Comcast Converting 50,000 Houston Home Routers Into Public WiFi Hotspots 474
New submitter green453 writes: 'As a Houston resident with limited home broadband options, I found the following interesting: Dwight Silverman of the Houston Chronicle reports (warning: paywalled) that Comcast plans to turn 50,000 home routers into public Wi-Fi hotspots without their users providing consent. Comcast plans to eventually convert 150,000 home routers into a city-wide WiFi network. A similar post (with no paywall) by the same author on the SeattlePI Tech Blog explains the change. From the post on SeattlePI: "What's interesting about this move is that, by default, the feature is being turned on without its subscribers' prior consent. It's an opt-out system – you have to take action to not participate. Comcast spokesman Michael Bybee said on Monday that notices about the hotspot feature were mailed to customers a few weeks ago, and email notifications will go out after it's turned on. But it's a good bet that this will take many Comcast customers by surprise."'
This follows similar efforts in Chicago and the Twin Cities.
Liability (Score:5, Insightful)
So does this mean that charges for copyright infringement (or other such activities) will no longer be brought against people based on IP Address evidence alone? Because this certainly gives a lot of people a lot of plausible deniability.
Secondly, how are the clients being compensated for the hotspot service they are now providing?
Liability (Score:5, Insightful)
My guess is that you'll be compensated by having access to a city-wide wifi hotspot.
Re: Liability (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Liability (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is a shitty thing to do, but, Comcast is a shitty company, so no surprise there. But there is a simple answer. Turn it off. If you don't know how, do a little research and figure out how. If you can't be bothered to expend a little mental energy, then it must not be much of a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is a shitty thing to do
Why is this such a bad thing? Everyone already knows that ISPs oversell their bandwidth. As long as you still
get the speed you are paying for why should you care if someone else is using your wifi anymore than you care
if your neighbor is also a comcast subscriber. I doubt it increases your electricity cost and you get the benefit of
using other people's wifi when you are out and about. This seems like a win-win for everyone. I don't see the problem
if it's done correctly especially as you have multiple ways
Re: (Score:2)
As long as you still get the speed you are paying for... ...if it's done correctly especially as you have multiple ways to opt out.
Three big "ifs" there: if you get the speed you are paying for, if done correctly, (if) you have multiple(?) ways to opt out.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Liability (Score:5, Funny)
Opting out should never be considered a reasonable mechanism for not being in a subscription group unless you have first opted in.
Why are you poking me?????
Because! You are in my new hourly poke subscription! It is free and fun! If you prefer you can opt-out by simply filling out this paperwork.
Oh... we are sorry to see you go. But rejoice! By opting out of the pok of the hour group you have been automatically subscribed to the 15 minute nipple pinch! (opt out instructions below.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because someone might attach to your Wi-fi and share something in a manner that infringes copyright. Then, the MPAA/RIAA will come after you.
Note, I completely agree that targeting people based on IP address is idiotic, but you would be the person who would either need to spend the time/money to fight this lawsuit or would need to s
Re:Liability (Score:5, Informative)
Because someone might attach to your Wi-fi and share something in a manner that infringes copyright. Then, the MPAA/RIAA will come after you.
Note, I completely agree that targeting people based on IP address is idiotic, but you would be the person who would either need to spend the time/money to fight this lawsuit or would need to settle with them (likely agreeing that you did the crime) to make it go away.
On the upside, it could add more dents into the "this IP address proves it was that person" claims of the MPAA/RIAA, but who would want to volunteer for this expense? Or, more accurately, who would want Comcast to volunteer them for this expense unless they go through technological measures to opt out?
You obviously didn't read the article. They are using the wifi and completely segregating traffic. It appears with a distiinct SSID and on a different IP. The capacity is on a different channel, so gain the host user isn't affected.
Re:Liability (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Liability (Score:4, Interesting)
Besides it further assumes that they are not using Carrier Grade NAT [wikipedia.org] which is exactly how Free, a French ISP that has been doing the same thing for years, is handling this.
Even better, as now all the WiFi users appear to come from a single IP as far as the MPAA/RIAA is concerned, which means the only way they can get more info is if Comcast keeps insanely detailed records about every one of these connections. Keeping normal accounting information won't be enough to identify a copyright infringer...Comcast would also have to keep the IP/port connection logs from the NAT device.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No no, the answer is to cancel your own Comcast service and mooch off your neighbours who don't know any better. Unfortunately you'll be hurting your neighbours, but in return you'll be hitting Comcast where it hurts not once, but twice: once for having dropped your service, and once again for using essentially the same service you used to pay for via their new city-wide free WiFi.
