On 11.12.14 21:22 , Randy Bush wrote:
note that free.fr does this in france. we both provide and use it
there. works out quite well.
Another data point: several cable broadband providers do this in NL. My
personal experience is with Ziggo. Imho they do it right:
- opt-in, at
On 12/12/14, 1:33 AM, Javier J
jav...@advancedmachines.usmailto:jav...@advancedmachines.us wrote:
Also, don't you think there is something just morally wrong with the fact that
your customers don't know they are providing a public access point out of their
homes by just being comcast HSI
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 04:33:03PM -0800, Owen DeLong 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 concur with this summary and will add this:
It's a pity that the resources which went into this
On 12/12/14, 1:33 AM, Javier J jav...@advancedmachines.us wrote:
What stops someone from going down to the center of town, launching a
little wifi SSID named xfinitywifi and collecting your customers usernames
and passwords?
WG] nothing. But then again, the same argument can be made for *any*
On Dec 11, 2014, at 17:39 , Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 19:33:03 -0500, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
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
Also, don't you think there is something just morally wrong
if folk wish to indulge in hyperbole, could they at least not confuse
morals with ethics?
randy
Arguing over semantics are we now?
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
Also, don't you think there is something just morally wrong
if folk wish to indulge in hyperbole, could they at least not confuse
morals
On 11/12/14 07:08, Jeroen Massar wrote:
in the LG case though it is opt-out which means that you go to the
MyUPC or similar page on their website and turn it off. Turning it off
does mean one cannot use that service elsewhere though.
AFAIK, British Telecom do something similar here in the UK.
Or, ya know you could just buy your own cable modem and separate AP. Cheaper
then renting from Comcast and gives you the control :-)
Cheers,
Harry
On Dec 10, 2014 9:35 PM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote:
Why am I not surprised?
Whose fault would it be if your comcast installed
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote:
Whose fault would it be if your comcast installed public wifi would be
abused to download illegal material or launch a botnet, to name some random
fun one could have on your behalf. :-/
Doesn't work that way. Separate
Not a law, it's in their updated terms and conditions that no one reads.
On Dec 11, 2014 8:12 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote:
Whose fault would it be if your comcast installed public wifi would be
abused to
http://bgr.com/2014/05/12/cablevision-optimum-modem-wifi-hotspots/
I thought cablevision has been doing this for years.
I had a higher level tech at mi casa within the last two years and he suggested
their goal was to get enough coverage to start offering CV voip cell phones.
pay a little
All of the members of the CableWiFi consortium have been.
Bright House Networks, Cox Communications, Optimum, Time Warner Cable and
Comcast.
http://www.cablewifi.com/
Liberty Global, the largest MSO, also does it and this year announced an
agreement with Comcast to allow roaming on each other's
Seems to me that they (Bright House Networks, Cox Communications, Optimum, Time
Warner Cable and Comcast) are effectively operating a business out of your
house and without a business license. I am sure that this is illegal in many
towns and many towns would like the revenue.
In fact does
Not really, this is much more like the mesh networks that have been put in
place by lots of WISPs where every customer is also a relay. It's also
comparable to pico cells that many of the LTE operators use to extend
coverage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_networking
It's very scary, and something I'm doing a paper on. It _is_ just MAC
recognition, at least until you try and use a MAC address that's already
active somewhere else.
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
It is, you only have to log in once and then it remembers your MAC
address. Harvesting usable MAC addresses is as trivial as putting up an
open access point with the SSIDs xfinitywifi and CableWifi and recording
the MAC addresses that connect to it.
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 09:37:22 -0500
Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
It is, you only have to log in once and then it remembers your MAC
address. Harvesting usable MAC addresses is as trivial as putting up
an open access point with the SSIDs xfinitywifi and CableWifi and
recording the MAC
John,
My apologies, I misread your email :)
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:46 AM, John Peach john-na...@peachfamily.net
wrote:
On Thu, 11
I think it's more than AC power issuewho knows what strength level
they program that SSID to work at ? More wifi signal you are exposed to
without your knowledge and more...read on.
I have Comcast ATT internet at home...and I have noticed an xfinitywifi
ssid at full strength. This tread
BT in the UK did the same thing a few years ago with a silent firmware
upgrade.
On 11 Dec 2014 15:51, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
John,
My apologies, I misread your email :)
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 07:30:00 -0800, Bob Evans said:
However, I have not studied these new Docsis modems. So how do I shut the
xfinitywifi SSID?
