Comcast Turning Chicago Homes Into Xfinity Hotspots

BUL2294 writes "The Chicago Tribune is reporting that, over the next few months in Chicago, Comcast is turning on a feature that turns customer networks into public Wi-Fi hotspots. After a firmware upgrade is installed, 'visitors will use their own Xfinity credentials to sign on, and will not need the homeowner's permission or password to tap into their Wi-Fi signal. The homegrown network will also be available to non-subscribers free for several hours each month, or on a pay-per-use basis. Any outside usage should not affect the speed or security of the home subscriber's private network. [...] Home internet subscribers will automatically participate in the network's growing infrastructure, although a small number have chosen to opt out in other test markets.' The article specifically mentions that this capability is opt-out, so Comcast is relying on home users' property, electricity, and lack of tech-savvy to increase their network footprint." Comcast tried this in the Twin Cities area, and was apparently satisfied with the results, though subscribers are starting to notice.

Comments

This shit is already polluting the SF Bay Area

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only 2.4 but 5 GHz as well.
Disgusting waste of spectrum.

Re:This shit is already polluting the SF Bay Area

[borcharc]

Same in Minneapolis, for at least the last 8 months.

Re:This shit is already polluting the SF Bay Area

[Killall -9 Bash]

Same in Philadelphia for at least as long. Took multiple calls to tech to get someone on the phone who even knew what the fuck I was talking about. First two phone calls, the techs pretended(?) to not know what I was talking about. So, hang up and try again. Tech support roulette is fun!

During 3rd call to comcast tech support, I was told this was an "Xfinity wifi"-specific issue, and I'd need to call a separate number.

So, I called the dedicated Xfinity WiFi tech support number. They started by asking me what location I was trying to connect from. Home? Oh, well then, you need to call the home internet support number. 1-800-COMCAST. Wow. Thanks.

It wasn't until the 5th phone call that I got someone on the phone who knew what I was talking about, and they transferred me to a higher-tier tech who could turn off the hotspot.

Re: This shit is already polluting the SF Bay Area

[jjbarrows]

Why? What were you going to do with it?

Re:This shit is already polluting the SF Bay Area

[niftymitch]

How do they manage bandwidth caps?
How do they maintain service levels to the paying customer?

It is true that a docsis 3.0 cable modem can deliver many more bits than
most (but not all) subscribers pay for. If and only if the service
base is never infringed on does this pass my muster.

HOWEVER WiFi bandwidth is not as flexible and that is what
they are stealing and reselling.

If I did not own my own WiFi hardware I would be in court ...

I WANT COMPENSATION.

It is difficult enough to compete with neighbor WiFi and this
will force many transmitters to dial up their power increasing
the interference.

Same for the durn Femto Cell tower that ATT sold me at a discount.
Today I have apparent control over the connections allowed
but that could change. BTW... they are not magic and seriously
drop calls faster than pre Obamacare health insurance companies.

Re:This shit is already polluting the SF Bay Area

[rhook]

This is why I use all my own equipment.

Re: This shit is already polluting the SF Bay Area

[ewanm89]

It runs in and channel as the homeowners meeting SSID. At least BT ones in the uk do.

Re:This shit is already polluting the SF Bay Area

[Chas]

How do they manage bandwidth caps? They same way they don't bill you for cable TV channel bandwidth. They know what's coming across their network and from where.

Additionally, Comcast Business customers (at least) are being provided with a separate cablemodem and router/AP for the public wifi.

My POB's main office just installed a 75/15 link a month or so ago. Once we found out what the equipment was for, we disabled it immediately. We also disabled the wifi on the private router/AP as well, as we already have a heavily secured wireless AP on premises and simply don't trust Comcast enough not to try and circumvent our precautions. And god help them if they do.

Re:This shit is already polluting the SF Bay Area

[ruir]

In addition, from DOCSIS 2.0 onwards, the modem can and does reserves bandwidth for specific use. So in theory, the bandwidth of the roaming users do not eat any of your capabilities. The part I would not vouch is for the hardware capabilities of the modem/router provided by default. I disabled ours and put it in bridging mode only.

Re:This shit is already polluting the SF Bay Area

[Anonymous Coward]

How do they manage bandwidth caps? They same way they don't bill you for cable TV channel bandwidth. They know what's coming across their network and from where.

Or at least they could. I don't think that one should take for granted that they do.
How do I know that the bandwidth used by the WiFi isn't considered as if it was coming from me? Does Comcast have an information page about this?

Re: This shit is already polluting the SF Bay Area

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you're in the UK, would you mind re-writing that in English, please?

Re: This shit is already polluting the SF Bay Area

[SuricouRaven]

At a guess: It uses a different essid, but runs at the same channel/frequency as the customer's wifi. Retuning a transceiver is a slow process, it's not practical to jump between channels every packet, and multiple transceivers would raise the cost.

Re:This shit is already polluting the SF Bay Area

[fgouget]

This shit is already polluting the SF Bay Area [...] Disgusting waste of spectrum.

Same in Philadelphia for at least as long.

It makes no change to the spectrum usage. Instead of advertising one SSID the access point now advertises two, both on the same channel.

You blame the tech support for not knowing about this feature but it seems you've decided it was evil just based on preconceptions. I don't see how that's any better.

Re:This shit is already polluting the SF Bay Area

[Mike Van Pelt]

When Comcast rolled out the new cable modems in San Jose, they not only increased the bandwidth of the internet connection, they also removed the cap. At some point "real soon now", I expect some of the traffic on the Comcast side of the cable coming into my house will, theoretically, occasionally be used by someone driving by with the wifi enabled on their cell phone. I see enough "Xfinity WiFi Hotspots" on my own phone when driving around that I spect they're already starting this.

It seems to be a reasonable tradeoff for a considerably faster connection to the internet, and no longer having to worry about the bandwidth cap. (Which I never had gotten very close to, anyway, but it's nice that it's no longer an issue.

As for security, I set the Comcast's wifi up as my guest network, and everything I care about inside the house is firewalled off on the other side of my own router, running DD-WRT, with a different wifi password. I'm not any less secure than I was before.

Re:This shit is already polluting the SF Bay Area

[ShaunC]

This is why I use all my own equipment.

Makes me wonder how much longer this will be an option?

I use a Comcast-provided cable modem instead of buying my own. The sole reason for that is that I've had several cable modems die or otherwise fuck up in the past, and it's easier to pay the $7 a month to rent Comcast's modem and be able to swap out as often as is necessary. Modem overheats, lightning strike fries it, some shitty capacitor decides that 6 months is longer than it should ever have lived, WTF-ever, I'll just go exchange it. The rental fee is essentially insurance. Just last week I went and swapped out their old Thomson for an Arris, because the Thomson was on Comcast's EOL list and not DOCSIS 3.0 savvy. Had to figure that out on my own and go get a better model after my service started going to shit. The Arris is now giving far faster throughput for the wired PCs.

Wireless on my premises is handled by two bridged WRT54Gs (v6, patiently awaiting the revamped kickass offering that Belkin has promised since buying the Linksys line from Cisco) running dd-wrt. These of course are my own equipment and there's nothing Comcast can do to prevent me from using them. That really can never change, I can tweak their MAC addresses to whatever I want, there's ultimately no technical way for Comcast to impede me from running my own wireless routers for my own private use. The WLAN is locked down tighter than a twelve year old, ain't no guests or passers-by getting on there.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if Comcast begins issuing cable modems that come with a built-in wireless AP for their own hotspot purposes. I'm not talking about all-in-one modem/router devices, this is what they're already doing with those as per TFA, if you rely on Comcast's equipment for your home wifi network. I'm talking about the actual cable modem itself, it will have an onboard 802.11a/b/g/n radio. If they play their cards right, it won't even need an antenna, I'm sure Comcast has engineers who are well aware of the "leaky/unshielded coax, wifi, CB radio" issue and can put some decent gain enterprise grade antennae inside the service boxes at street demarcs. The majority of residential subdivisions are probably not subject to CB interference.

At some point in the future, they prohibit customers from purchasing and provisioning their own modems, and domination is complete: if you want Comcast internet, you must use a Comcast provided modem, which will act as a wifi hotspot whether you like it or not (aside from those of us who will open the box and fix that shit ourselves). To be honest, I'm surprised that "buy your own modem, call us up with its MAC, and we'll let it on the network" is an option even now, as it "robs" them of recurring revenue on the sunk expense of each modem. I presume there must be some law that forces them to allow this for the time being.

Give it a couple of years. All Comcast-provided cable modems will have a self-contained wifi AP, they'll eliminate the monthly modem rental charge "as a benefit to consumers," and if they're still required to allow customers to own CPE modems, there will be a fee for it.

Re:This shit is already polluting the SF Bay Area

[niftymitch]

How do they manage bandwidth caps? They same way they don't bill you for cable TV channel bandwidth. They know what's coming across their network and from where.

Additionally, Comcast Business customers (at least) are being provided with a separate cablemodem and router/AP for the public wifi.

My POB's main office just installed a 75/15 link a month or so ago. Once we found out what the equipment was for, we disabled it immediately. We also disabled the wifi on the private router/AP as well, as we already have a heavily secured wireless AP on premises and simply don't trust Comcast enough not to try and circumvent our precautions. And god help them if they do.

The interesting bit with cable is the astounding bandwidth they (providers) have.
The cable can support an astounding number of frequency division multiplexed
bands. Cable infrastructure is ultimately much richer in bandwidth than open air bandwidth
can ever be.

The above Comcast Business customers comment is interesting. The interesting bit is
where Comcast felt they had permission to install hardware in the closet of a business
that services neighbors without compensating the business for power, cooling and space.

A recent green type recently remarked that the most evil entertainment appliance in
a home is the digital video recorder. Massive storage on modern disks, full AC service
power, astounding bandwidth and no "visible" external service other than what is displayed
at the end of an HDMI cable.

Re:This shit is already polluting the SF Bay Area

[niftymitch]

In addition, from DOCSIS 2.0 onwards, the modem can and does reserves bandwidth for specific use. So in theory, the bandwidth of the roaming users do not eat any of your capabilities. The part I would not vouch is for the hardware capabilities of the modem/router provided by default. I disabled ours and put it in bridging mode only.

Bandwidth on the cable is not really the issue. At issue is local WiFi bandwidth.
The 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz channel stuff. Three channels 1, 6, 11 for max
bandwidth with a fall back to 1-11 (USA). 5Ghz is a little better because
a smaller number of more expensive devices use it. In dense living there can be
dozens or many more users trying to use the shared commons.

For many this is simply an AC power issue but apartment dwellers will
find it a mixed bag. Dropped calls but data ok ish as landlords turn this on

Re:This shit is already polluting the SF Bay Area

[ruir]

My comment was not about bandwidth been limited, but of the tech having provisions in place for the roaming visitors not eating into the speed you are being provisioned by your ISP. And I agree, as you can find in my comment "the good and the ugly" bellow, Wifi management is a BIG problem. I gave up using 2.4GHz altogether and went to 5GHz because it was a nightmare. all our equipments at home would be waiting at least 1 minute before they were able to get in the wifi network.

Re:This shit is already polluting the SF Bay Area

[Shirley Marquez]

Presumably they feel that the use you get of other people's wireless when you are away from home is compensation for the fact that other people are getting use of yours. For most people that's likely true, but people who live near a busy commercial area or a popular park will suffer.

So what happens

[TheRecklessWanderer]

So what happens when people start connecting to your router and doing unsavory things. A couple I can think of, human trafficking or child porn, or less evil but still evil trying to get on the other side of your router. What about downloading Torrents? I mean we don't really know how good that firmware is do we? What if the FBI come knocking on your door one day saying, We noticed that someone at this address is doing some bad things. Come with us please.

Re:So what happens

[sconeu]

And in addiiton, what about the fact that they're eating up your bandwidth?

