Slashdot Mirror


Don't Pirate Or We'll Mess With Your Connected Thermostats, Warns East Coast ISP (engadget.com)

Internet service provider Armstrong Zoom has roughly a million subscribers in the Northeastern part of the U.S. and is keen to punish those it believes are using file-sharing services. According to Engadget, "the ISP's response to allegedly naughty customers is bandwidth throttling, which is when an ISP intentionally slows down your internet service based on what you're doing online. Armstrong Zoom's warning letter openly threatens its suspected file-sharing customers about its ability to use or control their webcams and connected thermostats." From the report: The East Coast company stated: "Please be advised that this may affect other services which you may have connected to your internet service, such as the ability to control your thermostat remotely or video monitoring services." All U.S. states served by Armstrong Zoom will be experiencing temperatures around or under freezing over the weekend and into the near future. Bandwidth throttling for customers in those areas who have connected thermostats could mean the difference between sickness and health, or even life and death. Seems like an extreme punishment for any allegedly downloaded Game of Thrones cam rips.

148 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. dont mess with my thermostat by FudRucker · · Score: 4, Funny

    or i will take an axe to your series of pipes

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:dont mess with my thermostat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just report them to the authorities.
      This threat is no different from "It is a nice house you have here, would be unfortunate if something were to happen to it."

      It is illegal as fuck for them to make a statement like this.

      They aren't law enforcement. If they have a problem with someones possibly illegal online activities they should report it and let a court determine if the action was a copyright violation or not.
      Taking the law in your own hands isn't generally accepted.

    2. Re: dont mess with my thermostat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Net neutrality must be a factor

    3. Re: dont mess with my thermostat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Learn how to read. The way I read the letter is that they won't fuck with your shit at all. You'll just loose the ability to connect to and control it remotely. Meaning just like in 2000, 1990, 1980, 1970, etc. Big deal you can't warm the house remotely. It's a fucking thermostat. Set it to 65 and it will keep the house at 65 all day and night, 365 days a year. If you're letting your house get to below freezing you're stupid as fuck anyway. It's a great way to freeze and burst your pipes.

    4. Re:dont mess with my thermostat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh my god, it's "series of TUBES", not pipes! Get it right!

    5. Re:dont mess with my thermostat by serutan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree that ISPs shouldn't act as copyright cops, judges and juries, but this one isn't threatening to mess with anybody's thermostat. They're just threatening to throttle bandwidth, which realistically could affect the operation of net-enabled devices if say a bit torrent client is hogging the connection.

    6. Re:dont mess with my thermostat by slack_justyb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They aren't law enforcement. If they have a problem with someones possibly illegal online activities they should report it and let a court determine if the action was a copyright violation or not.

      No you see lacking an FCC ruling we have to use FTC guidance on the matter (see 740 F.3d 623 [2014]). ISPs have the right under FTC rules to secure their network by any means. If they feel a copyright violation "might" happen, they have a right to secure their network and the FTC gives them any means to do that. Now you have recourse in court if you can show that they blocked your "service" and it's important that FTC meaning of "service" means that ISPs can do everything except cut you completely off, without serving you notice. So pretty much as long as you can ping 8.8.8.8 and you're doing something that gives the ISPs a reasonable cause to fear your traffic. They can do whatever the hell they like since the FCC was granted authority over "traffic" in PL104-104 sec 509 and the FCC has indicated that they're not going to stand behind you on this topic.

      To anyone thinking they'd like to try their hand in court, by all means, have at it. Let me know how it went, but I can assure you it's not going to go the way you think it should.

      This threat is no different from "It is a nice house you have here, would be unfortunate if something were to happen to it."

      Yes it is different. A house is physical and network traffic isn't. That's like the big point of why Congress really needs to fucking act on that whole NN thing. Judges don't see IP packets are things that belong to you, and until someone with law making ability says that packets on someone else's network are yours, they aren't yours, the end.

    7. Re:dont mess with my thermostat by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      It's a variety of various vesicles.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    8. Re: dont mess with my thermostat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      As rule without first taking winterizing steps you should not allow a residential building to go below 55 indoors.

    9. Re:dont mess with my thermostat by cstacy · · Score: 1

      No you see lacking an FCC ruling we have to use FTC guidance [...]

      I can assure you it's not going to go the way you think it should.

      The last time I heard someone say that, it went exactly the way I thought it would. And you're not the last Jedi!

    10. Re:dont mess with my thermostat by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      It seems they watched Big Bang Theory where Sheldon messed with Leonard's thermostat.

      And it also seems they want to go to jail.

    11. Re:dont mess with my thermostat by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 2

      Hmmm, I can't find any tubes.
      Tore my internet apart, found a bunch of wires, antennas, electrical doohickeys, NSA cameras, a hidden microphone.....but no tubes.

      However, tore apart my 1959 Marshall amp and....
      TUBES! lots of tubes! So the internet must be composed of old guitar amps!

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
    12. Re:dont mess with my thermostat by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      That's a nice sentiment, however it's also no different than Verizon/Comcast/AT&T saying, "That's a nice video. You wana keep watching, it will cost you"...
      Local law enforcement has no idea how to deal with this. If it crosses county lines, then locals can't touch. Normally, this would fall under the FBI, but Humpty-Trumpty has eviscerated the organisations moral and the GOP is calling to "drain the swamp" of Federal law enforcement. They don't need any more lobbying money trying stop Federal 3 letter organizations.
      Nope, this is the new form of "capitalism" that Trump brought to NY real estate. Blocking it is what he defines as those "pesky job killing regulations".

    13. Re:dont mess with my thermostat by slashrio · · Score: 2

      ..its ability to use or control their webcams and connected thermostats.

      They didn't say they are able to control the webcam or thermostats.
      They merely explain that bandwidth measures they take against p2p sharing may affect other services used over the internet.
      There is no threat there.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    14. Re:dont mess with my thermostat by stigmerger · · Score: 1

      It'd be a shame if sumppn was to happen to ya termastat deh, while you was streaming sumppn.

  2. Hyperbole much? by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bandwidth throttling for customers in those areas who have connected thermostats could mean the difference between sickness and health, or even life and death.

    If you are needing to adjust your thermostat using the network, that means you aren't at home to do it manually. You are not where the thermostat controls the temperature. I.e., if you freeze to death because you didn't walk across the room to turn the thermostat up, it ain't the ISPs fault.

    Yeah, maybe death of your pet fish if you aren't home to turn it up and the tank gets too cold, but "difference between ... life and death" is not something you usually hear with reference to fish.

    Or are people facing death from the cold really so lazy that they'd rather freeze than walk across the room?

    1. Re:Hyperbole much? by FudRucker · · Score: 1, Insightful

      what about the elderly and disabled, people unable to get up and walk, i taken my mother in as a house guest because i dont want to see her in a nursing home, she is 86 years old and in a wheelchair, she could not get to the thermostat if her life depended on it,

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    2. Re:Hyperbole much? by darthsilun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the ISP messes with your thermostat it is their fault. If they do it in the middle of the night when you're asleep, it's their fault. If they do it when you're away and your pipes freeze and flood your house, it's their fault.

      They have no business messing with your thermostat. They aren't the police, or the FBI. It's not their job to enforce the law.

      And if I had the misfortune to be a customer, you can bet I'd be shopping for another ISP right about now.