Motorola Surfboard, Netgear WNDR3800, reflash the 3800 with cerowrt. Done.
And you get less bufferbloat in the bargain.
(Though the 3800 runs into
Or you can just call Comcast and ask them to turn it off. Or you could
in the past.
My in-laws did that when they got their new equipment. I don't know
exactly how they found out it was going to be done - possibly inside
info due to a relative working for Comcast.
On 12/11/2014 8:05 AM,
On 12/10/14, 9:35 PM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote:
Why am I not surprised?
You¹re a smart guy - don¹t believe everything you read. ;-)
Whose fault would it be if your comcast installed public wifi would be
abused to download illegal material or launch a botnet, to name some
random
- Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:24 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 00:11:07 -0500, Jay Ashworth said:
I will give them their props: I only had to sign in *once*, last
year;
their auth controller has
On 12/10/14, 9:41 PM, Charles Mills
w3y...@gmail.commailto:w3y...@gmail.com wrote:
In the US at least you have to authenticate with your Comcast credentials and
not like a traditional open wifi where you can just make up an email and accept
the terms of service. I also understand that it is a
On 12/10/14, 10:55 PM, Phil Bedard bedard.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Really it is just the power they seem to be complaining about.
And per my other post, the citation was for two separate commercial
devices and the commercial WiFi AP being used 24x7. The one customers get
is a very, very different
On 12/11/14, 9:37 AM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
It is, you only have to log in once and then it remembers your MAC
address.
Right, so user name password + MAC address. As more devices support
things like Passpoint, this will get more sophisticated.
Jason
No one who has Comcast, who I've forward this to, knew about this (all US
customers). Maybe you can send here the notification Comcast sent out, to your
customers.
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Livingood, Jason
Sent: Thursday, December
Here is how you disable it.
1 – Login to the customer portal https://customer.comcast.com/
2 – Click the “Users Preferences” tab
(see pic @
http://media.bestofmicro.com/4/Z/442115/original/xfinity-how-to-disable-3.jpg)
3 – Click “Manage XFINITY WiFi”
(see pic @
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 18:04:20 +, Livingood, Jason said:
Right, so user name password + MAC address. As more devices support
things like Passpoint, this will get more sophisticated.
OK, so it *does* do .1x authentication with the name/password, not just
mac address. That's a lot less
Or you can just call Comcast and ask them to turn it off. Or you could
in the past.
I can see where the pointy-haired types came up with the opt-out idea hoping
nobody would notice or care, but at least they make it (fairly) easy :
http://wifi.comcast.com/faqs.html
1. Log into your Comcast
Have you ever met an intelligent, informed consumer?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Rebecca Kain (.) bka...@ford.com
To: Jason Livingood jason_living...@cable.comcast.com, Charles Mills
w3y...@gmail.com,
On 12/11/14, 1:06 PM, Kain, Rebecca (.) bka...@ford.com wrote:
No one who has Comcast, who I've forward this to, knew about this (all US
customers). Maybe you can send here the notification Comcast sent out,
to your customers.
I emailed you off-list. I am happy to investigate individual cases.
K, thanks
-Original Message-
From: Livingood, Jason [mailto:jason_living...@cable.comcast.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 1:16 PM
To: Kain, Rebecca (.)
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house
On 12/11/14, 1:06 PM, Kain, Rebecca (.)
On 12/11/14, 1:43 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
wrote:
How is this done ?
2 separate modems in same box ? or a single modem which gets 2 separate
IPs and applies rate limiting independently on each IP ?
The latter.
JL
darn. i shoulda used a comcast cable modem instead of my own so i could
provide this service to neighbors. ah well. i do put up a non-wpa
ssid, but don't like the non-wpa.
randy
On 12/11/14, 1:43 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
wrote:
BTW, it isn't just the electricity, but also climate control and
location which the subscriber provides for free. Comcast need not rent
space on poles and need not buy more expensive weatherized equipment
that goes
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 2:11 PM, George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com wrote:
Their intended use is to give
access to visitors in your house and/or yard without you needing to set up
a dedicated guest network or giving them your wifi password.
this seems like the key point here... comcast
On 12/11/14 10:16 AM, Livingood, Jason wrote:
On 12/11/14, 1:06 PM, Kain, Rebecca (.) bka...@ford.com wrote:
No one who has Comcast, who I've forward this to, knew about this (all US
customers). Maybe you can send here the notification Comcast sent out,
to your customers.
