Virgin Media To Base a Public Wi-Fi Net On Paying Customers' Routers 113
An anonymous reader writes with a story that Virgin Media "announced this month its plans to roll out a free public WiFi network this autumn, using subscribers' personal routers and existing infrastructure to distribute the service across UK cities." And while regular customers' routers are to be the basis of the new network, the publicly viewable overlay would operate over "a completely separate connection," and the company claims subscribers' performance will not be hindered. Why, then, would customers bother to pay? For one thing, because the free version is slow: 0.5Mbps, vs. 10Mbps for Virgin's customers.
Opt out (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm a virgin media customer. You can opt out, in which case you can't use the free wifi access.
Re: (Score:1)
So just like the BT system then, except Virgin will provide limited access for free.
Re:Opt out (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe try reading the article
"For those Virgin Media subscribers unhappy with the prospect of sharing their network connection, the company is offering an opt-out setting. Enabling this option however will, quite rightly, prohibit the subscriber from accessing other free WiFi spots – share and share alike etc."
So it works exactly like BT's fon service then. Nothing to see here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I don't quite get the whole concept of "free" as used, then.
So the general public can use it, but a paying customer who doesn't want to subsidize Virgin's electric bill can't?
Virgin has an interesting concept of "fair".
Re:Opt out (Score:4, Interesting)
I may be wrong, but what it looks like to me is: if you're a Virgin customer and you don't opt out you get to use the network at 10Mbps. If you're not a virgin customer or you opt out (because really, how are they going to be able to tell that random mobile device X belongs to an opted-out virgin user and not a random member of the public?) you're limited to the 0.5Mbps rate.
I'm not worried about performance (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
the publicly viewable overlay would operate over "a completely separate connection,"
Re: (Score:1)
Do you really think they are going to share your network retard? Clearly any user on the WiFi network will have their own IP address.
Think before you open your mouth.
Web servers see the public IP address; as the IPv4 address space is running out, all connections from your WiFi most likely share the same public IP address.
Re: (Score:1)
Here in Belgium we also have this. The public wifi has a separate IP. Another provider does CGN with all public wifi behind a few IPs.
Re: (Score:1)
How tech aware are the Police? (Score:3)
Do you really think they are going to share your network retard? Clearly any user on the WiFi network will have their own IP address.
Even if they have a separate IP address the question is will the ISP records indicate that it was assigned to your router? If they do how confident are you that the police will be aware of the distinction between the public and private IP addresses and understand that the activity had nothing to do with you? In fact, even if they are aware of the difference, they may still want to investigate you in case it was you connecting to the public side of your WiFi so the activity was not directly linked back to y
Re: (Score:2)
It appears that the only incentive being offered to opt in to this system is your own ability to use Virgin's public nodes. I would offer specific billing credit for bandwidth lent out for public access; that way, subscribers would be incentivized to actually improve public access to their routers.
Wrong Incentive (Score:2)
I would offer specific billing credit for bandwidth lent out for public access; that way, subscribers would be incentivized to actually improve public access to their routers.
All that will do is incentivize users to connect to the free public wifi instead of their own network when they do not need the bandwidth or even run simple scripts to generate public traffic while they use their own network for everything else.
Re: (Score:2)
The bandwidth that any one user gets at free nodes is supposed to be limited, especially for non-Virgin customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the wifi frequencies where I live in the city centre are already noisy as hell and WIFI performance is bad without additional the extra radio traffic and noise from the 11 routers I can "see" from my home (all be it with high error rates), 5 of which (at least) are VM devices. Sometimes I'm lucky if I can get a connection with my laptop within 10m (and 1 internal wall) of my router.
It may not impact the internet->cable->router part of the equation but the radio bandwidth is limited and it wil
Re: (Score:3)
There is indeed an opt-out, described about halfway down TFA. If you opt out, then you don't get the subscriber benefit of the faster connection when accessing via other people's routers. BT have had a similar system in place for a couple of years now.
I'm a Virgin Media subscriber and I'll be opting out. So long as the opt-out remains in place, however, I won't be getting too upset about this.
Re:Opt out (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately you're not allowed to use your own router on VM's network.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you are [virginmedia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You can place the Virgin Superhub (sic) into modem only mode and then attach your own router to it. This disables the wifi part of the Superhub as far as I can tell, so I'm not sure how this will affect their roll out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I have no idea whether they will bother to implement this service on superhubs in modem mode but I don't see any obvious reason why they couldn't.
Public wifi services that rely on piggybacking on end-user routers are always going to be spotty. Especially in a market like the UK where there are many competing ISPs. I doubt a few more users dropping out because they happen to have their superhub in an unusual mode probablly won't matter much in the grand scheme of things.