    3. Re:Hyperbole much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Meet my grandmother.

      She doesn't even know where her thermostat is anymore. She finds it too confusing with too many buttons.
      She only controls it from her 10" tablet, with a big screen.

      If you take away her internet, not only can she no longer control her tablet, she cannot Skype me for help, nor can she VOIP 911 in an emergency.

      Yes, for many, Internet is a public utility the same as Water, Gas, and Electricity.

    4. Re:Hyperbole much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you have your house configured so that slow internet kills your mom?

    5. Re:Hyperbole much? by sunking2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Granny should have thought of that before she pirated The Girlfriend Experience.

    6. Re:Hyperbole much? by FrankHaynes · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, maybe death of your pet fish if you aren't home to turn it up and the tank gets too cold

      When I was a little kid and my older brother went away to Boy Scout camp for the weekend, leaving me in care of his fish tank, I felt sorry for the fish having to swim around in such cold water. So I turned the tank heater all the way up so that they would be warm.

      He was not the least bit happy when he came home to a bunch of dead exotic fish floating on the surface with their eyeballs popped out.

      I am not qualified to be an ISP, either.

      --
      slashdot: A failed experiment.
    7. Re:Hyperbole much? by Xenx · · Score: 5, Informative

      They aren't touching the thermostat. They're throttling the internet speed in response to copyright infringement notices. Their terms of use and related documentation likely covers what can happen in regards to copyright infringement. If you don't like that practice, that is a different argument.. one that I would likely side with you on. However, it's up to the customer to understand the policies and what it entails. The ISP isn't targeting smart thermostats or the like, it's only warning the customer of possible issues if their connection is throttled.

    8. Re:Hyperbole much? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They're not "messing with your thermostat." They're messing with your internet connection, which you've connected your thermostat to.

      If lack of internet connectivity is going to cause your house to flood, or your granny to die, then you probably need to re-evaluate how you're using these devices.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    9. Re:Hyperbole much? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      That's why we had a plain old non-intelligent thermostat installed in our house. K.I.S.S.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    10. Re:Hyperbole much? by gravewax · · Score: 1

      they are not interfering with your thermostat at all, they are simply stating pirates may be bandwidth throttled (nothing new or exciting), difference is they point out some of the potential unintended consequences should your bandwidth be throttled.

    11. Re:Hyperbole much? by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the ISP messes with your thermostat it is their fault.

      Stand still and think for a minute. If an ISP throttles or shuts off your internet connection for any reason, what effect will that have on your internet-controlled thermostat?

      1. 1. It will turn the temperature setting down.
      2. 2. It will turn the temperature setting up.
      3. 3. It will turn your furnace off completely.
      4. 4. You will not be able to change your temperature setting using the external internet, but can still operate it on the local internal network, and otherwise nothing is different including the manual controls.

      The correct answer is "4". The setting you had in place before the network interruption takes place will continue.

      Answers 1-3 are all what could be considered "messing with your thermostat", but only if the ISP actually makes the changes to the settings and not the stupid thermostat changes how it works when it loses a network connection. "Turn all heat off unless there is a constant network connection to some server in China" is a stupid and dangerous operating mode, and you need to blame the thermostat maker for that, not the ISP.

      For the person whose grandmother cannot operate a thermostat unless it is internet connected, then I suggest you get her a locally controlled thermostat instead of relying on the external internet. It is quite possible that the external internet will fail during a severe weather event and she'll be dead even if the ISP had nothing to do with it. Even just a local power failure could take out the wireless access point that the thermostat connects to, as well as the internet modem. This is not a case of the ISP turning something into a "matter of life or death", it's a case of poor planning on how to deal with common modes of failure resulting in a "matter of life or death."

    12. Re:Hyperbole much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's the perfect crime

    13. Re:Hyperbole much? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What kind of internet-connected thermostat needs a lot of bandwidth anyway? These things should be able to run on a 300bps modem.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    14. Re:Hyperbole much? by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      i taken my mother in as a house guest

      Then it is YOUR responsibility to manage the thermostat, and if you set it at a level where she will freeze to death it will be your responsbility, not the ISPs. If you leave her alone in the house and set it so she will freeze, and then depend on being able to get in from the external internet to turn it back up so she doesn't (ha ha granny, feel how cold it is? where's my inheritance? Put me back in the will. Ok, now you get heat again!) then don't blame the ISP when your plot is foiled by a network outage.

      Maybe just leave the thermostat set at a livable temperature and you won't have to worry about network failures from any source or reason.

    15. Re:Hyperbole much? by FrankHaynes · · Score: 1

      No doubt the ISP was referring to customers' server-like nodes on their home networks, such as home automation stuff (which is possibly against their TOS anyway).

      They did not threaten to turn off your furnace during the dead of winter.

      --
      slashdot: A failed experiment.
    16. Re:Hyperbole much? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Or her wifi password has been compromised.

    17. Re:Hyperbole much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To add on to this, if granny is wheel chair bound. Why haven't you relocated her thermostat to a point she can reach in the chair? All it takes is a couple feet of thermostat wire, lower the thermostat a few feet on the wall, fish the wire from the old height to the new height, splice the wires, push into wall spackle/paint over old hole and install the thermostat at the lower height. This is something anyone with basic DIY skills should be able to do in an hour or so.

    18. Re:Hyperbole much? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      If the thermostat is in the cooling setting

      And just whose fault is it that the thermostat is set to "cool" in the middle of winter? I don't know anyplace on the planet where things change so fast that you have to cool one day and then heat to keep from freezing to death the next. And if you live in such a place, you better have a thermostat that can switch by itself.

      Sounds like she needs to be in a nursing home, or have live in family or room mate to take care of her.

      I think setting the thermostat so it maintains a livable temperature is something the host would do when taking granny in as a houseguest. At least I think that would be a reasonable task.

      If the only thing the thermostat lets you do is micromanage the temperature then what the hell is the point of spending all that money on it?

      There are valid use cases. You travel on sudden notice and want to turn the temp down to 60F for the week while you are gone, and turn it back up to 69F when you get close to home so you'll walk into a warm house. Or you want to reset it back to a normal temperature when your kids play with it. Or your wife turns it all the way down during a hot flash. None of those uses would result in anyone freezing to death because it couldn't be operated remotely. Even the wife can figure out eventually to turn the heat back up if she was able to turn it down.

    19. Re:Hyperbole much? by MattskEE · · Score: 1

      Uhhhhh did you read their actual statement, which is in the summary and copied below? They do not make any threat regarding interfering with your equipment. They merely mention that services you can access remotely over the internet will not work remotely if your internet is throttled due to piracy. They will still work locally.

      Please be advised that this may affect other services which you may have connected to your internet service, such as the ability to control your thermostat remotely or video monitoring services.

    20. Re:Hyperbole much? by sheramil · · Score: 4, Funny

      One that's been taken over by a botnet and is too busy mining Dogecoins to adjust the temperature.

    21. Re:Hyperbole much? by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

      Yea well, if you buy a dumb 'smart' thermostat that allows a temperature extreme like this then that is your fault.

      At this point, with the current state of 'the internet of things', just having anything critical on the internet like this is your fault.

      - Choose wisely

    22. Re:Hyperbole much? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      They're throttling the internet speed in response to copyright infringement notices.