Seriously, what idiot thought this would be a good idea? Punish your customers and give moochers, criminals and cheapskates fr
Re:Liability (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Liability (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not being from the US, could you please explain what makes this illegal?
His ego.
Re:Liability (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Given the scenario we're discussing, I would put real money on the SSL issue not stopping the vast majority of people.
Note: I am not in a Comcast area. I don't have first-hand experience with them, so this is all speculation.
That being said, I'm pretty sure this will be run on a captive portal (same as most hotels/coffee shops/etc), where the first UNENCRYPTED HTTP address will be redirected to a login page. The user will then have to supply whatever credentials that Comcast requires.
The attack is simple
Re:Liability (Score:5, Informative)
I'm assuming their modems/routers have a way of provisioning a second IP address so that the wifi hotspot doesn't get you in legal trouble (or steal your bandwidth).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming their modems/routers have a way of provisioning a second IP address so that the wifi hotspot doesn't get you in legal trouble (or steal your bandwidth).
If that is the case does that mean I just have to change my mac address and connect to the public wifi rather than my normal ssid, and I can torrent everything I want and not worry about getting hit by a copyright infringement law suite.
still eats up CPU and Wifi Spectrum and cable node (Score:3)
still eats up CPU and Wifi Spectrum and cable node space.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Liability (Score:5, Informative)
- Public wireless users will be using a different IP address from the LAN/internal wireless users.
- In order to use the "Public" wireless hotspot, you will need to already have a Comcast username and password. It's not OPEN wifi, but open to other Comcast subscribers.
- "Public" wifi bandwidth will not affect the bandwidth of the home router (so says Comcast).
Re: (Score:3)
- "Public" wifi bandwidth will not affect the bandwidth of the home router (so says Comcast).
Comcast also tells customers it delivers X Mbps of bandwidth. While some lucky customers in certain areas do get that, a vast majority don't. So, it might not affect what they call the maximum bandwidth, but for a majority of users it will affect their actual bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Liability (Score:4, Informative)
Public WiFi? (Score:2)
What makes me think this is not Public WiFi? You're going to have to pay to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
not if you're a comcast customer
Re:Public WiFi? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Public WiFi? (Score:4, Informative)
My point exactly. It's 'Subscriber WiFi', not 'Public WiFi' as TFA suggests.
Re: (Score:2)
This. It's not Public Wifi. It's Wifi for Comcast customers.
Oh I get it... (Score:3)
This is about making some congressman or senator happy. They must have agreed somewhere to offer free wifi or something for cities in return for maintaining their monopolies. And this is how they're delivering.
On the backs of their stupid customers.
Seriously... if you have comcast... cancel them now.
Re: (Score:2)
There is usually at least one alternative... and anything is better then comcast.
Re: (Score:2)
In my area, I have Time Warner Cable (soon to be Comcast) and that's it. No FIOS or any other high speed, wired broadband. So if I don't like what TWC/Comcast does, what are my options beyond going without Internet service (not an option given that I'm a web developer).
Re: (Score:2)
By many you mean 0 or 1, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Now I can start streaming TV episodes I missed once again, just as I did in the golden age of two years ago, even when my cable provider isn't one of the three tiny companies in the network apps "Verify My Cable Carrier" list.
Credential phising (Score:5, Interesting)
How long before someone releases a tool that would have a Linux-running computer or device with a WiFi card masquerading as an official Comcast WiFi hotspot an collecting the usernames & passwords of the users trying to connect ?
Re: (Score:2)
that would be an awesome way to get free ESPN, Disney Jr and other streamed TV access
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
>>> to do identity freud as well.
Lets not anally fixate on this point.
So buy your own damn router. (Score:4, Interesting)
The real problem here is people logging on to "comcast wifi" or whatever it's called using the same credentials they use to log on to their ISP account. How hard will it be for nogoodniks to set up hotspots called "comcast wifi" (or whatever) and scoop up all the credentials?
Here in NoVa Cox is doing the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
How hard will it be for nogoodniks to set up hotspots called "comcast wifi" (or whatever) and scoop up all the credentials?
What makes you think they have not already done it? BTW nogoodniks is not how you spell NSA.
the ultimate mesh network (Score:2)
thousands of wifi routers providing free service. i might have to go back to a dumb phone and just carry around a small tablet everywhere i go. why pay extortion prices for cell data when wifi will be literally everywhere
Re: (Score:2)
Except, there is no 'free'. You have to be a Comcast subscriber to use this.
