Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Plans Cable Boxes with Integrated Wi-Fi and Snooping
Kaa writes "Short version: Comcast's cable modem/802.11g base station that is made by Linksys has capabilities to 'phone home' to Comcast and tell them how many devices are connected to your WiFi base station, how much bandwidth they are using, etc. It also has the capability to 'disable LAN segments' which, I assume, means they can kick your devices off your home network if they choose to do so. Something tells me this particular device won't make it into my house..."
Simple Solution:
Put a smoothwall box or another router between your home network and the new cable modem (as I'm sure many of us already do). Although the wireless access would be nice to use, 802.11b/g access points are pretty cheap these days.
Sure, the /. user won't want this in their house...
But the user who is too dumb to configure WiFi without Comcast's help needs this. This technology could let Comcast's techs lock down any access point who's not running WEP, and see to it that all the devices the customer has are taking their DHCP assignments properly. Of course, anybody reading this will know how to do these administrative tasks on their own, but those who are clueless can have trust Comcast configure their router and firewall to optimal settings.
If this cuts down the number of worm-vunerable computers on the Internet by letting those who don't know what they're doing hand the controls over to Comcast, I won't complain.
Simple, just put another firewall between that snoop box and your LAN.
Trolling is a art,
Why aren't bandwidth quotas sufficient?
The "disable LAN segments" thing sounds like it could be a security risk. DOS, anyone?
And the l33t shall inherit the 34r7h.
All this idea does is allow Comcast to suck even more money out of its customers without having to change the amount of money they spend per account.
Please do not let scientific accuracy interfere with the intended humourous/interesting/insightful value of this comment
* Enable viewing of LAN IP Device information obtained via the CableHome DHCP Portal (CDP)
* Enable viewing of the results of LAN IP Device performance monitoring done by the CableHome Test Portal (CTP)
* Provide the capability to disable LAN segments
I hope that at some point, we, as users, can vote with our wallets and stop this nonsense. The more we give into this kind of seller-bullying, the more we can expect.
Happy Trails!
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
There's no way that Comcast can require users of their cable Internet services to use cable modems provided by them. The FCC simply doesn't allow that...
So long you buy your own DOCSIS-compatible modem, you can attach whatever hardware to your network you want.
That's just evil. Count me out.
Can I bum a sig?
Unless I am a complete idiot.
But that type of feature could be usefull such as blocking a worm ridded PC from the Internet until it is cleaned and remote assisance and configuration with permision...if your ISP want to spy on you they can if they REALLY want to.this type of stuff has its uses.
Between this and them firing all of TechTV's staff, I see NO REASON why any geek worth his salt should use ANY SERVICE offered by this company.
Keep Austin Weird!
router @ compusa
cheapest i've seen considering there's no rebates involved...
2.4GHz 11Mbps Wireless Router with 4 Port Switch, 802.11b
Manufacturer: FMI
Mfg Part #: WE711APR
Product Number: 295106
Original Price: $89.99 (79% Off)
Regular Price: $69.88
Internet Special: $18.99
E V E R Y T H I N G I W R I T E I S F A L S E
This has the capability to 'disable LAN segments'.
Something tells me there's going to be a new worm out once someone finds a hole in this router.
Um. You realize that you can leave the wifi enabled and still use your own access point, right?
Don't only blame Comcast. If LinkSys is doing this in one device, what about others?
Their goal is to sell these expensive "home office" packages.
The way it works now is that they make it difficult to get a device online, you have to use their software to register the service.
I forget the details but I had to do some trickery for each machine on my network to get the cable modem to route traffic to them via my router. Occasionally devices 'unregister' and I have to run the comcast software again and pretend like I am a one system home.
I'm ditching comcast, my local ISP has fixed wireless now and I'm gonna go with the little guy and I've already picked up DirectTV AND I'll save $30 a month. Seeya comcast.
While this could have beneficial effects, (i.e. Comcast offering better tech support...though from past experience I HIGHLY doubt this.. "Yes we need you to unplug your computer 10 times, do the hokey pokey and turn yourself around."), I can also see the major disadvantages (monitoring my computer, having access to my computer, etc.) While I could prevent this with a firewall (and frankly I hate installing a firewall when I have my nice router firewall) most people just do not know what the deal is with computers and protections. Eh, while I use comcast (not really a better choice in my area) I can't say that I like them.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Call 1-800-Comcast and tell them that you won't be buying this garbage and are less happy with Comcast for even thinking of using this kind of big-brotherish technology on their own paying customers. If a lot of people call in to complain, they may think twice about rolling this out. For awhile, at least.
When I signed up for COMCAST broadband I was told I could have up to 5 computers connected (using a server assigned DHCP address on each machine)
Well, last week I got a letter from COMCAST telling me that they have determined I have more than on machine connected to my cable modem and that if I don't respond by June-something they will terminate any other IP addresses beyond one. Although, for and extra $9.99 a month, I can have up to 4 extra (5 total) IP address.
I think those sons-of-bitches are pulling a scam and have bait-and-switched me. I was very up-front with the rep when I signed up and told him I needed to have 5 computers connected and would that be a problem... "No, of course not," I was told, "You can connect up to 5 computers, we just don't support and LAN/ethernet-hub problems you might have."
FUCKING LIARS
Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
I Hate \.
I'm done with consumer/residential broadband. Blocked ports, slow connections, poor customer service, arbitrary limitations on use... It's just not worth it anymore. I've dealt with dead lines and clueless techs for too long.
Instead, I'm springing for commercial/business class service. The support is better, the speeds are higher, and the service is usually excellent (since businesses won't put up with the same garbage residential users will).
Consider this: a cable modem usually costs about $40-$50 a month for residential service including a single IP address and bandwidth caps. I can get 1536k x 256k commercial DSL for about $80 a month that includes web hosting, DNS, and 5 IP addresses. The extra $40 is not much, and you can offset that by selling access to your neighbor if you're so inclined (perfectly ok with most providers).
The above costs about as much as most people pay for a cable modem and cable TV, and quite frankly, I've found that lots of bandwidth is far more entertaining than lots of TV stations.
I'd list some companies that offer comparable service plans, but I don't want to look like an astroturfer. Hit Google and you'll find lots of nice options (as long as you live somewhere civilized ^_~)
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
This must explain the Comcast version of the "Big Brother" show. I was wondering why it always showed my own living room.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
From the press release...
Users who sign up for the service can receive a Linksys wireless gateway, along with network adapters for connecting up to five computers, professional installation, multiple levels of security, and increased downstream speed of up to 4Mbps.
Comcast's current peak downstream bandwidth for most customers is 3 Mbps. So, so far Comcast is actually offering to tweak upwards the bandwidth of people who pay for this service.
Of course, I've rarely found a website (other than my own) that actually feeds me data at a speed that's anywhere near 3 Mbps, so that extra space within 3 to 4 Mbps is rarely going to be used. Still, if you are somebody who frequenly maxes out the downstream on a Comcast modem, this might be of interest to you.
US Robitics cable modems burst into flame upon connection.
Local FBI agents walking down the street now greet you by first name.
"they can kick your devices off your home network" means that your toaster, radio, blanket, and vacuum have left home never to return.
Reality TV shows feature different rooms in your house.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
This has got to stop.
I'm sure someone here will post about one of the lucky few localities with cable competition. The prices are lower, the house calls are faster, etc. And I seriously doubt they would get away with spying on their customers' home networks.
If there is one thing to be learned from Comcast, it's that they have an IMMENSE subscriber base. Outrage is commonplace. But it's also important to not let it consume you. It seems like over at Comcast, there are like "too many chefs in the kitchen" sometimes. Every now and then, one of these chefs will do something that is extremely unpopular. It takes a little while, and then things fall back into place the way they should.
In any case, Comcast does eventually get the message, but you may have to speak somewhat louder or go down to the office yourself, or write the "right person" a letter, describing your problem.
So while you, as an individual, may have to, at some point, stand up and assert your rights in the face of an immense company such as Comcast, the important thing is to do it with conviction, to not panic, and to maintain a level-headed approach to the whole situation.
There is nothing worse than being constantly dragged into these massive online bitching sessions that explore every possible worst-case scenario from every possible angle.
The most important thing to do with Comcast is to remain calm, and chill out, while trying to stay informed. This, unfortunately, is a serious challenge, because the information that you need to know is usually buried in a veritable hastack of hatred and negative emotions. It's unfortunate, really.
Eventually, when there are options, other options, for those folks who don't live within the necessary distance from the CO, or, when Comcast learns that many very technically knowledgable users don't have a choice when it comes to broadband access (whichever comes first), then these problems are going to go away, for good. The sooner the better.
I think Comcast has come a long way towards making things more friendly for alternative OS's and do-it-yourself home networking, and I have a feeling that these two things will be around to stay. That's just my feeling.
Try to use 3 Mbit/sec for an extended length of time, and see what happens. Chances are, you'll get a nast-gram in the mail saying "You're using too much bandwidth!, 3Mbit/sec is the name of our service, not a description!".
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
Comcast on the whole is not that bad. They actually had a knowledgable tech out here to help get shit set up. The problem exists at the corporate level where policy is made. They have stuff set up upstream to make it so that only Windows and Mac machines can use their service. The tech here got them to disable that for me.
I currently have the Wireless Gateway that they are discussing and while I don't know about the stuff they claim it can do, I do know a little about it's use.
192.168.0.0/24 == NAT range used.
192.168.0.1 == Router admin interface
192.168.100.1 == Router tech summary interface
Both those interfaces == HTTP. Both interfaces use the same password by default.
User: comcast
Pass: 1234
That's the default. They also recommend at install time that you don't change that.
I think that's fishy as hell so that was the first thing I changed. Luckily the tech here on site was competant enough to ask me what WEP key I wanted to use and let me pick whatever phrase I wanted. That showed intelligence.
On the whole, I have no complaints with them. If they fuck with my service, maybe I'll have problems. But Charter (local competition) isn't much better.
hrrm.
Even worse. It will allow them to snoop on your devices if you NEIGHBOR gets this device. Consider this scenario A well behaved device would never do this, but, if Comcast decides to shut down Vonage, your neighbor could "notice" that you are using Vonage and generate disruptive traffic. Provided they meerly disrupted you, rather than tapped your line, it's even within the class of FCC license granted to your receiver. You know that "must accept any interference" clause?
This may not be such a bad thing for the stupid user who does not secure their network and is sending a gazillion emails per minute via their back-doored machine.
Comcast and other cable companies have already tried the "pay per computer, not necessarily per modem" billing concept and have failed miserably. What they are realizing now (or should be realizing!) is that they need more granular control over the machines on their networks. So if that means granting them the capability to disable offending machines, then so be it.
Regardless, there are dozens of ways to circumvent this altogether if they get out of hand with it. If they manage to keep Joe P Dumbass from spreading virii and spam, have it it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have one device connected to my cable modem. Comcast supports this device. My router. I pay (a good amount of money) for this bandwidth. My one computer alone cannot use all of this bandwidth. But my laptop, desktop and playstation can do that. So if I choose to utilize the full amount of bandwidth comcast SELLS me I should use it how I see fit (with the exception of illegal activities). Comcast's typical billing model of PER DEVICE is mainly geared towards TV's, though they do acknowledge people get one cable box (in some areas where required) and connect the rest of the house through a cat-5 cable. It is funny though, when I tell comcast I do not want the cable box they tell me its not physically possible for me to watch Cable TV without it. Then I tell them I am presently doing that and they get the clueless deer look.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
I love how you can characterize anyone who isn't intimately familiar with wireless networking hardware and protocols "dumb" and get modded up for it on Slashdot. I have friends who are doctors, lawyers and some who hold doctorates in engineering fields, yet they give up on setting up wireless networks after about maybe 10 minutes of trying and being frustrated. Do you know why they don't persist? Because the world is full of high school dropout IT monkeys like yourself to do this, so that the truly smart and educated can concentrate on important problems in society and science.
Welcome our new Cable-TV Overlords.
Sorry, I couldn't resist, I haven't posted one of these before, but it just fit sooo well.
The new CableModems specific purpose is so that Comcast can sell add-on units that they also control. Think Cable DVR equipment that can also be accessed by your computer (through these protocols). With all far-reaching technologies, including this one, there is a lot of potential for abuse. However, if abuse occurs, a lot of folks will be signing up for DSL or Satellite service (where DSL is not also available).
Bottom line... this will allow comcast to sell Network Appliances. They make money, $$. If Time Warner were doing this first, I'd be much more prone to believe the "RIAA conspirists". If AT&T (no longer part of ComCast) were still involved, I might be more worried about Vonage devices.
At the same time, this will enable Comcast to sell their own VoIP (like vonnage) devices for their own telephone service. Basically, home cable-extension appliances are not new, but they are just starting to get popular. This technology will enable that sector to grow.
As commonly said here... follow the money. I see money in additional in-home networking appliances, like Cable-Radio (delphi style) - - if you don't pay for it, they can cut off that "segment".
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
It won't happen. That's just wrong. Everyone hates Comcast; that's what's going on.
Please remember that there are people who use Comcast on a daily basis and by targeting Comcast with these nonsensical imaginary worst-case scenarios that everyone does, the end-users of Comcast are being taregeted as well.
So while you may not like Comcast, you should respect that many people who use Comcast don't have a choice in the matter ATM.
Linux is OK. Home networking is OK. If you go to Comcast's home page, and if you go to their online forums, you will see that these things are widely talked about and widely discussed. Comcast encourages and enables it.
Remember, when you "bash" Comcast, you are also affecting the users of Comcast, many of which don't have a choice.
I just try to encourage everyone to chill out and not over-react, like everyone does, when it comes to Comcast. Everyone hates Comcast, but most of the people that use it don't have a choice! That's what really kind of makes it a bad situation.
On the one hand, "bashers" expect Comcast to "get a clue" about respecting other people's privacy, but while "bashing", these folks don't respect that people who use Comcast DON'T, often times, have a choice. So it's like getting reamed twice: Once by Comcast, who insist on providing everyone the "broadband for dummies", and don't "officially" recognize that there are non-dummies out there who can't get DSL, and twice by the "bashers", who try to imagine the worst horror stories imaginable in order to prove how awful Comcast is. What they don't realize is that many folks just DON'T HAVE A CHOICE.
Like it or not, what most users want is broadband. With Comcast, that's what you get. It's fast, it's reliable, and it kicks. Home networking, no problem. Linux, BSD, no problem. Gigs upon gigs upon gigs of download, no problem.
Now, OK, they don't allow servers, but most ISPs don't allow servers.
Comcast is OK. I think what's going on is that it's just such a huge company that one hand doesn't realize what the other is doing sometimes, so they come up with stupid policies like "no VPN" or trying to set bandwidth limits that don't exist, stuff like that. But in both of those cases, they backed down. So it's a bumpy road, but overall, the worst thing is having to try to get the facts when everyone is trying to scare the living daylights out of you with doomsday scenarious. Honestly, it's other people's posts that have to be the worst thing about being a Comcast customer not by choice. Seems like it, anyway.
No, it just means you have to deal with it if the shielding is insufficient. Most consumer grade electronics specify this.
Disclaimer: I am a Comcast employee. I am not trying to defend this product/standard/company, but will clarify a few things.
The cablehome pro standard shown in the article show what it can do, but not what Comcast is actually doing. What is currently implemented does not intrude in the ways suggested. Comcast employees can view basic information like current DHCP leases, # of WLAN clients and router config (parental settings, etc) The cablehome standard implementation is currently very limited, only in certain areas at this time.
I also want to say that I disagree with many Comcast policies, but we don't care what is connected to the gateway unit. The gateway is set in the firmware to only give 5 DHCP leases. If one wants more devices they need to set it staticly, but non-Comcast installed devices are not supported anyway.
Also keep in mind who this product is marketed to - the average family lacking the technical ability to configure their own wireless network.
Do you think that Comcast is trying to control WiFi sharing? Some people are not as tech-savvy, but wish to share their connections with the world. Now I could be totally off-base here, but if you happen to share your cablemodem connection with your neighbor, then they can "disable" that LAN segment...
-- Friends don't let friends buy Nokia.
These people are your ISP. Don't all your packets have to go through their routers to get anywhere?
Can't they monitor all your traffic there just as well as they can at the cable modem?
Couldn't they disable any system on your network by MAC filtering?
Because Comcast is saying they'll monitor/control your use of the WAP, does that mean they'll take responsibility if someone parks outside my house, cracks my WEP, and starts up a file-sharing service that gets the RIAA more pissed than hornets?
;)
At least, that's the cover story I'd give when they came knocking on my door.
Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
Damn, was a ll set to moderate, but just had to comment.
This is even more of a reason to support community owned infrastructures such as UTOPIA in Utah, and the iProvo network in Provo. Utah can and is wrong on so many social issues, but this one they actually got right. So much so that Comcast and Qwest are lobbying HEAVLY to prevent such a network from going into place. They (Comcast and Qwest) have succeeded in scaring away Salt Lake City from the initative, an I suspect many more. >br>
I may dispise with a fiery passion the local Univiersity that makes Provo its home, but iProvo has already been given approval and should be city wide in 2 years. A very BIG incentive for me to stay here in Utah and live in Provo.
Because becoming an expert in this field is a full-time job. That's why IT is a profession. You're not an expert electrician or carpenter or bricklayer or plumber (and even if you are one of those, I doubt you're 2 or 3 of them) and you still live in a modern house. Why do you call in contractors to modify that house when it's only a matter of buying some lumber and pounding nails into the right places?
Yeah - I did the same.
:P
Speakeasy even allows you to sell wi-fi net access to your neighbors and gives you a 50% discount to run it and provide the support. I wonder what they'd do if I paid my neighbor $20 monthly to do this, tho - thus decreasing my net cost from $90 to $65 and giving him access for free
This is the final straw, Comcast has dared too much. They are evil and must be stopped! Boycott them for this atrocity.
The next step would be them installing Spyware/Adware on your system to track what web sites you visit and create more pop-ups.
I have a DSL router shared between several systems. My ISP is paid for my bandwidth, if I happen to choose to share that bandwidth between my several systems, they do not have a right to restrict my access as I was promised "Unlimited Access" via DSL by their marketing department.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
I can say with authority that these devices suck. They have custom firmware with the vast majority of the normal Linksys functionality stripped out. The end user isn't even supposed to be able to access the web interface. (The login is comcast/1234 if anybody needs it...) About the only good thing is that they come with WEP enabled with no key by default, so if the install technician (who usually knows only slightly more than the end user) forgets to go in and set a WEP key, no wireless clients can connect. I'm not even sure it's possible to disable WEP on them... I know it's not through the normal technician 'install' interface, but there is an avanced WEP screen I haven't played with too much.
Comcast wants to charge something to the effect of $20 for the network + $10 per additional computer monthly, depending on your region. They want the install technicians to call in the MAC of each connected device, which are stored in the space in Comcast's system where additional outlet information usually goes. I am not sure whether this actually does anything. One of Comcast's lead technicians explained to me that the first time they went out (3 of them) to try to get one of these devices installed, they spent 6 hours working on it, only to discover that the problem was they hadn't called in the MAC addresses. Contrast that with my own experience, having installed 4 of these (showing the contractor's techs how to do it), all of which have worked just fine wireless without calling in the MACs. I don't know if that's a permanent solution though, in each case the customer took my recommendation that they get a normal cable modem and buy their own router to save money, so we removed all 4 of the ones I installed within a day or two. (Obviously I won't be telling you exactly who I am, someone at Comcast might be reading this...)
Anyways, if they've got some grand scheme to restrict access to approved and payed-for devices, it looks to me like it's not working yet...
You have a good point. As there are always legitamate uses for most types of router configurations. However, the scope of my argument addresses the network installations put forth by unknowlegable end-users who either dont bother to secure their networks or just flat-out don't care.
This is why there is a "vacuum" so to speak in the industry for cable administered wireless routers for home users. Which at the same time allows for the "give them an inch, and they will take a mile" ability of the major carriers controlling these devices.
This could be solved, however, by the Netgears, Lynksyses, and D-links, to put more emphasis on security on their products. And have the installation wizards start out secure and open up with installation, not close down with installation if you follow me.
....move along....nothing to see here....
Direcway has recently switched over to their DW6000 adapter that has these same snooping features. I think that in the future they want to be able to charge you on a "per device" basis. I stuck a hardware firewall between the sat modem and my network. Only one outside observable IP that way. Seems to be working, so far...
All the blind "OMFG THEY'RE KILLING TECHTV!!!111" nonsense has been the inspiration of my new sig.
Short answer... of course not.
Comcast sent out a tech to install this stuff, but they never gave any indication to my dad that he was now hosting free internet access to the neighbors, et al. Warchalking, here we come!
but seriously... you'd think that Comcast would ensure that their techs left a secure configuration, with SSID/WEP or some other form of security enabled on a customer-specific basis, instead of just leaving the default "linksys" configuration (not to mention admin:admin password on the box itself).
Fixed that little issue quickly. If for no other reason that to avoid a panic phone call 3 months from now when my Dad finally reads an article about how folks can steal internet access through an unsecured WiFi gateway, and calls me in a panic that someone could be breaking into the home computer and stealing his high scores on solitaire and copies of the letter to Aunt Edna.
Sigh... the things we do for our parents. Grin.
The last time I wrote code, it was Morse
That sounds good in theory but Comcast is already involved in intrusive user monitoring and arbitrary discrimination against a significant base of potential users who have no access at all for lack of cost-effective alternative. Furthermore, Comcast has a lock on sufficient market share in enough areas that they don't have to fear anything short of competition from another cable broadband provider. DSL costs 3 times as much for anything even approaching cable bandwidth if you can get it, and satellite service is expensive, slow, and unreliable. It is cable broadband or nothing for a lot of people.
The idea that Comcast will, if they are allowed the capability, commit widespread abuses againt their users is hardly FUD, it is a demonstrated fact, and lawsuits notwithdtanding, it continues apace. They are become a monster, and must be stopped. I will be leading an effort against them starting with the state Public Service Commission and State Attorney General myself. We'll see how far it gets, but it far past time this industry experienced some regulation. Minimally, they must be required to provide the services their victims have paid for, and prohibited from stealing data from their users. Their propensity to do both these things is already manifest, and not simply FUD.
Indeed. The $1 Billion M$ invested in Comcast that allowed them to purchase ATT cable networks speaks volumes all by itself. Combine that with their obvious intent to follow AOL's "never delete a user account if you have a valid account number for it, cause you can bill that account til hell freezes over and then prosecute the user" subscription model, and I think if there were an alternative to Comcast for any of their victims, those victims would be customers of that alternative already.
It is the money trail that proves the allegations are not FUD at all.
"The Internet is made of cats."