      And we know that copyright infringement notices have never been wrong. Let's see...I seem to recall a news story about copyright infringement from earlier today:

      https://gizmodo.com/man-s-yout...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    23. Re:Hyperbole much? by Xenx · · Score: 1

      I didn't feel like doing the work to figure it out. But decided, why not. Apparently the Nest learning thermostat only requires 50MB/week. Assuming the labeling is correct, and that my math is accurate, that puts it at about 700bps. However, that assume it's constant communication. I would imagine it's polling and the actual requirements would be a bit higher during communication. If it's polling every 15min, that would be about 600kbps? This is all assumption, but the requirements are still damn small. The issue would come down to what else is on the network and just how slow they're being throttled.

    24. Re:Hyperbole much? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      If the ISP messes with your thermostat it is their fault. If they do it in the middle of the night when you're asleep, it's their fault. If they do it when you're away and your pipes freeze and flood your house, it's their fault.

      They have no business messing with your thermostat. They aren't the police, or the FBI. It's not their job to enforce the law.

      And if I had the misfortune to be a customer, you can bet I'd be shopping for another ISP right about now.

      Please re-read that clusterfuck of a summary to help avoid misinterpretation. They are NOT controlling or messing with your thermostat. They are merely stating that bandwidth throttling may interfere with an owners ability to remotely control their own thermostat.

      And quite honesty, if a homeowner has spent the money to buy and install a smart thermostat and yet fail to have it programmed to automatically avoid the ridiculous speculations of freezing pipes or freezing humans, then they are stupid enough to deserve said catastrophes.

    25. Re:Hyperbole much? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Regardless, they are making THREATS regarding interfering with your equipment, essentially saying that they will HACK you.

      No, they are not doing that. You just failed your English comprehension final.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:Hyperbole much? by supremebob · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you should have kept the old 1960's era dial turn thermostat for grammy, so she actually knew how to use the damn thing without relying on a tablet.

    27. Re: Hyperbole much? by kenh · · Score: 1

      What about the elderly? Are you setious? So you think an ISP, throttling your internet connection (which runs from the San connector on your router to their year-end equipment) somehow will prevent a an elderly customer, sitting in their living room, trying to control the temperature in the thermostat on their wal!? How? Because the app on their iPhone reaches out over the phones cellular connection, passes they the UPS network, into their home, and then as a Wi-Fi signal to their thermostat? That sounds a litt!e rube Goldberg to me.

      More likely the app communicates with the thermostat as a peer on the internal Wi-Fi connection they share, never touching the public internet.

      And let's not forget, this warning explains the implications clearly, it won't be a surprise to anyone.

      --
      Ken
    28. Re:Hyperbole much? by Xenx · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying their policy for copyright infringement is right or wrong. But, it is their policy. I know how few choices most people have for internet provider in the US. Saying "go with another provider" isn't really a good solution for a lot of people. However, the copyright infringement policies that ISPs introduce is to protect their asses. DMCA holds the ISP accountable if they don't at least attempt to prevent the activity. It doesn't make the situation right, it just is.

    29. Re: Hyperbole much? by kenh · · Score: 1

      For crying out loud, the isp isn't adjusting anyone's thermostat, they may make it harder for customers to REMOTELY adjust their thermostat.

      Just another completely click-baity /. Headline.

      --
      Ken
    30. Re: Hyperbole much? by kenh · · Score: 1

      You also have to be pirating content from your remote, unoccupied, 2nd home.

      --
      Ken
    31. Re:Hyperbole much? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      The U.S. averages 640 people freezing to death per year already.

      Even a 1% increase would be 6 more people frozen to death.

      Humans are really bad dealing with high impact, low probability problems.

      This is one of those cases.

      I wouldn't have a thermostat that ran over the internet personally.

      And I wouldn't use an internet service that said they might mess with thermostats.

      And if they did, and someone dies, I would want them to go to jail for murder.

      Because they are doing it out of pure malice.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    32. Re:Hyperbole much? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      However, it's up to the customer to understand the policies and what it entails

      Really? Cause I doubt anyone on /. is conversant with every aspect of the EULAs they use. Hell, have you even read the /. terms of use?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    33. Re:Hyperbole much? by Xenx · · Score: 1

      It's still up to the customer to understand the policies. If they don't want to, then it's on them when something happens. Ignorance is not a defense.

    34. Re:Hyperbole much? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      And I wouldn't use an internet service that said they might mess with thermostats.

      Any ISP that tells you that termination of your internet service would NOT affect your ability to remotely control your internet-controlled thermostat would be LYING TO YOU.

      You wouldn't use an ISP that is honest enough to tell you up-front that termination of your service would affect how you use IoT devices?

      Well, isn't it nice that this ISP did not tell anyone they would mess with anyone's thermostats, huh?

      And if they did, and someone dies, I would want them to go to jail for murder.

      If you've created an environment where an internet outage results in someone dying, then that's YOUR fault for being stupid enough to do that. You need to reconsider how you use the internet in that case.

      Because they are doing it out of pure malice.

      They're forcing you to turn your thermostat down so people freeze to death just to punish you for disobeying their TOS? You're looney.

    35. Re: Hyperbole much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What is it with you retards and millennials? You know we're in our 20s and 30s, right? We know how a thermostat works.

      Fucking idiots like you though? God knows what frothing-at-the-mouth pundits you watch to get this kind of opinion of grown adults. Stop watching fox. Stop reading infowars.

      Good Christ you're an embarrassment.

    36. Re: Hyperbole much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except the headline is BS and the warning only mentions slow internet. It says anything connected to the internet may be affected and uses thermostat as an example.

      They did not threaten anything at all. Most ISPs do this and just don't tell you.

    37. Re:Hyperbole much? by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      It's quite clear that you lack the ability to read or comprehend. They aren't messing with the fucking thermostats. They are saying that if they throttle you, there might not be enough bandwidth left over to remotely operate your thermostat. This article is FUCKING CLICK BAIT. So sick of this shit. I predict by 2019 I won't be reading Slashdot anymore.

    38. Re: Hyperbole much? by Malc · · Score: 1

      They also lived in places with fireplaces and chimneys, didnâ(TM)t have to worry about pipes freezing and bursting behind the walls or in the ceiling, and maybe even had a smaller volume/area to keep warm or doors and walls that isolated separate areas unlike modern open plan living spaces.

    39. Re: Hyperbole much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about the situation where the internet is being used by a vulnerable customer to signal for assistance?
      What about where it is being used to monitor an elderly relative to ensure they haven't fallen / died?
      What about the people who rely on internet cameras/security devices?
      People who have heart monitor/drug delivery/other medical devices....?

      And ALL the replies I have seen so far assume the person IS pirating... Even the courts in the USA (who are often represented here as technologically illiterate) seem to realise that an IP address is NOT a pointer to an individual.

    40. Re:Hyperbole much? by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Dude, seriously. Go read it again. It is a friggin' reminder that people use their internet connections PASSIVELY, and they should consider what they stand to lose if they lose their internet connection.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    41. Re:Hyperbole much? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      Yes, depending on your internet to that extent isn't smart. However, intentionally screwing with it this way is a horrible thing to do. "Nice internet connection you have here. Be a shame if something happened to it."

    42. Re: Hyperbole much? by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      ... No person on the planet has ever died from that. ...

      Prove it.

