As long as the customer hasi their paid for bandwidth there should be no
issue with that service set up. I would take it the next step and provide
the modem for free with the profision that this Antenna, X we call it will
be used for that purpose so you save the cash on modem rental. cox manages
the modem and wifi for you. gives you wifi to use as yours, and then wifi X
will be used for their service.
but its all about agreed expectations and service. Comcast was not telling
anyone about this. or giveing the option to opt in/out.
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Michael Butash <
michael@butash.net> wrote:
> Interesting concept...
>
> Cisco and all the other vendors are building and branding wireless for
> seamless roaming, given carrier-grade wireless is provided (ie. vendor
> selling the solution). Most cell hardware vendors (cisco, alcatel, juniper,
> etc) also sell wireless solutions, so why not blend the two for mobile
> roaming with carrier solution backhaul and roaming capabilities?
>
>
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/service-provider-wi-fi/white_paper_c11-701018.html
>
> I was chatting with someone from cox, guess they're doing what every other
> last-mile provider is, building wifi into their next-gen modems to not only
> service local traffic (for customers), but also reusing bandwidth for their
> own free wifi service. This is the same thing Comcast is being sued for
> currently by the way.
>
> If you think about it it, Cox, Comcast, all the MSO's driven by vendor are
> pushing to use your connection for reselling, or giving "value-add" service
> for "everyone", giving they're using your last-mile connection for it too.
> Comcast is being sued because someone realized they're resusing their
> connection they're paying for, but is it wrong?
>
> What they do is reuse "channels", yes, like old analog channels of rf
> spectrum over their closed plant, for this, while giving you otherwise what
> you pay for. With 42mb a channel x 24 or 32 channels of docsis 3.0+,
> whatever you're not paying for, they see as free game. Since no one buys
> actual cable tv now, why not - revenue!
>
> Again, this is a net neutrality thing. Is it wrong to reuse unused docsis
> upstream/downstream channels when you're not paying for full-service
> anyways? If it's logically secure, who cares? Does it impede on your
> service really?
>
> Exactly what the cable MSO's are looking for, and Google trying to
> piggy-back on them. Can't say I blame Google, this is Milo Medin's revenge
> for them, as well as google fiber, for scuttling @Home Networks. Death by
> a thousand cuts, if they let him in.
>
> Interesting part is Cable is not regulated like the Baby Bell's are,
> curious to see if they just try to push him, google, and everyone else
> out. Cox is doing so for playing nice with other cable companies, but I'll
> be curious to see if they let Google in on the party.
>
> -mb
>
>
> On 05/07/2015 09:52 AM, Michael Havens wrote:
>
> https://fi.google.com/about/
> :-)~MIKE~(-:
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
--
A mouse trap, placed on top of your alarm clock, will prevent you from
rolling over and going back to sleep after you hit the snooze button.
Stephen
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)