast enough processor (does it exist?) controlling the tuner,
> sample each channel in real time, like a couch potato surfing through
> the channels and getting a fair idea of everything that's on, only much
> much faster. It'd have to sample all 155 channels (or whatever) each
> 30th of a second (for analog TV signals) in order to get a full
> 30-frames per second for 155 channels.
>
> But that's probably closer to the theoretical rather than the practical.
It'd be pretty hard to do it quite like that, with one analogue tuner
continually being retuned. You'd have to tune it through all 155 channels
every 0.125us to get a 4MHz video bandwidth on each channel. As a side
effect the selectivity would be reduced and adjacent channels would
interfere with each other. You could ease the task by only trying to recover
the audio, perhaps at less than the full audio bandwidth.
Better to do the whole thing digitally - A-to-D the incoming signal directly
and have a fast DSP implement 155 tuners and demodulators in parallel, in
software. That's less impractical than it sounds. GPS receivers work vaguely
like that, to receive several satellites at the same time. DAB receivers are
also vaguely like that, to receive the multiple carriers of the DAB signal
simultaneously. Both cases are less demanding, of course, but it's certainly
possible in theory. In practice you'd probably have to use a combination of
software and hardware parallelism - eg. 15 DSPs doing 10 channels each -
with current processor technology.
(For an off-the-shelf solution, you could have a room full of 155 VCRs...)
--
Pigeon
Be kind to pigeons
Get my GPG key here: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x21C61F7F
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:12:21PM +0000, M.Kirchhoff wrote:
> We'll soon be picking up DSL soon. Is there a particular DSL/PPPoE "KillerApp"
> that is easy to setup and use?
Yes. Boycott all ISPs that employ this in your area. Find one not
trying to outright screw you that doesn't require any special setup.
Expect to be able to just plug your ethernet into your ISP-supplied
DSL bridge (ignorantly called a "modem" by marketroids and newbies)
and plug in some static settings or use DHCP. PPPoE is a classic sign
that the ISP is deliberately overselling their network and needs a
convienent way to "drop" your connection when you've been online "too
long."
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFADH/WUzgNqloQMwcRAqifAJsHgu9TtAA5YbKtVJ62GmQKuD1qwACeNLcE
IntnwYJ4/AvVvWFHeSuxhtE=
=hd27
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:39:49PM -0600, Aaron Hall wrote:
> I used to work for Cox, and I don't recall hearing any complaints at
> all in terms of speed or latency issues.
I used to work for @Home, which gave bandwidth and support to Cox (and
many others). Most of the calls we got involving latency issues were
from Cox and Charter markets. All of them serious line noise issues
also affecting television. No idea if any of those got fixed, Cox and
Charter also had this assenine policy that the only way @Home folks
could get Cox or Charter to roll a truck was to email them with the
customer's information and hope they actually called the customer like
they were supposed to but never did. Cox's tier 1 guys were fscking
morons, too, since line noise issues are something they weren't even
supposed to send up to us tier 2 folk to begin with...bastards. Not
uncommon to get five or six calls from the same customer with the same
issue before Cox or Charter would pull their head out long enough to
fix the problem.
Strike 2 against Cox for me is they colluded with AT&T and Comcast
against @Home to buy @Home's infrastructure for pennies on the dollar.
The collapse of Enron distracted the FTC from the collusion case until
after time ran out to prosecute for it, IIRC. So they put me and
8000+ of my closest coworkers out of work with illegal, unethical
business practices and got away with it scott-free.
I've never been a Cox customer and in the last 3 years, they've done
quite a bit by proxy to screw me. I'm not thinking they were out to
get me, but rather they're so inconsiderate or incompetent that they
could not help themselves.
Though Aaron's still cool. 8:o)
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFADIIHUzgNqloQMwcRAqisAJ0b5fbtn3+IoKpDf9kW496nRf++vQCff8XH
D/eUNPrP8OAdLFYRs+1LSmc=
=ruBu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:53:04PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
> But can you tell if encryption is on?
What difference does it make? It's still going to hit a fairly public
network not protected by the hardware after the very first hop anyway.
For some reason, in the last few years, people have developed the
misguided idea that your security is somehow your ISP's
responsibility. This is completely inept: It's like expecting your
landlord to lock and unlock your home for you when you come and go.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFADIL7UzgNqloQMwcRArlLAKCMmfRI3GnvA9GFoqz8pqmqKm6xrwCfXRvO
54I6NfwFP+zttNqOZ6kpcI0=
=qRpt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Brett Carrington
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:53:04PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
> > But can you tell if encryption is on?
>
> What difference does it make? It's still going to hit a fairly public
> network not protected by the hardware after the very first hop anyway.
likely to be sniffed in that 'local loop' than anywhere else. Assessing
risk is a factor in who to trust.
Besides, I've been arguing against any of cable's shared bandwidth
vulnerabilities and their new security is only a mild curiosity. I
wouldn't use such a connection.
