said by whyamihere:
Assume "RG" = residential gateway?
Port scanning a public IP address on a Pace/2Wire RG shows that port 3479 is open, so some application on the RG is listening on port 3479 fo incoming connections. This puts the user at the mercy of the security of the firmware on the RG. Since it also is a router, whomever can access the RG can also access the LAN configuration of the router.
Is not the function of a DSL modem / gateway much the same, in that it must always listening for a connection.
No. The modem "listens" for nothing. It is just a bridge, passing all traffic, without stateful inspection, to the connected device.
And NAT firewall on DSL modem prevents unwanted incoming connections / data?
A pure modem has no NAT, it is just a bridge. Don't think anybody makes them any more.
NAT is a very crude firewall; in fact, the primary purpose of NAT is not as a firewall at all, but IP sharing. In its most basic form, it maintains a table of the LAN IP source of an outbound request so it can match response to the LAN device which made the request.
Don't (all) digital modems have the same security functions, or equiv., as DSL modems?
No. Most DOCSIS (cable) modems are pure bridges.
DSL users, short of soft FWs, were always at mercy of hard FW security on modems.
There was no "hard security" on the Westell WireSpeed B90-516R30 that SBC shipped when I first signed up; it was a pure bridge.
Are you saying w/ (at least your) digital modem, ATT and / or Pace can ALWAYS access your computer (scan system), not just access your modem address?
I am saying that there is an application on the device which listens for inbound traffic on port 3479. All I know about the application is that it relates to remote control of the device. Since all LAN (internal network) traffic must pass through the device, even if it is not going out to the Internet, it is subject to whatever capabilities the RPC service has.
If ISP has access to your local area network, they can see all machines on your (home) network & a whole lot more. "Don't seem right."
They potentially could monitor network traffic between any LAN devices; yes.
Maybe I misunderstand. Or maybe big bro has truly taken over. In past, in order for say, remote support tech to access your system to troubleshoot, you had to install an app & then allow them access. Is that what we're talking about?
Not quite the same. The user has control over the remote assistance application, and should be able to uninstall it when it is no longer needed. There is no GUI page accessible from the customer side of the RG which allows customer fiddling with the RPC.
Firing AT&T: Sounds like price was a secondary consideration for you, unless got a good promo.
Yes; secondary. I was miffed with AT&T over their caps. There is no promotional deal with the new ISP; no speed tiers, either.
About tiers: With AT&T, if your modem can't sync to the DSLAM at a given profile rate, say, 6016 for the 6.0 Mbps profile, they will only sell the next lower tier. So, since my modem could only sync at 5800, AT&T would only sell 3.0 Mbps service; modem sync set to 3008 at the DSLAM.
Sonic.net sells "Fusion" as, "up to 20 Mbps". The modem and DSLAM run free, and negotiate the best sync rate for the loop conditions. So I sync at ~5800, instead of 3008. And throughput is still 85% of sync (ATM circuit), so measured download speed is 4.9 Mbps instead of 2.5 Mbps.
In TX (large metro areas, anyway), local DSL / FiOS / cable / satellite all run releatively cheap promos, all the time. Usually, because cable, satellite promise much faster speeds than 3, 6 mbps DSL or U-verse, their promo prices aren't nearly as low as ATT's 3.0 or 6.0 service promos.
I have no promotion. "Fusion" is advertised as $39.95, plus voice taxes and fees; plus new, since last summer, a $6.50 per month modem rental fee.
The bill breaks out at $19.98 for voice (landline telephone service is required for "Fusion") + ~$10 in taxes and regulatory fees (same as AT&T collects on landline voice service), + $19.97 for Internet service + $6.50 modem rental.
At my mother's place, which has the 4.9 Mbps service, there is no modem rental, so she pays around $51 total, as compared with $103 on her last full AT&T bill.
At my current place, which has 14 Mbps service, but modem rental, I pay $58 total. I have not had an AT&T bill; not since 1984.
Doesn't the "Scale of Economy" dictate that as more units are produced (customers served), price comes down?
Based on what Sonic.net, LLC charges for "Fusion", I'd say AT&T is overcharging for both telephone and Internet service. Sonic.net is sufficiently profitable that they are rolling out FTTH service in some north S.F. Bay Area communities. They are taking it slow in order to not spend themselves into a hole (I think/hope).--
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum