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:BT also does this

[michelcolman]

Same thing in Belgium with Telenet. Works quite well. You can close the extra channel if you want, but then they also revoke your access to other people's base stations. You only get access if you also provide access yourself. Which doesn't cost you anything except maybe a tiny bit of electricity.

Re:BT also does this

[michelcolman]

No, it's a separate channel so it's about the same effect whether they're using my base station or my neighbour's, it only affects the "big pipe" to our neighbourhood.

Re:BT also does this

[jackharrer]

You connect second router (or access point) to one of LAN ports and switch on wifi power saving on the BT hub. You have access to free access points and you do not share yours. Which doesn't matter all that much as those BT WiFI and OpenZone hotspots are slow and suck donkey's balls. 3G is faster than most of them and with better coverage.

Re:BT also does this

[OdinOdin_]

No... it maybe a separate ATM channel or something used for low level encapsulation by DSL service, but it still has to run over the same Signal-to-Noise ratio that is possible for the physical DSL line BT use between the DSL modem and the exchange.

So indeed you have the share bandwidth, since the public side will be eating bandwidth out of the maximum possible bandwidth for the given signal-to-noise ratio of the physical line. Well this is true for ASDL2+ services (upto 24Mbit) that have historically run most BT.Fon access points. If you are 8 Kilometers from the exchange maybe you can only get 2Mbit services, where as if you are under 500m you can get over 20Mbit.

Now BT have an VDSL service running 100Mbit and maybe more, I am not yet lucky enough to be able to order this service as the exchange upgrade cycle has not yet completed in my area. In this scenario it might be said that it doesn't matter if the public side eats some bandwidth since there is plenty for 2+ people to stream video. A single user can easily max out a 24Mbit services for some periods of time.

Re:BT also does this

[michelcolman]

Telenet is not DSL but coax cable (using the cable that used to be used only for TV). Capacity does go down if lots of people in the neighbourhood use it at the same time, but it doesn't matter whether they are using my modem (on the public channel) or someone else's. At least not according to Telenet. So they're not using "my" capacity, but obviously it can have an effect on the capacity of the local part of the network.

How about no

[YrWrstNtmr]

Does no work for you?

Many, many issues abound here. How secure is the separation between the two networks? What protections do I have in case of someone using my connection maliciously? How will this affect my total bandwidth and speed?

Re:How about no

[drinkypoo]

I beg your pardon, but it looks awfully like you're currently trusting your ISP's router. Are you sure that you are entirely sane?

Re:How about no

[drinkypoo]

I beg your pardon, but it looks awfully like you're currently trusting a router you purchased yourself. Are you sure that you are entirely sane?

Give me a little credit, I'm running dd-wrt and I keep it updated.

Seriously, someone who's ben arund as long as you apparently have should know better than to think that consumer equipment of all shapes and sizes don't have similar backdoors built into them

And that's why I'm running a FOSS firmware image. I buy routers at yard sales, then bin or resell the ones that won't run dd-wrt or tomato.

Re:How about no

[gnasher719]

Many, many issues abound here. How secure is the separation between the two networks? What protections do I have in case of someone using my connection maliciously? How will this affect my total bandwidth and speed?

In the UK, it's voluntary, and it's your payment for being able to use free WiFi everywhere. How secure is it? Well, your WiFi is broadcasting anyway, so how secure do you think _that_ is? If someone uses your connection maliciously - can you think of a better alibi? Yes, your WiFi is used, and your Internet bandwidth is used.

Re:How about no

[Dahamma]

It you had RTFA they addressed all of your questions already.

Re:How about no

[mrbester]

In addition there is QoS running so the internal network NIC has priority over the open one.

Re:How about no

[Igarden2]

What could possibly go wrong??

Re:How about no

[binarylarry]

Put your own router between you and it.

Personally, I like this idea.

Re:How about no

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been happy with Asus-WRT Merlin. I've tried all three of the firmwares you listed and I get faster speeds and all the features I care about.

Re:How about no

[rsmith84]

My router runs DD-WRT and my SSID is not being broadcast publicly. Then again I have a paranoid obsession with security and logic.

Re:How about no

[ron_ivi]

You're still welcome to run a ddt-wrt box *behind* your ISPs router (not unlike what you're already doing). They just want to put one more of their routers on your side of the last-mile.

Re:How about no

[Jane Q. Public]

"Does no work for you?"

Yes, "no" works for me, but for completely different reasons.

I already do this, using my own cable adapter and my own router. And it is free for my neighbors and passersby to use. No charges from Comcast or anybody else. I do it as a free public service.

And you have NO LEGAL LIABILITY for strangers using your Wi-Fi to perform illegal acts without your permission. Any more than an "internet cafe" does. People use it as they please, and they are responsible for their own actions. There have been many, many court cases over this by now.

Think about it. If somebody came into your yard without explicit permission, grabbed your lawn de-thatching tool, and hit somebody over the head with it, would you be "liable" for murder? Hell, no. Nor are you liable, generally speaking, if you (legally) loan someone your gun and they shoot somebody with it. Unless of course you knew their intent ahead of time and loaned it to them specifically for doing that. But we're talking here about somebody doing something without your foreknowledge.

So why should a router be any different? (Hint: it isn't.)

By the way: the EFF recommends doing this as a courtesy to your neighbors and the public, and assures you that there is no liability.

Again generally speaking, about the only time you are liable for someone's unauthorized use of your tools is when it is an automobile, and even that law is on pretty shaky legal ground.

Re:How about no

[Jane Q. Public]

I should also add that the DMCA has a specific safe-harbor provision that protects providers of an internet service from liability for what users do with it. There is nothing in the law saying the service has to be commercial or for-profit. So your ass is covered.

Re:How about no

[raju1kabir]

Many, many issues abound here. How secure is the separation between the two networks? What protections do I have in case of someone using my connection maliciously? How will this affect my total bandwidth and speed?

Dutch cable ISP Ziggo does this. There's a separate 10mbps for the public hotspots that doesn't come out of your own capacity. Guests also use a different IP, and of course they have to log in so their usage can be tracked back to their home account.

Re:How about no

[icebike]

I think if your look at your existing TOS this would be spelled out as not allowed, so legal or not, they could drop you if it became obvious.
Of course, that will disappear from Comcast's agreement once this gets implemented.

A lot of comcast routers already come set up with a guest account. These are on a separate Vnet, and "can't" access your stuff. (Can't until someone hackes it that is). And, previously, you couldn't access this unless the home owner gave you their guest password.

Now they are going to make that last bit un-necessary for users that opt in.
I think its a great idea, as long as its fully firewalled.

But still you would think they have to affect your bandwidth. And a gamer or downloader of large files might notice.
Personally I would seldom be inconvenienced by this unless it started to seriously eat into my speed.

Re:How about no

[tattood]

What does this solve? Your traffic still goes through the ISP router after it goes through your router. Your solution only solves one of the 3 questions asked by GP.

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:How about no

[drinkypoo]

Tomato or open-wrt are the only firmwares worth using.

I don't like how infrequently tomato gets updated, or how fragmented the tomato landscape is.

Re:How about no

[mattventura]

I'm more curious about how they enforce the "two free one-hour sessions". Sounds like it would be possible (although maybe inconvenient) to get unlimited free wifi from this.

Re:How about no

[Bing Tsher E]

The secure thing to do would be to put the Comcast router in a Faraday Cage. Put a wifi bridge inside the cage with it that has a wireless link to your own Router outside the Faraday Cage.

Anything else is a security risk.

This would probably be a viable business idea, a small cage to house the router as a turnkey product.

Re:How about no

[Bing Tsher E]

Correction: "...a wifi bridge inside the cage with a hardwired link to your own Router..."

Re:How about no

[KGIII]

Thank you. I was scrolling through hoping someone had answered that. I can't imagine they'll offer *me* anything like this service/feature but it's a question that I had concerning this. I'd be worried (assuming I lived somewhere that this is possible) that there would be people using my 'net and slowing it down. That is, well, if I were in an area where I'd be invited to make use of this feature. Here? You'd have to drive a long ways down the road, a long ways up my driveway, and then you could connect. An alternative would be some sort of moose-mesh wireless network, perhaps squirrels would be better though.

Anyhow, in my case at least, if you were to want to use the wireless you'd probably be better served by coming in for a drink while you're here. I can't really imagine someone coming all this way to access a public wireless access point. ;) I was still curious about QoS though, I wasn't sure how that would work or if they'd even bothered thinking about it.

Do you know if the consumer can configure it? Perhaps having some scheduling for allowing it to impact your bandwidth to some extent or maybe configuring it so that it allowed X% of bandwidth during evening hours, more during the day when you're not home, or less on weekends or that sort of setup?

Re:How about no

[Zontar The Mindless]

FTFA:

....
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.
 

Say the weasel words, and Harpo will fly down with $100.

Re:How about no

[Zontar The Mindless]

Has this been tested in court?

If not, then, no, your ass is not covered.

Re:How about no

[Zontar The Mindless]

I liked it better when you were describing how to construct a really fancy air gap, myself.

Re:How about no

[Raenex]

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.

That won't be much comfort when law enforcement executes a search warrant and seizes my network equipment and computers. They won't do it to big-name ISPs, but they'll do it to Joe Blow homeowner.

Re:How about no

[Jane Q. Public]

"Has this been tested in court?"

Only about a thousand times.

Okay, maybe that's an exaggeration. But not much. Big companies like Google (YouTube) rely on that provision all the time.

Re:How about no

[Jane Q. Public]

"I think if your look at your existing TOS this would be spelled out as not allowed, so legal or not, they could drop you if it became obvious."

Probably true, but it would likely never "become obvious" unless there were a lawsuit or something.

"But still you would think they have to affect your bandwidth. And a gamer or downloader of large files might notice. Personally I would seldom be inconvenienced by this unless it started to seriously eat into my speed."

Where I live, just about everybody has their own routers. The only traffic I have noticed is the occasional passerby, and one neighbor's laptop occasionally connects, presumably because my signal is stronger than the next one over.

Only once have I caught anybody abusing the service; a girl from across the street was using my open internet to download music. I saw she was doing that from my logs. (I checked the logs because somebody was using a bit of bandwidth.)

I put an .mp3 file on the guest network where she could find it, with a fake title. It was a recording of my voice, calling her by name, and telling her to not download anymore via my account. I think it freaked her out. Never had another problem.

Re:How about no

[Molochi]

You could ground your foil surfaced insulation... It'd be like a tin foil hat for your house.

Re:How about no

[davester666]

More importantly, why are we being forced to subsidize our ISP's sideline by paying for the electricity and providing the physical security for their public network?

Re:How about no

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Sure, you could win in court, but that won't stop you being sent invoices by lawyers looking to make a quick buck, accusing you of downloading porn. I doubt the police will bother to check if you have this service before arresting you on suspicion of downloading child pornography either. You may eventually be found innocent but by that point the damage has already been done.

Re:How about no

[arth1]

Non-broadcasting SSID, MAC filtering and WEP serve the same purpose as door locks. They do little to stop criminals, but they help keeping honest people honest.

And,a wildebeest doesn't need to be able to outrun a lion; only outrun its neighbour wildebeest. Unless you are specifically targeted, you only need to have better protection than your neighbour.

And if you're specifically targeted, it's not the WiFi router that is going to save you. A hard shell only means there will be other, softer parts. Turtles are awfully tasty. You need security from the ground up, inside your network.

Re:How about no

[supremebob]

Funny... I don't remember Comcast reimbursing me for extra electricity that their fancy new public hotspot router is using.

Given their love of tacking fees to my cable bill, I would have figured that there would be a credit on there somewhere...

Re:How about no

[ionymous]

It's not "extra" electricity, it's the amount of electricity you agreed to pay for by signing up for Comcast's services.
They are not forcing you to use their service.

Re:How about no

[ejasons]

Okay, maybe that's an exaggeration. But not much. Big companies like Google (YouTube) rely on that provision all the time.

You're not Google...

Should someone download CP using your connection, you're being naive if you think that it's not likely that some prosecutor will decide to go after you. It is not a cut-and-dried issue, as you imply...

Re:How about no

[Jane Q. Public]

Repeat: THE LAW says nothing about being a "commercial" service, or doing it for profit. Coffeeshops across the nation also rely on this law. And I don't mean just the big chains.

This law protects YOU. For a change. It is one of the few -- just 2 off the top of my head -- provisions of the DMCA that are actually on the side of good.

And it's not like it hasn't been tried in the courts already. It has.

Re:How about no

[binarylarry]

Other people won't be connecting into your device, you can firewall them like the Internet.

i.e. it may be harder for them to get into your network.

Data you send over the internet is inherently insecure (use encryption).

Re:How about no

[mrbester]

Nope, it's locked to prefer the internal connections. Those freeloading get slowed (to nothing if necessary).

My walls don't let the signal out more than about a fathom from my house so it's a win-win for me...

Re:How about no

[KGIII]

Thanks.

Re:How about no

[OdinOdin_]

It goes out via a separate channel and never looks like you from the perspective of the Internet, different IP etc... Maybe even Carrier Grade NAT.

But sure the possibility exists for a firmware but that somehow allows a public wifi user to gain excess to something that should not have been allowed. But I've not heard of such a far todate. BTs technical department can be pretty good with their specify and testing of customer premise equipment so, i.e. they perform actual testing and verification of the equipment many months prior to the roll out of the first piece of equipment.

However the overall feature set of the BT routers is poor, even if to the less savvy Internet users it does everything it says on the tin is easy to setup and is reliable.

So the cutomers get a kick back?

[future assassin]

I mean you're using my house and internet connections to make money from me. I"d expect 50% commission.

Re:So the cutomers get a kick back?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean you're using my house and internet connections to make money from me. I"d expect 50% commission.

The kickback is that you get to use the service yourself when you're not in your own home. FTFA:

customers that participate in the public WiFi program will be allowed free access to the public WiFi offered by this service

Re:So the cutomers get a kick back?

[pspahn]

But don't you also get the service to use for yourself? It seems like a superficially fair trade-off, though, it very well may not be.

What if this technology leads to the obsolescence of the standard cell-phone plan? Why pay an additional $75/mo (or whatever you pay these days, I haven't had a cell phone in years) when you can just have your own non-cellphone Android device that can piggy back on readily available WiFi to make phone calls and sends texts with VOIP? That's basically what I do now. I have a $50/mo 4g mobile hotspot and use my Android "MP3" player for Google Voice. My internet works all around the city I live in (and is stretching to the suburbs fairly well also) so I usually have a number that people can reach me at. The latency doesn't provide the cleanest of voice calls, but then again, I don't really care. If you need to get a hold of me, leave me a voice mail and I will get back to you (from a land-line at work, etc). I don't like being expected to answer a phone call 24/7.

Re: So the cutomers get a kick back?

[alen]

Out in the burbs they have separate residential and commercial areas. So it's unlikely you will be out and about and get free wifi everywhere

Re:So the cutomers get a kick back?

[Aryden]

In my area, there are maybe 2-3 houses in total using comcast for internet, it's all verizon fios or dsl.

Re:So the cutomers get a kick back?

[petermgreen]

Service piggybacked on home wifi without externally mounted access points is going to suck unless you are very close to the house from which is served. Wifi is a pretty short range system as it is and the external walls of the house. I doubt there will be any decent handoff support either and I think it is likely we will see several competing systems.

So to use it you will have to find a house with a good signal and then stay there while you use it. Like with the old "rabbit phones" but unlike the old rabbit phones they won't be signposted and it will be difficult to receive incoming communications.

Re:So the cutomers get a kick back?

[unrtst]

So the customers get a kick back?

Yes. The kick back is that you get to use all the other wifi hotspots that are setup the same way by other customers for free (or, as part of your package). It actually seems like a decent little "give some, get a lot back" type of setup, except the part where they allow random users that aren't contributing hotspots to the system (but they do charge them and, at least hypothetically, that could be going towards maintenance/bandwidth/etc**).

** no, I'm not naive. This is the part they want to profit off of. The mutual agreement to share wifi networks could have been setup by anyone without a carriers involvement, or they could have set it up without an additional profit motivation, but that's not the case. This gives them a selling point; it keeps people from putting money into other networks pockets (keep them on comcast networks); it widens their grasp; it's a cheap grab at a potentially giant amount of wifi hotspots for nearly free; and it's a potential money maker on people that aren't participating; and later one, they can flip the switch and upcharge existing customers.

Re:So the cutomers get a kick back?

[fustakrakich]

Be grateful they don't just pull the plug when you get all uppity like that.

This whole thing is a scam to pacify those calling for municipal WiFi and eliminating monopolies... It's too bad it will probably work

Re:So the cutomers get a kick back?

[pspahn]

Indeed, fair enough. I was mostly picturing my above post in a world a few years more advanced than the one we live in now.

Better WiFi (or WiMax, etc) should allow this eventually.

Re:So the cutomers get a kick back?

[L4t3r4lu5]

You get to use the same service on any other technology-enabled access point on the network, wherever you are.

BT-FON in the UK is wonderful. I have used WiFi all over the country because my home connection advertised FON capability; Anyone else on BT Internet advertises it by default. I have FTTC; I can afford to lend out a couple of Mb in order to get that kind of service while out and about. I don't mind because where I live is densely residential, so likely nobody would use it. If they do, I've not noticed.

Re:So the cutomers get a kick back?

[sociocapitalist]

I mean you're using my house and internet connections to make money from me. I"d expect 50% commission.

Okay we won't double your connection fee

Re:So the cutomers get a kick back?

[petermgreen]

Edit: apparently the old rabbit phones couldn't take incoming calls either.

Re:So the cutomers get a kick back?

[trigpoint]

Most are in residential areas and will have very little usage, unless someone is visiting a neighbour occasionally. If you live next door to a B & B, a pub, cafe, or a layby where truckers stay overnight then your experience will be no doubt different. You are still sharing the bandwidth and I would expect a very small number of these access points get most of the usage.

Re:So the cutomers get a kick back?

[L4t3r4lu5]

I wouldn't be surprised. I would point out, however, that it is entirely possible to disable the service while you are at home and enable it when you leave. All you need do is complete a short web form.

easier

[Todd Palin]

Great idea. My neighbor keeps changing his password. This would be a lot easier.

Re:easier

[Bing Tsher E]

For the longest time my neighbor didn't have his router secured. It was on Comcast, and after awhile it was 'secured' by the browser bringing up a 'Login' page the first time you tried to use it. That was easily solved by setting the DNS for my connection to 4.2.2.1 and I had free access again. Now it has regular security though.

I seldom used it, but when in the backyard, their signal was stronger than mine.

Re:easier

[gl4ss]

Great idea. My neighbor keeps changing his password. This would be a lot easier.

fonera etc prices for non-sharing participators are.. well, they tend to be fucking expensive. you would get your own cable for far cheaper.

Comcast Router? I think not

[Rastl]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why you buy your own router instead of renting one from the cable provider.

let me get this straight.

[Anonymous Coward]

So Comcast is selling people bandwidth and then reselling that bandwidth through the customers location? Reselling that bandwidth using customers electricity?

Thank you, no thanks.

Re:let me get this straight.

[icebike]

That pretty much sums it up.

In a down-town area or any dense residential apartment situation a comcast user might find this appealing because they could roam all over the neighborhood and stay on wifi. But chances are, that is exactly the sort of situation where participation could cripple the homeowners use of their own connection.

TFA says this:

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.

But If I sign up for service just adequate to meet my needs any additional load (even if slower) is going to be felt.

And if you happen to have an apartment next to a bar or popular restaurant you can expect your router to be busy all day with the overload of connecting and disconnecting smartphones and people soaking up your bandwidth.

I wouldn't begrudge them the immeasurably small increase in electricity usage, but if they can't assure my bandwidth and speed I would be reluctant to join the program.

Re:let me get this straight.

[drinkypoo]

But If I sign up for service just adequate to meet my needs any additional load (even if slower) is going to be felt.

Virtually no cable providers are selling the amount of service that their equipment can provide. There is headroom.

And if you happen to have an apartment next to a bar or popular restaurant you can expect your router to be busy all day with the overload of connecting and disconnecting smartphones and people soaking up your bandwidth.

Oh noes! It will have to handle packets!

Re:let me get this straight.

[ArtemaOne]

Then build a Faraday cage around your house. You will get WiFi, and no one else can share!

Re:let me get this straight.

[icebike]

Wouldn't it be easier to just opt out?

Re:let me get this straight.

[ArtemaOne]

no

Re:let me get this straight.

[icebike]

So checking a box on a web sight is harder than building a faraday cage?

What the hell are you smoking?

Re:let me get this straight.

[ArtemaOne]

icebike: Frontal lobe development pending. Sarcasm detector available in 23 days of training.

Same in Portugal

[kennycoder]

We have the same system with Zon Fon in Portugal. Since they are a very popular service we get most of the coverage in the whole country. Shame that the routers are very crappy.

Wi-Fi Crowding

[SIGBUS]

Aside from the trust issues mentioned elsewhere, the other thing I don't like about this is that it'll flood the neighborhood with even more 2.4 GHz clutter.

5 GHz is not a panacea; it's astonishingly poor at penetrating walls, to the point that I treat my 5 GHz AP as only useful in the same room.

Re:Wi-Fi Crowding

[evilviper]

it'll flood the neighborhood with even more 2.4 GHz clutter.

Lucky for you, it really won't. This is just a matter of having multiple SSIDs on the same wireless radio. Some home APs have "guest network" settings, and open firmware like OpenWRT gives you free-reign to create as many SSIDs and networks as you want, just like ethernet sub-interfaces, or perhaps more like VLANs. It's still only got the one radio, using just the one radio channel you were already using. But it's broadcasting two SSIDs, and the networks are completely independent. In short, no extra interference (unless you're counting greater utilization of those existing APs), just extra SSIDs piggy-backed on those same channels.

5 GHz is not a panacea; it's astonishingly poor at penetrating walls,

It's very good at making its way AROUND walls, and it's also extremely good at penetrating windows, which is probably most relevant in this case. In my own testing, my AP has the same coverage radius outside my house, whether I use 2.4GHz or 5GHz.

I'm only staying on 2.4GHz because of two older 802.11g devices which are of course 2.4GHz-only. If I was in a denser area, maybe the benefits of 5GHz would be enough to justify replacing those old devices a bit more quickly.

Re:Wi-Fi Crowding

[Obfuscant]

It's still only got the one radio, using just the one radio channel you were already using.

That's the problem. It very well may be using the channel I'm already using. (Actually, two that I'm already using when I turn on my second AP.) Since I can't control which one it uses, it may very well bounce around as Comcast sees fit to bounce their digital channels around. What's to stop it from landing smack on top of the wireless channel(s) I'm already using?

I'm not sure I would want any enticement for people to stand around outside my house browsing the web. Move along, people. Nothing to see here.

Re:Wi-Fi Crowding

[Zontar The Mindless]

Just started using 5 GHz myself. Works great here.

Note: This may have something to do with the fact that mine appears to the be only 5 GHz AP anywhere in the building. (Thank you, Telenor and ComHem!) Or not.

Re:Wi-Fi Crowding

[evilviper]

What's to stop it from landing smack on top of the wireless channel(s) I'm already using?

Sounds like you didn't comprehend a word of my previous post...

Most people use the wireless AP their ISP gives them. If you are, too, it won't be "landing on top of the wireless channel", it WILL BE the wireless channel you are using. To grand guest access, it will merely broadcast another SSID over your existing channel. No extra channels needed. No possibility of conflicts.

Re:Wi-Fi Crowding

[Obfuscant]

Sounds like you didn't comprehend a word of my previous post...

Looks like someone didn't understand something...

Most people use the wireless AP their ISP gives them.

I don't care what most people do. I was explicit in talking about how this "service" would interact with what I do.

No extra channels needed. No possibility of conflicts.

Until it lands on top of one of the two channels I'm using and then there will be a conflict. A conflict I won't be able to prevent them from creating and will have to spend my time solving. And then solve again the next time it happens. And then when my neighbor gets his Comcast "free" wifi box and either one of his lands on top of mine.

At that point I go to HSMM and don't care about the low power interference.

Wi-Fi wants to be free.

[NemoinSpace]

"Wi-Fi wants to be free. And a growing number of companies and nonprofits are aggressively expanding the definition of "free Wi-Fi." This has primarily involved ..."
Charging ignorant saps for things they could configure themselves for free.

Re:Wi-Fi wants to be free.

[Todd Knarr]

Not quite. Sure I could enable this on my router, it's got guest network capability. But it'd eat my bandwidth, and it'd point back to me as the subscriber responsible for the access point. With the ISP doing it, though, the guest network wouldn't count towards my bandwidth and it'd be the ISP, not me, responsible for any abuse of the guest network since it's them offering access through it, not me. That's all stuff I can't do myself for free.

Re:Wi-Fi wants to be free.

[raju1kabir]

what kind of assurances do you have they are even doing it correctly?

My ISP provides a separate external IP address for guest access. It took about 10 seconds to confirm that. How hard is it to check your IP address?

Re:Comcast Router? I think not

[Derekloffin]

That all depends. Don't know about Comcast, but both my local providers, the modem and the router are the same thing. They are a combined device. Not even sure you can get separate ones anymore.

taking the rap for child pron, hacking, uploading

[Joe_Dragon]

taking the rap for child pron, hacking, uploading files, even making a terrorist threat.

When they trace the IP will it show up as pubic wifi or Comcast user ID? or the persons who's home this is it?

BT in the UK

[jisatsusha]

BT already does this in the UK. By default, it's enabled for all customers, but you can disable it. it's called BT Fon. Basically BT customers who opt-in get to use internet through any other customer's wifi for free, other people can pay to use it otherwise.

http://www.btfon.com/

This sounds fun.

[Anonymous Coward]

So is there anything significant preventing people from making a reasonable facsimile of Comcast's captive portal page, named their WAP "COMCAST FREE WIFI LOL", presenting the login page, and stealing comcast user credentials?

Re:Comcast Router? I think not

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it still have an ethernet port on the cable modem router device? Then it's no problem, plug in your own wifi router and wrap theirs in old tin foil hats.

Re:Comcast Router? I think not

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Just buy your own modem too; it will save you money in the long run anyway.

Re:Comcast Router? I think not

[bobbied]

In my limited experience with the three internet providers that service my home...

They usually use industry standard equipment that uses industry standard protocols. This means that you can usually purchase your own equipment, it just may take a bit more work on your part because you may need to get them to provision your modem or something.

Personally, I have *ALL* of my equipment behind a firewall I have provided and control. The ISP's equipment is usually cheap throwaway junk anyway, so I try not to use it if I can. If I'm forced to use their stuff I create a DMZ and I firewall off my stuff from theirs as much as possible. Yea, it's work, but they simply don't need access to my network.

600.000 hotspots in Belgium

[wimg]

Belgian ISP Telenet is doing this on 600.000 of its customers' routers. They call it 'homespot'.

Customers can login to any homespot (another customer's router) or any hotspot (at restaurants, airports, train stations, etc.) free of charge.

Safe Harbor = Safe Downloads?

[HockeyPuck]

From the article:

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.

So when I'm doing all sorts of legal stuff I stay on my private network, and then when I want to switch over to download illegal content, I just switch over to the free comcast network and I'm all set?

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.

UPMOD ARTICLE!

[Deliveranc3]

!Like!

Re:UPMOD ARTICLE!

[Megahard]

!Like!

From too many hours looking at code, I read this as "not Like!".

I think its OK, if...

[edelbrp]

You can opt out and it only applies to Comcast rented equipment. There are two benefits, the obvious being more widespread WiFi availability and those who openly want to share their network with neighbors (as a family member of mine does) can have increased security by locking their own network while still having the public one available. It would be nice if Comcast gave participants a $5 monthly discount or something for participating, but I don't see that happening.

Re:Comcast Router? I think not

[edjs]

Typically the modem/router combo devices can be configured to act as a bridge only, though you may have to ask the cableco to enable it.

rent free? I don't think so

[holophrastic]

so you want me to host their equipment, maintain their equipment, protect their equipment, power their equipment, and house their equipment, all while they profit from that equipment and don't pay me any rent? Really? That's the plan? Free real estate? Even worse, I'm paying them for their service that I do use?

No.

Oh wait, do I get to monitor the traffic, and sell whatever I find? Or are they the only ones who can do that?

Re:rent free? I don't think so

[drinkypoo]

so you want me to host their equipment, maintain their equipment, protect their equipment, power their equipment, and house their equipment

We're talking about the cable company. They already own the equipment, so nothing is changing. Nice attempt at relevance, but you missed the mark.

Re:rent free? I don't think so

[Zof]

I actually own my cable modem and router, as well pay for the power it uses. Sure, the cable company owns everything upstream of that. If they want to provide public WiFi why not stick an AP on the pole on the road outside my place?

Re:rent free? I don't think so

[drinkypoo]

Obviously they're hoping you'll install a UPS. That's expensive for them to do everywhere.

Re:rent free? I don't think so

[radarskiy]

"and don't pay me any rent? "

They pay you in access to wifi that would otherwise cost money. You may of course chose not to engage in this relationship, but that makes it harder to express outrage that they're stealing your electrons.

Re:rent free? I don't think so

[holophrastic]

access to wifi isn't anywhere near as valuable as real estate. nice try. in addition, the cost of wifi is dropping, and the cost of real estate is rising.

giving me access to wifi -- which only helps me when I'm not home (and likely not using their network from home), and only when I'm not near any existing wifi, and only when I'm over my cellular usage limits -- is worth pennies. yet they are using my real estate and power and protection and maintenance at all hours of all days.

Again, no.

But I'll ask you this very simple question. Exactly how much money, in dollars, are you willing to spend for wifi access? And now go find out how much money it'll cost you to store a router, with power and network access and security, somewhere.

And don't forget, this is another the-house-always-wins game. You could have always opened your network, and your neighbour can do it too. Camcast could have always given you the switch to make it easy. The issue here is that Comcast is asking me to be a part of the greater good, and then comcast is making a profit from my volunteerism.

Nice try. No.

Re:Comcast Router? I think not

[NemosomeN]

Even if you can't get separate ones, you can disable the router part and use the modem as a bridge. I have a combo modem/router from my provider, and I disabled the router part to use my own.

Re:taking the rap for child pron, hacking, uploadi

[NemosomeN]

Of all of these, the most dangerous is "uploading files," assuming you mean music or movies.

Overrated?

[drinkypoo]

OK, so it's not the best comment ever, but it's a fact that you can't just go to one website for all the devices supported by some variant of tomato. The plethora of tomato variants means chasing around the web to figure out which flavor[s] will even support your hardware, and if they have the features you need. DD-WRT (or for that matter OpenWRT) provides a single website which permits a quick compatibility check. DD-WRT in particular has extensive and well-indexed installation instructions for specific hardware. Tomato has none of that. If you don't think that's useful information, by all means, mod this comment "Overrated" as well.

Re:Overrated?

[brantondaveperson]

how fragmented the tomato landscape is.

I don't know - I quite liked that part. Trippy.

Re:Overrated?

[KGIII]

I found a lawn sale, I'm not sure where the guy had gotten them all, but he had two dozen WRT54Gs but several were missing cords (not even remotely a problem). They were priced at $10 each but I wasn't sure if they were able to run Tomato. I offered him $50 for the lot, I figured it was a gamble on my part, and he took it. I brought them home, booted one, and was happily able to write the Tomato firmware to it.

I have given three (I think) away. I have two running on the property, one is setup as an AP so I can reach the WiFi from way outside and near the garage. I believe they both automatically update to the latest firmware but I forget if they are or not, it isn't much of a problem here if they don't - moose don't use computers or steal wireless signals. I never have to touch them. I have had one die, I'm not sure why. It just stopped working one day. I'd already prepped another with the firmware so I was able to get that squared away with no problem and in short order.

I made sure to make multiple copies of the firmware (I've since loaded all but a few of them up with the Tomato firmware but I wanted to keep the copy I was using on hand as a "known good" version) and I've not had any problems except for the one that died. The lights come on but it never connects, I could log in and whatnot, but it would never connect. It probably could be used as an AP if it was ever required to fill that role. I'm positive that I stuck a label to it and kept it along with the rest.

Anyhow, it has been good to me. I can't speak for others and I'd recently looked at the firmware page before I'd purchased it (I'd been wanting to try it or the other one whose name I forget at the moment) and so I knew that the 54G was one of the ones that may work. I should, barring some very strange happenstance, now have a Tomato-based firmware for the remainder of my life. I don't have to reboot them, I don't have to worry about them, and I only see the interface once in a while when I want to do something like forward a port or set a static IP address. They've been stable, speedy, and I've had nothing to worry about that I've noticed so far.

Take it as a grain of salt if you'd like but that's my experience. You're probably not going to get a better router for around $5 each.

Re:Overrated?

[drinkypoo]

I have two WRT54Gs and a WRT54GS (note punctuation) and have run tomato on one of them. But one of my Gs failed and the other one is very short on flash so DD-WRT actually has more capabilities on it. Next time I see some at a yard sale I will be able to check the router database as I finally have mobile internet access, albeit EDGE only. At least it's cheap and on-demand.

Re:Overrated?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't fix fragmentation for you, but check out Shibby's builds... He's consistently been delivering about a build very 6 weeks or so for several years now and has amassed the most comprehensive feature set and router support of all Tomato variants. In fact, it may as well be considered the de facto mainline Tomato build.

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.

Re:Overrated?

[KGIII]

I did not know that - mod this one up.

As an aside, I got a hell of a deal on mine which was pretty awesome. I honestly probably wouldn't have bothered except for the geekiness of it. If I'd known I could buy them I'd certainly have not bought them. Ah well.

Re:Overrated?

[AmiMoJo]

Tomato seems to be close to death. Only the alpha releases by unknown and unverified forumites support recent hardware that you can still easily buy. Even on the old gear stuff is broken, like channel selection on my ASUS router.

It's a shame because there is a lot to like about Tomato, particular the QoS interface.

Re:Overrated?

[drinkypoo]

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.

I regularly get other routers for an order of magnitude less money. I am making a small collection of them for a project. So, if you want me to listen you won't tell me how to spend my money, HTH, HAND.

Re:Overrated?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, why bother getting two dozen routers for that price, when you can go buy just one!

Re:Overrated?

[arth1]

Yeah, why bother getting two dozen routers for that price, when you can go buy just one!

You know what bridges and repeaters are?

Anyhow, 802.11g doesn't cut it. If it doesn't do 5 GHz band, it's not worth it.

Re:Overrated?

[drinkypoo]

Anyhow, 802.11g doesn't cut it. If it doesn't do 5 GHz band, it's not worth it.

I live in the boonies. I can see zero other APs at my house. I don't even cook with a microwave. 802.11g works great here, I regularly get real-world speeds over 20Mbps. Well, as regularly as I use a client capable of such speeds. My SEMC Xperia Play struggles to pass 1Mbps for most operations. Possibly part of that is the very slow sdcard.

Re:Overrated?

[CodeBuster]

Yeah, why bother getting two dozen routers for that price, when you can go buy just one!

How much is your time worth? How long would it take you to track down 24 routers for an average price of $2.08 apiece, never mind the logistics of getting them all ordered and shipped? Alternatively, how many would you have to buy from a single supplier to get the unit cost down to that price? Probably more than $50 worth in either case.

Re:Comcast Router? I think not

[dkuntz]

You can get cable modems at most big box stores, amazon, newegg, best buy, etc. Xoom, Motorola, and a few others. Work fine with Comcast, though you do have to call them so they can add the HFC MAC to your account. Now, the Moto ones WILL do routing, but only when the cable network is down (ie: it'll do DHCP on the 172 range, so that when the internet dies, if you're just using a switch, your LAN connects still work, but that really only counts if you're using a switch, and each system has an IP assigned from comcast, and not using another router for wifi, etc)

Re:Comcast Router? I think not

[Arker]

You can certainly get separate ones, there are tons of models available. Why do people think they have to use what the ISP provides? The ISP shouldnt be providing anything past provisioning the modem, they dont want to be, and when customers demand otherwise they get the cheapest box to setup and administer that the ISP can possibly find. If you are remotely technical you should just buy yourself a decent modem and router and set them up and administer them yourself. All you need the ISP to do is provision the modem.

NO. the law doesn't apply.

[bussdriver]

Comcast is part of the whole scheme to punish you if you get 6 strikes against you by the movie/music mafia. $30 to dispute your assumed guilty verdict - this only means that they won't punish you for what somebody does on your 2nd open wifi connection.

Best use I've seen for this

[SleepyHappyDoc]

You can gang the Xfinitywifi up with your regular cable connection. See here: http://www.connectify.me/alex-connects-thank-you-comcast/

I don't work for them or anything, but doubling your bandwidth sounds pretty good to me.

Re:taking the rap for child pron, hacking, uploadi

[scubamage]

There are two access points/antennas, both in the same box, and each getting its own DHCP address from the comcast CMTS. So if someone uses the public access, it will show up as the public side, not yours. Disclaimer: I am a Comcast employee.

Re:taking the rap for child pron, hacking, uploadi

[Joe_Dragon]

Ok MR comcast are you 100% on that and if some where fringed will Comcast pay 100% of all legal costs even be forced to offer some one a job if they lost there has comcast messed this up and some has to do some pre trial jail time do to Comcast mess up?

Re:taking the rap for child pron, hacking, uploadi

[scubamage]

Yes, I'm 100% on that. I worked next door to the engineers who built the system. Lots of cable systems include numerous devices, for instance eMTAs and eDVAs. Each one gets its own IP address, is applied different DSCP tags, etc.

Re:Comcast Router? I think not

[wiredlogic]

Comcast gives you a choice between renting a combo modem/router, a modem only, or providing your own modem.

Wall of Sheep

[Molochi]

Your spoofed webwall will lack the correct Comcast cert and trigger security software warnings... not that most people wouldn't give you the info anyways.

Today that kind of spoof can be done by anyone, anywhere with a smartphone app.

Legal liability

[rsilvergun]

You'll still spend $5 grand defending yourself from the lawsuit, and God help you if it's an obscenity charge and you're not a happily married, dashing 6'5" tall man...

Re:Legal liability

[Anonymous Coward]

The only good think about it is if Comcast requires you to have to equipment hanging wide open, then they should be the ones to defend you. Its not your connection, after all.

Handoffs per minute for vehicle passenger

[tepples]

Better WiFi (or WiMax, etc) should allow this eventually.

There are deployments of WiMAX technology, but they've been on licensed spectrum owned by cellular carriers. In any case, if you plan to serve people from a home router, how many handoffs per minute would it take to serve a customer in a bus moving at 30 mph (50 km/h)?

holy crap

[slashmydots]

This is THE stupidest idea there has ever been. Unless they assign a modem 2 IPs (oh that's right, we're almost out of those things) then anyone can make you look like you downloaded illegal stuff. Or they can jam up the router's memory by DDOSing it or accidentally by running too many torrents at once. They put pathetic amounts of buffer memory in those. Then someone could hack the router in theory and mess with your side of it. I mean seriously, this is the worst tech idea there has ever been.

Re:holy crap

[edelbrp]

The article addresses some of those things. They are separate networks and I'm guessing the public one is NATed further upstream. They claim that it will be safe, secure and there's no legal liability if somebody does something bad on the public network through your modem. I think it is a rather clever way to instantly have coverage where high densities of people already are. But, I'd certainly want an opt-out option available as a consumer. Comcast, btw, already firewalls a laundry list of ports (as I discovered a few weekends ago after an 'update' which broke my email amongst other things... for "my protection".) I'm guessing they probably do even more on the public network.

Re:holy crap

[KGIII]

I'd prefer opt-in instead of opt-out.

Re:holy crap

[edelbrp]

Me, too, but the problem is nobody would opt-in out of ignorance and a public project with real potential positive results would die out of default.

Re:holy crap

[KGIII]

That may be true but, well, I accept that the public good may suffer for the individual liberty, it is precisely because of the public wouldn't be aware of this (ignorance) that I would prefer opt-in. I'd expect that the vast majority of customers wouldn't even understand it and enabling it by default would be unfair to them. Let the provider run an education campaign and send mailings with notices.

I'd compromise with suitable notice being given (and said education campaign) warning that this would be enabled by default (and how to opt-out) if that were done in an acceptable manner with a suitable timeline for customers to become educated about it before it is enabled by default. I'd be okay with that but I'd want the company to do a good job at making the effort to notify customers, educate customers, and provide them with easy access to the information.

Re:holy crap

[Zebai]

A large number of these modems are already provisioned for 2 separate IPv4 addresses and they are fully ipv6 enabled(dual stack Ip4+ip6). The 2nd IPv4 address is used for the telephone service if active as all these gateways are EMTA's. I personally do not like these modems but for different reasons, mainly the firmware is crap and they have frequent problems with the wireless.

Also exists in France

[manu0601]

All major ISP do that in France since they installed triple-play boxes at customers home. The box does cable/DSL access with TV and phone over IP, and is also a WiFi router. Once you have an ISP controlled WiFi installation at each customer house, it is easy to provide the hotspot service.

Re:Also exists in France

[Captain_Chaos]

Once you have an ISP controlled WiFi installation at each customer house, it is easy to provide the hotspot service.

Well no. You need two Wi-Fi access points, and two logical connections to the ISP. The public access point must be completely separate from your own Internet connection, otherwise there would be no end of trouble. People could hack your LAN, use up your bandwidth or use the connection for all kinds of illegal activities for which you might be held liable. You need special hardware to do all that, just any regular Wi-Fi enabled router won't cut it.

Funny until you get raided

[metalheadsunite]

It's all fun and games and a super awesome idea until you get your door kicked in because someone uses your net to download CP or fraud a bunch of credit cards. You think about these things way differently when it actually happens to you. This is a terrible idea.

Re:Funny until you get raided

[dargaud]

The IP address of the public facing side of 'your' modem doesn't show up as 'yours'. It belongs to the provider, so it's their business to deal with it. Anyway, this has been in use for years in Europe without issue. Your traffic is prioritized and protected and for a fraction of an extra watt, what does it matter ?

Quality Routers

[Salpula]

This is a good move because Comcast already provides such rock solid and reliable routers! Yeah!

So... VLANs?

[gravis777]

Don't really see an issue with this - unless someone can find out how to hack VLANS, but is that really that much different than someone hacking WEP or WPA? In fact, I would imagine VLAN is much mroe secure - you are running multiple virtual instances on a physical machine - you would have to hack into the physical router for there to be a security issue, which people could pretty much do now if you have things poorly configured.

If Comcast has a way of distinguishing between what is public and what I am paying for (figutively speaking, I am on Time Warner), I see no hit in performance, they increase the number of nodes in a neighborhood, increase their overall bandwidth, and, if you are talking about the number of wireless devices that can connect to a router, if they prioritize what connects to the customer's vlan over the public vlan, and don't affect the end customer in any way, I don't see how this would be an issue. In fact, I see it as a great idea.

Plus, as the summery stated, customers get new hardware.

Question is, the summery states "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". So does this mean their new routers doesn't support customer VLANs? I guess that wouldn't surprise me too much - with Time Warner I had to finally end up buying my own router as their crappy routers didn't properly support VPN - anytime I tried establishing a VPN or OpenVPN connection, the router would reboot.

I am supposing this also means that customers can still use their own routers and opt against Comcast's routers, and just rent (or buy) modems.

Who cares about Comcast's liability?

[sjbe]

I should also add that the DMCA has a specific safe-harbor provision that protects providers of an internet service from liability for what users do with it.

That does not protect the users from liability due to the actions of other users. I don't give a crap about Comcast's liability, I care about MINE.

While it's a moot issue where I live (I'm too remote for public wifi to be useful to anyone else) I doubt I'd sign up for a program like this just due to the potential legal uncertainty. There is a small but non-zero chance of this resulting in problems for me. Plus it chews up bandwidth that I am paying a lot of money for and I get little in return. It's not like public wifi hotspots are difficult to find these days. Now if Comcast wants to reduce my bill while providing a safe harbor protection for ME, then we can talk.

Weasel words

[sjbe]

Those using the slower public portion of a home router typically won't degrade performance on the faster private side

Note the weasel word "typically" in there. That means that they do not guarantee you will not experience a degradation in service.

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.

Do you seriously think Comcast is going to send lawyers to protect me and pay my legal bills? If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell you. (pun slightly intended)

Penetration

[phorm]

5 GHz is not a panacea; it's astonishingly poor at penetrating walls

That's not always a bad thing. Maybe your 5Ghz AP isn't very good through a bunch of walls in your house, but in theory it also means that your house is less likely to be swamped with your neighbours' wifi signals. You may get less signal from your own hardware, but still have the bonus of not competing with other people's hardware.

That said, I haven't had any major penetration issues with 5Ghz in my place. I do have an AP on either side of the house (one upstairs one downstairs) but even with a single it was fine for internet browsing, or at least until my wife swamps the connection with streaming etc :-)

External use

[phorm]

I suppose what you *do* get is unlimited use of other people's wifi.

In some ways it's like companies that supply patches via torrent, etc. Yes, you use up your own bandwidth to supply others', but you also get better/faster service.

Re:External use

[holophrastic]

oh come on, look at the value. what's wifi worth in dollars? it's already free in most businesses. my neighbours already open theirs. I'm usually home. I also have cellular connectivity within my limits most of the month.

I'm not saying that it's a bad idea. it's a great idea. everyone should open theirs and use everyone's. the problem is that comcast wants to profit from it. they want to profit from your volunteering. so it's communism for you, it's communism for me, and it's imperialism for comcast.

still, no.

Re:External use

[phorm]

I don't disagree in that Comcast benefits more, just that there's no benefit.

Your personal benefit may vary greatly depending on - for example - how good of a cellular data plan you have. If it allows you to move to mostly wifi instead of cellular data, that might actually work out well. The big issue I see with that is that security would probably require you authenticate to individual AP's, where's convenience would have them appear as one and invite potential spoofing.

From a customer standpoint, the best way would be to make it opt-in for those that want to use the mesh network. If you don't run an AP, you don't get free mesh access.

Re:External use

[holophrastic]

you can disagree all you like, but you're wrong. It doesn't vary greatly between people. Someone with no cellular data plan can purchase a cellular data plan for less money than comcast is making off of them.

the only thing that varies greatly is just how ignorant these people are. those that don't realize they are trading a high-priced item for a low-value one are actually hurting their own economy, and their own home value. Instead of comcast paying for cell towers and data centres and rooftop rent, they aren't. so your community suffers in terms of real estate value.

enjoy.

Usage and Profit Rights?

[ash157]

Does this mean that if your neighbor and you both have comcast, but he doesn't subscribe to the internet service and you do, that he can now just use your "hot spot" for free? Do the people who are letting comcast use their location to set up a "hotspot" get any kind of kickback or reduced bill anyway? I think they should. I am also wondering if this is something that they are requiring of people in certain locations or just asking. And how much internet security can they provide?

Hay, Free Electrcity!

[LifesABeach]

Any time a utility can use someone else's electricity to promote their product is a good idea? Like Goldman Sacks and Derivatives?

Sharing the upward?

[Douglas Goodall]

Given that each paying consumer get an upward/downward mix optimized for web browsing (small upward, large downward). If COMCAST wants to upgrade the paying users to BLAST to make up for the drain on the bandwidth caused by the public users, then maybe that helps, but why would someone want to share what little portion they do get while competing with all the neighbors for bandwidth on the coax during peak hours? This whole scheme makes no sense to me. With many of the neighbors watching streaming video, and many of them doing bit-torrent, I find the average bandwidth left over for the paying users to be sad. To make things worse, I have been a business class user sharing the same cable with the consumers, and can someone explain to me what that works. I have a business class arrangement with COMCAST, but I have no committed information rate, so I am having doubts about why I am paying twice as much a month for my service, just because I want five fixed IP's.

Discounted?

[lems1]

I'd allow this if the price is cheaper and they give me free hardware to do it.

I'd still keep my network on a different VLAN (just like I do now with my cisco WAP)