      I'll take a stab at it. Here is a list of those who have died from it:

      Here are all the documents showing those who have died from it:

    43. Re:Hyperbole much? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      They aren't touching the thermostat. They're throttling the internet speed in response to copyright infringement notices. Their terms of use and related documentation likely covers what can happen in regards to copyright infringement. If you don't like that practice, that is a different argument.. one that I would likely side with you on. However, it's up to the customer to understand the policies and what it entails. The ISP isn't targeting smart thermostats or the like, it's only warning the customer of possible issues if their connection is throttled.

      While I agree with you, what happens if the infringement claims turn out to be false and as a result of the ISP acting on them someone suffers real harm? The ISP is already aware that their actions could cause the harm, and the were negligent in not ensuring the claims of infringement were valid before taking action. I'm sure their TOS would have them disclaim any liability but it would be interesting to see if it would hold up in court.They should let the copyright owner take action and not get in the middle absent a court order.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    44. Re: Hyperbole much? by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      Stop flirting

    45. Re:Hyperbole much? by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? I've been to so many places that are hot during the day (when they sun is radiating on you), and VERY cold at night (when the sun is radiating on the other side of the planet). Unless you're a flat earther, then I don't know how to explain it for that scenario.

    46. Re:Hyperbole much? by 31eq · · Score: 1

      Somebody should really invent a thermostat that cuts in automatically when the temperature goes below a certain level.

    47. Re:Hyperbole much? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      Much infection. Such abuse. Wow.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    48. Re:Hyperbole much? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Saying "the Nest learning thermostat only requires 50MB/week" shows a clear lack of knowledge about how much data this actually represents.

      52428800 bytes divided by 7 days, divided by 24 hours, divided by 60 minutes, divided by 60 seconds equals 86 bytes per second. For something like a thermostat, that is EXTREMELY WASTEFUL. Temperature fits in a single byte, but let's make it two bytes just for the fun of it. Let's say it also takes two bytes for the humidity and another two bytes for atmospheric pressure, just for the fun of it. Even if you add another 8 bytes for a 64-bit thermostat ID, that's only 14 bytes per second. What the fuck would be in those extra 72 bytes?

      Kids these days.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    49. Re: Hyperbole much? by easyTree · · Score: 1

      we are headed to a corrupt government running a police / security state if we do not stand up soon.

      Thanks for posting a snippet from your twenty-year-old diary entry.

    50. Re: Hyperbole much? by marka63 · · Score: 1

      There are places on the planet where you freeze at night sub zero C and overheat during the day. They are usually called deserts.

    51. Re:Hyperbole much? by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      You need at least 40 bytes in the packet header.

    52. Re:Hyperbole much? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      That's still 32 bytes leftover and with a completely unrealistic specification of a thermostat with a 16-bit temperature, 16-bit humidity and 16-bit atmospheric pressure at a useless one update per second.

      I would consider one communication/update/packet per minute extreme for such a use case, which would be around 2.25MB of data per month.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    53. Re: Hyperbole much? by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      There's an app for that.

    54. Re:Hyperbole much? by Xenx · · Score: 1

      I cover it in another response, and other likely brought it up. DMCA leaves the ISPs responsible for the customer's copyright infringements if they don't take steps to prevent the activity. They have to do something, or risk legal threat. You may not like the system, but you still have to play by it.

    55. Re:Hyperbole much? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      I cover it in another response, and other likely brought it up. DMCA leaves the ISPs responsible for the customer's copyright infringements if they don't take steps to prevent the activity. They have to do something, or risk legal threat. You may not like the system, but you still have to play by it.

      They are caught in the middle. I would simply tell them they are cut off and avoid any issues that may occur from keeping them but messing with they connection. IANAL, but acting in response to the DCMA may not protect them from the results of what they chose to do. It may just be safer to end the contractual relationship.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    56. Re: Hyperbole much? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      They are usually called deserts.

      Thank God there are no deserts in the northeastern US where this ISP is.

      Those who live in such places either boil during the day, freeze to death at night, live in buildings with enough thermal mass that the inside temps don't change much, or have a thermostat that knows how to cool when it is hot and heat when it is cold -- like I said.

    57. Re:Hyperbole much? by Xenx · · Score: 1

      I'm also not a lawyer. I do work for a small rural telecom, so I've read a fair bit.. but my grasp on all of it is still rudimentary. For the ISP, sure it'd be the safest to just cut them off outright. However, the requirement of the DMCA is that the ISP has a policy and enforces it. The wording isn't the most specific.

  3. This is why we need bet neutrality by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've said it before, and i will say it again: Your internet provider is a conduit on which multiple services rely. It cannot and should not, by law, be used to control or limit access, or police content either of it's own accord or upon request of external parties.


    Of course, personally, I am strongly against connecting any devices (other than computers) in my home to the outside facing network, but that's beside the point.

    1. Re:This is why we need bet neutrality by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      exactly right on, the ISP's could wield too much power with this, net neutrality is a must otherwise there will be an abuse of power when they start extra judicially start doing what they think is right regardless of the consequences, and if some ISP gets their equipment vandalized because of it then i wont care because i will have a good idea why it happened

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    2. Re:This is why we need bet neutrality by silverkniveshotmail. · · Score: 2

      I don't think Net Neutrality in any way banned ISPs from canceling your service for infringement.

    3. Re:This is why we need bet neutrality by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      As ISPs *have* terminated services with people who have pirated and other illegal activities you're correct.

    4. Re:This is why we need bet neutrality by Nutria · · Score: 2

      Or... you could develop the skill of reading beyond the scare tactic hype (by both the ISP and Engadget) and understand that both sides are pumping out nothing but FUD.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    5. Re:This is why we need bet neutrality by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Damn! I just got caught. Oh snap!

    6. Re:This is why we need bet neutrality by omnichad · · Score: 2

      ISPs don't want to cancel your service for infringement. It's a monetary loss to them. They do want to cancel your service if you're a high-bandwidth user.

    7. Re:This is why we need bet neutrality by silverkniveshotmail. · · Score: 1

      I'm also pretty confident Net Neutrality had nothing to do with usage caps.

  4. Hooray! (dupe) by ls671 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hooray! I remember reading the exact same story on /. a few days ago.

    Let me google it, "connected thermostat site:slashdot.org". Here we go:

    https://yro.slashdot.org/story...

    Maybe editor should do the same and Google it before posting dupes ;-)

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    1. Re:Hooray! (dupe) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He had no idea. His bandwidth was throttled and the article just posted today. What is a week of download time in bps?

    2. Re:Hooray! (dupe) by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So conflicted right now. On the one side if I don't pirate I have heating in my house. On the other side if I pirate I may no longer have to endure dupes!

  5. I checked into it... by Kenja · · Score: 1

    and it turns out a thermostat is cheaper than the stuff people are pirating, so I'm guessing they'll opt for the former.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  6. Re:Dupe by Megane · · Score: 2

    Don't pirate or we'll post more dupes on Slashdot!

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  7. Lol. You are all funny by sunking2 · · Score: 2

    They aren't messing with anything other than saying if you pirate we'll nuke your internet so you won't be able to use all the internet things you like to use. All of this is likely covered in the TOS.

    1. Re:Lol. You are all funny by I'm+just+joshin · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Stupid clickbait.

    2. Re:Lol. You are all funny by Luthair · · Score: 1

      What if Ford said they'd remotely disable your car if you went over the speed limit?