Re:So what happens

[PhrostyMcByte]

It sounds like they're put in a separate virtual wlan than you are, and are given a separate IP.

Re:So what happens

[cheater512]

Different public IP though? That would make for some interesting routing rules.

Re:So what happens

[The MAZZTer]

You have to be a Comcast subscriber to use the service and presumably your account is associated with whatever activity you do, just as if you'd done it from your home connection.

Re:So what happens

[roninmagus]

I don't see myself ever using it, seems like a terrible idea to me. But I should note that they do require to login to the wifi using your xfinity username and password, so it stands to reason that they have the ability to track your actions online.

Re:So what happens

[timeOday]

It's no different than your neighbors who are using their own Comcast account right now, doing who knows what.

Re:So what happens

[khasim]

So the easiest way would be to set up a fake access point with graphics stolen from Comcast's real site and then collect the usernames/passwords from people who are trying to connect to it.

Then use those to login to other Comcast sites and do whatever evil you want to.

The best part is that the poor person whom you're framing will have a more difficult time clearing his name because the evil activity happening in his name is happening in his city.

Re:So what happens

[camperdave]

Meh. IPv6 makes things simple.

Re:So what happens

[jd2112]

And in addiiton, what about the fact that they're eating up your bandwidth?

Knowing Comcast, Wi-fi use probably applies to your bandwidth limit as well.

Re:So what happens

[LMariachi]

Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but I assume the FBI would be aware of Comcast's wifi sharing initiative. Just like running a coffee shop with free wifi that a customer did something unsavory with; the feds wouldn't come kicking in the door assuming that the shop owner was the culprit. They might knock and ask to see logs, but in this case they would get those from the ISP.

Re:So what happens

[klingers48]

Also what's to stop people setting up honeypot networks named "xfinitywifi", letting you right in regardless of login credentials and packet-sniffing everything you do?

Re:So what happens

[Joe_Dragon]

and how will they stop this from eating up router CPU / IO use? also what about apartments where it can be hard to get good WiFi when all channels are being used by a lot of people all in the same small area.

Re:So what happens

[DarwinSurvivor]

Even if it doesn't, they are eating into the limited bandwidth of the wireless radio which you may be using for much hungrier things that don't connect upstream (transfering files between a laptop and a desktop for instance). Wireless devices in general also tend to have stability and reliability issues when you start assinging a bunch of extra virtual interfaces to them. THIS is why I always insist on the ISP router being put in bridge mode and connecting my own router into it.

Re:So what happens

[Joe_Dragon]

well even with some kind of VLAN is still on the same cable node that lot's of other users are also on. Comcast does NOT have SDV so they don't have as many nodes as other SDV cable systems have.

Also parts of the City of Chicago system don't have as much QAM space as rest of Chicago land (but in Chicago land comcast does not use that space). Also we don't have BTN alts in HD, CLTV HD, Fox Sports 2 HD, and more. RCN has all them + more Premium HD. Directv and U-Verse have lot's more as well.

Re:So what happens

[Jane Q. Public]

"What if the FBI come knocking on your door one day saying, We noticed that someone at this address is doing some bad things. Come with us please."

It's happened, and the courts shut it down.

By now, just about every police dept. in the U.S. knows that an IP address does not identify even a house, much less an individual. An IP address by itself is no longer (and never should have been) considered "probable cause".

Re:So what happens

[Fallen Kell]

You assume their logs will even record that data. And even if that happens, the FBI/Secret Service will claim that they simply did not recover the exact piece of hardware that you used because you either a) hid it b) spoofed the MAC Address or c) got rid of it. The benefits of the a) and c) arguments are that they don't need to recover incriminating evidence on your other devices (i.e. CP, etc.) because you also only used that particular device, but with the "facts" of the logs and your username/password usage, they know for a fact that you had such a device and did such activity because they have the logs, and the logs do not lie.

Re:So what happens

[ruir]

Nah, we also have a similar service here. Any outside usage is linked to your customer login.

Re:So what happens

[invictusvoyd]

they know for a fact that you had such a device and did such activity because they have the logs, and the logs do not lie.

haha nice one .. I dont want this comcast shit

Re: So what happens

[Adriax]

Too bad the MAFIAA, like debt collectors, don't give a flying fuck who actually did something as long as they have someone they can bully/lie to/scream at until they get paid what they believe they are owed.

To a MAFIAA lawyer an IP address might as well be a mugshot, fingerprints, DNA, and confession all wrapped into a neal little package. And they will spend as much money as it takes to make the courts agree with them.

Re: So what happens

[Jane Q. Public]

"To a MAFIAA lawyer an IP address might as well be a mugshot, fingerprints, DNA, and confession all wrapped into a neal little package. And they will spend as much money as it takes to make the courts agree with them."

Well, that must be an awful lot of money, because they have been losing that battle.

I don't know of a court case that has gone forward with just an IP address for justification in the last year. It might have happened... but it's happening a lot less. Enough that you don't see it in the news anymore.

Re:So what happens

[mysidia]

and how will they stop this from eating up router CPU / IO use?

It won't, but the spare CPU/IO not required to deliver service to you is comcast's, since they own the router.

Re:So what happens

[cheater512]

Err it would be like you and your neighbour having separate connections with 1 router.
Its nothing like your neighbour having the same ISP. That has 2 routers, 2 physical connections back to the ISP, 2 routing tables and 2 public IPs.

Re:So what happens

[LordLimecat]

Fun fact: Most routers handle more than just 2 networks. Routing between 4 virtual interfaces is nothing particularly fancy, just unusual in a home router.

Re:So what happens

[Neil Boekend]

Even with my very limited knowledge of network stuff I can solve that, though that doesn't mean Comcast solved it.

If you have it and you want to use another wifi, first login with incorrect credentials. If that gains you access then you can't trust the network.
Most people wont do that, so there will probably be no protection (assuming the normal ISP incompetence). Comcast should build a special login program for such things. It can solve the problem in 2 ways:
1. It could first try to contact the server and verify the connection. If it is a true Xfinity connection then it is reasonably safe. If it is not then the client should not connect to the system. This is probably a custom system based on not-yet build programs and thus a lot of work.
2. It could avoid the problem all together: don't set up a normal connection. Instead, set up a secure VPN connection. Encrypt the complete stream through the potentially unsafe hotspot. This would require Comcast servers providing those thousands of secure VPN connections.
3. Something else thought up by someone smarter than me.
Probably they didn't do anything and if someone does sets up such a honeypot it may cost them a lot of money.

Re:So what happens

[MSG]

Why would you presume that? These modems typically have just one IP address, and I would presume that they NAT using the same one for the XFINITY wireless and for the home user. If a third party records a download of child porn or copyrighted material, they don't have access to the internal identity of the machine, they would only have the IP address Lacking clarification, I think the prudent thing to do is assume that the IP address is going to be the subscriber's, and that this could create the appearance of liability.

IPv4 space is very limited. I really doubt that Comcast is going to double their required network size by assigning separate addresses to the home subscriber and to the XFINITY wireless user. This could be a real problem.

Re:So what happens

[dreamchaser]

How so? What is interesting about a router doing...you know, routing? It's trivial from a technical standpoint. Routers do it all the time.

I'm not condoning it, mind you. I think it's a terrible idea and I'm glad I don't have Comcrap as my ISP.

Re:So what happens

[Registered Coward v2]

So the easiest way would be to set up a fake access point with graphics stolen from Comcast's real site and then collect the usernames/passwords from people who are trying to connect to it.

Then use those to login to other Comcast sites and do whatever evil you want to.

The best part is that the poor person whom you're framing will have a more difficult time clearing his name because the evil activity happening in his name is happening in his city.

Why stop there? Once you have the fake access point you could us sit to gather all kinds of logons, passwords, etc. Or serve up your own ads, randomly drop user connections, etc. It sound sleek an ideal setup for a man in the middle attack with the added bonus if someone calls Comcast they are told it is a real Comcast site and secure.

Re:So what happens

[CastrTroy]

My ISP gave me a WiFi accessible cable modem. I leave it on for my friends to connect to when they come over. All my equipment connects to another router behind the cable modem.

Re:So what happens

[bluefoxlucid]

Well then they have reasonable doubt. It's suddenly like if they say: Someone at Panera was trafficking child pornography; you were at Panera; therefor you must come with us.

Comcast runs a line to your house. It's their line. They let you use a certain amount of bandwidth on it. It's still their line, and their equipment--you get a Wifi access point from them, it's theirs. So Comcast decides that your packets get priority; but vacant space goes to a hot spot.

The summary above is loaded, too: Comcast is not relying on homeowners' property or electricity to run Wifi hotspots. You're powering the device already, and they own it, and they own the line it's connected to. A powered-up hotspot will eat some wattage (like 30 watts), while a powered-up hotspot with a connection to it will eat some more (like 0.05 watts more)--they might actually cost you a penny or two more per year on a busy hotspot that you're renting. Complaining that someone is potentially stealing a penny from you every year is ludicrous; it's not enough for you to realistically care about the money, and only gets used as an excuse to attack something on principle.

Problem here is that the "principle" is that Comcast is using their equipment (Wifi hotspot they supply you) on their line (Internet line you lease bandwidth from) to supply service to others. The equipment happens to physically reside in your house, so many people respond to this as if Comcast is trespassing by forcefully installing their equipment for their business activity into their house.

Perhaps Comcast could take advantage of IPv6 here. Then you couldn't complain that it came from the same IP as everything else.

Re:So what happens

[bluefoxlucid]

Yes. They'd be strikingly similar to the routing rules you get by attaching a network switch to a port on a router.

Re:So what happens

[bluefoxlucid]

Yeah, the 1 cent per year.

You're using a ludicrous argument to try to wedge an on-principle enforcement into a world you don't like. If someone actually stole a penny from you per year, you wouldn't really care. If they reached into your coat pocket to take a penny, you would be very upset about the invasion of personal space, and might scream something useless about stealing when all you really care about is people groping around in your pockets.

Well Comcast owns the line and the modem. They lease you service with a specific SLA. As long as that SLA is in place--as long as the bandwidth you pay for is available when you try to use it--they're completely within their rights to lease additional on that line, and to use their equipment to provide access as long as they don't allow for unagreed intrusion into your property. So nobody's coming inside your house to plug in a CAT6 cable; and they're not connecting up to your private network, either; therefor, there's nothing of note happening here.

Re:So what happens

[zazzel]

I *suspect* that even Comcast will route this through a secondary public IP and will also log activity there. At least that's what Deutsche Telekom does. Hotspot users get an IP address different from your own public IP address. I think doing otherwise would also endanger your NATed private network, if ever so slightly.

Re:So what happens

[Muad'Dave]

... many people respond to this as if Comcast is trespassing by forcefully installing their equipment for their business activity into their house.

They ARE. Note that they are doing this without informed consent and without explicit customer approval. It's opt-OUT, not out-IN. This a very slippery slope, this bundling of 'service' - what's next, you get your car's battery replaced and don't have a say in whether there's a satellite radio repeater built into it? You get your rear window replaced and there are ads embedded in it?

Re:So what happens

[profplump]

It would make for the same routing rules in any machine with 3 or more logical interfaces (i.e. most non-SOHO routers). And a relatively simple configuration at that, as the routes are completely isolated at the IP layer.

Re:So what happens

[karnal]

The thing to note with this setup isn't about money or customer bandwidth in my opinion - if you are in a congested 2.4ghz area, those additional used frequencies have the potential to cause issues within the already congested space. Even with my home on a fairly decent plot of land sees a bunch of other SSIDs on 2.4ghz - and some are coded to non-1/6/11 channels. I'm doing my best to run with N everywhere possible on 5ghz, but some chipsets in older devices (wife's original nexus 7) don't have 5ghz availability. That's not even speaking to the diminished range of N given my router's location in the house either.