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:56:52PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
> True. But plain-text POP3 passwords (or heck, your PPPoE login) are more
> likely to be sniffed in that 'local loop' than anywhere else. Assessing
> risk is a factor in who to trust.
What difference does it make? Quality mail providers give you
IMAP4-SSL and POP3-SSL anyway...
> Besides, I've been arguing against any of cable's shared bandwidth
> vulnerabilities and their new security is only a mild curiosity. I
> wouldn't use such a connection.
Since @Home became the leader over RoadRunner in the 1990s on, cable
has been just as secure but faster and more reliable for the same
money. You're almost 10 years behind on your knowledge about cable
networks, it seems.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFADJLoUzgNqloQMwcRAoJaAJ45RRLuB4/AWA1po4Jj4Hf1vpFVPwCgpcmX
kk6O42aJPynAix3rJaqlmQk=
=oFAR
Brett Carrington
> What difference does it make? Quality mail providers give you
> IMAP4-SSL and POP3-SSL anyway...
>
>
> You're almost 10 years behind on your knowledge about cable
> networks, it seems.
There is truth to that.
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 09:34:24PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:31:04PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > What difference does it make? Quality mail providers give you
> > IMAP4-SSL and POP3-SSL anyway...
> >
> Any major ISP's do this? My RBOC doesn't for DSL.
Not that I know of. But who said you had to get everything from one
person? Hey, you use Debian: Why not just serve it yourself?
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFADJReUzgNqloQMwcRAikpAJ983BqQvtX5IE4FfSReAIeE/ZVSfQCeN01D
DX3IBeA2c/LP3ZGtw2HzN8U=
=7wmp
Brett Carrington
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 09:34:24PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:31:04PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > > What difference does it make? Quality mail providers give you
> > > IMAP4-SSL and POP3-SSL anyway...
> > >
> > Any major ISP's do this? My RBOC doesn't for DSL.
>
> Not that I know of. But who said you had to get everything from one
> person? Hey, you use Debian: Why not just serve it yourself?
absolutely-positively-can't-get-lost because of routing errors, poor DSL
connects, no backup MX, or power outage, it helps to have someone else
responsible.
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 09:39:33PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
> I do! But when you need a message that
> absolutely-positively-can't-get-lost because of routing errors, poor DSL
> connects, no backup MX, or power outage, it helps to have someone else
> responsible.
Actually, that's exactly why I do not trust anybody else with my
email. I'll use my ISP for a smarthost for sites that have
ineffectual, high-collateral-damage spam defenses, but that's about
it.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFADJiGUzgNqloQMwcRAkp0AKCOn0bbroOxUJsP3kzmmn4f9eeSjgCfeeAm
oA+QblCyPlzLLPYiCMxMKWY=
=J1XR
Nano Nano
> > What difference does it make? Quality mail providers give you
> > IMAP4-SSL and POP3-SSL anyway...
> >
> >
> Any major ISP's do this? My RBOC doesn't for DSL.
I do pop3-ssl with comcast. But I don't know how to configure it for
exim/smtp.
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:56:57PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
> I do pop3-ssl with comcast. But I don't know how to configure it for
> exim/smtp.
Just install exim-tls and don't bother setting up a smarthost except
for those that give you problems. If anybody wants to see how to get
around that in exim4, let me know and I'll post it here and someplace
on my site.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFADKFxUzgNqloQMwcRAm8rAJ9M4/iJB3ehCLm3vfay7yJSQM49fwCfStCy
1bIn9uChBIF++vIm4TCmjcA=
=nl0F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Nano Nano
> Just install exim-tls and don't bother setting up a smarthost except
> for those that give you problems. If anybody wants to see how to get
> around that in exim4, let me know and I'll post it here and someplace
> on my site.
exim-tls isn't in sid; what's it called there?
I don't want to do much with exim; I like the functionality "as is" in
Woody with eximconfig/Smarthost only, but I would like to turn on the
"tls/ssl" switch to encyrpt it as it uploads. Is the "new exim" just a
drop-in replacement for what ships in Woody?
I like using a Smarthost, hell, the government monitors every damn thing
anyway; I'm keeping no secrets. No privacy, but it's been 100% reliable
for me, and I don't care much.
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 07:48:03PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 07:33:05PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > Just install exim-tls and don't bother setting up a smarthost except
> > for those that give you problems. If anybody wants to see how to get
> > around that in exim4, let me know and I'll post it here and someplace
> > on my site.
>
> exim-tls isn't in sid; what's it called there?
Hmm, I just looked, and you're right. I see it's in woody now. I
don't know, then.
> I don't want to do much with exim; I like the functionality "as is" in
> Woody with eximconfig/Smarthost only, but I would like to turn on the
> "tls/ssl" switch to encyrpt it as it uploads. Is the "new exim" just a
> drop-in replacement for what ships in Woody?
Should be.