  8. Their Internet Policy Are Ridiculous....!! by ELCouz · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Their Internet Policy Are Ridiculous....!! by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Pretty bad. If grandma forwards a stupid email to more than 10 people she could be cut off. If you ask them to install an Ethernet card, they can't guarantee they won't lose all your data on your computer. They may change your provided email address without notice. They poison DNS lookup failures. Tiny 200GB data cap on their lowest tier. Hijacking HTTP requests when near your bandwidth limit.

    2. Re:Their Internet Policy Are Ridiculous....!! by ELCouz · · Score: 1

      Agree...the reviews aren't lying ... this company makes Comcast services looks good!

  9. Thanks, Ajit. by malditaenvidia · · Score: 1

    I bet you think your IoT buzzword is great now, motherfuckers.

  10. How much bandwidth are they thinking.... by mark-t · · Score: 2

    ... that an internet connected device like a thermostat is going to need that they think throttling internet speeds is actually going to make any kind of difference for it?

    In practice temperatures change slowly enough that even getting a single packet every half hour would probably be adequate for keeping a temperature entirely livable.

    1. Re:How much bandwidth are they thinking.... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Both sides (Engadget and the ISP) are doing nothing but spreading the FUD thick and wide.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re:How much bandwidth are they thinking.... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      In practice temperatures change slowly enough that even getting a single packet every half hour would probably be adequate for keeping a temperature entirely livable.

      I don't have an internet-connected thermostat because I see no need for it. However, I do have a "thermostat". The job of a thermostat is to turn heating devices (or cooling devices) on and off in a way that it maintains the temperature that it is instructed to maintain.

      As the outside temperature goes down, the heat flux increases outwards and the heating devices need to remain on longer to keep the same temperature. (I.e., pump heat INTO the house so it balances the heat flow going out.)

      At the point where the outside temperature is so low that the heating device needs to be on 100% of the time to keep up with the outflow, not even turning the temperature setting up will fix the problem. If your furnace is on 100% of the time to keep your internal temperature at 62F with an outside temperature of -10F, then no amount of changing the thermostat setting will get it warmer than that. You cannot get more than 100% out of your furnace, unlike the warp drives that Scotty could get to produce 110% (or nuclear reactors that can produce 110% by exceeding safety limits).

      In other words, you need 0 packets per hour to "keep up with" changing temperatures. That's the job of the thermostat itself. You only need "packets per hour" (and few of those) if you want to change the settings, and again, if your furnace already cannot keep up with the demand for heat then no amount of changing the settings will solve that problem.

      The only use for an internet thermostat is so you can modify the settings from outside the house so you can turn the heat down when you know you can't make it home, or turn it up to warm things up as you are on your way home. Or, in the very extreme case where penny-wise but pound-foolish planning has you turning your thermostat off (thus no heat at all) and needing to turn it back on when a cold snap threatens to freeze all the pipes. That's your fault, because you should have just set the thermostat at 60F, say, so it will be off until the outside temps get cold enough to be a problem, but the furnace will be off otherwise. I spent the entire last summer with a thermostat set at 65F and I paid no heating bills because the furnace never came on, and yet when the temps dropped late this fall the furnace popped on just like it should to keep the house above 64F.

      If the you've set the temperature on your thermostat so the inside of the house is "livable", then the thermostat will keep it that way unless 1) it is broken and cannot do its job anyway, or 2) you're exceeding the heating capacity of your furnace and the thermostat won't be able to succeed it doing its job anyway. Note that neither failure mode has anything to do with a throttled internet connection.

      This is a nonsense article, meant to scare people and create fear over a failure of "net neutrality" by the ISP. Poppycock. The ISP was correct to warn user who face potential loss of service for violation of TOS that their IoT things may not be controllable when their service goes away, but that doesn't mean the ISP is "messing with" anything.

    3. Re:How much bandwidth are they thinking.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't dispute what you are saying, but I was pointing out that even in the hypothetical use-case where a thermostat is actually going to need constant internet connectivity in order to simply operate as intended, throttling internet connectivity is highly unlikely to impact the practical operation of such a device because temperature changes are quite far from instantaneous, and so its bandwidth needs are generally going to be too low for any such throttling to make a perceptible difference. I would think even at worst, just getting one packet every 30 minutes would be enough to keep any area entirely liveable.

  11. 3/4g For the win? by Zurkeyon3733 · · Score: 1

    Ummm. This is nothing a Cradlepoint and a 4G USB modem can't Fix...

  12. I've got this great idea by SeaFox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You wouldn't have to worry about your ability to turn it up remotely if you didn't turn it down to start with before you left home.

    It's a pretty well know fact that it takes [i]more[/i] energy to change the temperature in a home than to maintain a set temperature. If you're only in the house every other season that's one thing, but it's these people who insist on micromanaging their heating and cooling on an hourly basis who are missing the point.

    And as for those people who are worried about pipes freezing -- they shouldn't be turning their furnace completely off to start with. Leave the thermostat at 50 degrees at least. Leave the cabinets open to allow the pipes better circulation with the warm air in the house (it's not like you're home anyway to be bothered by those doors), get pipe warmers and just hook them up and leave them plugged in. Heck. I bet you could set up a smarthome system that would turn them on and off for you using local temperature sensors (no internet needed). But instead, you buy a three hundred dollar thermostat and pay for internet service for an empty house for months you're not there, and you call this "saving money".

    1. Re:I've got this great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      SeaFox writes
      > It's a pretty well known fact that it takes [i]more[/i] energy to change the temperature in a home than to maintain a set temperature.

      Not according to Max Sherman, a "senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory overseeing research for residential energy efficiency." According to http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sc-cons-1113-karpspend-20141107-column.html:

      "Another common refrain is that it's cheaper to keep your home at a constant temperature, even when you're not home. 'Almost never true,' Sherman said, noting again that homes with heat pumps can be an exception. 'If the system is running less, it means it's using less energy.'"

    2. Re:I've got this great idea by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      It's a pretty well know fact that it takes [i]more[/i] energy to change the temperature in a home than to maintain a set temperature.

      Wait, what? It's a pretty well-known fact that the rate of thermal transfer is based on the difference in temperatures between the hot and cold objects. If you permit your house to cool down while you're gone, and then warm it up in time for you to get there, you will definitely save energy as compared to keeping it hot the whole time.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:I've got this great idea by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Wait, what? It's a pretty well-known fact that the rate of thermal transfer is based on the difference in temperatures between the hot and cold objects. If you permit your house to cool down while you're gone, and then warm it up in time for you to get there, you will definitely save energy as compared to keeping it hot the whole time.

      Depends on technology. If heat is from electricity or combustion then yes there will be a slight reduction in consumption by turning down stat for a significant percentage of a day.

      If on the other hand you have a heat pump the most energy efficient configuration is to set a temperature and leave it be for multiple reasons. The most salient being resistive heating is much less efficient than any possible gains from temporarily reducing temperature.

    4. Re:I've got this great idea by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If on the other hand you have a heat pump the most energy efficient configuration is to set a temperature and leave it be for multiple reasons. The most salient being resistive heating is much less efficient than any possible gains from temporarily reducing temperature.

      The difference is not between heat pump and heater. The difference is between well-insulated and not, unless it's so cold that a heat pump won't actually work.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:I've got this great idea by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      The difference is not between heat pump and heater. The difference is between well-insulated and not, unless it's so cold that a heat pump won't actually work.