Re:So what happens

[profplump]

I agree it's unlikely that these routers are being configured with a second public IP. But since Comcast controls the upstream network they don't need one -- they just eventually need to NAT before routing you to the Internet. Which they are interested in doing because they aren't running a portal/auth on all these individual routers -- they're forwarding all the related traffic to a central pool and dealing with it there.

Re:So what happens

[profplump]

So if you lease a car the owner is entitled to run it whenever they want so long as they compensate you for gas? Or to install advertising on it? If not, why can the cable company do the same thing with the modem you lease from them?

Re:So what happens

[rabun_bike]

There is only one terminating DOCSIS gateway which most likely will only support the assignment of a single IP address. So although the internal switchable network will be on a VLAN or something similar, most likely all the data traffic will traverse across the single DOCSIS gateway and hence be indistinguishable on the Internet from your own network traffic.

Re:So what happens

[bluefoxlucid]

You sound rich. Are you also trying to stop fracking because the water tower they want to put up looks ugly?

You're complaining that people may want to use Wifi, and this is a problem because you want to use Wifi, and we should exclude everyone else from using Wifi anywhere near you because it makes it harder for you to use Wifi.

Re:So what happens

[bluefoxlucid]

Zip-Car.

Re:So what happens

[fsck-beta]

Make sure its far enough away from your own AP, even if they're on different channels they should be at least 1 meter apart.

Re:So what happens

[fsck-beta]

You rent the modem, not lease it. There is a difference, ala renting vs leasing a car.

Re:So what happens

[karnal]

Hah. I'm far from rich. The basis of this implementation isn't in my opinion about changing how much someone pays for their locally served Comcast service. Everyone has their own thoughts (opinions as it is) on how things should optimally work, and I pointed out one of the standing issues that could impair usable performance for someone. My thoughts were not about others using wifi at all, but rather about Comcast adding these additional guest access points in the same airspace (whether they're on the same channel or not - can cause congestion.) I know others that live in more confined areas (apartments) have a potential to be much more impacted by this even if they don't know how wifi actually works, which is why I mentioned people in my neighborhood having wifi on channels that are overlapping.

Re:So what happens

[vettemph]

With your type of argument, a 12 oz. bottle of water would cost 7 cents at the vending machine.

Bottled Water:
Cost = 7 cents
wholesale = 30 cents
retail = (depends on location/captive audience) 1.50 to 5 dollars.

Comcasts new hotspot (ay my house) could cause loitering, may not be as secure as they hope, interferes with my usage the same as me having too many connected devices of my own. I should get to decide the fair value, and charge Comcast what ever I want. ...as they do to me.

I've had the same voice/cable modem since I moved into my house (7 years ago). This year, the rent of the modem went up from 7 dollars to 8 dollars, per month.
The router is becoming outdated, yet they want to charge more for it even though I've payed them enough to have bought it outright.

I realize I am the sucker in this situation. I'll be switching to Verizon Fios due to that last straw. Yes, I'll still be a sucker. there is no other option.

So, this is not so much "on principle", as "fair" according to how Comcasts acts. I should be negotiating a 1 year trial where they pay me $30 a month. I'll boost that price there after as I see fit.

Re:So what happens

[vettemph]

This is brilliant. I'll start working on it right away.

Re:So what happens

[bluefoxlucid]

I see stuff online that says normally an SSID is broadcast every 10mS or 100mS (10mS seems low to me). 10 packets per second isn't really a lot, although maybe once every 1 second would be less stupid. I mean when you open a directory in a file browser, it can populate with files for 2-3 seconds if it's large--your photos directory maybe. Why do we need advertisement 10 times per second?

Aside from that, idle access points--even at 100mS between SSID advertisements--don't seem like they'd degrade network too much. In-use access points will, but then we're back to not letting other people use Wifi because you want to use WIfi.

Re:So what happens

[fgouget]

So the easiest way would be to set up a fake access point with graphics stolen from Comcast's real site and then collect the usernames/passwords from people who are trying to connect to it.

How is that different from every other Wifi hotspot service that requires a subscription? What prevents you from setting up a fake AT&T, Boingo or T-Mobile hotspot and start collecting passwords? This sounds like an overblown fear.

Re:So what happens

[bluefoxlucid]

Your argument is invalid and ludicrous. I did not argue that mark-up was bad, or anything else analogous to a vending machine price on bottled water being relatively high.

Your argument is that Comcast is stealing a penny from you, because of electricity costs--that a Wifi access point may use 0.1mW more power when someone is accessing it. My argument is that the equipment and the line are the property of Comcast, and that as long as they meet their SLA they are doing nothing wrong, and that you are only upset because of a perceived invasion of personal space and not because of any real and physical thing such as service degradation or expense to yourself.

Face it: Comcast is costing you nothing, they are getting something for free, and you are rubbing your greasy lawsuit-happy merchant hands together trying to find an argument for why they are somehow inconveniencing you and owe you recompense. If they simply backed off from this, you would get nothing, and you would also lose the option to use your Comcast account anywhere you could find a cable modem within Wifi range--you would be poorer. Comcast's options have made you somewhat more wealthy because you have access to a resource you previously did not and nobody has to pay for it; but that's not enough for you, you want to make Comcast pay you for the privilege of making your life better.

Lawsuit-happy, greedy Americans. There's eight billion tonnes of shit Comcast is doing that we can complain about, and you bitch about the one thing they do that's actually a zero-cost benefit to basically everyone.

Re:So what happens

[timeOday]

No. You won't be sharing an IP with people that connect to this, and it doesn't have anything to do with the router you probably have connected to your cable modem. As for "two physical connections back to the ISP," what would that mean, exactly? You are already on a shared circuit with at least a few of your neighbors. Every packet they send goes as far as your cable modem, but your modem can't/doesn't decrypt it (google BPI/SEC) and send it onto your LAN.

Re:So what happens

[cheater512]

Erm...a switch doesn't alter routing tables at all.

Re:So what happens

[KingMotley]

Most home cable modems support being assigned multiple IPs, and have for the past 10-15 years. Some cable companies (comcast included) allow or did allow people to have more than 1 IP assigned to them, usually set up to assign 1 IP per machine.

Re:So what happens

[organgtool]

It sounds like they're put in a separate virtual wlan than you are, and are given a separate IP.

I'm sure law enforcement officers and a jury would easily understand these concepts and there won't be any people unfairly put on trial for an outsider abusing this feature.

Re:So what happens

[KingMotley]

those additional used frequencies

There aren't any additionally used frequencies.

Re:So what happens

[KingMotley]

These modems typically have just one IP address

These modems also typically have the capability of having more than 1 IP address, and assigning them dynamically. 1 of which likely isn't going to be a public address and NATed, just like the cellular networks do.

Re:So what happens

[KingMotley]

If you have it and you want to use another wifi, first login with incorrect credentials. If that gains you access then you can't trust the network.

A honeypot would be designed to just pass the credentials you provide on to the real one, so it would know if the credentials are invalid or not.

Comcast should build a special login program for such things.

A special login program for...everything? Yeah, that's not going to work.

Re:So what happens

[KingMotley]

Yeah, or you buy a car, and it comes with an onstar radio built-in? That'll be the day.

Re:So what happens

[tlhIngan]

Also what's to stop people setting up honeypot networks named "xfinitywifi", letting you right in regardless of login credentials and packet-sniffing everything you do?

Why bother going that far?

Just have them provide credentials and always forward to a "invalid password" page. They'll probably try 2-3 times or so and you'll have captured the login information.

Which you can then turn around and connect to your neighbour's AP and get internet for free.

Bonus points for using a higher-powered access point and buying a real SSL certificate.

Re:So what happens

[tlhIngan]

I see stuff online that says normally an SSID is broadcast every 10mS or 100mS (10mS seems low to me). 10 packets per second isn't really a lot, although maybe once every 1 second would be less stupid. I mean when you open a directory in a file browser, it can populate with files for 2-3 seconds if it's large--your photos directory maybe. Why do we need advertisement 10 times per second?

Aside from that, idle access points--even at 100mS between SSID advertisements--don't seem like they'd degrade network too much. In-use access points will, but then we're back to not letting other people use Wifi because you want to use WIfi.

Here's something people don't realize about WiFi - besides the network backbone the access point connects to, WiFi devices on the same frequency communicate with each other too.

If you and your neighbour use the same WiFI channel or close to it, the two APs are actually handshaking between themselves at the management frame level (Layer 2), even though they're not actually on the same network, same SSID, or whatever. They're coordinating between themselves on usage.

And beacons are more than a "WiFi here!" broadcast, they're also used to help mobile stations save power by keeping the radio off longer. Inside the beacon is a bitmap that's indexed by association ID and tells if the AP has buffered packets for it. So a mobile station can on association tell an AP that it wants to check for traffic every 5 beacon times. The AP can either agree, refuse (perhaps there's no more packet memory) or negotiate a different interval. Then the mobile station goes to sleep if there's no traffic, and wakes up the receiver every 5 beacon periods to catch a beacon frame. If there's no traffic for it, it goes back to sleep for another 5 beacon times. If there is traffic, then it wakes up the transmitter and retrieves the packets from the AP buffers.

All that is contingent on the AP having enough buffer to store the packets (it knows it has to store it for at most 5 beacon periods - after that, it's free to drop them)

The other side effect is well, attempts to modernize the lowlevel management protocol have to take legacy devices into account. Even worse, all it needs is a legacy device on the same frequency. It doesn't matter that you have no 802.11b devices on your network, just having one on another network, same frequency will automatically disable any optimizations (because if they can't be decoded by the 802.11b station, there's a chance of a collision or interference).

Re:So what happens

[fgouget]

Why would you presume that? These modems typically have just one IP address, and I would presume that they NAT using the same one for the XFINITY wireless and for the home user.

Maybe because he knows what he's talking about and you don't?

As mentioned in the article the Xfinity users connect to the Xfinity SSID which is an open Wifi network while your Wifi network has a different SSID and is encrypted. So at the WiFi level the networks are completely separate. People seem to think this multiple Wifi network capability is new. It's not. Every access point of the past 10 years I've known about has supported 4 separate networks all along.

Then at the IP level, the way these community Wifi hotspots normally work is that when a guest connects to it he gets an address from a separate network range. Think of it as a VPN if that helps you. This ensures the guest's access is restricted to the official login server until he has registered. It also ensures the guest's IP traffic is separate from the user's local WiFi network. It also makes it possible to keep track of the guest's traffic for billing (if there's billing involved), and solves the copyright police issues.

Re:So what happens

[fgouget]

Err it would be like you and your neighbour having separate connections with 1 router. Its nothing like your neighbour having the same ISP. That has 2 routers, 2 physical connections back to the ISP, 2 routing tables and 2 public IPs.

I take it you've never heard of VPNs. You should look it up some time. Remove the encryption part which is useless in this case, and you've got everything you need. It's really not rocket science. Furthermore Fon has been doing that for years using the open-source OpenWRT as a base. So it's not even like it's some new unproven technology.

Re:So what happens

[fgouget]

The thing to note with this setup isn't about money or customer bandwidth in my opinion - if you are in a congested 2.4ghz area, those additional used frequencies have the potential to cause issues within the already congested space.

Which additional 'used frequencies'? Do you really think that your neighbours would turn off WiFi if this feature was not there? Given how prevalent laptops, tablets and smartphones are that's just wishful thinking. Or maybe you think that because you see two SSIDs it means two WiFi frequencies are used? (hint: it does not)

Re:So what happens

[fgouget]

I'm sure law enforcement officers and a jury would easily understand these concepts and there won't be any people unfairly put on trial for an outsider abusing this feature.

As the parent said, the IP address that will come up is not the cable modem's owner so there's no reason why searching for it would turn up the name and address of the cable modem's owner. So your point is just moot. Or else explain why we have not seen thousands of such cases in Spain, France, Germany, Japan where such setups have been in place for years.

