Metro ethernet services will be designed by an engineering team on a case-by-case basis, but they very rarely if ever use BNG.

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but port allocation is, depending on the ISP's deployment model, either going to be fixed at the time the infrastructure was built, or whoever is doing the last metre install will choose a random available port on the switch. The subscriber will be assigned to that port in the RADIUS or equivalent database, and the BNG will query the subscriber based on DHCP Option 82 port information added by the switch. You could also map the subscriber based on MAC address, but this doesn't really work unless you don't support customer provided equipment on their end.

Doesn't seem to be very Apple-like to have two identical looking ports with different function, though.

The consumer harm is obvious. Whether you call it a "monopoly" or something else, it is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Furthermore, if you fundamentally allow this behaviour, the market forces are sure to push us to an end state where users simply have no control, and there are no viable alternatives. We are most of the way there already when it comes to smartphones. The cost of entry to this market (many $billions over many years, if you can even manage to gain meaningful marketshare at all), and the amount of money that is on the table (30% of the $billions transacted on a successful platform today, but who knows how far they push with a real stranglehold) means that it is virtually impossible for competition to solve this problem.

Considering market forces are against it, I believe the only practical way to accomplish this in the long term is for this to be a right that is enforced by legislation. I don't think it is even far from precedent surrounding first sale doctrine and things like Magnuson-Moss, that the user should be the ultimate one in control post-purchase, it just takes a different shape when we're talking about computing technology.

Fundamentally, it is a trust issue. Why should I be forced to trust Google or Apple has my best interests in mind (they don't)? That is not ensuring 'device integrity', it's ensuring that I am at the whims of a corporation which doesn't care about me and will leverage what it can to extract as much blood as it can from me. You can ensure 'device integrity' without putting any permanent trust in Google or Apple.

It seems inevitable that this is the end game, and I don't really see viable ways around it for realtime playback. For offline playback, yeah, presumably that sidechannel includes enough information to cut out the ads.

Since we're talking about a legacy bank here, going to a branch and proving your identity is an option.

Worst case, you could always call and speak to a human who will do whatever verification they do if you forgot your password, which is functionally equivalent.

If you have shadowing, it simply means you can have a different variable with the same name later in the same (or child) scope, this usually must be explicit. The same name now refers to a different variable, but the original variable still exists and remains valid.

It's quite a useful pattern, particularly where the old value is no longer useful (for example transforming input), especially when using the old value might be valid code but would be a mistake.

Your phone only needs to listen to the WiFi router on one channel at a time in operation, and the signal parameters are well enough defined that they can be scanned quickly. A GPS receiver requires at least 4 parallel channels to achieve a position solution, and there are up to 32 possible codes the satellites could be at. Scanning 6 channels across 32 codes, and then also sweeping phase and doppler shift to lock them , just to 'discover' if there is a valid signal there takes time, and this is what older receivers had to do. Modern receivers tend to just 'brute force' this by having an entire receive pipeline dedicated to every possible PRN all the time, and possibly even correlate multiple doppler shifts simultaneously as well, so they effectively have 32 (or more) receive channels, despite only ever expecting a maximum of 12 birds being visible. The extra channels are necessary more or less exclusively to reduce acquisition time, so I think it's fair to call them 'brute force'.

There's a report on very similar jamming happening during the Syria conflict that will hopefully be enlightening as the methods and actors are presumably similar https://c4ads.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/AboveUsOnlyStar...

I don't think this is actually the case. In a spoofing scenario, all of the rogue signals would typically be generated by a single terrestrial station. The time of flight of all of the generated signals will be the same, so all that matters is the position solution reflected in the transmitted signals, as the fundamental principle of GPS based on TOF is no longer in play. So I'd think that in a typical spoofing scenario, all receivers thinking they're in more or less an identical location is what you'd expect.

It might be possible in a borderline case for the receiver to receive some spoofed signals and some real signals simultaneously, in which case you'd expect weird results, but I think you'd definitely see a correlation around the position being broadcast by the spoofer.