Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house
khelms at zcorum.com
Fri Dec 12 03:37:18 UTC 2014
Seriously, I mean the availability of WiFi coming from your house clearly
trumps trespassing laws.
On Dec 11, 2014 8:16 PM, "Matthew Kaufman" <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
> Lots of other good reasons to oppose this (Comcast customers parking in
> your driveway to get the service, etc.)
> What would you tell AT&T if they installed a coin phone at every
> residential outside demarc?
> Matthew Kaufman
> (Sent from my iPhone)
> > On Dec 11, 2014, at 4:33 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> > This thread is out of control... I will attempt to summarize the salient
> points in hopes we can stop arguing about inaccurate minutiae.
> > I don't like the way Comcast went about doing what they are doing, but I
> do like the general idea...
> > Reasonably ubiquitous free WiFi for your subscribers when they are away
> from their home location is not a bad idea.
> > The way Comcast has gone about it is a bit underhanded and sneaky. The
> flaws in their plan are not technical, they are ethical and
> communication-oriented in nature.
> > To wit:
> > There's nothing wrong with Comcast adding a separate SSID with
> dedicated upstream bandwidth on a WAP I rent from them.
> > There's no theft of power, as the amount of additional power used is
> imperceptible, if any.
> > There's no theft of space, climate control, or other overhead as this
> is performed by existing CPE.
> > There's probably no legal liability being transferred by this to the
> > In short, the only thing really truly wrong with this scenario is that
> Comcast is using equipment that the subscriber should have exclusive
> control over (they are renting it, so while Comcast retains ownership, they
> have relinquished most rights of control to the "tenant") how the device is
> > As I see it, there are a couple of ways Comcast could have made this an
> entirely voluntary (opt-in) program and communicated it to their customers
> positively and achieved a high compliance rate. Unfortunately, in an action
> worthy of their title as "America's worst company", instead of positively
> communicating with their customers and seeking cooperation and permission
> to build out something cool for everyone, they instead simply inflicted
> this service on chosen subscribers without notice, warning, or permission.
> > In short, Comcast's biggest real failure here is the failure to ask
> permission from the subscriber before doing this on equipment the
> subscriber should control.
> > Arguing that some obscure phrase in updated ToS documents that nobody
> ever reads permits this may keep Comcast from losing a law suit (though I
> hope not), but it certainly won't improve their standing in the court of
> public opinion. OTOH, Comcast seems to consider the court of public opinion
> mostly irrelevant or they would be trying to find ways not to retain their
> title as "America's worst company".
> > I will say that my reaction to this, if Comcast had done it to me would
> be quite different depending on how it was executed...
> > Scenario A: Positive outcome
> > CC "Mr. DeLong, we would like to replace your existing cablemodem
> with a DOCSIS 3.0 unit and give you faster service
> > for free. However, the catch is that we want to put up an additional
> 2.4Ghz WiFi SSID on the WAP built into the modem
> > that will use separate cable channels (i.e. won't affect your
> bandwidth) that our other subscribers can use once they
> > authenticate when they are in range. Would you mind if we did that?"
> > ME "Well, since I currently own my modem, and it's already DOCSIS 3,
> I don't want to give up any of my existing functionality
> > and I have no desire to start paying rental fees. If you can provide
> the new one without monthly fees and it will do everything
> > my current one does (e.g. operating in transparent bridge mode), then
> I don't see any reason why not."
> > Scenario B: Class Action?
> > CC ""
> > ME -- Discovers Xfinity WiFi SSID and wonders "WTF is this?"
> > -- Tracks down source of SSID and discovers CC Modem in my garage is
> doing this.
> > -- Calls Comcast "WTF?"
> > CC "blah blah blah, updated ToS, you agreed, blah blah"
> > ME Starts calling lawyers
> > ========
> > Unfortunately, it seems to me that Comcast (and apparently other Cable
> WiFi assn. members) have chosen Scenario B. Very unfortunate, considering
> how much easier and more productive scenario A could be.
> > Owen
More information about the NANOG