Re:So what happens

[pak9rabid]

I fail to see how this changes anything, other than you now have an additional network behind your router. The border gateway into your house from your ISP is already potentially "compromised" by them, in that they have the final say of how your public IP gets used. Setting the ISP's router into bridged mode and giving your own router full control of your public IP is really what you want. I'm finding, however, that this seems to be a dying trend (Time Warner's Roadrunner service still allows it, but they're hiding the page to set your router into bridged mode such that you have to know the direct URL to the router's page to control this...I imagine they'll probably just do away with this feature entirely in the future). As far as I know, services like AT&T's U-verse and Google Fiber don't even allow setting your router into bridged mode at all (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong).

Re:So what happens

[sconeu]

My point was that you're paying for maybe 10Mbps downstream.
So $RANDOM_USER uses you as a hotspot, and downloads, oh, let's say the latest Fedora DVD. Over Http.

How do you think that will affect the remaining bandwidth available to *YOU*?

Re:So what happens

[bluefoxlucid]

You have a router sending an IP down a cable to a cable modem/wifi access point. If that wifi access point has 2 IPs, it's like having 2 cable modems down there. If we change the network media to CAT6 and put 2 devices down there, we'd need a switch for these two devices.

Think for a minute.

Re:So what happens

[bluefoxlucid]

Part of this sounds more efficient than the blunt cudgel I described.

Re:So what happens

[organgtool]

As the parent said, the IP address that will come up is not the cable modem's owner so there's no reason why searching for it would turn up the name and address of the cable modem's owner

That IP address is still tied to the MAC address of the cable modem's owner, so where do you think law enforcement will go for answers? Sure, there's plenty of reasons to exonerate the modem's owner, but at the very least they will be inconvenienced by law enforcement officials and at worst, some aggressive departments would try to levy charges just to put someone on the hook. The odds of that happening might be low, but you have to ask yourself if it's worth the hassle.

Or else explain why we have not seen thousands of such cases in Spain, France, Germany, Japan where such setups have been in place for years

They have different cultures where law enforcement may be more concerned with convicting the actual perpetrator rather than just getting a conviction. I admit this is pure speculation since I am not familiar with law enforcement in those countries, but I do know that in the U.S., many police departments and prosecutors are more concerned with increasing their percentage of solved crimes and convictions than making sure they got the right people.

Re:So what happens

[fgouget]

That IP address is still tied to the MAC address of the cable modem's owner

That's total nonsense. The cable modem's MAC address does not come into it as it does not leave the local cable network.

So where do you think law enforcement will go for answers?

Law enforcement will give an IP address and timestamp to the ISP and the ISP will give back the name and address of the corresponding user. Law enforcement will then go to that user for answers. Since you were not the one using that IP address at that time they have no reason to come and see you. If you think the ISP will bungle things up then you should be more worried about the millions of other customers of the non-hotspot type whose IP address they could confuse with yours.

Re:So what happens

[organgtool]

What I meant to say is that the MAC address of the "visitor's" computer is tied to the IP address granted by the WiFi router. Any digital detectives worth their salt would want better evidence than the username of an account which could be easily hacked or phished. They would want to tie the activity to the device that was used to commit the crime. The best way to do that would be to get the MAC address of that device. While it may be possible that Comcast's web app scrapes the MAC address from the OS and sends it during the log in process, given the large variety of devices they would need to support, that is highly unlikely. Instead, the only likely way to get that data is to retrieve it from DHCP logs of the WiFi router that granted the wireless connection. Which means you will likely be inconvenienced when a crime has been committed from your wireless router. Add on top of that the fact that most cyber criminals would be smart enough to spoof their MAC, preferably with the address of someone who lives at the residence that owns the router, and there could now be strong evidence that YOU were the one that committed the crime. I will admit that the odds of this happening to you are relatively low, but the consequences are great, and in my opinion, not worth the risk.

Re:So what happens

[fgouget]

Instead, the only likely way to get that data is to retrieve it from DHCP logs of the WiFi router that granted the wireless connection.

According to another poster who claims to work for a large ISP these modems/routers are remotely accessible so the ISP/law enforcement don't not need to walk to your home to retrieve any information they need from it. However these devices don't have the memory required to store the DHCP logs you talk about. Any relevant information would be sent by the router to the ISP during the signon process and be kept there.

Add on top of that the fact that most cyber criminals would be smart enough to spoof their MAC,

Your scenario only makes sense if that criminal specifically wants to implicate you. Otherwise the whole "stealing Xfinity credentials and driving to be in range of your home Wifi" exercise would be pointless as for simple anonimity it would be much easier for him to pick any Internet cafe or even his home (no credentials to steal) and just use something like Tor. Now if someone wanted to implicate you by spoofing one of your MAC addresses, then using Xfinity credentials that don't belong to you would be stupid. So your scenario calls for a smart stupid criminal enemy of yours. Who are you to rate this scenario as 'low probability' rather than 'totally implausible'? Some kind of fantasy world super hero with an arch enemy?

Re:So what happens

[organgtool]

According to another poster who claims to work for a large ISP these modems/routers are remotely accessible so the ISP/law enforcement don't not need to walk to your home to retrieve any information they need from it. However these devices don't have the memory required to store the DHCP logs you talk about. Any relevant information would be sent by the router to the ISP during the signon process and be kept there.

So this person is claiming that there is a back door in these devices that can be exploited without the network owner ever knowing. That sounds even worse than my original concern. Of course, it's only supposed to be accessed by the authorities, but once you open a back door it's really hard to only let the "good guys" in and keep the "bad guys" out.

Your scenario only makes sense if that criminal specifically wants to implicate you.

Why wouldn't they want to implicate someone else for a crime? Implicating someone else throws the trail off of the real perp.

Otherwise the whole "stealing Xfinity credentials and driving to be in range of your home Wifi" exercise would be pointless as for simple anonimity it would be much easier for him to pick any Internet cafe or even his home (no credentials to steal) and just use something like Tor.

Tor is not really anonymous and internet cafes are full of witnesses. Parking your car at 3:30 in the morning in a neighborhood full of Xfinity hotspots would leave fewer witnesses.

Now if someone wanted to implicate you by spoofing one of your MAC addresses, then using Xfinity credentials that don't belong to you would be stupid.

I agree that it wouldn't make a lot of sense, but confusion is a tool that has been used by malicious people for thousands of years. It throws the scent off of the real perp, buying precious time to get away or cover up the evidence.

Who are you to rate this scenario as 'low probability' rather than 'totally implausible'? Some kind of fantasy world super hero with an arch enemy?

Who are you to say that it is "totally implausible"? Besides, the fact that you and many other people would consider it "totally implausible" is all the more reason for someone to attempt it. :)

GOOGLE!

[agapeton]

SAVE US!

On The Bright Side

[retroworks]

Think of the anonymity. How can I be accused of accessing or doing anything online if my online access point could have been accessed by anyone? My history is your history.

Re:On The Bright Side

[QuasiSteve]

My history is your history

Except that it isn't...

Some people have privacy and security concerns, even though Comcast insists the public and private Wi-Fi networks are entirely separate and shielded from each other. Others worry that the public network will affect the private network's performance. Comcast says this isn't so.

In NL, some ISPs are doing the same. It's even a different public-facing IP address.

Of course, you can also turn it off. Though turning it off on your modem means you don't get to use it yourself on others' modems.

Re:On The Bright Side

[retroworks]

Ok, it's not turnkey. But instead of "anonymous browsing" I can access my own modem as a visitor.

Re:On The Bright Side

[lostmongoose]

My history is your history

Except that it isn't...

Some people have privacy and security concerns, even though Comcast insists the public and private Wi-Fi networks are entirely separate and shielded from each other. Others worry that the public network will affect the private network's performance. Comcast says this isn't so.

In NL, some ISPs are doing the same. It's even a different public-facing IP address.

Of course, you can also turn it off. Though turning it off on your modem means you don't get to use it yourself on others' modems.

Comcast says it's fine and they would never ever ever possibly lie to get people to do what they want.

Buy this rock I have. It keeps bears away.

Re:On The Bright Side

[firex726]

Because a MAC address cannot be cloned, or hell just trash a dirty NIC.

> Wasn't me officer, none of f the computers in my home have that MAC.

Re:On The Bright Side

[QuasiSteve]

You don't have to believe them, you have a few other options:

Try to hack it to get to the internal network. I'm sure there's a big bounty for succeeding (be that by Comcast or on the black market).

Disable it. You also don't get to use the feature.

In case you don't trust that disabling it actually disables it, buy a different modem. Don't complain if you get zero support :)

Re:On The Bright Side

[QuasiSteve]

I can access my own modem as a visitor.

Which accomplishes nothing, as you'd be logging in as you - unless you're using somebody else's credentials. That seems to be the main weakness, at least in the NL (Ziggo) case; people intercepting login data or the public wifi being easily hacked to grant access to the internet (not to the internal network), etc.

So, yes, you could certainly access your own modem as John Doe using John Doe's credentials, and they would come knocking on John Doe's door. Best make sure John Doe is somebody who would plausibly make use of your router, of course, otherwise "yeah I was at work 50 miles from that router, tyvm" becomes a bit of an alibi and pushes the investigation into checking MAC address (don't forget to fake that), doing some surveillance on when it's getting accessed with John Doe's credentials and triangulating the signal source, etc.

Either which way, it doesn't work as an added excuse for things that happen out of your private network :)

Re:On The Bright Side

[Jane Q. Public]

"Except that it isn't..."

SOLUTION: Use your own cable adapter ("modem") and router.

I've been doing that for years. It's MY network, and I define it as I please. I run a public access point, and it IS just one big IP address.

It's not all one network, though. I have my private network, which is protected by WPA2, and my router supports a completely separate guest network, which I have open. They can access the internet via the guest network, but nothing else.

It's all one kind of traffic to my ISP, all over the same IP address (and MAC address, for that matter).

Not only that, but it's a GOOD router. For years I have had the strongest signal in my immediate neighborhood. It is accessible from a block away, and it's not even running full power.

Yes, neighbors use it. No, I'm not the slightest bit concerned about the police knocking on my door. If they don't have a warrant based on a hell of a lot more than my IP address, I'd hand them their asses in court.

The downside: it does use the bandwidth I am paying for. But only once have I ever caught anyone using much or abusing it. A teenager down the street who was downloading MP3s.

Re:On The Bright Side

[immaterial]

You missed some pretty blatant sarcasm there, buddy.

Re:On The Bright Side

[KingMotley]

Because it knows how it was connected. The same way when you hook up your computer, you won't get the xfinity login screen first, nor will you on your wifi, but a guest accessing it would.

Re:On The Bright Side

[fahrbot-bot]

You missed some pretty blatant sarcasm there, buddy.

You missed some pretty blatant sarcasm there, buddy.

I considered that but, if it was sarcasm, it actually wasn't well executed and some people really don't know that some NICs support MAC cloning/changing, so I replied.

Conveying sarcasm in writing is hard to do well. Simply stating a contrary fact/opinion in a reply, like 'Because a MAC address cannot be cloned" hoping the reader knows the truth and assumes the writer does too doesn't cut it. There needs to be some clue that the writer actually knows the truth. When speaking, this is usually done through tone and inflection - which is hard to do on the page. In this case, a better attempt would have been, "Ya, well, it's not like a MAC address can be cloned with a few simple commands."

Comcast WiFi

[JDAustin]

Since I already had routers running dd-wrt (yea..i know I should move to open-wrt/tomato), the first thing I did when I got Comcast was have them disable the wifi on there router and set it up so it runs as a bridge instead. I prefer to have as much control over my network as possible.

Re:Comcast WiFi

[camperdave]

the first thing I did when I got Comcast was have them disable the wifi on there router and set it up so it runs as a bridge instead.

