It sucks being in an apartment complex because there are always a bunch of unsecured networks floating around that the TV, or whatever, can connect to even if you don't manually do it.
removing the cellular modem from a car can have several unintended consequences.
The geniuses at hyundai refuse to let you operate the heating in some of their electric cars without an internet connection. Yes, you read that right - the only way to operate the HVAC compressor in several hyundai EVs is via their stupid app and the internet. I found out the hard way when i kept noticing that my hyundai EV was not heating the cabin in winter even though i turned the HAVC on. Turns out, as soon as you plug into the wall outlet, the compressor stops.
There is no technical reason for this, other than enshittification.
Would using an older wifi router that you have lying around as a anti-smart device network work? Fire it up with no WAN signal. It's just a radio broadcasting an SSID that you can connect a device to. Are the "smart" devices smart enough to know there is no WAN signal and keep searching for a different connection, or will it be tricked into not being able to connect to the internet?
Back when I first started my career, I generally disagreed. My first job was at a connected device startup in the IoT space. The whole ethos around data was pretty good. Maybe it was because the tech side of the company I worked for was 99% ex-gov contractors (aerospace, low level routers, submarines...).
We collected such minimal information. Basically only enough to allow for OTAs, functionality, and debugging. Thinking back, we could've collected so much more.
I remember when Alexa hit the market and we (as a company) thought there's NO WAY amazon was making any money on them.
Today... NO WAY. Along the way the value stopped being "This product is priced so we can make a profit" and became "The data we collect is more valuable than the sale".
They are likely going to have access. Lots of things have built in cellular modems these days, and your cable provider already uses your cable modem as a hotspot for other people.
You can do things like physically modifying your TV, or seeing if there are undocumented settings to disable things.
The traffic was separated so that anything on the public hotspot was not attributed to the private subscriber network.
Secondly for years I lived somewhere very remote so that meant that hardly anyone ever got to use my broadband connection via such a hotspot, but I got to use hundreds of other peoples hotspots when I was somewhere less isolated.
I was quite happy to opt in to this system as I benefitted hugely from it.
Yes. Xfinity is the big one. Their devices create two hotspots: one for the customer and one to power their Xfinity WiFi service and for bandwidth offloading for their cellular service.
Yea this almosts sounds like it could be a great idea with proper execution, nothing like this in the UK. Imagine if they were upfront and said "well knock a tenner (or whatever is reasonable in the US) if you allow your access point to be used as a hotspot"
It turns out there are several similar services offered in the UK by ISP's like O2, Sky, and BT¹ (recently rebranded as EE-WiFi²) who claim to be the UK's largest WiFi Hotspot Network. Perhaps that's due to it being opt-out on their routers since it was first introduced over a decade ago.
This is actually hotspot rollouts as far as I know though? You dont see BT/EE wifi networks everywhere, particularly not where you'd expect to see a concentration like residential streets / buildings with this kind of system, mainly see BT / O2 hotspots in public spaces like train stations + event spaces.
Tbf may just be less monopolisation of broadband making it more sparse, but they actually have a map of hotspots on that site which implies they are intentionally placed.
Yes. Cox has been doing it for years. They boast citywide hotspot access for all subscribers. I formerly thought that this hotspot network consisted of dedicated APs which they mount and maintain on utility poles in public places. But that’s just the start.
Every Cox customer has a Panoramic WiFi router that advertises as a member of the “CoxWiFi” SSID, and other customers can authenticate there and access the Internet through your connection. This is on a strictly opt-out basis.
I’ve opted-out, and also my router is permanently in Bridge Mode, so there is no technical way for me to provide anyone a WiFi connection. But all my neighbors do, even if they are blissfully unaware.
The best thing about fibre rollout in my region is that the ONT appears to act as the modem so I don't need to set the modem/router into bridge mode any more.
Absolutely. Independently of the unauthorized sharing of your bandwidth, ISP gateways are notoriously insecure and underspec'ed. They also have nasty backdoors[0].
Major ISPs in the US have been doing it for at least a decade. Xfinity Wifi [1] claims over 20 million wifi hotspots provided through customer routers.
If its a hotspot you'll have to login to authenticate, so presumably the traffic is uniquely identifiable. I'd hope when LE contact ISP for details theyd be able to go oh that ip address is here but it was actually this persons traffic.