I emailed you
Randy,
You're spot on. I don't understand this griping. The flip side is that as a(n)
happy xfinity customer I get to roam in lots of places around the US (and maybe
even abroad), as do all of the xfinity home customers. This isn't a paid
service... It's a byproduct of being a cable customer.
From the wired side, since the AP's bandwitdh is separate from the
paying customer's, the later really has no complaint to make. Taken to
the extreme, yeah, all those APs may end up adding to the load on the
coax segment and creating congestion. But somehow I doubt this is a huge
issue.
One the
note that free.fr does this in france. we both provide and use it
there. works out quite well.
i guess i should figure out how to use comcast's stateside version.
randy
That's interesting, thanks for that info, Mike. Jason has a good point
in that a lot of the reporting on this topic so far has been
ill-informed, and I think it's important to understand the truth.
Re Rodney and Randy's point about this being blown out of proportion,
the thing I'm most
- Original Message -
From: Valdis Kletnieks valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 18:04:20 +, Livingood, Jason said:
Right, so user name password + MAC address. As more devices
support things like Passpoint, this will get more sophisticated.
OK, so it *does* do .1x
- Original Message -
From: Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 2:11 PM, George, Wes
wesley.geo...@twcable.com wrote:
Their intended use is to give
access to visitors in your house and/or yard without you needing to
set up
a dedicated guest network
On 12/11/14, 2:53 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
While that offer is noble, and appreciated, as are your other responses
on this thread; personally I would be interested to hear more about how
customers were notified. Was there a collateral piece included in their
bill? Were they
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Bob Evans
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 7:30 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house
I think it's more than AC power issuewho knows what
On 12/11/14, 3:04 PM, Rodney Joffe rjo...@centergate.com wrote:
The flip side is that as a(n) happy xfinity customer I get to roam in
lots of places around the US (and maybe even abroad), as do all of the
xfinity home customers.
Outside of the U.S., a customer can use the WiFi networks operated
On 12/11/14, 3:06 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
wrote:
I think Comcast should have spun this totally differently.
Well, I think we probably did. But apparently all it takes is one lawsuit
filed in California and an article in The Register to really make an
impact. ;-)
On 12/11/2014 07:10, William Herrin wrote:
What Comcast is stealing is electricity. Pennies per customer times a
boatload of customers.
.and floorspace, physical security, air conditioning, and all sorts
of labor overheads.
--
The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:
The
On 12/11/14, 3:50 PM, Doug Barton
do...@dougbarton.usmailto:do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
That's interesting, thanks for that info, Mike. Jason has a good point in that
a lot of the reporting on this topic so far has been ill-informed...
What else is new? ;-) It’s frustrating where I sit but
On 12/11/14, 3:58 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
No, I'm having a hard time figuring out what the use case *is* for this
service as deployed against *residential* hardware, myself...
Well, the great thing about the marketplace is that if it ultimately does
not prove useful and of some
Mr Livingood:
Out of curiosity, had Comcast decided to use an opt-in instead of
opt-out method, did your marketing dept have any idea of percentage of
customer base who would have opted in ?
Secondly, at a more technical level:
In a MDU with a whole bunch of Comcast subscribers, could one
I think it may have already been slightly mentioned, but any reason why
this is not being rolled out on a separate radio than the private customer
facing one? Even if the bandwidth out to the internet is separated with
DOCSIS channels, you are still using the same radio and one user streaming
a
On the converse side I live in a neighborhood that has quite a bit of distance
between houses yet I can still a couple of neighborhood SSIDs.If one of
their guests hops on to my Xfinity Wifi it is going to be with a weak signal.
Their weak signal is going to drag down the performance of
On 12/11/2014 11:54, Livingood, Jason wrote:
Now..they are doing this on your electric bill and taking up space
(albeit a small amount of it) in your home.
Tell me I need a tin-foil hat if you like, but in the current news there
is reason to believe that the risk is real and actual that the
While I generally support the lawsuit, I have to question a vast burden on
their electric bill.
Does an 802.11 transmitter that was already being used to support their own
WiFi network that they are paying for really consume vastly more electricity to
support a second SSID? In my experience,
I would have to expect they're doing a virtual SSID which means 0
additional wattage. Worst case scenario it adds another radio of less than
5 watts of which is absolutely negligible if you're able to afford cable
Internet service.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100
On 12/11/14, 4:47 PM, Grant Ridder
shortdudey...@gmail.commailto:shortdudey...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it may have already been slightly mentioned, but any reason why this is
not being rolled out on a separate radio than the private customer facing one?