But... if it is their router, it is their network. Thus they can turn it back on at their pleasure.

Re:Comcast WiFi

[stoploss]

the first thing I did when I got Comcast was have them disable the wifi on there router and set it up so it runs as a bridge instead.

But... if it is their router, it is their network. Thus they can turn it back on at their pleasure.

I'm sure their WiFi-unilaterally-reenabled router will be encountering lots of WiFi traffic once it is wrapped in aluminum foil (or any other basic Faraday cage/signal attenuation approach).

It may be their router and their network, but it sure as hell isn't their site.

Re:Comcast WiFi

[DarwinSurvivor]

I'm not sure how Comcast does it, but when I had shaw do the exact same thing, I was explicitly warned that they would no longer be able to offer remote support for troubleshooting the modem if I left it in bridge mode (they said the can no longer directly connect to it in bridge mode). When I asked how I would get it *out* of bridge mode if a had to, they said I'd have to hard-reset it (note: they put it IN bridge mode remotely after the install).

Re:Comcast WiFi

[93 Escort Wagon]

Given what Comcast charges on a monthly basis for their routers, I don't understand why anyone uses one of theirs. You can buy a DOCSIS 3 cable modem for 60 or 70 bucks.

Re:Comcast WiFi

[mysidia]

I was explicitly warned that they would no longer be able to offer remote support for troubleshooting the modem if I left it in bridge mode

Correct. I work for an ISP on the engineering side. For the very reason that modems in bridge mode cannot be remotely monitored via IP SNMP, or accessed via Telnet etc -- our policy is route always; no modems in bridge mode. No exceptions. I'm surprised Comcast even allowed that.

If a customer has their own router, then additional IP addresses can be routed to the modem and then on to their router --- otherwise, the modem will be their NAT boundary.

No customers are provided the username/password access: all config changes by support.

If monitoring finds a modem to be tampered with or no longer responsive -- most likely service will be temporarily turned off, until support clears it after the customer pays for a truck roll (in the case someone did something dumb such as insert a pin in the reset slot of our modem).

In bridge mode, the DSL/Cable modem no longer has an IP address. The only way to regain control over it is to be connected with a laptop on the LAN side of the device and know the 192.168.bla.blah address of the modem, or do a hard reset.

Re:Comcast WiFi

[DarwinSurvivor]

Wow, mind letting us know which ISP you work for so I never accidentally sign up with them?

Re:Comcast WiFi

[mysidia]

All I can say is that this client is a large incumbent provider -- that you would probably be likely to sign up with if you moved into one of their service areas, and I am quite sure the policy of not using bridging mode on modems is fairly standard in the industry, it is not as if that is unusual.

Re:Comcast WiFi

[evilviper]

If monitoring finds a modem to be tampered with or no longer responsive -- most likely service will be temporarily turned off, until support clears it after the customer pays for a truck roll (in the case someone did something dumb such as insert a pin in the reset slot of our modem).

Not legally enforceable. The user just has to play dumb, saying your modem is defective and just stopped working, and you're on the hook to "fix" it, unless you can PROVE that the user went out of his way to tamper with it. And no, a reset button getting pressed isn't enough tampering to void a warranty.

Re:Comcast WiFi

[mysidia]

Not legally enforceable. The user just has to play dumb, saying your modem is defective and just stopped working,

I don't know about that. I think what you just described is called fraud, though. And they probably aren't going to notice if it just happens once.

When the problem repeats a few times, they are eventually going to figure out that the user is breaking it.

Re:Comcast WiFi

[Aqualung812]

No exceptions. I'm surprised Comcast even allowed that.

Comcast, as much as I hate them, actually solved this by assigning IPv6 addresses to their modem (or your modem as the case may be), and then bridging the IPv4 customer side separately. I *think* the IPv6 side is also bridged, but it could be routed.
They have been forward-thinking on IPv6, and the 2 carriers I can think of that are not Comcast that you might work for have been dragging their feet. The time to deploy IPv6 was years ago, at least on the network management side.

Re:Comcast WiFi

[lophophore]

Comcast router software completely BLOWS. And I mean that. Laden with bugs, utter crap. I just got a new "gateway" from them, a Arris TG862 and it was pretty much completely unusable until they put it into bridge mode. I would get pages that would not load (static DNCP), pages that said features were disabled (dynamic DNS), etc.

I got on chat with support and they put it into bridge mode. The support guy told me I would have to get them to put it back into router mode if I ever desired (I don't)

The good news is that the thing is crazy fast, and I mean > 120 mbit/sec incoming and > 20mbit/sec outgoing. Yee-haw.

Re:Comcast WiFi

[Anonymous Coward]

Who pays for the electricity?

Re:Comcast WiFi

[KingMotley]

When the problem repeats a few times, they are eventually going to figure out that the user is breaking it.

Haven't dealt much with cable tech support much, have you? They couldn't figure out what is wrong with a line if you handed them a cable cut in half. They'd first ask you to try and reboot the computer to make sure it wasn't that.

Re:Comcast WiFi

[dissy]

Haven't dealt much with cable tech support much, have you? They couldn't figure out what is wrong with a line if you handed them a cable cut in half. They'd first ask you to try and reboot the computer to make sure it wasn't that.

What does the average tech support flow chart reading monkey have to do with automated CPE monitoring setup by the network engineers?

Re:Comcast WiFi

[fgouget]

and I am quite sure the policy of not using bridging mode on modems is fairly standard in the industry, it is not as if that is unusual.

You should qualify that with 'in the US'. In France Free has always let customers choose between bridge and router mode. Actually if you have fiber, bridge mode is the only way to get 1Gbps as otherwise the NATting, saturates the CPU around 400Mbps.

Re:Comcast WiFi

[evilviper]

I think what you just described is called fraud, though

Nope. The user is under no obligation to say if they've done anything to the device to cause it to stop working, while the company that provided it, IS obligated to fix it.

When the problem repeats a few times, they are eventually going to figure out that the user is breaking it.

Doesn't matter what they assume is happening. Legally, they need to PROVE the cause of the problem is nothing even incidental to the equipment, and the user even doing reasonable amounts of dicking around with it won't qualify.

The company is on legally indefensible ground, if they're doing what you've claimed.

Re:Comcast WiFi

[mysidia]

Doesn't matter what they assume is happening. Legally, they need to PROVE the cause of the problem is nothing even incidental to the equipment

No. My understanding is that these folks only need to prove it legally in order to sue. There are plenty of self-help remedies available... for their 1 out of 1 million customers that would be a problem The fact is, that they can tell the difference between a "faulty" CPE, and one that has been reset or that was damaged due to physical abuse.

Not to mention, using the 'reset hole' on the CPE normally leaves evidence in the form of an electronic log.

Nope. The user is under no obligation to say if they've done anything to the device to cause it to stop working, while the company that provided it, IS obligated to fix it.

This is not true. The loss prevention organization has it within their authority to gather their equipment, forcibly terminate service, and add the contractual disconnect fee to be made against the bill, or by forfeiture of the deposit for leasing the equipment -- which includes the truck roll cost, and cost recovery for any equipment that the service provider couldn't recover, or that was found to have physical abuse, such as physical damage to the enclosure or breaking of warranty seals.

The service provider is inclined to continue service, as long as the customer abides by the rules they require to ensure that providing the service is not a net loss for to the service provider.

Re:Comcast WiFi

[evilviper]

The loss prevention organization has it within their authority to gather their equipment, forcibly terminate service, and add the contractual disconnect fee to be made against the bill, or by forfeiture of the deposit for leasing the equipment

That may be written in the contract, but it would never stand up in court. You can't rent out defective products, then instead of fixing them during their mandatory warranty period, *charge* the customer for the broken equipment and additional fees. And you've got a high burden to prove that the customer's actions caused irreparable damage.

Re:Comcast WiFi

[mysidia]

That may be written in the contract, but it would never stand up in court.

Service provider contracts are not subject to the courts, but binding arbitration is nearly a universal requirement among all the major service providers.

You can't rent out defective products, then instead of fixing them during their mandatory warranty period, *charge* the customer for the broken equipment and additional fees.

Unless the consumer can prove that it's defective, then, yes you can, and most all the major service providers will not provide free replacements for equipment apparently damage by the customer OR by lightning or other environmental problems that are the customer's responsibility.

And you've got a high burden to prove that the customer's actions caused irreparable damage.

The service providers don't have to prove it, once they've made their determination to fine for damages, that's that. The burden of proof rests with the customer of the service providers, after the service providers' team made the determination.

Re:Comcast WiFi

[evilviper]

The burden of proof rests with the customer

Federal law has said the exact and complete opposite, at least since the 1975 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and other related acts.

Your continual assertions that fly in the face of all reality, has been a complete waste of my time. I see every reason to believe you don't posses the knowledge or position you claim to, and are actually quite ignorant of the subject.

Re:Comcast WiFi

[mysidia]

Federal law has said the exact and complete opposite, at least since the 1975 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and other related acts.

Just another armchair Slashdot lawyer, spouting off irrelevent cases and laws which don't apply to the situation.

Service providers with a contractual relationship for providing a service, are not beholden to laws that govern the warranties for manufactured consumer products. There is no warranty in the first place, in such arrangements.

BT in the UK do this

[Harlequin80]

I was in the UK last year and you can pick up loads of BT open wifi hotspots you can connect to. These then piggy back on a home consumers network connection.

I'm very suss on this as I would have thought contention alone would be a hell of an issue but I assume it is rate limited in some way. I had a play for a couple of minutes trying to compromise my sister-in-laws setup and couldn't manage it but I am far from skilled in that area.

Re:BT in the UK do this

[drinkypoo]

I'm very suss on this as I would have thought contention alone would be a hell of an issue but I assume it is rate limited in some way.

Bingo. Pretty much nobody gives you as many bits as they can push through the wire, on cable anyway. The additional power consumption is negligible, and the user won't lose any bandwidth since they're limited anyway.

Re:BT in the UK do this

[AmiMoJo]

My brother had this BT wifi service and showed me the app for this phone. It connected to BT wifi hotspots with his username/password automatically. I downloaded it and tried it out with a cloned MAC address and SSID of a nearby BT access point and it tried repeatedly to connect to my honeypot. I was able to capture the credentials I put in and use them to log in to the real access point.

Re:BT in the UK do this

[dissy]

I assume it is rate limited in some way

Just to clarify, it is rate limited in the same way your existing connection is (though likely more so)

Docsis 3 configured with 4096 QAM can push 10 gbps down and 1 gbps up the coax.
Out of that, your service will be allocated some bandwidth over a number of channels, depending on what the ISP feels like offering and how much you are paying them. In the US, lets say you get a 20mbps down package (For our UK friends, pretend it's 100mbps down) - and that is your rate limit.

Now they can allocate a new channel for the other virtual circuit. This is equivilent to having two people in your house each subscribing to the same cable ISP and having their own cable modem on the wire.
Short of massive bandwidth packages requiring many channels, both modems can live and operate quite happily on the same coax, each tuned to a different channel. (Only if multiple channels are bonded to give more bandwidth are dedicated coax runs involved)

In this case, there is a channel your modem uses for your own service, capped at whatever you pay for.
There is a seperate channel the modem also tunes to and sends to the wifi access point built in, that other subscribers can login to.
This unrelated channel will also be capped, and likely much lower than your own service.
That channel is bound to a virtual circuit that isn't under your name, and shows as a dialup pool or the like, where radius logs can link usernames and login times with DHCP logs and the IP(s) being used by whom.

In both cases, a metric crapton of unused and unallocated bandwidth over the coax is sitting there idle. Instead of 10000-20 mbps unused, there will be something like 10000-20-5 (or whatever they end up allocating the wifi)
The bottle necks are further up stream within the ISP network (typically at their edge routers, which link them to other networks) - no longer at the last mile.

