Retrofit is trivial. It's all in the attic. A romex splice is about $53. Verticals aren't required. Many states are mandating per each sale. I had to do this in Boston historic district. No grandfather. My fire hurts the entire street ⁣Bob On Oct 18, 2023, 7:05 PM, at 7:05 PM, David Lang wrote: >On Wed, 18 Oct 2023, Robert McMahon wrote: > >> It's $428 per ac ceiling mount hardwired device, no verticals. It's >$503 per vertical for rg6 with patch n paint, internal walls only. >> >> The asset value add for a rg6 jack is basically zero. The asset value >add for whole home, life support capable, future proof,  low power, >structured fiber & remote radio head is $2,857. >> >> Staying ceiling mount helps a lot, no need for holes in the walls and >no patch and paint. >> >> All homes sold in the U.S. will have to do this per 2027 fire codes. >The smart ones will connect the fiber fronthaul to capture the $2,857. >Home networking is second behind in unit laundry for landlords. Rent >increase for 100Gb/s point to point full duplex FiWi won't be known >until after the $100M NRE spend to create the radio sticks. > >No, all NEW homes built will need it, old homes do not need to be >retrofitted. >This is normal for many things. > >It's cheap to do this sort of thing when a house is built, it's FAR >more >expensive to retrofit a house. > >David Lang > >> No security vulnerabilities compared to those found in Linux >computers. The radio stick is DSPs in transistors and optics. No >general purpose CPU to exploit. >> >> >https://www.scmagazine.com/news/thousands-of-devices-exposed-to-critical-cisco-ios-xe-software-bug >> >> Bob >> >> On Oct 18, 2023, 5:40 PM, at 5:40 PM, David Lang >wrote: >>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2023, rjmcmahon wrote: >>> >>>> On being unleashed, I think this applies to consumer electronics >too. >>> Not >>>> sure why HDMI class cables will be needed. WiFi 7 is spec'd at 16 >>> MIMO radios >>>> at 45Gb/s per front end module. Add some hw >>> compression/decompression, I >>>> think it can carry even HDMI Utlra High Speed or 8K. And the >content >>> will >>>> likely be coming from the cloud too, so the need for a short HDMI >>> cable kinda >>>> goes away. >>> >>> until you have a few people in an area all trying to do the same >thing, >>> not they >>> EACH need that much low-latency bandwith, and it just doesn't work >>> well. >>> >>>> Maybe I'm unique of being tired of having rats' nests of cables to >>> connect >>>> things. My thoughts are no more cables other than structured fiber >>> and >>>> structured AC which both are long lived, multiple decades or more, >>> and hence >>>> are a one and done type of spend. >>> >>> It's much more practical to go to a single USB-C cable (power, >video, >>> etc) than >>> it is to go completely wireless when you are stationary. >>> >>>> I'm not a fan of PLC, mixing power and comm. I've installed AFCI >>> circuit >>>> breakers for all my family, including the in laws. These can >trigger >>> easily >>>> when other signals are multiplexed. >>>> >>>> There were so many things that went wrong in The Bronx where 11 >>> people died >>>> including children. An AFCI breaker would likely have prevented >that >>> fire. >>>> Working auto door closers would have helped. Providing heat pumps >>> would have >>>> helped too so kids didn't have to use electric resistive space >>> heaters which >>>> are terrible by my judgment. >>>> >>>> It's hard to believe that Notre Dame burned down too. We've got so >>>> improvement to do on life support systems. >>> >>> what's the retrofit cost vs the incrimental cost? (ROI timeframe), >>> that's >>> usually overlooked in these 'this technology is clearly better, >>> everyone should >>> be forced to switch to it' discussions. >>> >>> (and don't get me started on Rent Control, common in NYC, which >>> discourages >>> investments by landlords) >>> >>> David Lang >>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Bronx_apartment_fire >>>> >>>> Bob >>>>> Hi Bob, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 13, 2023, at 19:20, rjmcmahon >>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Sebastian, >>>>>> >>>>>> It was the ISP tech support over the phone. Trying to help >install >>> a home >>>>>> network over the phone w/o a technician isn't easy. >>>>> >>>>> [SM] Ah, okay. I would never even think about calling my ISP when >>>>> considering changes to my home network (for one, I would rather >>>>> McGywer this, and also my ISP does not really offer that as a >>>>> servicedsdw), I guess different service offerings in different >>>>> countries. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> In many U.S. states, smoke detectors are required to be no more >>> that 30' >>>>>> apart, must be AC powered, battery backed up and must communicate >>> with one >>>>>> another. The smoke sensor needs to be replaced every ten years >max. >>>>> >>>>> [SM] Intersting! Over here detectors are also mandatory (but no >>>>> distance or networking requirements, it is special rooms like bed >>>>> rooms that need to have one). Also over here no AC requirement. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> It's a good place to install remote radio heads, or even full >blown >>> APs, >>>>>> for both internet access points and for life support sensors. >>>>> >>>>> [SM] I agree, and with an AC requirement powering such APs/radio >>>>> heads is not rocket science either, heck in a first iteration one >>>>> might even use PLC to bring data to the APs... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 10G NRE spends stopped over a decade ago. Early adopters aren't >>> likely >>>>>> going to wire 10G over copper in their homes. >>>>> >>>>> [SM] Over here active 2.5 Gbps ethernet are just becoming cheap >>>>> enough for enthusiasts to switch over to, and 2.5 has the >advantage >>> of >>>>> operating well even over most cat5 wiring (few homes I know will >>> push >>>>> anywhere close to the typical 100m copper ethernet limit, most >will >>> be >>>>> fine with < 30m). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 100G only goes 4 meters so copper really isn't an option for >future >>> proof >>>>>> comm cable throughout buildings. >>>>> >>>>> [SM] Indeed, but I am not 100% sure what use-case would justify >>> going >>>>> 100Gbps in a typical home? Sure if one switches to fiber wiring >and >>>>> 100Gbps is only marginally more expensive than 1 or 10 Gbps why >not? >>>>> >>>>>> Fiber to WiFi seems straight forward to me. >>>>> >>>>> [SM] This might be related to your professional background >though? >>> ;) >>>>> Just kidding, I think you are simply a few years ahead of the rest >>> of >>>>> us, as you know what is in the pipeline. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> People don't want to be leashed to plugs so the last meters have >to >>> be >>>>>> wireless. >>>>> >>>>> [SM] Yes and no. People did not bother about wiring office desks >or >>>>> even smart TVs, but smart phones and tablets are a different >kettle >>> of >>>>> fish, as are laptops, that might be operated wired on the desk but >>>>> wireless in the rest of the house. I also note that more and more >>>>> laptops come without built in ethernet (personally I detest that, >an >>>>> rj45 jack is not that thick that a laptop body can not be planned >>>>> around that, leaving some more room for e.g. NVMe sockets or >>> simplify >>>>> cooling a bit, ultra-thin is IMHO not really in the end-users' >>>>> interest, but I digress). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> We need to standardized to the extent that we can on one wireless >>> tech >>>>>> (similar to Ethernet for wired) and a proposal is to use 802.11 >>> since >>>>>> that's selling in volume, driven by mobile hand sets. >>>>> >>>>> [SM] Sure 802.11 is likely to stay by virtue of being relatively >>>>> ubiquitous and by being generally already good enough for many use >>>>> cases (with road-maps for tackling more demanding use-cases, and I >>>>> very much include your fiwi proposal here). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Bob >>>>>>> Hi Bob, >>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2023, at 17:55, Robert McMahon via Nnagain >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi David, >>>>>>>> The vendors I know don't roll their own os code either. The >make >>> their >>>>>>>> own release still mostly based from Linux and they aren't tied >to >>> the >>>>>>>> openwrt release process. >>>>>>>> I think GUIs on CPEs are the wrong direction. Consumer network >>> equipment >>>>>>>> does best when it's plug and play. Consumers don't have all the >>> skills >>>>>>>> needed to manage an in home packet network that includes wifi. >>>>>>> [SM] That is both true, and (currently?) unachievable. To run a >>>>>>> network connected to the internet securely requires to make a >>> number >>>>>>> of policy decisions trading-off the required/desired >connectivity >>>>>>> versus the cost in security (either cost as effort of >maintaining >>>>>>> security or cost in an increase in attack surface). >>>>>>> The in-side the home situation, has IMHO drastically improved >>> with >>>>>>> the availability of off-the-shelf mesh network gear from >>> commercial >>>>>>> vendors, with easy to follow instructions and/or apps to find >>> decent >>>>>>> AP placement. >>>>>>> For structured wiring, I would agree that requires both an >>> unusual >>>>>>> skill set (even though doing structured wiring itself is not >hard, >>>>>>> just doing it in a way that blends into an apartment without >>> signaling >>>>>>> DIY-ness is more involved). >>>>>>>> I recently fixed a home network for my inlaws. It's a combo of >>>>>>>> structured wire and WiFi APs. I purchased the latest equipment >>> from >>>>>>>> Amazon vs use the ISP provided equipment. I can do this >>> reasonably well >>>>>>>> because I'm familiar with the chips inside. >>>>>>>> The online tech support started with trepidation as he was >>> concerned >>>>>>>> that the home owner, i.e me, wasn't as skilled as the ISP >>> technicians. >>>>>>>> He suggested we schedule that but I said we were good to go w/o >>> one. >>>>>>> [SM] What "online tech support"? From the AP vendor or from the >>> ISP? >>>>>>> The latter might have a script recommending ISP technicians more >>> for >>>>>>> commercial considerations than technical ones... >>>>>>>> He asked to speak to my father in law when we were all done. He >>> told >>>>>>>> him, "You're lucky to have a son in law that know what he's >>> doing. My >>>>>>>> techs aren't as good, and I really liked working with him