      The difference is whenever a heat pump reaches balance point it turns into a paper weight. When you turn up the stat after lowering it to "save energy" what ends up happening the heat pump spends more time burning expensive electricity not just to heat the air but to heat all of the solid things in the building which were allowed to cool off and are now absorbing heat.

      If you just set a temp and leave it be the heat pump stands a better chance of spending more of it's time doing it's job as a heat pump rather than an electric heater. The few percentage points of thermal energy saved does not hold a candle to the amount of energy wasted by switching on aux heat to satisfy stat.

    6. Re:I've got this great idea by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      That assumes that the heat pump is running at full capacity all the time.

      It assumes no such thing. Capacity of a heat pump is relative to temperature differential.

      When a stat sees a significant differential in commanded temp vs actual temp or when it takes too long it will command next stage/aux heat even if the heat pump is capable of eventually "catching up".

      Even with a heat pump you can save energy by turning it off when you aren't at home as long as you turn it back on early enough for it to bring the home back to the temperature you want when you get home without having to resort to resistive heating.

      This is a best case fantasy unmoored from reality.

    7. Re:I've got this great idea by j-beda · · Score: 1

      The difference is not between heat pump and heater. The difference is between well-insulated and not, unless it's so cold that a heat pump won't actually work.

      The difference is whenever a heat pump reaches balance point it turns into a paper weight. When you turn up the stat after lowering it to "save energy" what ends up happening the heat pump spends more time burning expensive electricity not just to heat the air but to heat all of the solid things in the building which were allowed to cool off and are now absorbing heat.

      If you just set a temp and leave it be the heat pump stands a better chance of spending more of it's time doing it's job as a heat pump rather than an electric heater. The few percentage points of thermal energy saved does not hold a candle to the amount of energy wasted by switching on aux heat to satisfy stat.

      I don't think you understand the physics of heat transfer and/or the accounting of energy. Your language seems to differentiate heating the air and heating the interior objects with the idea that somehow that is an important distinction. I am not sure of the best way to address this type of inaccuracy in your physical model of heat energy transfer - I know it feels like keeping something at a given temperature is greatly different than heating it up and cooing it down again, but it really is not.

      To maintain a box at a any temperature requires that the heat energy being lost from that box is equal to the heat energy added to that box. Heat energy is ALWAYS flowing out of the box. The rate of heat energy loss increases as the temperature inside the box increases (we are assuming that outside the box is at some low constant temperature). Thus, for a given amount of time, it takes more heat energy to maintain a high temperature than to maintain a low temperature inside the box. This is true, even if there is a large thermal mass inside the box - the only important thing is the rate that the heat energy is being lost, and this is purely a function of the thermal insulation on the outside of the box, and the temperature difference between the inside and the outside. If the box is filled with lots of stuff with high thermal mass, the temperature inside the box will fall slower than if the box is filled only with air, but the rate of heat energy loss will be the same. Lowering the set temperature for a short amount of time and then later increasing it will require less heat energy input then keeping it at the higher temperature all the time.

      The majority of heating system have only two states - "heat" and "off", and the thermostat controls the temperature in the box by turning the heating system off when the inside of the box gets too hot, and switching to "heat" when it gets too cold. When the thermostat is set to a lower temperature, the heating system simply runs for a smaller fraction of the time compared to when the thermostat is set to a higher temperature.

      It is true that when you turn the thermostat from a low temperature to a high temperature, the heating system will run constantly until the interior temperature is raised to the high temperature, so for this amount of time the system will "consume" more energy than a system that was being maintained at the constant higher temperature. But the opposite is also true, that when you turn the thermostat from a high temperature to a low temperature, the heating system will not run AT ALL until the interior temperature falls to the low temperature.

      If you simply turn off the heating system for 20 minutes, and then immediately turn it back on again, it will take x amount of minutes to heat back up to the starting temperature. The amount of energy used by the heating system over those x minutes will be less than the amount of energy that would have been used to maintain the box at the starting temperature over the full (20 + x) minutes, because the amount of energy that pours out through the sides of the box during the full (20 + x) minutes is les

  13. Make The Threat Hurt by WankerWeasel · · Score: 1

    Don't bother with the thermostat threat. Go right for where it hurts. Point out that PornHub will buffer like crazy.

  14. Oh no they won't! by sunking2 · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows only the man of the house touches the thermostat

    1. Re:Oh no they won't! by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

      A real man knows how to replace the thermostat with one that no one can mess with, then enables the child lock feature.

    2. Re:Oh no they won't! by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Honeywell makes great thermostats. Both mechanical and electronic.

    3. Re:Oh no they won't! by andrewbaldwin · · Score: 1

      One place I worked at was in a converted factory building. The air-con and heating zones were very sensitive to change (ie the new open plan office wasn't really a good idea for what was a compartmented building previously).

      The building manager was forever trying to balance the system and put up notices in big letters "PLEASE DON'T ALTER THE THERMOSTAT SETTINGS" but to no avail as people still fiddled with them to get their desk area comfortable and ignoring the effect on others [who subsequently came along and tinkered with the settings.... you get the idea].

      One weekend he went in and reset the thermostats to the known stable setting then disconnected the control wheel on the front from the mechanism (basically a curled bimetallic strip and spring).

      He then sent out an e-mail telling people that the system was adjusted and they could set the thermostats as they wished [which because of the carefully chosen words was not a lie].

      Result: no effective change to the heating system but suddenly everyone was happy. Seems the illusion of tinkering and control was enough to convince people that they were comfortable :)

  15. Internet service provider Armstrong Zoom os by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

    A POS of a company if this is true. They are praying on the ignorance of any customer unforunately forced to use them as an ISP. This Company is poison and extremely unethical to scare their customers that do not understand current tech!

    Just my 2 cents ;)

    1. Re:Internet service provider Armstrong Zoom os by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      They are praying on the ignorance of any customer unforunately forced to use them as an ISP. This Company is poison and extremely unethical to scare their customers that do not understand current tech!

      I see you didn't read the letter that the summary linked to. Here's the relevant part, copied by hand since the link was an image:

      Please be advised that this may affect other services which you may have connected to your internet service, such as the ability to control your thermostat remotely or video monitoring services.

      This is a pretty straight-forward statement that if they turn your internet off due to TOS violations (and this letter is pretty clear that this is not the first contact about the problem) it will impact other stuff you use the internet for. How is this "praying" [SIC] on fear or unethical? It's a statement of fact, and technically quite accurate. If you don't have internet no more, you also don't get to control your internet-controlled stuff remotely neither no more, and any remote video monitoring you used to be able to do won't work neither no more, either, too.

      If they just put you on the lowest service tier, that will affect your use of these things, too, especially video monitoring. "Affect the use of" doesn't mean "we're going to fuck with your thermostat so you die" or even "we're going to take control of your cameras and broadcast the video to everyone on the internet". It means the change will affect YOUR use of those devices remotely.

      If you have set your thermostat so everyone in your house dies from the cold, then that is YOUR fault. I advise you not to do it.

      Fuck, is this what /. has devolved to?

    2. Re:Internet service provider Armstrong Zoom os by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this is more along the lines of 'people aren't really, truly aware of how much stuff is 'internet.'

      I've sent service techs to people's houses when they swear up and down that despite their bandwidth being maxed out for days, 'nobody is using the internet.'