In fact the only difference between two virtual circuits terminating in the same modem (one going to ethernet and wifi radio 1 for you, the other going to wifi radio 2 for others) is the hardware being used to do it.
Accounting, bandwidth, and cost wise there is no difference between this setup, and both you and the person next door subscribing to the same ISP.

As far as the network itself goes, this is already a well known and quite solved problem, and has been going on for decades.

The only real concern is the piece of hardware servicing these two circuits in the same software stack. Any security flaws that would let one circuit route to another in any way differently than if they were separate routers would be a "very bad thing"(tm)

Right now I can only reach you over the network by that ethernet jack in the cable modem, that your firewall names "the outside". Any packets I send must abide by your firewall rules to make it through.
A flaw in the router might possibly allow routing between wifi radio 2 and ethernet/wifi radio 1 in a different way than from coax to ethernet/wifi radio 1 and coax to wifi radio 2.

Imagine iptables setup on a machine with 3 ethernet jacks. #1 is ISP, #2 is you, and #3 is the roommate. Packets from #3 to #2 should NOT flow if they wouldn't also be able to go from #1 to #2, or from #1 to #3 even.

Docsis even provides security features where all the cable modems on the same coax can only communicate with the CMTS. You and the person next door, or even the room mate in the same house, willingly communicating over the network will route packets from you out to the cable co and back to the same house to the room mate. Replies take the same long path back. Each cable modem encrypts using unique keys.

Having two such encryption channels in the same cable modem is part of the 3.1 spec at least, so this is more like using an existing feature instead of inventing a brand new home grown solution out of a linux box with multiple network adapters.
(Which I'm not knocking! But sometimes carrier g

Re:BT in the UK do this

[Harlequin80]

The other issue I though of afterwards is to do with NAT table overflows. I have manage to crash every consumer grade router I have used if I run loads of torrents over it. Would be kinda annoying if you router would lockup due to other peoples torrenting.

Though it would probably be a small usage case.

That is why you use your own router

[wiredlogic]

That, folks, is why you never use an ISP provided router. Of course at some point you'll be forced to "upgrade" to a modem with integrated wifi.

Re:That is why you use your own router

[gman003]

My ISP-issued modem has built-in WiFi. They want to charge me $10/month to use it (they locked out admin access, obviously - first thing I tried).

Since I literally cannot get a different ISP without moving, I just dug out an old wireless router from my box of miscellaneous computer stuff and set up my own network. Based on broadcast SSIDs, either they let users pick their WLAN name, or literally everyone in the building did the same thing I did.

The ISP's name is "Telcom", not that it does much good. Last I checked, the top Google result was for a Somali ISP (who would probably have better service - the connection is slow, goes out every few months for no good reason, and the support is phone-only, 9-5 weekdays). Somehow they negotiated exclusivity with my apartment complex.

Re:That is why you use your own router

[wvmarle]

Sorry to let you know that the end user can easily switch off the functionality.

The only bad thing here is that the ISP is doing it secretly.

Re:That is why you use your own router

[mcrbids]

I fail to understand why this is in any form, a problem?

I'm currently using Comcast Basic Internet for $65/mo. For this I get 25 Mbit speeds. If I paid $100/mo, I could get 100 Mbit speeds. If I did so, there would be no change to my equipment - they'd twiddle a bit someplace and I would suddenly get more speed.

So what this means is that there's at least 75 Mbits of available bandwidth that's not being utilized. Since I'm not using it, why not make it available to a paying neighbor?

From what I've seen about how Comcast modems work, every household is essentially on a rate-limited VPN to some master server located (in my case) hundreds of miles away. Because of this, latency, though not bad, is never excellent. (I never see a 20ms ping to *anything*)

Truth is, the public access side of things would have near-zero impact, other than perhaps using a wifi channel.

Re:That is why you use your own router

[ruir]

You are way better with your own wifi router. The hardware of the operator normally has limited capabilities and their DNS proxying/NAT slows down your Internet experience, and besides if you use your wifi to stream movies for the TV, the operator router wont take it and freeze once in a while. In the plus side you are also more in control of your network, specially if you know a little of what you are doing. Is is Telcom, or are you talking about the infamous Telkom in SA?

Re:That is why you use your own router

[SeaFox]

That, folks, is why you never use an ISP provided router. Of course at some point you'll be forced to "upgrade" to a modem with integrated wifi.

I can just build a nice little Faraday cage for it to live in.

Re:That is why you use your own router

[Overzeetop]

Depends on where you are. My DSL tops out at 7/768k. The latter is wholly unacceptable for VoIP if any other network operations are going on (since outbound slows when inbound is maxed, and fixing it with QOS requires limiting downstream b/w to 3-4Mbps).

My cable provider used to provide uttterly shitty service, but this recent time around the drop-outs have been almost non-existant. My up-to-50Mb service routinely peaks around 60-62Mb, though the upstream is only about 8-10 (vs 15 advertised). And when I say "peaks" I mean for 1+GB of download during daytime hours - it may fluctuate between 50-62Mb during a long download, when it's not limited by the remote site.

Re:That is why you use your own router

[WhatHump]

What if you have no choice but to use their router? I tried using my own but the modem portion of the ISP's modem/router wouldn't play nice with it, and kept hanging my router several times a day. I checked on-line and customers of their competitor have the same complaint. Even though I'm in IT and fairly comfortable with the technology, I don't have hours of spare time to try to find my own compatible DOCSIS 3.0 modem and router that will work with it. So, bottom line, the ISP wins, and I end up renting their POS hardware.

Re:That is why you use your own router

[swb]

The problem is that Comcast doesn't have the uplink bandwidth past the neighborhood aggregation point.

I know a lot of people who have bought Comcast's higher speed packages and only ever get a fraction of it, especially during peak usage.

I had a client with multiple buildings that each had Comcast business internet. With good firewall hardware (using hardware assist crypto) at both ends we could not get a VPN to deliver anything more than a 1/4 of the paid bandwidth tier. Both endpoints were located on different aggregation points due to the geography of the building placement.

What's ironic about this (or not) is that Comcast wants to shape Netflix down to lower bandwidth because they consume too much but they want to use customer routers as access points?

Re:That is why you use your own router

[Anonymous Coward]

Some ISPs don't give you a choice. AT&T U-Verse uses crypto certificates to lock you into their gear. Can't use anything else because they won't give you a cert to put on it, and without the cert you can't connect.

Re:That is why you use your own router

[fsck-beta]

Just build a makeshift faraday cage around their modem and run your ethernet out to your router/AP :)

Re:That is why you use your own router

[sjbe]

So what this means is that there's at least 75 Mbits of available bandwidth that's not being utilized. Since I'm not using it, why not make it available to a paying neighbor?

I can think of a variety of reasons. Off the top of my head:

* I see no reason to let Comcast profit additionally unless I get something in return like extra bandwidth or a discount on my bill.
* The neighbor isn't paying for any any service calls that get made should the equipment fail.
* The neighbor nor Comcast is compensating me for vacation time in the event of a service call
* The neighbor may be involved in illegal activities I want no part of given that law enforcement is going to come to me first if there is a problem.
* There is a non-zero probability that the neighbor's use of spectrum may interfere with my use of that spectrum and I'd rather not facilitate that.
* It offends me that Comcast could provide extra bandwidth to me for close to zero marginal cost but instead chooses to charge me for it.
* I don't really care to give people any reason to hang around closer to my home than necessary
* It's unclear if my bandwidth is protected and given priority access (my guess is that it is not)
* Comcast charges absurd rental rates for their equipment so I should get full access to the capabilities of the equipment if I'm renting

Re:That is why you use your own router

[LoRdTAW]

I've said it before and ill say it again:
- ALIX board and case running m0n0wall
- Ubiquiti UniFi AP
- Decent switch (I like the metal box Netgear stuff, never had one fail on me yet. Currently I have a GS108T smart switch which lets me port mirror for packet sniffing devices, very handy)

Isolate the WLAN from your LAN. I only let ssh from the WLAN to the LAN. I only use the WLAN for my laptop, phone and tablet. Most of the things I do on those mobile devices are internet related so I don't need nor do I want both networks to be bridged. If I need LAN for my laptop I use a cable from my switch or ssh tunnel. I also disable the router's web configuration page for the WLAN.

Total cost is something like $250 - $300. Expensive to some but to me its totally worth it. I have never had to reboot the m0n0wall router since installing it about 4 or 5 years ago and the only time it was powered down was during hurricane sandy and the few times I needed to move things around so I unplugged it. Sure you could but a WRT54 and flash tomato or ddwrt but you are limited in terms of memory and you have only one LAN, the ALIX has three lan ports and mini PCI. I have only had the Ubiquiti AP for two months so I can't comment on its longevity but so far its been pretty damn solid. I had a WAP54g that started to crap out every day and needed to be rebooted plus its range was pathetic. From the attic to the first floor I had one bar of signal on my mobile devices. The Ubiquiti gives me full bars in the basement. The nice part is it is PoE so you just run an ethernet cable to it and a power injector at the router. You need to install this giant software package to manage and configure the thing but in the end it was worth it.

If you have a fast connection (100+mbps), the ALIX board might be underpowered and you will want to look at the Soekris net6501. Its costly but has four gigabit NIC's, mini PCIe, up to 2GB RAM and 1.6GHz Atom CPU and two PCIe x1 slots. I have been eyeing it for a while to run pfSense but I have no reason to replace the little rock solid ALIX/m0n0wall system.

Re:That is why you use your own router

[KingMotley]

I had a similar problem with comcast for about a year, and would call them on it. Eventually, one tech did something, and moved me to a different node in the neighborhood. It was awesome because he also messed up the config for it, and while people were typically getting 6 (or 10 with an upgrade) Mbps, I was getting 54Mbps... which I think was the full speed of the node at the time. They eventually caught it and fixed it about a year later when they were rolling out the newer speeds in the area though.

Re:That is why you use your own router

[KingMotley]

* I see no reason to let Comcast profit additionally unless I get something in return like extra bandwidth or a discount on my bill.

Like access to wifi when you are away from home?

* The neighbor isn't paying for any any service calls that get made should the equipment fail.

This doesn't change anything.

* The neighbor may be involved in illegal activities I want no part of given that law enforcement is going to come to me first if there is a problem.

Why would you suspect that? Perhaps you should buy the house next to you, so that the feds don't step on your lawn as they bust down his door.

* There is a non-zero probability that the neighbor's use of spectrum may interfere with my use of that spectrum and I'd rather not facilitate that.

Yes, the alternative is that comcast lease space from the electric company and set up their own wifi hotspots on every pole. That will be much better for your spectrum as it degrades your signal at all times instead. Sounds like a better plan.

* It offends me that Comcast could provide extra bandwidth to me for close to zero marginal cost but instead chooses to charge me for it.

Are you suggesting that bandwidth capacity is free? Naive.

* I don't really care to give people any reason to hang around closer to my home than necessary

Don't worry, I don't think anyone wants to be closer to you than they need to be.

* It's unclear if my bandwidth is protected and given priority access (my guess is that it is not)

You appear to guess wrong a lot.

* Comcast charges absurd rental rates for their equipment so I should get full access to the capabilities of the equipment if I'm renting

Then buy your own.

Re:That is why you use your own router

[sjbe]

Like access to wifi when you are away from home?

Already have that. Don't need Comcast to get it. Perhaps you haven't noticed that free wifi base stations are ridiculously common these days.

Are you suggesting that bandwidth capacity is free? Naive.

I'm an accountant. The difference in cost to Comcast to provide faster bandwidth one the equipment is installed to allow it is minimal and certainly FAR less than the difference in price they are charging.

Don't worry, I don't think anyone wants to be closer to you than they need to be.

Kiss my ass.

Then buy your own.

I did. Thanks for your unhelpful suggestion.