Even if the bandwidth out to the
On 2014-12-11 19:12, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 18:04:20 +, Livingood, Jason said:
Right, so user name password + MAC address. As more devices support
things like Passpoint, this will get more sophisticated.
OK, so it *does* do .1x authentication with the
On 12/11/14, 4:45 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei
jfmezei_na...@vaxination.camailto:jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote:
Mr Livingood:
Out of curiosity, had Comcast decided to use an opt-in instead of opt-out
method, did your marketing dept have any idea of percentage of customer base
who would have
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
all.
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
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 16:41:24 -0500, Livingood, Jason
jason_living...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
...But 2.4GHz was a bit of a mess before we came along with this service.
So, knowing the house is on fire, you bring a can of gas to put it out.
You aren't f'ing helping.
Of course, since
Not correct. If it's on one radio it's using the same RF space it was
before, just with a virtual SSID. Just like the atheros or Ruckus stuff -
it's the same RF space with an additional BSSID bridged to a different
software bridge or pseudo interface.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct:
- Original Message -
From: Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net
On 12/11/2014 07:10, William Herrin wrote:
What Comcast is stealing is electricity. Pennies per customer times
a boatload of customers.
.and floorspace, physical security, air conditioning, and all
sorts of
Your reading comprehension could use some work:
The latest device (called an XB3, see
http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/the-technology-behind-the-industrys-fastest-wireless-gateway)
does have multiple radios
Regards,
SG
On 12/11/2014 3:19 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
Does an 802.11 transmitter that was already being used to support
their own WiFi network that they are paying for really consume vastly
more electricity to support a second SSID? In my experience, that
claim is hard to fathom.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
My concerns are that apparently customers are not informed about the thing
before it gets enabled, and the issue of wifi density that was raised by
several people here. If you have an apartment building for example, where
In message ximss-380...@mail.ropeguru.com, Robert Webb writes:
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
all.
I am one that has opposed the auto opt-in of this setup. The main reason
On 12/11/14, 5:19 PM, Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 16:41:24 -0500, Livingood, Jason
jason_living...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
...But 2.4GHz was a bit of a mess before we came along with this
service.
So, knowing the house is on fire, you bring a can of gas to put it
On 14-12-11 16:37, Tim Upthegrove wrote:
At the
time, I kept wondering what the real incentive was for Comcast to send me
anything for free.
It pays to move customer with old DOCSIS-2 modems to DOCSIS 3 ones as
they will even out usage on multiple channels instead of congesting the
one channel
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:26:37 -0500, Josh Luthman
j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote:
Not correct. If it's on one radio it's using the same RF space it was
before, just with a virtual SSID. Just like the atheros or Ruckus stuff
it's the same RF space with an additional BSSID bridged to a
On 14-12-11 17:44, Mark Andrews wrote:
What space? It is the WiFi modem you are already using. Unless
it requires a seperate external aerial I don't see any extra space.
Matter of principle. Comcast are using space/power/shelter in your home
to create a service which they market for their
On 12/11/2014 2:46 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote:
On 12/11/14, 5:19 PM, Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 16:41:24 -0500, Livingood, Jason
jason_living...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
...But 2.4GHz was a bit of a mess before we came along with this
service.
So, knowing the
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:08:51 -0500, Livingood, Jason
jason_living...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
... Behavioral economics would suggest that opt-in rates are almost
always lower than opt-out.
There's two ways to look at it:
a) Everyone knows about it. Few would bother to opt-in, many would
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:32:06 -0500, Spencer Gaw spenc...@frii.net wrote:
Your reading comprehension could use some work:
That was post *AFTER* my comment. And it doesn't say the xfinity service
is running on its own dedicated radio, just that it has more than one
radio in it -- which it
In message 548a2240.7090...@vaxination.ca, Jean-Francois Mezei writes:
On 14-12-11 17:44, Mark Andrews wrote:
What space? It is the WiFi modem you are already using. Unless
it requires a seperate external aerial I don't see any extra space.
Matter of principle. Comcast are using
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:46:24 -0500, Livingood, Jason
jason_living...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
By this logic they are all dumping gas on the fire as well.
I'm not denying it's a big fire. But adding additional 2.4Ghz radios Is.
Not. Helping. Because everything else is is not a reason for one
- Original Message -
From: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org
Now, had Comcast pitched it as the Wi-Fi benefiting YOU because your
freinds you use their Comcast credentials to access your Wi-Fi, then
customers would not see this as Comcast using your hardware for its
own
benefit.