Re:Opt out (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I would think it depends on how they do it - in Switzerland, Cablecom does the same - as a subscriber you get one of their routers, and apart from your own connection (which you get at the full advertised speed), there is another channel using which they turn your modem into a "free" wifi hotspot.
The catch in this case comes with the word "free" - it is free to their paying subscribers: i.e. at home I have my own connection, but everywherelse in Switzerland, within wifi distance from any of their other customer's cable routers, I can access the internet through wifi at no extra cost.
Non-subscribers do not get access to this wifi...
In this case, my "reason to pay" them is for the (better) access I have for myself at home but it also includes the convenience of having free wifi across many places in Switzerland...
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the US, Comcast does the exact same thing - if you're a Comcast customer, you can use any 'shared' router after you log in.
I left it alone on my router because I'm so far out in the countryside, someone would have to trespass onto my property just to get within range of it (in which case they'll have bigger problems). Meanwhile, I do wonder if there's a way to 'shotgun' my laptop so that I can use both channels at once...
like FON then (Score:1)
so much like FON/BTOpenzone or whatever they're called this week
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and like "Free (Illiad)" in France.
So... (Score:1)
"a completely separate connection" (Score:1)
Ah, price teiring... Isn't there a bit of an issue with that?
Good luck with that Virgin... (Score:1)
Hah, as if you could get a signal from a Virgin Media router more than 10 metres away!
This is what happens when you don't own the router yourself. Virgin will use it, and their connection that they also rent to you, to make money on other services.
Hopefully 0.5Mbps will not saturate the shared cable connection! Performance is bad enough already, and I'm meant to get 60mbps.
Re: (Score:3)
Performance is bad enough already, and I'm meant to get 60mbps.
60 mbps? I'm sure it's not as bad as all that.
Re: (Score:2)
I've disabled the wi-fi on their router and use a second router behind it for my real home network...
Oh and I've also disabled remote access so they can't change it back either.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't disable remote access...
You can disable your own remote access (ie the feature that lets you connect to the public routable ip of the router from somewhere else on the internet), but you can't disable the access that the isp has via a separate private address within their own infrastructure.
Re: (Score:1)
I hope it's easily disabled (Score:2, Insightful)
I currently already have my superhub (official virgin router/modem combo) in modem mode and use my own routers/access points/switches etc for my home network. So I suppose if this isn't easily disabled, I can always give my superhub a tin foil hat so none of its pesky public wifi signals seep out.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't want passers by being able to connect to my home router with the hope that virgin's software is secure enough to maintain a distinction between private and public networks.
I don't generally mind the idea in principle, but as you say, "is their security really that good?"
Honestly, the history of private companies having great security... sucks...
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, the history of private companies having great security... sucks...
So.. same as government then..
Re: (Score:1)
Does it grab two IP's when it connects to Virgin? If not, I'd also be worried about
"what happens when somebody downloads or does something illegal through the IP that ties to your home router, and the swat-team arrives (or the nastygram from the MPAA etc)" ?
Another attack surface (Score:2)
With public WiFi like this? You already in, so you are free to exploit the heck out of any vulnerability or misconfiguration. This is one exploit away from entire network getting turned into a botnet.
Haven't I heard this before? (Score:2)
Comcast turns 50,000 paying customer homes into public hotspots, millions more by the end of the year.
http://www.extremetech.com/com... [extremetech.com]
Nah must have just been my imagination.
Re: (Score:2)
I have Comcast internet and I was able to jump through a couple of easy hoops to disable my shared wifi connection. I was even able to completely turn off the wifi they integrated into their modem. For me, it's only a cable modem and nothing more. I run a connection directly to my own personal router that I control.
Sadly, most Comcast/Xfinity customers have no idea they have a really vulnerable wifi connection. They're just happy they can connect their tablet and play their online games. I bet the same
Re:Haven't I heard this before? (Score:4, Informative)
If you don't have your own router/firewall between your LAN and Comcast's (or anyone else's) cable modem than you are vulnerable.
Want a quick demonstration? Call Comcast with an issue with their builtin router and watch as they are able to reset the passwords on the device and verify that all of the devices on the LAN are able to connect to it.
I kept the Xfinity wireless enabled. I use my own WiFi on my own firewall/router and see the potential of using the WiFi hotspots while traveling as greater than any imagined threats on my LAN.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I get great 4G coverage and don't need to use the very sparse coverage offered by [the cable company's] home routers.
How much do you pay per month for that "great 4G coverage"? I imagine that it's more than "just a few cents a month."
Re: (Score:2)
How many GB? (Score:2)
How is that relevant? I pay for a phone and data service that gives me very good coverage.
How much are you paying for gigabytes of data that you could shift to a cable company's public hotspot, either immediately or by waiting a reasonable time until you're in coverage?
Xfinity wants me to pay to run their infrastructure for a network that gives me zero net gain over what I already have.
In theory, the "net gain" would be dollars that you don't have to pay to your 4G carrier because you are using Xfinity Wi-Fi instead.
Re: (Score:2)
How is that relevant? I pay for a phone and data service that gives me very good coverage.
How much are you paying for gigabytes of data that you could shift to a cable company's public hotspot, either immediately or by waiting a reasonable time until you're in coverage?
Xfinity wants me to pay to run their infrastructure for a network that gives me zero net gain over what I already have.
In theory, the "net gain" would be dollars that you don't have to pay to your 4G carrier because you are using Xfinity Wi-Fi instead.
Again, what's your point? This sharing of your home connection is largely irrelevant outside of densely packed neighborhoods where a vast majority of people are sharing wifi. Just getting out onto a major throughway gets you out of range of just about all Xfinitiy wifi and you have no option other than some kind of cell plan. Having "free" wifi doesn't help you when their "network" covers about as much as Kim Kardashian's swimsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
I have unlimited 4G data.
What exactly is your point?
Not everybody has access to a carrier that offers unmetered 4G data; some 4G subscribers have to pay $10 to $15 per GB. My point is that people who subscribe to both cable Internet for use at home and metered 4G data for use away from home may choose to shift some of their usage from 4G data to cable Internet subscribers' hotspots, which saves $10 for each GB shifted.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're the only Comcast customer in a 5 (arbitrary number) mile radius, you are already sharing your bandwidth with others. Your cable modem connects you to a shared data stream.
Re:Haven't I heard this before? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for jumping on the good, old-fashioned Comcast hate train when it's deserved (like my increasingly saturated 105M cable connection that struggles to provide 50-60 during peak periods), but please explain to me how someone running the Xfinity hotspot on their router makes them have a "really vulnerable wifi connection"?
There are two separate networks being broadcast from the access point. One, which connects to the customer's LAN, is available for the owner to use at full speed. The other, which does not connect to the internal LAN, only to the outside world, and is rate limited to ensure full performance of the customer's provisioned speed and is available to outside users. Outside users must authenticate using their Xfinity credentials to connect. These credentials are logged, so if any nefarious activity originates from the connection it will be attributed to it's rightful owner.
The internal network is still password protected (well, as protected as any wireless network can be, I suppose) so no one will be connecting to your private network.
I agree that the Xfinity hotspot should be opt-in because it uses electricity and adds extra RF to what is usually an already noisy spectrum band, but this in no way, shape, or form, makes your wifi connection "really vulnerable". No more vulnerable that wifi already is, anyway. Stop fear-mongering.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
So you think that the Xfinity router without this sharing functionality has no vulnerabilities that can be exploited. Interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think your router BrandX with firmware ABC.EFG has no vulnerabilities that can be exploited.
Nope. That is why I prefer to go and drop OpenWRT on a router and then go and configure that properly and lock it down nicely. Also I don't use some strange crap provided by the ISP, that is still quietly sitting in the box it came in under the shelf that has all of the other equipment.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think that the Xfinity router without this sharing functionality has no vulnerabilities that can be exploited. Interesting.
Really? "I know you are but what am I?" Seriously? Are you 12 years old?
But to answer your challenge, I know it has vulnerabilities. Anything connected to a network is vulnerable. But I also know that by disabling wifi on the Xfinity router I have disabled one more attack vector. One that any technician at Comcast can easily log into. And if those technicians can get in, hackers can pretty easily do the same. The more attack vectors you can disable, the better. By relegating the Xfinity router to
Re: (Score:1)
The other, which does not connect to the internal LAN ... Outside users must authenticate using their Xfinity credentials to connect ... nefarious activity ... will be attributed to it's rightful owner.
Once someone finds a vulnerability that bypasses either of those, what happens then? How soon will it be before Comcast admits there is a problem, and a patch is issued?
One of the MANY reasons I won't run an ISP supplied modem or router, there is nearly 0% chance that it will receive security or usability updates in a timely manner, if they update them at all.
Re: (Score:3)
If you can't turn it off, user your own WiFi router and enclose theirs in a large metal box so it doesn't use up spectrum. Verify there is enough shielded vents so it doesn't run hot.
Re: (Score:2)
with some certain MACs, the system skips authentication entirely
I think in some cases, the MAC is used as the authentication mechanism. Last time I switched to Comcast, I used their modem for a week or so until I could purchase my own. When installing their modem, I had to contact customer support and register the MAC of the modem. When I removed theirs and installed mine, I had to call customer support again, and register the MAC of the new modem. I didn't have to program any username/password into the unit. That all seemed to add up to the modem MAC being the tok
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you considered how much you'd save by just buying your own modem? I think it pays off after 10 months. Maybe more for a nicer modem.
Also, it doesn't hurt to call the loyalty dept. and simply ask if they have any promotions. My DVR promotions (dropped to $10/month) run out late next month. I don't think they have those anymore. With the recent price increase in my area, been trying to switch some DVRs to Tivo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing new (Score:2)
There are pros and cons to this (Score:1)
Pros
* A malicious freeloader is less likely to attempt to compromise secured networks if a free alternative is available.
* Utilities often exercise eminent domain (at least where I live) to obtain the property rights necessary to deliver their infrastructure, or they place their infrastructure on public property. Since the public is sacrificing property rights to the ISP, it'd be nice if we could get some public Internet access in return.
Cons:
* If I own a router, I should have say as to who can access it. I
Re: (Score:3)
* If I own a router, I should have say as to who can access it. I think if the ISP is going to provide public access via a router/AP, they need to own it or compensate the owner.
* If I provide electricity to power ISP infrastructure, I need to be compensated for that.
My guess is that they do own it and definitely control it and are probably leasing it to the customer.
It's pretty much impossible to do it on a third party router they don't own and control.
And they are compensating the customer via free service. If you opt out then you can't use the free wifi of other customers.
No problem (Score:2)
I like this notion of openness.
Everyone benefits from public hotspots.
I even do it myself. I have 1Gbps Internet service and I carve out 100Mbps and offer it as an open wifi network in my apartment building.
On the flip side (Score:2)
Or for a more elaborate set up, connect to all your neighbour's public wifi networks at the same time and split your shenanigans between them.
"Free" did this in France (Score:5, Informative)
Free, a french ISP known to be highly disruptive to its competitors did this with its routers.
The hotspot is completely separated from the home network (different IP), on a lower priority, so it won't affect you. This hotspot is only available to Free customers that didn't chose to opt out. For me, that's fair.
Note that due to the way traffic is prioritized, the public hotspot becomes slow to the point of being unusable if the subscriber uses his connection intensively.
Re: (Score:2)
As a Virgin Media customer myself, I think this is a good thing and am perfectly happy with footing the electricity cost (not that I've worked out what that is) if it provides a useful service. Then again, I've been running my wifi router with a secondary une
how does Comcast / XFinity do it? (Score:2)
In Comcast's case, they rolled out the PAY-to-use Wi-Fi hotspots using paying customer's routers.Performance is spotty, and sometimes their GD routers kick off my access point so my internet fails.
Well this is just fine.... (Score:2)
This is fine as long as I can't be prosecuted for the child porn that Joe Random User downloads through my router. And as long as it doesn't suck all my bandwidth up or infect my PC or slow it to a crawl or if it's susceptible to hacking or inclusion into a botnet.
On second thought, no, just no. You can't use my router for crap like this.
Re: (Score:1)
the child porn that Joe Random User downloads through my route
Even if he gives you a delicious Subway sandwich afterward?
I have screwed my company from doing this (Score:3)
Perfect (Score:2)
We have this in Switzerland for paying customers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of Virgins and Karma (Score:2)
It's not as if this idea is exactly unknown, though the outfit I know of (and subscribe to) that's doing it right, Karma [teleread.com], now only gives 100 megabytes for free, then you have to pay for more. (Though if you use your personal referral code [yourkarma.com], anyone who buys a hotspot saves with it $10, and you get $10, too. Thanks to a couple of blog posts, I've earned nearly $400 worth of free WiFi so far.)
That being said, 100 megabytes is more than enough for someone to hook up for long enough to check his email, do a littl
Baffled (Score:2)
I'm still baffled as to why companies think this is a good idea. What the fuck good is a jumble of WiFi hot spots in residential areas. So you cover 150 foot radius around your home and that helps next to no one. I have no interest in allowing some stranger to sit in front of my house to get internet access. If my neighbors want internet, they can get their own. There seems to be some misconception that WiFi is going to work somehow like a cell phone network where enough cells in proximity give broad covera
It's already happening elsewhere. (Score:1)
Stop making FUD (Score:2)
Performance couldn't be worse (Score:2)
I'm getting 20Mbits/sec on a connection that is supposed to be 152Mbits/sec.
It's been like it for months, and they've put back the fix date from June to OCTOBER.
Disgusting service from Virgin Media. Liberty Global have been an utter disaster.
Because you can't access it if you're not a subscr (Score:2)
.... really.