Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Sued For Turning Home Wi-Fi Routers Into Public Hotspots
HughPickens.com writes: Benny Evangelista reports at the San Francisco Chronicle that a class-action suit has been filed in District Court in San Francisco on behalf of Toyer Grear and daughter Joycelyn Harris, claiming that Comcast is "exploiting them for profit" by using their home router as part of a nationwide network of public hotspots. Comcast is trying to compete with major cell phone carriers by creating a public Xfinity WiFi Hotspot network in 19 of the country's largest cities by activating a second high-speed Internet channel broadcast from newer-model wireless gateway modems that residential customers lease from the company.
Although Comcast has said its subscribers have the right to disable the secondary signal, the suit claims the company turns the service on without permission. It also places "the costs of its national Wi-Fi network onto its customers" and quotes a test conducted by Philadelphia networking technology company Speedify that concluded the secondary Internet channel will eventually push "tens of millions of dollars per month of the electricity bills needed to run their nationwide public Wi-Fi network onto consumers." The suit also says "the data and information on a Comcast customer's network is at greater risk" because the hotspot network "allows strangers to connect to the Internet through the same wireless router used by Comcast customers."
Although Comcast has said its subscribers have the right to disable the secondary signal, the suit claims the company turns the service on without permission. It also places "the costs of its national Wi-Fi network onto its customers" and quotes a test conducted by Philadelphia networking technology company Speedify that concluded the secondary Internet channel will eventually push "tens of millions of dollars per month of the electricity bills needed to run their nationwide public Wi-Fi network onto consumers." The suit also says "the data and information on a Comcast customer's network is at greater risk" because the hotspot network "allows strangers to connect to the Internet through the same wireless router used by Comcast customers."
... but their Xfinity Wifi Hotspot program, if implemented correctly, shouldn't cause customers any real harm.
What I believe happens is that your modem gets virtualized into two modems/routers. Cable Internet is already based on shared broadcast signals, so in terms of bandwidth it should be identical to adding a second, mostly inactive cable modem somewhere in your neighborhood. Since the 2nd modem is virtualized, it should not affect your transfer rates or bandwidth quotas.
This second modem is connected to a second, virtual router, with its own SSID. Unless there's a vulnerability in the router (which is possible), users of the Xfinity Wifi Hotspot should not be able to access your network, use your IP address, etc.
Available bandwidth could conceivably be reduced, due to more packets in the air, but WiFi is already unregulated and subject to additional interference. Increased load on the modem/router could theoretically reduce your bandwidth as well, although probably not by any noticeable amount.
The best claim is based on increased electricity usage. However, the additional energy needed is probably negligible. Here is a link to a blog post about the increased electricity costs, where they conclude it's about $8 per year in the mid-Atlantic area -- if it's being used. Comcast could give everyone a $1/mo credit for enabling the Xfinity WiFi Hotspot, completely eliminating the issue.
and thats the thing they're getting sued over.. ..there's something seriously wrong with our legal system..
I live in a rural area, and do dual-sport motorcycle riding on mountain trails in the Appalachians. There is a small "town" where we stop to fuel up and eat, and this place doesn't even have cell phone service. However, I did find that there is an Xfinity hotspot. Actually, I didn't even know what the Xfinity thing was until seeing this story, but it now makes sense why there was a "commercial" hotspot at this little crossroads. They allow two one-hour free trial sessions a month, which just happens to be about the frequency I ride through there, so it has been extremely useful to communicate while having lunch. So I give Xfinity a thumbs-up as it was that or nothing at all (and I do mean nothing) in this one particular place.
What Comcast needs to do is share just a tiny bit of this revenue with customers whose routers provide this service. It might only amount to a dollar or two a month, but that would be an incentive to have it turned on, and would offset the extra cost of electricity.
Better known as 318230.
You will not notice 500mw of draw on your monthly bill. You lose more in the conversion losses of the power supply.
Because I have BT broadband in my home, people in the street nearby can use a BT hotspot. The quid pro quo, Clarisse, is that I get to use a massive number of hotspots for free in return, as part of my monthly service.
Parked in a street outside my kid's band practice waiting to collect here ? There's a hotspot. Sat in a cafe ? There's a hotspot.
In fact in a typical densely populated neighbourhood I get almost solid wifi coverage for miles and miles. Is that worth $8 a year to me ? Probably. And it's an option I can always switch off.
Now
- I'm no fan of Comcast (though it's a few years since Iived in the USA)
- Sure, someone might discover a flaw in their router and bridge the networks (but then they might discover a flaw and just hack my personal wifi network anyway).
But overall, what the hell are most people REALLY concerned about ? The electricity is the only real legit grounds for complaint and you can be sure that if they'd rolled it out with a pro rata cash back to compensate for the juice used there would still be people moaning.
What I really want out of a home router is
- my own private wifi
- a public facing hotspot (in return for which I get to use a million hotspots nationwide)
- a guest network for people who visit. Who may not have an account with my ISP but whom I don't want on my LAN either, In fact I'd rather have the option to create a shortlived temporary login for this guest account.,
Does anyone offer the third of these yet ?
Considering the fact that one is probably generally not just using a modem as a hotspot for comcast, but is actually getting some personal use out of it, and considering that, for example, to declare even a *portion* of your rent or mortgage as a business expense in a home business you have to actually almost *exclusively* dedicate some square footage of your home, such as a den or what have you, to that business, and not use it for any personal purposes (cheaters on this front get dinged a lot if they are unfortunate enough to get audited, and the likelihood of a home business owner being audited in any given year is not insignificant), so I'd suggest that the fact that the modem might be taking up some real estate in one's home that they pay tax on is not grounds for compensation to that effect, since they are getting use out of the modem that has nothing to do with what may be benefiting comcast.
Even if you wanted to argue that the customers deserve more compensation than 50cents per month because of the real estate used by the modem, considering they can easily take up less than a tenth of a square foot, plugging that into the average square-foot rate for real estate in the area where the customer lives would probably only amount to perhaps a only a few additional pennies per month. If you factor in the notion that it would not be reasonable to compensate them for 100% of that, becuase the customer is getting some use out of the modem as well, it probably doesn't even work out to a whole penny.
As for bandwidth, if the public wifi is not on the same hotspot that the customer is expected to use, then the customer has the full wifi bandwidth, and anyone on the router's public wifi hotspot will not generally impact any upstream wired connectivity. And hey, it's comcast's network... they have a right to put whatever equipment they want on their own network. The modem that they you lease from them to use their network belongs to *THEM*... the fact that it may be in your home does not make it your property.
As for the impacts on the customer's network... it's not on the customer's network. It would be on comcast's network, unless the customer is expected to use the same hotspot that the router is supposed to have open to the public, which is probably not going to be the case.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I had Comcast for residential service for two years not long ago (2010-2012), and they gave me no problem with using my own modem. (They did try to charge me for not returning it when I disconnected service, but corrected their error without a hassle.)
They also still list acceptable personal modems on their website:
http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.ne...