Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OnHub

on.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 641 posts

Re: OnHub

#401

Post by kuschku »

ejdyksen wrote: post #340
kuschku wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is a standard feature in a lot of other routers, too, like the Fritz!Box 7490. http://en.avm.de/products/fritzbox/fritzbox-7490/ Google is doing nothing special here.

I don't see anything on the spec sheets for the Fritz!Box 7490 that show it has more than 2 radios, like most dual band APs out there today. Google's spec sheet [1] specifically has 3 radios: http://i.imgur.com/x7CMktb.png The first two radios do MIMO 3x3, and the third radio just has 1 antenna (since it isn't serving client traffic). While this isn't completely new, it's definitely not common, especially for a consu…

The Fritz!Box 7490 has 3 radios, for exactly this purpose. That’s how it supports automated channel search without disconnecting users, and how it is able to provide 1.3Gbps via WiFi.

Re: OnHub

#402

Post by nadams »

raldi wrote: post #256
nadams wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> default credentials, which are stickered or engraved on their routers. Which having a seemingly random admin and wifi password with WPA pre-configured is better than no password. I remember a story where an individual connected to an open AP, scanned the network, found a windows network share with everyone read access, that had NES roms and their tax returns. The sad part, and still is true today, you couldn't help…

Sure you could -- just drop off a file someplace visible.

That would require committing a crime (in the US at least).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_piggybacking#Unite...

This is too funny - why would you admit, to a cop, what you are doing??? You just say you are sitting in your car enjoying a nice day - and it wouldn't be a lie because technically you are. It just so happens you are doing other things as well.

> He had been accessing the Internet through a nonprofit agency's network from a car parked nearby and chatted with the police officer about it.

If you are thinking "but surely the legal system should understand this concept, right?"

> "I had a feeling a law was being broken, but I didn't know exactly what"

Or how about the library who didn't mind a patron was using their wireless system - but the police still wanted to press charges:

> The library director said that Tanner had not broken any rules, and local citizens criticized police for their actions.

From one of the news articles:

> The police officer confiscated Tanner's laptop in order to inspect what he may have been downloading,

That is a big NO. If a police officer ripped my laptop from my hands - I guarantee it would be a decision we would both regret.

Re: OnHub

#403

Post by katruchu »

tomkinstinch wrote: post #129

Interesting that it has a TPM[1]. Any guesses about the uses/implications of that? I wonder if it can be configured to act solely as an access point--I already have a ubnt EdgeRouter Lite, but wouldn't mind replacing my aging access point. EDIT: It does support bridge mode[2]. 1. https://on.google.com/hub/#specs 2. https://support.google.com/onhub/answer/6240987?hl=en&ref_to...

I have the same set up as you do. EdgeRouter Lite with an old Linksys E2000 acting solely as an access point. OnHub might be a good replacement, but I’m wondering if it supports VLAN tagging as I’d like to separate my private network from the guest network.

Re: OnHub

#404

Post by jcrcj »

ultimape wrote: post #355
derefr wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> home automation' core/aggregation box Deeper than that, even. It seems like this is intended as a local-network cloudlet[1] substrate. Launch an app on your phone that needs a companion frontend server instance to talk to? One gets launched "in the cloud"—specifically, in a virtual cloud owned by the app author. But where is that instance, physically? Usually a provider like AWS... but with a cloudlet peering arran…

I've been toying with terminology to deal with the idea of a decentralized p2p cloud. Calling it a 'virtual cloud' seems off, and 'fog' has been co-opted by other kinds of tech. Any thoughts on what would be a good terminology for this?

Mist

Re: OnHub

#405

Post by Killswitch »

mtgx wrote: post #313
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The router is cloud configured from your mobile device, that is how it works. Some cloud services for the device are actually optional. But AFAIK you still need a Google Account. Here is the help page on the topic of data collection and privacy: https://support.google.com/onhub/answer/6246642?hl=en&ref_to... And see also, how to set a whole bunch of privacy settings: https://support.google.com/onhub/answer/6279845?vi…

That's bullshit. It should use something like Thread or Bluetooth 4.0 to let you configure it from your mobile device , which already assumes you'll be in the same room with the router in 99% percent of the cases. There's no reason for this to be sent over the Internet, when you're both in the same room.

It allows configuring while not near it too, to check what's wrong with it while at the office. Bluetooth doesn't extend that far.

Re: OnHub

#406

Post by eliben »

noodly wrote: post #345

> To set up your OnHub, you’ll also need: > Google Account No, thanks. SpyHub would be more adequate name. I would reconsider it when I could put my own software on it, that would not require untrusted third-party accounts.

I suppose you should stay far away from Google Fiber then, as well. And anything else done by the evil Google. Much better to keep with the good guys like Comcast. They will never, ever spy on you.

Re: OnHub

#408

Post by Killswitch »

odbol wrote: post #395
andresmanz wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, but shouldn't these features be optional? I still don't get why I need a Google Account.

They are optional. You have the option of just buying a different device.

No way! I deserve the best, and I also deserve the best without giving up anything nothing notta zilch! /s

Re: OnHub

#409

Post by cbhl »

marvy wrote: post #185
wging wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I've had a cable modem, all I've had to do is connect my router to the modem via Ethernet. When I've had modemless service via Ethernet jack, all I've had to do is connect my router to the wall Ethernet jack. So what are you talking about? Purchasing your own cable modem? Or something else that I've never had to do?

If you have DSL, the modem and the router are the same box, so if you want your own, you have to throw out the one the ISP gave you, and configure yours by yourself. In practice, I bet you could just call up the ISP if you're having trouble, but I agree that an ISP has an incentive to give you a good unit to start with.

Most modem-router combos support "bridge mode" which allows you to connect your own router's "Internet/WAN" port to one of the the modem-router's ethernet ports and have it initiate PPPoE to your ISP.

If that doesn't work, you can also just connect the modem-router's ethernet port to a LAN port on your own router, and just disable DHCP/DNS on the router.

My experience is that the DSL modems only contain mid-range routing and wi-fi equipment (10/100 switches instead of Gigabit, 802.11 b/g/n that run with one antenna instead of six and only on 2.4 GHz band). It's adequate to get things "working" but if you pay for a faster VDSL plan (usually 25 or 50 Mbps packages) you can see improved Wi-Fi performance with the right third-party router and laptop/phone.

Re: OnHub

#410

Post by Killswitch »

otis_inf wrote: post #335
endtime wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Disclaimer: I work for the same former-division-of-Google-and-now-Alphabet-subsidiary that built this, though I don't work on OnHub.) I think you need an account for cloud-based configuration, credential sharing, etc. Maybe it's not for everyone, but I think it makes sense as a product. I highly doubt they added a Google account requirement to improve ad targeting.

> I highly doubt they added a Google account requirement to improve ad targeting. Ad delivery networks, and google is one of the biggest, have one core business: delivering ads. Everything is setup to make that as big and as solid as possible. Whatever it takes (and we all know how far ad delivery networks will go: almost infinitely far). Now they ship a piece of hardware, require signing up with an account, and it's…

I agree!

- Typed on Google Chrome on my Android Phone, connected to my Google Fiber network via my onHub router.

Post reply on HN