|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org From: "Paul Stewart" <paul@paulstewart.org> To: "'Rob Seastrom'" <rs@seastrom.com> In-Reply-To: <86k304jxpl.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:00:03 -0500 Cc: nanog@nanog.org Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org That brings back memories of some unidentified folks getting much higher speeds and other features they may errr umm not been paying for ;) I miss my LanCity cablemodem - it made a great spaceheater in the winters..... -----Original Message----- From: Rob Seastrom [mailto:rs@seastrom.com] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 6:49 AM To: Paul Stewart Cc: 'Nathan Anderson'; 'A MEKKAOUI'; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: cable modem firmware upgrade "Paul Stewart" <paul@paulstewart.org> writes: > That has been my experience as well (only from the RF side) and I would > believe this was a design choice. The ISP usually wants to keep control > over the firmware versions of the CM for various technical/support > reasons versus having consumers mess with the firmware. 15 years ago, in certain circles it was well-understood how to load one's own (possibly patched) software from the Ethernet side on the old LanCity (pre-DOCSIS) cablemodems. You can imagine what kind of hilarity ensued. -r
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |