Comcast To Expand Public WiFi Using Home Internet Connections

Bob the Super Hamste writes "The St. Paul Pioneer press is reporting that Comcast is planning on expanding its network of public WiFi hot spots in the Twin Cities area by using home internet connections and user's WiFi routers. Customers will be upgraded to new wireless routers that will have 2 wireless networks, one for the home users and one for the general public. Subscribers to Comcast's Xfinity service and customers that participate in the public WiFi program will be allowed free access to the public WiFi offered by this service. Non Comcast customers get 2 free sessions a month each lasting 1 hour with additional sessions costing money. The article mentions that a similar service already exists and is provided by the Spain-based company Fon."

Comments

BT also does this

[richard.cs]

In the UK BT does this. Their customers can use any of the hotspots for free and everyone else has to pay, no free hour.

Re:BT also does this

[petermgreen]

You connect and then you have to login. No login means no route to the internet.

If someone else is already using the "public" side of the access point when you want to connect then you could probably hijack their session by cloning their IP and mac address but if only the "private" side is in use that option is ruled out.

Re:How about no

[tattood]

FTFA:

Security. Properly configured, a router with public-access Wi-Fi should not represent a security risk for those on the router's private and secure network. The technical reasons for this are a bit complicated; read an Open Wireless Movement explanation at openwireless.org.

Service degradation. Those using the slower public portion of a home router typically won't degrade performance on the faster private side. Future routers would speed up public access when the private side isn't being used and give the private network priority if required.

Legal liability. Those who fear being blamed for misuse of their public Wi-Fi signals are said to be protected under a "safe harbor" doctrine akin to that protecting Internet service providers. In other words, they're likely not liable for the mischief of porn purveyors or music pirates.

Freeloading. Fear of freeloaders is misplaced, the Open Wireless Movement believes. "Sharing capacity helps everyone," it says. "If you've ever been without Internet access and needed to check an email, you will remember how useful open networks can be in a pinch."

Re:Safe Harbor = Safe Downloads?

[edelbrp]

You aren't liable for *somebody else's* illegal activity on your modem.

You certainly are for your own and remember you have to authenticate if you want to use more than two sessions per month. Being that it is a public network, I imagine all net neutrality goes out the window. They might only allow two services: web and email, and all packet poking/peeking is fair game.

If they find lots of illegal activity coming through your modem the police wouldn't flinch to issue a search warrant at your front door. But, don't worry if it wasn't you. It will be you spouse, child, roommate, etc. who will go to jail after the police haul all the computer equipment in your home away as evidence.

Re:Overrated?

[CodeBuster]

You do realize that the WRT54GL, the L being for "Linux", is still sold brand new by Cisco using the old style Linksys enclosure and branding, right? They do this because the WRT54G line was and still is popular with users who prefer alternative and open source Linux firmwares. So there's no need to go picking at yard sales for an old WRT54G when you can get a brand new one for less than $50 that both Tomato and DD-WRT will run on.