So, they're offering a 'free' service to people who are paying an additional fee on top of their existing service to access this 'free' service.
And they're using the gear in people's houses (and possibly some of their available bandwidth) to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
I was wondering about this also. It depends if the authentication is via the WIFI connection or a guardian webpage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:the ultimate mesh network (Score:5, Informative)
We have this stuff here in Netherlands at one of the biggest providers (Ziggo). It seemed great to me at first, but turned out pretty much useless.
The problem is, these are home routers inside homes, this means they are low powered, not at ideal locations (not many homes in the mall, highway, train, etc), and also inside usually thick walls that stop a lot of the signal. It's just a frustrating experience, with your phone often falling in and out of connection and such. The 4G network gives a much better experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Custom routers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In my parts comcast charged 6 bucks a month, when I can go down to staples and buy a fairly good cable modem for 60 bucks that will last for years. Frankly trusting your cable co to be in charge of your wifi and firewall seems like a bad idea. It gets worse they ship these garbage routers to business setups and will insist they can not just bridge until pressed hard.
Re: (Score:2)
You gotta love their style... (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet they'll count this as "upgrading their infrastructure," just another fine example of the innovation they claim will come to an end if ISPs are better regulated.
Nutz (Score:2)
Ok, I'm generally on the side of the ISPs (I work for one) but this is nuts.
On another note, I totally want this. It immunizes you from DMCA letters.
"Sorry Comcast, I'm not pirating movies. It could have been anyone!"
Re: (Score:3)
It's not the DMCA letters you need to worry about.
It's the copyright trolls and law enforcement people.
Because when you get served with a copyright infringement suit for downloading thousands of videos, or get hauled off to jail because your location was used for something illegal ... that's where the real problems begin.
Unless we're meant to believe that this will in no way trace back to the home-owner, and be a completely air-gapped and firewalled thing. And, I must say, I'm skeptical of that.
Because, r
Re: (Score:3)
If Comcast assigns a different IP address to wireless users than to the hosting wired user, there wouldn't be any confusion over if the wired user or a wireless user downloaded evil files.
Unless Comcast assigns a unique IP address to each wireless user (which I suspect they won't on IPV4) sorting out which, of possibly many, wireless users connected at the time of the download may require more tracking -- which I suspect Comcast will do.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I'm generally on the side of the ISPs (I work for one) but this is nuts.
On another note, I totally want this. It immunizes you from DMCA letters. "Sorry Comcast, I'm not pirating movies. It could have been anyone!"
You missed the part where you have to log in using your Comcast account to access them.
Re: (Score:2)
No I didn't. Who said I'd use MY account?
You basically have a giant brute force target sitting there city wide.
So... (Score:2)
Peachy (Score:2)
As a relatively pleased Time-Warner customer I am sooooo looking forward to Comcast acquiring TW.
Sue them for increased electricity costs (Score:2)
Where do I send the electricity bill? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Opt out (and, presumably, that also opts you out of accessing the Comcast WiFi 'network').
Dwight's blog entry is not paywalled (Score:2)
FON (Score:2)
Doubt it will work well (Score:3)
ISP Managing my LAN (Score:3)
Good thing.... (Score:3)
Here in holland and across europe the same is being done. The thing is, technically, many homes are hooked up with a line physically capable of say 20mpbs, but with only a 10mbps subscription. The extra bandwidth can be alotted to "guest users".
Similarly, even if someone has a 20(or more) mbps subscription on a 20mbps line, he/she won't be using all of it all of the time. So you can again use part of the bandwidth for guests. In this case it would be fair to give the original subscriber priority to use whatever he/she wants, and put the guests at a lower priority.
Oh, security wise they also separate the original subscriber from the guests.
I have the impression they do this "sensibly": the subscribers don't really have a valid reason to be upset about it.
And the thing is: If you're a subscriber, suddenly there are hundreds or thousands of places where you won't be using your 3G datalink but a wifi hotspot. Faster, cheaper!
Re:Who owns them? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is my understanding that this will be done only on Comcast-owned equipment, and using a separate logical connection (like a VLAN) from the local subscriber data. This won't affect any subscriber data cap one way or the other. If a subscriber cancels, they probably unplug the Comcast equipment (so the wifi goes down) because they are supposed to return it to Comcast (or get billed).
Re: (Score:2)
That's the theory. I'll be curious to see it in practice.