      "Say, there's junior, sitting on the couch, streaming Netflix on an iPad. That's using four or five mb/s right there." "THAT'S NOT INTERNET, HE'S WATCHING TV! DON'T YOU TRY TO TELL ME THAT WATCHING TV USES INTERNET!"

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  16. You guys are being stupid by mveloso · · Score: 1

    When your connection gets throttled it throttles everything. That also might affect your VoIP service and everything else connected to your internet.

  17. If bandwidth throttling breaks your thermostat... by greenwow · · Score: 1

    you're doing something wrong. But seriously, I worked on environmental control systems in the early 80s that used 56k dedicated lines. Even then, bandwidth wasn't a problem.

  18. Re:I must be missing something by greenwow · · Score: 2

    I've helped four members of our management setup nest thermostats and security cameras. Three of them have around 750 kbps DSL (supposed to be up to 1.5 Mbps, but Frontier around here sucks), and the cameras worked just fine. Even the spec page:

    https://nest.com/support/article/Are-there-any-issues-with-streaming-Nest-Cam-over-a-mobile-Wi-Fi-hotspot

    Says "It requires 200kb/s (0.2Mbps) of bandwidth on average, but can reach up to as much as 500kb/s" The thermostat should be a tiny fraction of that.

  19. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  20. IoT Bad by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

    An excellent argument (as if we needed another) of why the "Internet of Things" is and was a terrible idea. Because even if the ISP never carries out such a threat, any network failure could just as easily cripple everybody's Echos and Nests. My computer and smartphones connect to the Internet; my fridge, stove, thermostat and other appliances don't need to.

    And never will.

    1. Re:IoT Bad by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      An excellent argument (as if we needed another) of why the "Internet of Things" is and was a terrible idea.

      It is not a generic argument against IoT devices, only stupidly programmed life-critical devices. If your IoT thermostat does the sensible thing of "maintain current settings" when losing internet connectivity, then losing internet connectivity won't result in anyone freezing to death. Only if your IoT thermostat dumps all settings and reverts to "off" when it cannot communicate with a remote server would it be an excellent argument against IoT.

      any network failure could just as easily cripple everybody's Echos and Nests.

      Echos require internet to send your audio back for voice recognition, and if a failing Echo could cost a life, then you should reconsider how you are using the Echo. The company that makes the Nest would be liable for any damages if they programmed the device so negligently that an internet outage caused a death, but only after you justified creating a life-critical situation based on that device.

    2. Re:IoT Bad by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

      A couple of years ago, an Amazon Echo user had programmed all of his light switches to be voice-controlled. He regretted that about 2AM one night when he lost internet connectivity and all the lights turned on and the Echo devices started sounding an alarm tone. I don't have an Echo; I even refused one when Amazon offered me a free one for being a good customer. (When I refused the Echo, they offered the equivalent in Amazon credit, which I was delighted to accept.) So I can't really speak to whether that story was true, or somewhat exaggerated.

      Regardless, I don't need to have every device in my house to be controllable from my smartphone.

  21. Bandwidth required to adjust a Thermostat? by ardmhacha · · Score: 1

    "Bandwidth throttling for customers in those areas who have connected thermostats could mean the difference between sickness and health, or even life and death."

    Complete bullshit, how much bandwidth is required to adjust a thermostat?

    1. Re:Bandwidth required to adjust a Thermostat? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Its not how little bandwidth a thermostat needs, its how much the speed can be further reduced.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Bandwidth required to adjust a Thermostat? by fox171171 · · Score: 1

      A remote thermostat should not require anything more than a few bits of data when you send it a command, or if it needs to send you a notification of a problem. Most of the bits required ought to be for secure authentication. Throttling should not be an issue. Strangling would be a more accurate term if it couldn't work.

  22. Use a quality VPN by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    and don't have anything online that can be seen by any other network.
    Keep your home and its needed networks away from the open internet.
    Use the ISP internet with a VPN.
    Find other ways to secure the CCTV so CCTV keeps working.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  23. Is this the news for nerds site ? by RedK · · Score: 1

    Because quite a bunch of you have no idea what a Thermostat is, or why it's even "Internet enabled" to begin with if you think is even remotely close to being an issue. How can you call yourselves nerds and not even have a smidgen of a clue of how a Thermostat operates and what it is used for ?

    The heck do Internet thermostats even have to do with this story ? ISP throttles you if they catch you infringing copyright. That's it. That doesn't impact your Thermostat at all.

    Even my freaking Grand mother knows what a Thermostat is and how it operates.

    --
    "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
    Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
  24. The ISP is not the Police by WindowsStar · · Score: 1

    I said this about Google Post the other day; about them policing the internet and blocking pirating searches and I will say it again here. This ISP is not the police they provide a service how someone uses it is up to them. If they break the law it is up to the authorities to punish them NOT the ISP. I will use and example. This is like buying a car and the dealership says they are not going to fix your engine under warranty because you are using the car to transport cocaine. It is not the dealerships responsibility to enforce laws. It is not the ISP's responsibility to enforce laws. The other take I see here is they are threating their customers a good lawyer could sue them and win for threating to kill them. Just saying!

    1. Re:The ISP is not the Police by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> This is like buying a car and the dealership says they are not going to fix your engine under warranty because you are using the car to...

      Then don;t ever buy a Tesla.
      http://mashable.com/2016/02/03...
      https://www.reddit.com/r/tesla...

    2. Re:The ISP is not the Police by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 2

      ISPs want to be a monopoly with the protections of a common carrier public utility, but also want to be able to control content. You can't have it both ways.

      If they want to control and police your content, then they should be the ones liable when they let illegal content through.

    3. Re:The ISP is not the Police by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      If they break the law it is up to the authorities to punish them NOT the ISP.

      The ISP is not enforcing any law. They are deciding not to sell someone a service that they have reason to believe (due to complaints from other people) is being used outside the terms of service. Laws are irrelevant. This is also after multiple attempts at contact with the customer have failed to get a response.

      If your automobile warranty had a clause that it became invalid if the vehicle is used for illegal purposes, then the dealership is within their rights for refusing to honor the warranty when the illegal use is detected. Just like insurance companies are within their rights not to pay out when the terms of the insurance are not met.

      The other take I see here is they are threating their customers a good lawyer could sue them and win for threating to kill them. Just saying!

      Just saying bullshit is what. You'd need a really good lawyer to win such a lawsuit, and a really greedy one to take your money for trying. And a really stupid judge not to throw the suit out in the first 30 seconds of it being on his desk. Where's the threat to kill anyone?

  25. Pet fish should be fine by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    If you have species that are that sensitive to the cold, not to mention the gradual change given the heavy moderation of all the water in a fish tank, you'll have an automatic heater in there.

    But yes, any "internet connected" thermostat should still have a minimum allowed temperature (mine is 55F) that you can program in, and the worst case is that it is a bit chilly when you get home and turn it up manually.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  26. Re: Easy... by kenh · · Score: 1

    Neither of which is Armstong Zoom, so what is your problem?

    --
    Ken
  27. Re: Cool story by kenh · · Score: 1

    So you need an internet connection to control your heater? If true, you are a moron... I'm sorry, that's just stupid. What if your ISP goes down during a snowstorm?

    --
    Ken
  28. Woah woah woah... isn't this illegal? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    Isn't even threatening to do that illegal? This is vigilante justice from the ISP and they're not even the injured party here even in the cases where they are actually right that it's piracy and not just a World of Warcraft patch or a work VPN.