I'm fairly confident that ISPs do not log all customer traffic, especially for an indeterminate amount of time. There would not be enough storage on the planet available.
Plus the DNS spying even after disabling their safety stuff (impossible to change DNS on Comcast Xfinity-provided gateway). Still trying to get as good speeds with my own equipment.
Router: Something I have to upgrade, though trying for approx a full gig speeds at the modem first. Eying an OpenWrt-compatible one. Looks like the GL.iNet GL-MT6000 (Flint 2) comes with it preinstalled! ( https://www.gl-inet.com/en-us/products/gl-mt6000?country=US )
Well, nowadays the purpose of a TV is usually to watch content over the internet, so I wouldn't call it "stupid" to connect the TV to the internet.
You might say it's naive, but is it really naive to buy a TV and expect it to be a device to display audiovisual content and not a spyware/adware machine?
I feel like it's not the user's behavior that should be put into question here, but the borderline criminal behavior of the manufacturer.
Except... some of us like to stream content on TVs. And some of us really don't like the idea of maintaining yet another extra piece of hardware for that.
And so your TV does need Internet access.
The same holds for many other devices, in different shapes. Sure, you can opt out of civilization completely to avoid all the side effects of late stage capitalism, but maybe it's worth applying a bit more nuanced thinking to find a balance that doesn't throw you back to the 1800s. (Unless you like the 1800s, in which case, enjoy)
If the TV only plugged into the wall for electricity and showed the video that was fed into it via one of its inputs, does that TV qualify as "yet another extra piece of hardware that needs to be maintained"? The only reason it needs "maintenance" is because it does all this extra "smart" stuff. A separate device that has the "smarts" and treats the TV as a bare monitor screen would still be only one device to "maintain".
> Except... some of us like to stream content on TVs.
Linux mini-PC running Bigscreen Plasma. No, it can't be used to stream Netflix at native resolution because of DRM. But if you can't live without Netflix content, you can use alternative sources and save money in the process. VacuumTube for YT instead of the official app.
Yes, this is an additional device, but it is not unlike a streaming stick or Android shitbox.
classic linux advice lol. disable the smart features on your TV and then buy a whole computer so you can ... not be able to watch netflix and youtube on your TV
disclaimer: i run a whole variety of home media stuff, so i am one of you - but it's just a funny example of exactly the kind of thing that makes people not do this stuff
> 1. For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem.
> 2. It doesn't actually replace a USB drive... This does not solve the connectivity issue.
> 3. It does not seem very 'viral' or income-generating."
Normal users don't care about running an extra mini-PC. If you do shoulder it, it becomes part of your attack surface as well, so it's non-trivial work.
And sure, you can find content anywhere - ordinary people won't.
I self host a lot, including jellyfin, but I've never tried to do the Linux HTPC. Whenever I look into it everything has changed from a few years ago, it all sounds difficult to get working and keep working, and I give up. I didn't know we had a whole new set of software. It was once MythTV, then XBMC, then something else I can't remember, and now I've lost track.
> I self host a lot, including jellyfin, but I've never tried to do the Linux HTPC.
I think now is the right time to revisit the Linux HTPC, mostly because Plasma 6.7 integrated the new Bigscreen interface. This is a genuine 10-foot desktop environment optimized for TV remotes and controllers. Previously, most Linux HTPCs simply used GNOME/KDE, with the scaling cranked up to 200 or 300%. In terms of apps, I suggest Kodi for local files, VacuumTube as a Youtube TV/Leanback substitute, and Steam or SteamLink for gaming, depending on hardware. With an airmouse remote you can also simply use Firefox or Chromium and stream from pretty much anywhere, subject to resolution restrictions for Netflix and some other services.
Kodi is essentially a media player; it's not a general purpose TV UI like Plasma Bigscreen. Yes, there are a couple of distros out there like OSMC designed to use Kodi for everything, but in my experience they are way too limited. And you really do want a Web browser for streaming, because you are unlikely to find dedicated Linux apps for whatever streaming platform you intend to use. You could presumably run Waydroid and use Android apps, but using the Bigscreen virtual keyboard or a remote with a keyboard on the back is much easier.
That is just stupid to give internet access to a "smart" tv or a "smart" phone. You have zero control over it.