Don't trust their "opt-out"

[LookIntoTheFuture]

External WIFI router and a Faraday cage. Just when you thought Comcast couldn't be more evil. Bam! F-you Comcast.

Sounds good

[timeOday]

So long as this access point is separate from and invisible to my Internet access, I wouldn't mind. However since they are getting the use of my property and electricity, I would at least like reciprocity in the form of using these wherever else they occur, particularly from a smartphone (thus avoiding the need for a generous data plan). Comcast should also let the property owner decide whether this new access point runs in the 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz band, so as to avoid any slowdown of my own access point.

Re:Sounds good

[mcl630]

If you are a Comcast Internet customer, you can already use Xfinity WiFi where it's available, even if you aren't providing this service to them.

Re:Sounds good

[timeOday]

Hmpf. Seems like they should deduct a couple bucks per month from your bill then, for power if nothing else.

Have fun with it?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you see someone parked in front of your house, masturbating in their car to porn via your network.... unplug your router before they can finish.

This just in: Xfinity creds harvested with fake AP

[AlienSexist]

So now just make a fake Xfinity access point and harvest credentials of passing visitors. Then use those credentials across the country to pin your unsavory traffic on someone else. Free bandwidth for life!

Don't they use extra hardware for this?

[NotSoHeavyD3]

So my cousin got Comcast internet at the business he owns. To do that Comcast wireless stuff they basically brought some piece of hardware that was separate from the cable modem and router for his business and stuck it in a closet near where the cable wire first came in the building. I'm guessing for homes they're going to do the same thing, have that extra box in your house somewhere but your cable connection wouldn't use it. (Admittedly the thing does use some of my cousin's electricity to run so it's not free for him.)

Re:Don't they use extra hardware for this?

[the_Bionic_lemming]

You let people in to your house to install things?

When Comcast showed up for the install I gave them a coax to wire into, and a laptop hooked into my router to test with. Both of which were in my backyard at the back door of my home.

south Florida too...

[Jager Dave]

Was speaking to my Comcast rep at work, even business routers are bring converted, howevrr they will use a separate channel for the wifi network. Still sounds like a bad iidea to me.

There's always a way to gum up the works

[GoSmalltalk]

This is nasty. Opt out if you can. If you can't, physically unplug the modem whenever you don't use it.

Cheers!!

just when I don't think it can get worse

[Wansu]

... it does. Comcast is pure evil.

bandwidth cap?

[the_Bionic_lemming]

What happened to the bandwidth cap? You know, cause the one household was sucking all the u-pron and warezing?

If one house has to provide for twenty or thirty coffee sippers warezing and u-proning, does the cap come into play?

If not, why was there even a discussion of capping bandwidth?

isn't that illegal and dangerous?

[PC_THE_GREAT]

dafuq. You are paying for that, plus it is your home network that you are opening up, and the isp believes he can decides who to allow or not in your network??

This will be cool for me

[the_Bionic_lemming]

I will dump my comcast account, call my brother who has to have the best of the best and pays for all things comcast, get his log in info and hop on the neighbors signal.

Net savings? 29.99 a month until july, the 69.99 a moth after that.

Bring it!

Turn off wifi

[HalAtWork]

And get a 3rd party router.

Re:Turn off wifi

[ruir]

I second this. I put the crappy cable modem in bridge mode, disable the wifi, and put a Time Capsule dealing with the traffic/wifi.

and you have to rent this box as well

[Joe_Dragon]

Wow now Comcast should make them rent free if they want to do this.

Also Knowing how some times they can't even get cable tv right I don't really trust them to make so others can't hack in or lets say overload the box with users.

YOU HAVE TO SIGN IN WITH YOUR COMCAST ID

[Blinkin1200]

Sorry to repost - orig post was as AC... maybe someone will actually see this one. This is NOT an open Wifi network. You must sign in with a Comcast / Xfinity User ID in order to use the network, AND you are signing into SSID 'xfinitywifi', NOT your local, private, SSID 'Ithinktheskyisfalling'. I saw it pop up on my router last year and do not have a problem with it. Any activity on the xfinitywifi SSID in going to be associated with a specific user, probably not me. Looking at the current networks in my area, I see xfnintywifi on channels 3 and 6, also another 'un-named' network, on one or more channels, that is probably emanating from the same device or another close by, judging from the MAC addresses and signal strength. I have a Samsung Galaxy Tab 2, wifi only, that I use as my mobile device and connect to the XfinityWifi network, using an ID on my account, at multiple locations. I am glad they set it up and give me access to it. No, I do not have a smart phone. BTW - there are other networks, Optimum and TWC, that can also be used with your Comcast User ID. What was it that Yoda said? - 'The ignorance is strong with some of these...' or something like that.

Time Warner

[ohnocitizen]

Yes there are ways around this for tech savvy users. That's not the point. The point is Comcast pulling something like this at all - and the way they have gone about it - all say "we can't be trusted with the power we already have". What's to stop them from mandating customers use their equipment? Especially if they are the only show in town.

I hope this provides further fuel for efforts to stop Comcast's merger with Time Warner.

The good and the ugly

[ruir]

We have here a similar service with a former incumbent operator, which wonders of wonders has almost a virtual monopoly of cables services. The service itself is very useful and allow us to roam in most of locations without paying anything extra. Apparently it is a roaming authentication setup where you can authenticate in the modem of another customer, in a different VLAN/network and at limited speeds. (whilst at home you have 100 Mbps, roaming speeds appear to be on the range 5 to 2 Mbps). There are no dangers of someone knocking in the door of the other because of hacking/porn/whatever, all remote usage is linked to your account due to you logging with your id/password. The downside of this setup is that the 2.4GHz band is overcrowded, with most of the neighbours taking 2 (B)SSIDs. Often this situation compromises the quality of the service itself, both for the proper customer, and to the roaming service is equipment is providing. The situation has gotten so bad, I know of people installing repeaters at home, and I myself had to migrate to a new router in the 5GHz band to be able to work properly. I also disable the operator equipment and it works only in bridging mode, as the CPU capabilities are weak, and I don not trust the security if brings to my own network. There are also some persons who piggyback on the credentials and the family/friends, and use this service permanently with a (very) reduced Internet capacity. (As a side note, in both of my 2 houses in two different cities I can count as much as 40 BSSIDs when walking around the house)

Re:The good and the ugly

[ruir]

I also forget to add that when you do have the roaming SSID (FON) open, it is not that unusual to have 2 or 3 "roaming" users connecting to you. Many people lend their passwords to friends or family for them not to buy Internet.

Re:The good and the ugly

[AmiMoJo]

There are no dangers of someone knocking in the door of the other because of hacking/porn/whatever, all remote usage is linked to your account due to you logging with your id/password.

That isn't how the copyright police work. They get an IP address and force Comcast to hand over the subscriber details associated with it. Hopefully Comcast will be competent enough to tell them that someone else was logged in to your connection at the time, but maybe not. In any case you will still get a letter demanding money for alleged copyright infringement, and will have to respond and deal with it.

It gets worse if the accusation is terrorism or child porn related. In that case the cops will probably raid your house anyway, just in case. They have done so based on people's google searches at work before, and the concept of someone using their neighbour's wifi is hardly new and doesn't seem to enter their minds when mounting up.

Re:The good and the ugly

[fgouget]

That isn't how the copyright police work. They get an IP address and force Comcast to hand over the subscriber details associated with it.

Why would someone logging into this separate network get your IP address? This makes no sense and is absolutely not how it works with Free's FreeWifi community network for instance. So unless you have proof that Comcast does it the stupid way you're just reacting like someone who's just afraid of anything new. Down worry, I'm getting off your lawn now.

Re:The good and the ugly

[AmiMoJo]

On the BT system in the UK they get the same external IP address as people using the subscriber's wifi. There is only one ADSL modem and it only gets one IP address that is shared between both (isolated) wifi networks.

Re:The good and the ugly

[ruir]

Are you sure of that? I actually have noticed the internal netblocks are different but not that. If it is really that way, it is a major argument to disable the service.

Re:YOU HAVE TO SIGN IN WITH YOUR COMCAST ID

[Todd Knarr]

And what exactly is stopping a bad guy from setting their network's SSID to 'xfinitywifi' and hijacking traffic? That's one reason I don't trust public hotspots in general, it's too easy for someone else to impersonate them and while I can and do protect my computer against attack from malware I can't protect my network traffic from the access point I'm connected to.

As far as "logging in" with their user ID, I doubt Comcast has set up the infrastructure to do 802.1x authentication and most clients aren't configured to handle it. They're using browser-based authentication, which means your computer will connect to any AP using SSID 'xfinitywifi' without prompting you and all your traffic will be accessible by that AP. A simple Web server mimicking the signon page coded to accept any password and you won't notice a thing.

Re:YOU HAVE TO SIGN IN WITH YOUR COMCAST ID

[dltaylor]

BUT, do the "external" users all get a separate IP address, guaranteed NEVER to be linked to your address for a cop stomp (because they have, and will continue to, assault suspected child porn fans)?

This is just what Fon was

[Anonymous Coward]

This is nothing new. BT in the UK have been doing it for a while and it all originated (I think) with the Fon project. Which may have started in Spain, (though I'm happy to be corrected).

The bandwidth available to the public network is limited and it collapses to zero if you're using your own network flat out.
Also it doesn't get included in your traffic cap.
So the obvious worries are unfounded.

Whether you trust them technologically to get it right and keep it separate is a different matter. And yes, anyone can set up a rogue hotspot that captures credentials. But that was possible with any branded national hotspot network before.

BT have a smartphone app that will automatically connect a BT broadband subscriber to any shared private/public network of this sort that it finds, making it possible for me to walk most of the way across town with continuous wifi access on my smartphone. But it's a flaky app and also rather stupidly only allows you to search for available hotspots on a local map IF you're already online (doh !!). I'd find the same app for my laptop very useful but it seems not to exist.

The biggest pain I found with the whole dual network thing was that the public side of it is a "freely connectable, fill in your details on the first webpage you see" sort of thing. This means your PC may arbitrarily connect to it instead of your own "proper" network sometimes. (until you actively tell it not to), then find it can't actually do anything.

What they have NOT offered (and which would be rather useful) is the facility to setup a guest network in your house. What they currently offer is only a guest network for BT (or in the OP, Comcast) subscribers.

 

Re:This is just what Fon was

[ruir]

In Portugal ZON also offers FON. Pity is that as far I am aware, you can roam in other countries, but I may be wrong. The whole thing is very interesting but connections a bit flaky, as you can routinely jump from one "hotspot" ZON to another. At home, since I disabled FON in our home router, things have improved, and since I disabled our own FON ssid, the stability was better until I disabled everything all together and installed a 5GHz wireless router. I also had routinely crashes of the modem/wifi router when streaming things to my apple TV, and also normally 3 or 4 permanent "guests" which probably use passwords of friends or family, and as little as they used, they were a burden for the rather limited hardware resources of the device.

Similar thing operational here

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, they announced it beforehand and do allow you to opt-out (clunkily) at the price of no partaking for you elsewhere either.

My experience is that the (cisco) CPE firmware is shoddy and will fail in mysterious ways, and that this is pretty hard to tell the support people. They'll just (have you) reset the darn thing and skip on fixing the underlying issues. Too bad it's DOCSIS and so harder to replace with own equipment than, say, ADSL would be. Similarly, the promised "you won't notice a thing" (in your bandwidth) is not quite true either, and the wireless easily becomes downright unstable. As such, nice idea, technical execution not so professional.

Note that they supposedly separate the traffic streams entirely and since the logging in on the "public" hot spot involves a separate username/password from presumably their centralised credential servers, abusing hotspots elsewhere should't reflect on the people yonder, but on whoever is tied to the credentials used. Assuming the ISP does their job right, of course.

Re:Similar thing operational here

[ruir]

I dont like replying to ACs, however I second that. The wireless service with other people using it as guests was too unstable for my taste. Disabled the darn thing.