> I like using a Smarthost, hell, the government monitors every damn thing
> anyway; I'm keeping no secrets. No privacy, but it's been 100% reliable
> for me, and I don't care much.
Nuclear weapons. 8:o)
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFADKe5UzgNqloQMwcRAtBEAKDdDGWOEu5A/GeSk8vcVf0cEfzUcQCcDI9v
K2/XDluk5lXaIzvlK1zPOnc=
=qZFM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Antonio Rodriguez
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 09:39:33PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
> > I do! But when you need a message that
> > absolutely-positively-can't-get-lost because of routing errors, poor DSL
> > connects, no backup MX, or power outage, it helps to have someone else
> > responsible.
>
> Actually, that's exactly why I do not trust anybody else with my
> email. I'll use my ISP for a smarthost for sites that have
> ineffectual, high-collateral-damage spam defenses, but that's about
> it.
>
number, so that your incoming mail knows where to go. But if yur ip
number changes every-so-often, then, no matter how fast you advise your
register about it, you may loose some mail... Unless someone knows of a
solution (ż...?)
Antonio Rodriguez
> > I do pop3-ssl with comcast. But I don't know how to configure it for
> > exim/smtp.
>
> Just install exim-tls and don't bother setting up a smarthost except
> for those that give you problems. If anybody wants to see how to get
> around that in exim4, let me know and I'll post it here and someplace
> on my site.
>
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 05:25:32AM -0500, Antonio Rodriguez wrote:
> The only problem with that is that you have to have a fairly stable ip
> number, so that your incoming mail knows where to go. But if yur ip
> number changes every-so-often, then, no matter how fast you advise your
> register about it, you may loose some mail... Unless someone knows of a
> solution (?...?)
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFADUUuUzgNqloQMwcRArBDAJ4jXCjqH/tH0xPtWwOeuDO/4/t9oQCfUx+t
6QtU1i2Dxxb56y6sj1BezPo=
=vyQ6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
M.Kirchhoff
> PPPoE is a classic sign
> that the ISP is deliberately overselling their network and needs a
> convienent way to "drop" your connection when you've been online "too
> long."
>
According to DSLreports.org, the "bridged" type ADSL connections no longer
exist. All new ADSL installations are of the PPPoE breed. If their information
is accurate (http://www.dslreports.com/faq/1416), that truly stinks.
--M. Kirchhoff
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:41:28PM +0000, M.Kirchhoff wrote:
> According to DSLreports.org, the "bridged" type ADSL connections no
> longer exist. All new ADSL installations are of the PPPoE breed. If
> their information is accurate (http://www.dslreports.com/faq/1416),
> that truly stinks.
That's likely true of national ISPs. But except when the technology
depends on an economy of scale like cable does, does it make sense to
go with a national ISP?
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFADeDNUzgNqloQMwcRAmnrAJ9vYwb4Zf6AbXot8ymxnrOBfyg48QCg2/tj
oKV0JM0rp6ZOgzHwVal0Ph4=
=rpB7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jacob S.
M.Kirchhoff <mo...@0ubliette.org> wrote:
> According to DSLreports.org, the "bridged" type ADSL connections no
> longer exist. All new ADSL installations are of the PPPoE breed. If
> their information is accurate (http://www.dslreports.com/faq/1416),
> that truly stinks.
>
> --M. Kirchhoff
I would disagree with them. My domain is currently hosted from a
"bridged" type DSL connection on a static ip. Makes setup pretty nice
and easy.
I have not seen any information from my ISP that that type of connection
is going to change, either. Unfortunately, I think they're probably
limited in where they can sell service, but maybe not since they're just
the ISP to be used on top of a DSL line from your local phone company.
You might try them - http://www.august.net
Their tech support has been pretty helpful and responsive in my
experience - they stayed on the phone with me for the 45 minutes it took
to troubleshoot a connection problem between them and my phone company
(without asking me to do the "Top 10 million things to have a Windows
user do before you believe them" list). Apparently most of their users
are from the other phone company in my area, so nobody had reported the
problem yet when I signed up. So far, that's the been the first and only
problem I've had...
HTH,
Jacob
-----
GnuPG Key: 1024D/16377135
Why use Windows, when there's a door?
http://www.linux.org
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 05:28:07AM -0500, Antonio Rodriguez wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 07:33:05PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:56:57PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
> > > I do pop3-ssl with comcast. But I don't know how to configure it for
> > > exim/smtp.
> >
> > Just install exim-tls and don't bother setting up a smarthost except
> > for those that give you problems. If anybody wants to see how to get
> > around that in exim4, let me know and I'll post it here and someplace
> > on my site.
> >
> Please do it. Thank you.
Wait, mybad, I'm sorry. I don't know where my head was at there...I
don't know about the tls part, but I can help out with the
selective-smarthost part.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFADfUSUzgNqloQMwcRAi8pAKCpdhB2rVBIzFSwTv5JySbalg8JlgCcDFBI
O/PrHpEWV5xj9p4zocjAbPE=
=lNNI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----