Cox and their "Nerd-Level Wi-Fi"

Cox Cable, your "nerd-level Wi-Fi" commercials are not only an insult to the intelligence of nerds everywhere, but they are spreading misinformation in the name of marketing.

For those who may not have seen or heard these breathless commercials, Cox has been advertising heavily that they have the "fastest Wi-Fi available", which they are referring to as "nerd-level Wi-Fi". Here's an example (double-click it to go full-screen):




Cox's offerings are fast, sure, but they're going over a line my saying they are giving their customers the "fastest" anything available. Here's my evidence:


1. My mom just got a brand new cable modem from Cox a month or two ago, just like the one in the TV commercial above. It is, I believe, a Ubee Ddw365 modem, and it supports the 802.11n Wi-Fi standard. This is indeed the fastest Wi-Fi standard which is in common use right now, but a true nerd is not going to be satisfied with that when it is easy enough to find Wi-Fi routers that use the newer and much faster 802.11ac standard. According to Wikipedia, 802.11n tops out at 600 megabits/second, and 802.11ac can potentially reach 1300 megabits/second. "Nerd level" on the Wi-Fi side: myth busted.

2. A true nerd is not going to be satisfied with the admittedly fast Internet access from the cable TV company if there is any chance that he can get a fiber-to-the-home connection, which can potentially run five to ten times as fast as the maximum speed of a cable connection. On top of that, what Cox isn't publicizing is that cable Internet technology relies on a shared connection to the Internet. When your next-door neighbor is watching movies on Netflix through his cable modem, there is less capacity for you to watch your movies on Netflix through yours, and your connection slows down a little. The more people around you have cable Internet, the less likely you are ever going to approach maximum speed with your cable modem. Best case, your cable modem will top out at around 100-107 megabits per second; business accounts may be able to get as high as 400 megabits/second. In my area, Cox's fastest residential package offers 150 megabits/second. Fiber can reach speeds of 500 megabits/second or more - in the area I live in, the newer houses all have fiber-to-the-home capability, and the ISP offers up to 1,000 megabits/second to homes (and 10,000 megabits/second to businesses!) "Nerd level" on the speed side: myth busted.

3. Real nerds don't use Wi-Fi for tasks that require serious speed anyway. A real nerd is going to have Gigabit Ethernet, which means that he will have his whole home network delivering a steady 1,000 megabits/second down the wire to his computers. His 802.11ac Wi-Fi access points may suffer temporary slowdowns due to radio interference, sunspots, or whatever, but his wired connection won't have that problem. If he has a great job and can afford the REALLY new hardware, he might even have 10gb (10,000 megabits/second!) running in his house; the technology exists, although his Roku 3, which is wired into his network and not using Wi-Fi, is still toddling along at "10/100 Fast Ethernet" speeds (100 megabits/second).  But his computers will be pulling down data so fast it will make your head spin. (Actually, he probably isn't using a Roku - he's probably built his own media streaming box from a spare computer, so he's streaming considerably faster than that. But that's neither here nor there.)


And don't even get me started about all that "writing binary poetry" junk, and the other flights of fantasy that are in the commercials in a clumsy attempt add humor. It only highlights the true fact: that these commercials are an example of something written by people at ad agencies who, instead of trying to learn the technology and speak intelligently about it, are trying to "talk dumb" so that people who deep down feel dumb about all this inter-network-mubo-jumbo will feel like Cox is all chummy, on their side, helping them to binge-watch HBO Go a little easier.

The fact is, it IS a lot to understand. You have to do research if you want to have "the fastest". Heck, I had to do some quick research to make sure I'm more or less factual in what I've written here (and it's entirely possible I've got some errors or outdated information in what I've written). I don't have any issue with it if they are going to say "We are faster than DSL" (which, in general, barring heavy load, they can be). I don't mind if they say "Fastest Internet available in the area" (even though several parts of my geographical area do have fiber to the home). But don't tell me I can become a cool nerd by getting my new Cable modem. Just tell me it's fast enough that when I spend all night Friday watching episodes of Daredevil, I won't have to wait for them to buffer. That's fast enough for me.

Google Collects Things People Shouted From Rooftops - Ordered to Pay Someone Else As Punishment

from DailyTech:

Google Ordered to Pay $7 Million to U.S. States for Wi-Fi Snooping Incident

Google is finally settling a three-year investigation this week into a Wi-Fi incident that occurred when compiling data for its mapping service.

Google's Street View mapping cars had accidentally collected personal data, such as home wireless network passwords, between 2008 and 2010. The cars were out collecting images and data for the Street View mapping system in Google Maps, and were using an experimental computer code in the cars' software while doing so. This led to the accidental collection of personal data.

The settlement orders that Google split $7 million among 38 states in the U.S. and the District of Columbia, which were involved in the incident.

Read the rest here.

First off, some background. A few years ago when Google's cars were driving around the country taking the pictures that are now part of the popular "street view" part of Google Maps, the cars were (accidentally, Google says) also taking snapshots of something else. As they were driving around photographing streets, businesses, neighborhoods, apartment buildings, and everything else, the cars also had software running that was recording Wi-Fi signals.

Why did this cause a problem? Because whatever you do with your wireless laptop, smartphone, tablet computer, or anything else that communicates over Wi-Fi could be intercepted and recorded. This is a basic principle of radio communication. This can include instant messages, emails, Web browser requests (like what URL you are visiting)... anything that you do on your Wi-Fi.

Does this creep you out? Well, it shouldn't. Because you should have the sense to do something very basic on your home Wi-Fi: put a password on it. Don't leave your Wi-Fi in the open. When you put a password on your Wi-Fi, it is encrypted, and although traffic can be recorded, it doesn't make any difference... because it's in a code which nobody likely cares enough to try to break. It's secure enough that recording it doesn't make any difference.

On top of that, if you are logging into a site... say, your bank, or your credit card provider... the URL on your Web browser should start with "https://" (and not just "http://" - the "s" is the important part). If it does not, it's time to choose another bank. The "s" means that the bank is encrypting (encoding) all of the communication between you and it, so even if you are on an unprotected Wi-Fi network, your password and other communication is still in a code that is too strong to be worth trying to break.

So despite the fact that most everyone has gotten the clue and set up passwords on their Wi-Fi, and despite the fact that even email services lik Gmail encrypt your password with https://. and despite the fact that Google admits that it recorded the Wi-Fi signals and says it was an accident, and despite the fact that they have promised to erase the recorded information... Google is being told to pay some sort of punitive damages.

But not to the people who had Wi-Fi signals recorded. Not to the individuals. Directly to the states.

How were state governments harmed by this? They weren't. Really, the consumers weren't harmed either. This is a tempest in a teacup. And how does a $7 million settlement teach anything to a $100+ billion company? It doesn't. Google probably contributes that much to the United Way every year. Heck, Google probably spends that much in fuel for the Street View cars every year!

This whole thing is silly. I hope at least part of that settlement with the states goes to pay the salaries for the judge and other people the courts employs to hear cases like this, so none of my taxpayer dollars paid for it.