Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house

Robert Webb rwebb at
Thu Dec 11 22:09:48 UTC 2014

Many read, but what choice do they have. In many cases Comcast is the only 
game in town and it is either agree, or have no "real" internet access at 

I am one that has opposed the auto opt-in of this setup. The main reason is 
that Comcast wants up to foot the bill for power and space for their 
benefit. While, yes, it is very minimal, what's good for the goose is good 
for the gander. By that I mean why shouldn't we be able to nickel and dime 
them like they do to us. We pay for internet access and they want to charge 
us for access AND to lease equipment. Yeah, sure, if you are a residential 
user or a business class user without a static ip, then you can go out and 
purchase your own device. But if you have BCI with static IP's then you are 
screwed. I have the 50/10 BCI with 5 static IP's and then I have to pay an 
additional $12.95 per month just for the crappy SMC device. If I remember 
correctly, residential pays $8.95 per month.

Equipment should be included in the cost of the service, and always was in 
the past. But yet, Comcast has decided to nickel and dime us to death for 
everything, not just modem rentals.


On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 08:17:19 -0500
  Scott Helms <khelms at> wrote:
> Not a law, it's in their updated terms and conditions that no one 
> On Dec 11, 2014 8:12 AM, "William Herrin" <bill at> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Jeroen van Aart <jeroen at> 
>> > Whose fault would it be if your comcast installed public wifi 
>>would be
>> > abused to download illegal material or launch a botnet, to name 
>> random
>> > fun one could have on your behalf. :-/
>> Doesn't work that way. Separate authenticated channel. Presents
>> differently from you with a different IP address out on the 
>> What Comcast is stealing is electricity. Pennies per customer times 
>> boatload of customers.
>> theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person
>> intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another
>> without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to 
>> taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value
>> of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime
>> is "petty theft,"
>> Unless of course the knucklehead jurisdiction passed a law to allow
>> it. I'm betting they didn't.
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>> --
>> William Herrin ................ herrin at  bill at
>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <>
>> May I solve your unusual networking challenges?

More information about the NANOG mailing list