Re:YOU HAVE TO SIGN IN WITH YOUR COMCAST ID

[epyT-R]

it does congest the band though.. if everyone in the area has comcast (likely for a given area), now we have 2x as many accesspoints to contend with.

Re:YOU HAVE TO SIGN IN WITH YOUR COMCAST ID

[Todd Knarr]

In theory they should. But you have to trust Comcast to properly research the logs and determine that that IP address assigned to your modem (since the WiFi's part of the modem) was assigned to the public WiFi side and not your account. I'm not sure I'd trust Comcast with that when the consequences of them getting it wrong are so serious, I'd prefer to keep control over access. It may not stop all possibility of illicit access, but at least it'll be something I could have done something about.

Very common in France, circa 2009 and elsewhere

[j-beda]

Lots of people do this all over the world.

The last time I was in Paris for an extended stay, back in 2009, at least one of the major ISPs was doing this on all their customer routers. The world did not seem to come to an end (or at least I haven't noticed it - maybe I'm oblivious). I can't recall if it was SRF, Numericable or Orange or "free" or one of the other big telecom companies, but they certainly had a lot of hotspots. They might have started working with FON to get an international system going I seem to recall.

https://corp.fon.com/en

The "public" wifi did not eat into the subscriber's bandwidth or whatever data caps they had. I don't know how (or if) they addressed the potential for honeypots stealing credentials.

Re:Very common in France, circa 2009 and elsewhere

[ruir]

They must have had addressed it, because the roaming authentication app asked me to install an iOS profile in my iPhone, and if I am not mistaken, a certificate was installed with it. Will have to check the profile better.

FON & Deutsche Telekom

[zazzel]

Same principle here in Germany.

But Deutsche Telekom is not doing this as an opt-out thing, but as opt-in - plus you need a certain router model. I bought the (inexpensive) router and opted in, because now I can use all of these home router hotspots, plus all FON hotspots worldwide, all Telekom hotspots (in public places, at McDonald's, in high speed trains). The public hotspot users get very low QoS, so they don't harm my VDSL connection.

And the best thing: All I have to do to keep using it is connect the home router at least once every 30 days. So since the router is not my primary choice, 99% of time I'm freeloading and using my custom router, all the while keeping my hotspot privileges.

Well Good...

[shiruba3094]

If the WiFi Network is a separate SSID and the traffic is routed straight outside, I don't see any huge problem with this. Except that Comcast was a rip-off last time I checked, so if they are going to be using everyone's private locations to improve their coverage, they could at least give you a discount for it. The whole "But it's using my electricity", etc. is a bit silly. The router is likely to always be on 24/7 in your house anyway, and it's doubtful that it uses much more power over the course of a year just because there is some occasional visitor accessing it from nearby. Opt-in sounds great, but we are talking about cable company internet customers. These are not the informed types that have Covad or Speakeasy run to their homes. These are the Joe Sixpack that buy the local cable or telecom internet (and the crappiest consumer package at that). If you don't make it opt-out, nobody will opt-in because they likely won't understand it, much less bother with it.

Whatever happened to free WIFI?

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

Was the threat of lawsuits from what people did on your connection enough to abandon the thought of everyone being cool to each other?

No security issues here. Nope. None.

[wiredog]

How hard is it to set up a router with the network ssid "xfnintywifi " and gather up all the username/password combinations that people use to log on? Not hard at all.

Good advice

[evilviper]

And Stemme has trust issues. Of Comcast, he said he doesn't "trust their (customer-service) team to provide accurate info."

In general... Request any important statements IN-WRITING. When they ask why, you can tell them that you want your lawyer to review it... They might say they don't / can't do that, but just insist, and they will do so, as they must.

Mark my words, what you get in writing is often completely and totally different than what you've been told verbally. You can record your calls, too, and it's legally admissible if you tell them you're recording, or their system tells you it might be recording... but it doesn't have the same psychological effect as explicitly telling them you want a hard copy for reference.

IMHO, nothing they've claimed is impossible, just unlikely... A combined DOCSIS modem and wifi AP *can* certainly uncap your bandwidth when third-party users log-on. It *could* also have dual radios, so 3rd parties are not even on the same channel as your WiFi. It *could* be issuing a second IP so customers can't troll /. and get your IP perma-banned. And the firewall *MIGHT* just be good enough to ensure that those customers can't possibly reach your inside network even with lots of forged packets... But I doubt it. And I bet what you get officially, in writing, will instead say there's potential for problems, and offer you some minor compensation if they've screwed up and your home network is hacked wide open...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

One small comfort. You can blame it on intruders.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

One small comfort for these consumers would be, "Well, this IP address that downloaded prOn via tor and paid for it using bitcoins stolen from MtGox was assigned to my home address, I don't dispute that. But some one using Xfinity wifi account piggy backed on my router without my permission and did that. It must be that way. *I* would never do such a thing. And one the neighborhood kid was seen walking around with eyes glued to the smartphone screen oblivious to everything. He must have done it."

different network

[tommeke100]

There is a clear different network between you and the "public connectors".
They also need to log in with their Comcast credentials, so it's only them whom can use this "public access".
The point is not other users leeching of your connection, the point is you get to use wifi in a lot of places where other Comcast users opened their network.

A Client of Mine Had One Installed Yesterday...

[charles05663]

I have a client (a business) in Montpelier, Vermont who had their residential cable service upgrade to "business" class. I was there while they did the work. While they were still there I checked out their work and found the extra cable modem and WiFi router and asked them about it (this was two additional devices off of a splitter). They informed me that it was part of the Xfinity service to provide a public hotspot. I said great, what is the login credentials so visitors to the office can use it. I was informed that since they were a business they (the client) was not permitted to use it and it was only for other Comcast users. I then proceeded to closet where everything was and unplugged the modem and hotspot and only left the business class modem they left. You could tell that they were pissed but could do nothing about it.

What pissed me off is that the client is paying for the electricity and hosting the device for Comcast and not allowed to use it. To top it all off, the stuck a sticker on the clients front window advertising the hotspot with out asking (this is a law office). Needless to say, I ripped that sticker off the minute I saw it.

Re:A Client of Mine Had One Installed Yesterday...

[Joe_Dragon]

should also taken out the splitter as well.

Not much fuss over this in the UK

[ConfusedVorlon]

In the UK, BT has partnered with FON and automatically advertises BT-Fon hotspots on consumer routers.

I haven't seen any objections to this.

One upside (which I did occasionally find useful when I was on BT) is that they allow the homeowner free access to any wifi hotspot in the BT-Fon network.

And don't forget....

[ATMosby]

It is important to remember that Comcast subscribers pay extra for a Comcast supplied wifi cable modem (at least in Minneapolis). Really silly of people not to notice.

Opt-in

[phorm]

And that's a fair model. Make it opt-in with a caveat: you can only use *other* people's public hotspots if you opt-in to providing one yourself.
That gives you not only a choice, but a fair value return for the service of hosting wifi from your property.

Re:One small comfort. You can blame it on intruder

[PPH]

Unless Comcast assigns the public side of their router a second IP. Better check before visiting those CP websites.

Re:Well...

[PPH]

As long as Comcast keeps the free wireless on its own network,

Can I hack my 802.11 stack and increase my bandwidth using channel bonding?

Same experience

[justthinkit]

Bunch of calls. I had tech questions about their product. They had no answers. Gave me the run around. One person even hung up on me.

My question was whether I could turn off the wifi permanently, or would it always default on after a reboot. Never got an answer.

The other question I have is the wireless radiation level. My new NetGear puts out 22,000 microwatts per meter squared.

Anyone taken a meter to their Comcast router? With multiple bands I bet it is also in the 20,000 range...

Re:YOU HAVE TO SIGN IN WITH YOUR COMCAST ID

[fgouget]

it does congest the band though.. if everyone in the area has comcast (likely for a given area), now we have 2x as many accesspoints to contend with.

Wrong. Just because an access point now handles two SSIDs does not mean it grew the extra hardware to handle two separate WiFi channels overnight. All access points have been able to handle 4 independent SSIDs for the past 10 years at least, but all four are always on the same frequency.

Question #1: will Comcast pay legal fees?

[whitroth]

Will Comcast sign a legally-binding agreement that, in the event that someone uses your hotspot to plot with Al Queda, or d/l kiddie porn, or whatever, that they'd defend you to prevent you from being charged in connection with it? Which of them will go in your place to Gitmo, or San Quentin, or whatever....?

                      mark "not a chance in hell I'd agree"

one would think

[Phusion]

You'd think that Comcast would segment the public wifi traffic from your LAN traffic. You know, that would be the smart thing to do...

Do they do this? I have no idea. I got tired of reavering my neighbors and gave in to paying for Comcrap late last year. Fortunately I'm in such a remote location, I doubt they'll ever enable this feature in a town with two stop signs and a grave yard.

USA: A backward people

[fgouget]

So for once Comcast actually brings a new useful feature. What is the reaction? Legitimate criticisms like (it seems) the lack of share and share alike rule (1) or the lack of a partnership with Fon which would extend the community abroad.

No, instead we get everyone trotting their paranoïa about this newfangled functionality that they don't know anything about. It does not matter that this new functionality has been in use in many countries without trouble for years. They worry about hotspot users accessing their private Wifi (non issue as the separate Wifi channel and routing keeps things separate), complain about spectrum pollution caused by the extra SSIDs (moot as the extra SSID is on the same channel), worry about the FBI breaking their door for copyright violations caused by other customers (hotspot access is tracked so the ISP will give the right name and address to the FBI), worry about data caps (again hotspot access is tracked separately), bandwidth usage (it's easy to limit the hotspot bandwidth usage and lower its priority).

Has the USA really become the land of the backward and tehnophobic people?

(1) The rule would be: if you disable this feature, that is if you don't share your bandwidth with other customers; then you cannot use the other customers' access points/bandwidth when you're away from home.

Fantastic idea if done right

[John Jamieson]

As long as it does not impact personal use at home, this will be a great service no one will want to give up once they are used to it. Of course, there will always be leechers that want to use, but not provide.

Please Rob Me

[Bitbeard]

Love the map available without credentials (hotspots.wifi.comcast.com). Comcast just told everyone in the world, "Hey! There be laptops and tablets in this house!"

Reminds me of pleaserobme.com.

If the Routers could do this...

[JonathanHart]

If the routers were able to simultaneous wifi networks the whole time, why wasnt this functionality made available to the device renter? I wouldnt have minded a separate network accessible only to my guests. I suppose the company figured out that we would use it for exactly what they wouldnt want us to use it for. Namely, run two separate networks and split the bill for the connection with a neighbor.

The real issue

[Brother Witch]

Aside from the security and bandwidth issues which can be dealt with, the real issue here, IMO, is that Comcast is doing this and STILL charging their customers out the yingyang. They want to create a public Wifi network around the urban areas, fine, great I am all for it. However, prior to this feature, which lets them do it, they would have to pay rent on antenna and transmitter/receiver space. Now they put it in your home and then charge you to let them create this public net? I don't think so, not for me. The would need to either pay me or give me a steep discount to allow this and every single one of their customers should say the same thing. Why am I going to pay to support Comcasts infrastructure?

already in UK. as BT Wifi; BT FON

[eionmac]

All routers supplied by major UK ISP BT (British telephone) reserve 10% of bandwidth for public access to router, but on a separate log in. BT-Wifi OR BT-FON, thus you as a deal if you permit this 10% sharing [Itis an opt in service] can thus access any free BT WiFI or BT FON elsewhere away from home or in home. On 'find all wireless signals' my router detects My WiFi , neighbours's WiFi all named and locked encrypted and two other signals BT FON and BT Wifi unencrypted available to visitors (thus their doings not on "my ISP" logs or outsiders not on "my ISP" logs). I find it useful at home and abroard.