too." >>>>>>>> I say this not to brag, as many on this list could do the >>> equivalent, >>>>>>>> but to show that we really need to train lots of technicians on >>> things >>>>>>>> like RF and structured wiring. Nobody should be "lucky" to get >a >>> quality >>>>>>>> in home network. We're not lucky to have a flush toilet >anymore. >>> This >>>>>>>> stuff is too important to rely on luck. >>>>>>> [SM] Mmmh, that got me thinking, maybe we should think about >>> always >>>>>>> running network wiring parallel to electric cables so each power >>>>>>> socket could easily house an ethernet plug as well... (or one >per >>> room >>>>>>> to keep the cost lower and avoid overly much "dark" copper)? >Sort >>> of >>>>>>> put this into the building codes/best current practice >>> documents... (I >>>>>>> understand starting now, will still only solve the issue over >many >>>>>>> decades, but at least we would be making some inroads; and >>> speaking of >>>>>>> decades, maybe putting fiber there instead of copper might be a >>> more >>>>>>> future-oriented approach)? >>>>>>>> Bob >>>>>>>> On Oct 11, 2023, at 3:58 PM, David Lang wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2023, rjmcmahon wrote: >>>>>>>> I don't know the numbers but a guess is that a majority of SoCs >>> with >>>>>>>> WiFi >>>>>>>> radios aren't based on openwrt. >>>>>>>> From what I've seen, the majority of APs out there are based on >>> OpenWRT >>>>>>>> or one >>>>>>>> of the competing open projects, very few roll their own OS from >>> scratch >>>>>>>> I think many on this list use openwrt but >>>>>>>> that may not be representative of the actuals. Also, the trend >is >>> less >>>>>>>> sw in >>>>>>>> a CPU forwarding plane and more hw, one day, linux at the CPEs >>> may not >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> needed at all (if we get to remote radio heads - though this is >>> highly >>>>>>>> speculative.) >>>>>>>> that is countered by the trend to do more (fancier GUI, media >>> center, >>>>>>>> etc) The >>>>>>>> vendors all want to differentiate themselves, that's hard to do >>> if it's >>>>>>>> baked >>>>>>>> into the chips >>>>>>>> From my experience, sw is defined by the number & frequency of >>> commits, >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> of timeliness to issues more than a version number or compile >>> date. So >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> size and quality of the software staff can be informative. >>>>>>>> I'm more interested in mfg node process then the mfg location & >>> date as >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> node process gives an idea if the design is keeping up or not. >>> Chips >>>>>>>> designed >>>>>>>> in 2012 are woefully behind and consume too much energy and >>> generate too >>>>>>>> much >>>>>>>> heat. I think Intel provides this information on all its chips >as >>> an >>>>>>>> example. >>>>>>>> I'm far less concerned about the chips than the software. >>> Security holes >>>>>>>> are far >>>>>>>> more likely in the software than the chips. The chips may limit >>> the max >>>>>>>> performance of the devices, but the focus of this is on the >>> security, >>>>>>>> not the >>>>>>>> throughput or the power efficiency (I don't mind that extra >info, >>> but >>>>>>>> what makes >>>>>>>> some device unsafe to use isn't the age of the chips, but the >age >>> of the >>>>>>>> software) >>>>>>>> David Lang >>>>>>>> Bob >>>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2023, David Bray, PhD via Nnagain wrote: >>>>>>>> There's also the concern about how do startups roll-out such a >>> label for >>>>>>>> their tech in the early iteration phase? How do they afford to >do >>> the >>>>>>>> extra >>>>>>>> work for the label vs. a big company (does this become a >>> regulatory >>>>>>>> moat?) >>>>>>>> And let's say we have these labels. Will only consumers with >the >>> money >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> purchase the more expensive equipment that has more privacy and >>> security >>>>>>>> features buy that one - leaving those who cannot afford privacy >>> and >>>>>>>> security bad alternatives? >>>>>>>> As far as security goes, I would argue that the easy answer is >to >>> ship >>>>>>>> a current version of openwrt instead of a forked, ancient >>> version, and >>>>>>>> get their changes submitted upstream (or at least maintained >>> against >>>>>>>> upstream). It's a different paradigm than they are used to, and >>> right >>>>>>>> now the suppliers tend to also work with ancient versions of >>> openwrt, >>>>>>>> but in all the companies that I have worked at, it's proven to >be >>> less >>>>>>>> ongoing work (and far less risk) to keep up with current >versions >>> than >>>>>>>> it is to stick with old versions and then do periodic 'big >jump' >>>>>>>> upgrades. >>>>>>>> it's like car maintinance, it seems easier to ignore your >tires, >>>>>>>> brakes, and oil changes, but the minimal cost of maintaining >>> those >>>>>>>> systems pays off in a big way over time >>>>>>>> David Lang >>>>>>>> Nnagain mailing list >>>>>>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >>>>>>>> Nnagain mailing list >>>>>>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Nnagain mailing list >>>>>>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >>>> >>