Because I have far far less confidence in their ability to competently do this than you seem to.
oS, I suppose) or by time of day. (Score:3)
I would rather have a system in which the public bandwidth comes out of the bandwidth I contract for, with my being compensated for the bandwidth the public uses and my being able to limit the public usage fraction either by bandwidth (personal QoS, I suppose) or by time of day. The marketing people could call this service your "Internet solar roof."
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they magically double the connection speed, because the highest bandwidth available for home Comcast internet is typically a small percentage of what the line can carry.
The problem here, as I see it, is that the caps are low to begin with only because Comcast oversubscribes its backend hardware significantly. I'm betting the recently upgraded the back end, but rather than backing off caps they offer this new service instead.
Re: Who owns them? (Score:2)
I have a 105mbps connection that frequently tests higher than that, so that doesn't sound right.
Re: (Score:2)
Basic math?
Also, Comcast currently offers 150 down for business customers, and I'm sure there's headroom in that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's the real scandal here: your line have plenty of headroom, but they're going to further saturate their backend at everyone's expense.
If Comcast is your only broadband choice, at least switch to Comcast business service - it's worlds better (not good, mind you, but still vastly better than the foul pit of Comcast residential).
Re: (Score:2)
If Comcast was doing the Google Fiber setup, it would be more like 4tb of customer bandwidth sharing 4tb of "node" bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
I would assume only Comcast ISP subscribers would be able to access the 'public' WiFi network. Why wouldn't whatever a WiFi user consumes be 'charged' against the data cap on their wired connection?
Re: (Score:2)
no more data cap
Why? The cable modem will be able to figure out what traffic is coming from the home vs. coming via the public wifi, and can count those separately. (And can do different speed shaping and prioritization).
subscriber cancels service
Same question. If the cable modem is plugged in, they just need to block the ethernet and "personal" SSID, leaving the "public" SSID operational.
Re: (Score:2)
As proven time and time again, cable companies seem to have a very difficult time accurately computing actual data usage. I wouldn't have a lot of faith that they can accurately keep track of data usage of two networks from the same cable modem.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. How long until a Grandpa Random User is charged a huge overage fee because "they" downloaded a fifty HD movies via torrents - when the downloads were actually Public WiFi users? Or, more insidious, Joe User is charged a small overage fee for just barely going over the cap when the real reason for the overage was one or two Public WiFi downloads being marked under the subscriber's account?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Monthly quota? (Score:5, Insightful)
The usage is tied to the visitor's account, not necessarily the home owner. Does lead to interesting questions though. Is a subscriber usage limited (capped) when using other peoples wifi, if not, what happens when the home owner logs into their own router as a visitor?
Re: (Score:3)
Or swaps logins with another comcast customer, so they each use each others logins on their own routers.
Re: (Score:3)
why is this so complicated? comcast knows when you are at home, and when you are "roaming" on to other customers' wifi hotspots (because they make you login to them). wherever you are, your cap is applied to your account.
no, i don't have any special knowledge here, it just HAS to work that way or it's ripe for abuse.
Re: (Score:3)
If they require a Comcast customer login, then it's not a public wi-fi hotspot at all.
Re: (Score:2)
And, if their security is incompetently implemented (which it likely will be), who bears liability?
If the police show up with a warrant saying you downloaded movies, or kiddie porn, or participated in a terrorist chatroom -- you're pretty much screwed, and all because Comcast decided to re-sell what you'
Re: (Score:2)
There have been significant advances in networking since 2002. You should read up.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also been significant advances in incompetence, and corporate greed.
And those two are things you should be really worried about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They'll probably just attach all traffic associated with your login to your account, whether it's on your cablemodem or on the wifi (if the wifi is comcast-customer-only, they'll have to have some way to authenticate that you're a comcast customer). Which will suck if/when someone gets your credentials (either by sniffing the radio or setting up a fake hotspot).
Re: (Score:2)
in the USA the big cable companies provide FREE wifi service to their customers
Re: (Score:2)
Existing Comcast customers would get free access to these hotspots.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Heard reports of it in these parts (Tennessee) a few days ago. I have Comcast but I also have my own modem and router.
It's a separate upstream channel. (Score:2)
From what little I understand, the public WiFi stuff is on a separate upstream channel.
It's not using your bandwidth, but it is using bandwidth that Comcast doesn't want to make available to you, which isn't quite the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Anything that isn't illegal is legal -- that's how the system works in the US.
What about this is illegal? If you can't answer that, you have your answer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wish I had modpoints to mod this to -2, but Soulskill, you are definitely one of the top 3 best editors Slashdot has had, don't listen to these idiots.