• GeneralPixel 8

  • what sources are out there for a cellular router and a data plan for it??

Hello GOS community! its a great bright day to make a big switch, from standard tracked cellular sim connection to a stealth setup with a truly cellular free mobile device with a voip plan like jmp.chat hooked up to a cellular data router!

to be specific i need an advice on the router and data plans available, and possibly more details on the router options? which routers are preferred and where to obtain one?

is it beneficial to compartmentalize the voice/text and data plans to separate providers, as i see jmp.chat offers both?

reason behind such dramatic switch is that i've always thought that its a good thing to have. dont consider myself any valuable target for general gov/le entities, but have some reasons to suspect there might be unwanted private interest backed by somewhat massive capabilities targeting me. in particular cellular vulnerabilities are a concern, from location tracking to something like simjacking.

plus last night Mint(my current cellular provider) announced that my device is either marked as partially capable after their recent update that included some RF adjusting, or is completely locked to a different carrier from previous usage despite that this device was used with them since july up to until a week ago hen i found out that i cant make calls. and since they refuse to refund the money for several months left on our contract in case if i instead of upgrading my device decide to cancel our contract(that they refuse to follow) i decided that i cannot keep a relationship with such dishonest company.

sorry for long write, i just wanted to answer the expected questions ahead, not to flood the thread with them.

    Onlyfun

    My suggestion is to use jmp.chat for voice/sms and use an alternative like silent.link for data. jmp.chat prices for their esim service are too high imo. I haven't personally tried them yet, but infimobile has some terrific pricing if you're in the US and want to use a Verizon MVNO.

    I'm sorry to hear that about Mint. What a terrible experience!

        treenutz68 than you for the input, i haven't even heard of other than jmp.chat and silent.link . maybe mysudo or something but mostly negative on this one, so i dont even consider.

        yeah mint turned out to be thieves, unbelievable, and then refused to email me the chat transcript, only shared some chat id. cause they know they're wrong.

          IcyScroll interesting read and aslo would be nice to know if it still applies to today's things, since it's been 7 years, quiet some time for changes. but pro ably not much as a just asked in a different thread for reasons to use a data only pixel as a hotspot vs a dedicated cellular router,received similar answer that pixel as hotspot would be more secure. i hope a more detailed discussion of his topic will develope here. since a see a huge(in my uneducated opinion) benefit of cellular router. control over traffic. as discussed many times here, a GOS pixel does not have total control of it's own traffic, and even less control over tethered traffic, for example tethered traffic is bypassing pixels system vpn without any options. also router does not contain nearly as much data as does the pixel so it seems being a less valuable if exploited, would be useful to determine the difference between the access levels of the two into tethered client. here only a professional opinion would suffice.

              a month later

              Onlyfun since it's been 7 years

              I don't understand. 7 years since what exactly? The thread is about 2 months old.

              Onlyfun since a see a huge(in my uneducated opinion) benefit of cellular router. control over traffic.

              I would love to have this feature too. However, we can't really tell when and if secure mobile devices get it in the future.

              Onlyfun dont consider myself any valuable target for general gov/le entities, but have some reasons to suspect there might be unwanted private interest backed by somewhat massive capabilities targeting me. in particular cellular vulnerabilities are a concern

              As of now, if protecting yourself from cellular exploits is one of your priorities, it seems that the best solutions are either to:

              1. Ditch cellular network, never disable airplane mode

              or

              1. Let modern, well tested, baseband implementations handle connections to cellular network. This means using a supported iPhone or ideally a Pixel 8 and above with GrapheneOS
                      17 days later

                      IcyScroll

                      IcyScroll I don't understand. 7 years since what exactly? The thread is about 2 months old.

                      sorry, i thought i saw old dates there.

                      IcyScroll I would love to have this feature too. However, we can't really tell when and if secure mobile devices get it in the future.

                      but without being able to control you traffic how is using a pixel as a hotspot safer than a dedicated router?

                      IcyScroll Ditch cellular network, never disable airplane mode

                      or
                      Let modern, well tested, baseband implementations handle connections to cellular network. This means using a supported iPhone or ideally a Pixel 8 and above with GrapheneOS

                      Are you sure that airplane is shutting the radios? i saw this question brought up many times and none evidence, other than graphene reps assuring that their coding blocks the cellular radio. still unclear why no real world verification available.

                                • Dde0u

                                  • Post #8

                                  Onlyfun Are you sure that airplane is shutting the radios? i saw this question brought up many times and none evidence, other than graphene reps assuring that their coding blocks the cellular radio. still unclear why no real world verification available.

                                  My hunch is that the situation is the way it is because:

                                  1. Nobody who does believe that airplane mode turns the cellular modem off has hired an RF engineer, or approached people at an Electrical Engineering department at a nearby university, or asked a ham radio operator, or asked a tech at a cellular-phone repair shop, to check.
                                  2. Nobody who doesn't believe that airplane mode turns the cellular modem off has hired an RF engineer, or approached people at an Electrical Engineering department at a nearby university, or asked a ham radio operator, or asked a tech at a cellular-phone repair shop, to check.

                                  For me it's not all that surprising if people who trust the official GrapheneOS statement aren't hiring RF engineers to verify what they already believe to be true. But what is a little surprising, and gets a little more surprising each time the issue is raised, is that people who don't trust the official GrapheneOS statement don't appear to be taking any action.

                                  Here's why this seems paradoxical to me. Right now the GrapheneOS project web site has a statement that clearly says that airplane mode disables the cellular modem. That statement doesn't convince some people. What if the GrapheneOS project web site added a statement saying "Airplane mode really really really disables the cellular modem! We hired an RF engineer to check! And it really really really does disable the cellular modem!!!". Would people who don't believe the current statement believe a longer statement with more details?

                                  Meanwhile, nothing at all stops anybody who is concerned from hiring an expert or finding a volunteer expert.

                                      Onlyfun but without being able to control you traffic how is using a pixel as a hotspot safer than a dedicated router?

                                      Having the possibility to control traffic is a different aspect. I was refering to security of a device connecting to cellular network - baseband firmware, regular (complete) security updates and system hardening. GOS on Pixels excels here. Mobile routers are much less common and therefore way less tested and possibly not maintained properly - something Google Pixels simply cannot afford as the backlash would be tremendous.

                                          IcyScroll I was refering to security of a device connecting to cellular network - baseband

                                          I'm referring to the same thing, but lack of control of the cellular channel. Gos team pronounces the cellular unsafe. Used to pronounce at least, in documentation, I can't find it now. so using a gos loaded pixel (with vpn on it) as ap means delegating traffic to unsafe cellular channel, that seems quiet a contradiction by the way. Of course client pixel can have a vpn too, but still some of it's traffic will bypass.

                                          IcyScroll Mobile routers are much less common and therefore way less tested and possibly not maintained properly

                                          Seriously? I agree they are not as common as stock pixel that's obvious from sales reported. I don't know gos pixel population but I don't think gos pixel can compete with mobile routers in popularity, imo.

                                              de0u Agree almost on all said. Except for I am actually surprised there are trusting users here.