  29. Re:If bandwidth throttling breaks your thermostat. by dysmal · · Score: 1

    Back then, loading a web page didn't take 3 minutes (literally) on a 56k connection like it does now. Remember that all of these "smart" devices today are also busy harvesting all sorts of personal goodies unlike your environmental control systems.

  30. This is Click Bait by airfishey · · Score: 1

    This is a 100% click bait article, and I'm disappointed in you Slashdot. (1) Smart thermostats need very little bandwidth at all to operate remotely (e.g. via a smartphone or web page). It's not like your smart thermostat is constantly streaming videos or downloading updates (although the occasional update does happen). The ISP clearly said that they will throttle your bandwidth if they think you are engaging in illegal pirate activity. So it might take 1 minute instead of 5 seconds to adjust the temperature remotely, even if you are throttled. (2) Most smart thermostats (definitely the Nest) have a set points where you define a minimum temperature that it will not go below. Even if you have no internet connection, your thermostat will ensure that you maintain a minimum, safe temperature level. (3) If you're home, you can still manually adjust the temperature by walking over the the thermostat and turning the dial.

  31. ISPs Common Carrier? by AbrasiveCat · · Score: 1

    Looks like at least this ISP no longer wants to be a common carrier and it does want to be responsible for all data on its lines. Looks like a trap to me.

  32. Media trolling/whoring for attention can be deadly by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    What happens when there is a real story about something important and people dismiss it as more senseless noise by know nothing trolls?

    I suspect the answer is probably nothing...

  33. ISP shut off my Internet service for non-payment by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    And now I can't turn on my furnace from my mobile phone... itttt'ssss cccooolllddd in here. I can't get up to turn it on because the floor is covered with ice after pipes froze and burst after the power company also shut off my power for non-payment. I fall down every time I try to stand.

    To make matters worse my phone will only let me dial 911 and the Internet does not work. I tried calling 911 and explained to them not having Internet access is an emergency but the rude person on the other end says I'll be arrested if I call back.

    Please help me.

  34. What they will do if snowstorm tear off the wires? by Vitus+Wagner · · Score: 1

    People that buy thermostat, which depends on external server for proper operation deserve to be frozen to death.

    What they'll do if not the evil will of ISP, but natural force would cut them off internet?
    For instance if snowstorm would uproot couple of poles and break the wires?

    (Really the electricity would also be cut, so you'll need to keep a gasoline generator in the basement if your heating depend on electricity).

  35. So if you bought into the "internet of things"... by Miles_O'Toole · · Score: 1

    ...you're getting exactly what you deserve.P

    --
    Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
  36. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  37. Just wait, it'll get worse by biggaijin · · Score: 1

    Once the Internet of Things takes off, we will be even more vulnerable to this sort of threat from our ISPs: Don't be bad or we'll turn off your refrigerator and make all your food spoil. What about that 200 pounds of venison in your freezer, eh?

  38. If you connect.... by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

    your thermostat to the net you're a friggin' retard. Pure and simple.

  39. If you mess with my thermostate by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    I'll blow a hole into your skull. Because to do so, you have to break into my home.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  40. This is deplorable by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

    We're talking about people who are paying their bills who may be violating copyright.

    Cutting off someone's heat or AC could in extreme cases lead to death and in lesser cases could actually lead to property damage. I do worry that my pipes might freeze every time the temperature dips below zero (Fahrenheit).

    Fortunately I can pay my bills so I'm not too familiar with the process but I do know that my local utility just can't shut you off for missing one or even 2 bills (maybe after three). I'm not going to test the system but I am blessed in many ways and can pay the bills. What if I couldn't? Would homelessness be the next logical step?

    At least where I live they're not going to make you freeze to death even if you don't pay your bill on time. So what if I pirated the last season of Breaking Bad? (that was in fact the last thing I torrented).

    Walter White wants his paycheck and if you don't come up with the money you're gonna freeze to death!!

  41. Programmable Thermostats need Backup Thermostats! by BigBlockMopar · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just don't trust ANY programmable thermostat, never mind the Internet-connected ones which are vulnerable to hacking and stuff like this.

    Up here in Ottawa, Canada - which is damned cold at the moment, -25C but cools things as fast as if it was -40C with the wind chill - any heating system outage could do serious damage to your home.

    You're not worried just about frozen pipes. I've personally seen the water in the bowl of a toilet freeze, split the bowl, and cause the tank to fall over. The fill valve in the toilet then helpfully tried to keep the tank full... tens of thousands of dollars in damage, and, to add insult to injury, a huge water bill.

    It could be an asshole ISP, North Korean hackers, or it could be a pair of weak AA batteries while you're away on vacation, but the more complicated something is, the more prone it is to failure. Even a top-quality Honeywell Commercial can't turn on the heat if it's got dead batteries.

    When you install a programmable thermostat, keep the old one!

    Most central heating systems have thermostat terminals labeled R and W (or W1). When R is connected to W, the furnace will go through its startup rituals and produce heat. As soon as you disconnect them, the furnace will start its shutdown rituals.

    Startup/shutdown may take a few seconds before the furnace appears to do anything. Any relatively modern (since 1990 or so) gas or oil furnace will do things like start the drafting fan (blows air up the chimney) and heat the igniters before it turns on the fuel, and once it has the fuel burning, it will wait until the heat exchanger is warm before it turns on the blower that moves the warm air into your home. Likewise, shutdown may take a few seconds, usually with the main blower running until the heat exchanger has given up all its heat.

    Mount the old mechanical thermostat someplace where it will ensure the house never gets below about 15C. Connect its R and W (W1) terminals in parallel with the R and W terminals on your new thermostat, so that they work as an OR gate (two switches in parallel).

    That way, even if the programmable - or those silly/dangerous Nest things - fails, the old-school mechanical thermostat will click the heat on.

    Keep the old thermostat set to a lower temperature than the house should ever normally reach and it won't interfere with the energy-savings provided by the programmable thermostat.

    When you're connecting the old thermostat as a failsafe, don't assume that the colors on the wiring mean anything - not all R terminals are connected to the red wire, and not all W terminals are connected to the white wire!

    The G and the Y terminals control other functions in your furnace, no need to touch them.

    R - transformer common, 24V AC
    W - call for heat (W1, W2, etc. are for multistage furnaces - use W1)
    Y - call for air conditioning - leave it alone
    G - call for fan (the fan will start automatically when the furnace is heating or cooling, connecting R-G will cause the fan to run continuously for air flow)

    Other terminals can be Googled.

    Do the wiring carefully, using proper thermostat/doorbell wire. Put a sticker on your furnace to remind you of where you mounted the backup thermostat. If you're in the least bit unsure of what I'm describing, call a licensed HVAC contractor.

    A final warning is that while this COULD be done with baseboards and other line-operated electric heat, it would require suitable thermostats and a licensed electrician to do it - burning your house down to save a flood is counterproductive.

    This is a great way to recycle an old mercury-filled thermostat; you've changed it from hazardous waste into a safety device.

    --
    Fire and Meat. Yummy.
  42. Who uses an internet thermostat anyway? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    No, seriously? A time clock covers pretty much all usage cases, if you're in the house every night. Otherwise, you use the "frost protect" setting and put any temperature sensitive plants in one room with a plant-appropriate setting.

    Internet connected thermostat - what a fucking stupid idea. Regardless of the apparently abysmally implemented security.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"