On 12/11/2014 16:29, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net
On 12/11/2014 07:10, William Herrin wrote:
What Comcast is stealing is electricity. Pennies per customer times
a boatload of customers.
.and floorspace, physical security,
In message 19950282.2897.1418340650252.javamail.r...@benjamin.baylink.com, Ja
y Ashworth writes:
Now, had Comcast pitched it as the Wi-Fi benefiting YOU because your
freinds you use their Comcast credentials to access your Wi-Fi, then
customers would not see this as Comcast using your
Perhaps we should balance that against what a subscriber might pay for
bandwidth while away from home, especially in Europe.
On Dec 11, 2014 6:35 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
On 12/11/2014 16:29, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Larry Sheldon
On 10/12/14 18:41, Charles Mills wrote:
In the US at least you have to authenticate with your Comcast credentials
and not like a traditional open wifi where you can just make up an email
and accept the terms of service. I also understand that it is a different
IP than the subscriber. Based
On 12/11/14, 4:37 PM, Tim Upthegrove tim.upthegr...@gmail.com wrote:
I received an email from Comcast that they were offering a free upgraded
wifi router for my home.
Yes, since the main service tier doubled from 25 Mbps to 50 Mbps (some
went to 105 Mbps) that means DOCSIS 2.0 devices were no
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
On 12/11/2014 17:42, Scott Helms wrote:
Perhaps we should balance that against what a subscriber might pay for
bandwidth while away from home, especially in Europe.
Why would that interest me--I have no interest in traveling anywhere.
--
The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:
Your chances of traveling somewhere ate probably several orders of
magnitude higher than Comcast being interested in paid hosting in your
house :)
On Dec 11, 2014 6:53 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
On 12/11/2014 17:42, Scott Helms wrote:
Perhaps we should balance that against
On 12/11/14, 3:58 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
Alas, I cannot accept George's assertion
WG] well, perhaps you can accept Wes's assertion instead. ;-)
In residential areas (non-multi-unit),
this is only going to help out *Comcast subscribers*. If you have random
visitors over, it
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 19:33:03 -0500, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
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
Seriously, I mean the availability of WiFi coming from your house clearly
trumps trespassing laws.
On Dec 11, 2014 8:16 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@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
In this case, they do own the modems. I am not aware of any case where
they do this to customer owned gear.
On Dec 11, 2014 8:41 PM, Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 19:33:03 -0500, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
In short, the only thing really truly wrong with this
Jason, I hope you are Livin' Good.
On a serious note.
What stops someone from going down to the center of town, launching a
little wifi SSID named xfinitywifi and collecting your customers usernames
and passwords?
Also, don't you think there is something just morally wrong with the fact
that
In the US at least you have to authenticate with your Comcast credentials
and not like a traditional open wifi where you can just make up an email
and accept the terms of service. I also understand that it is a different
IP than the subscriber. Based on this the subscriber should be protected
Jeroen,
Not that I agree with this practice, I specifically got my own modem
because of this (and to have it directly attached to a real router) ,
however they use a separate DOCSIS and 802.11 channel so if would follow
that it would be a separate IP tied to comcast corporate and not the
On 10 December 2014 at 21:50, Mr Bugs b...@debmi.com wrote:
however they use a separate DOCSIS and 802.11 channel so if would follow
that it would be a separate IP tied to comcast corporate and not the
subscriber as well as not taking up your bandwidth.
IIRC there are only three
Comcast is pushing DOCSIS 3.0 heavily, and the channel allocation and
configuration in DOCSIS 3.0 is much more flexible, allowing speed
configurations by bonding channels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS
But the wifi, this is of course making an already crowded and noisy space
much worse. I
It won't overlap with the one you are using for yourself on the same device.
DOCSIS has service flows with different priorities. I don't know if they are
allocating specific channels for it or if it's just a different service flow,
but either way it is a lower priority and should not cause
The technical aside, you could make it opt in and let people who opted in
use the public network free, and charge people not signed up or not even
Comcast customers for profit. This way it makes it feel more like building
a community to the consumer rather than big biz pulling one over on the
In analyzing my neighbors who use comcast (I live in a townhouse and can
see many access points) my biggest complaint is the the wifi pollution
these comcast router/access-points cause.
For each neighbor who has comcast HSI, expect to see 3 SSID with different
mac showing up. There is the xfinity
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
