Comcast turns 50,000 paying customer homes into public hotspots
extremetech.com
extremetech.com
Why is this so hard to understand? Router broadcasts a second SSID. Router ensures that connections to that SSID are completely isolated from your own network, never touch your IP address or internal devices, and are tunnelled back to base over a separate channel VPN.
In scenarios where you are maxing out your net connection and someone else is using the guest wifi too, your traffic always takes priority. That's a rule right there - the kind of thing that routers are kind of good at.
It also means that you have access to free wifi when you're out and about, as you can use your Comcast ID to use this same wireless in other locations.
As has been pointed out several times, many ISPs around the world do this. It's simple and convenient and not remotely worthy of the scaremongering and technical ignorance being displayed.
I know I've seen some faked BT Openzone login pages in the UK, luckily the BT Wifi App is clever enough only to attempt to login to the real webpage.
I actually think it's a pretty cool idea - tons more hotspots throughout the city. If you really don't like it, you can opt out.
Does it really though? QoS on consumer grade network devices is thoroughly useless / ineffective in my experience.
The opening line of the article's totally wrong in saying this "would be inconceivable if it was any other company than Comcast".
The fuck it is.
BT, a large company in the UK, has done exactly this, using a collaboration with FON to start but using their own tech now. This has been happening for years.
http://ais.globalservices.bt.com/static/assets/insights_and_...
EDIT: the wikipedia article shows many FON collaborations with large telecoms providers across Europe.
So, no, what Comcast did is not quite common in Europe.
1 – Spain – 6344 (28 new yesterday) registered users
2 – United States – 6334 (11 new yesterday) registered users
3 – France – 2571 (15 new yesterday) registered users
4 – Germany – 1302 (12 new yesterday) registered users
5 – Italy – 1269 (15 new yesterday) registered users
6 – United Kingdom – 1039 (4 new yesterday) registered users
7 – Netherlands – 760 (2 new yesterday) registered users
8 – Sweden – 721 (1 new yesterday) registered users
9 – Argentina – 636 (3 new yesterday) registered users
10 – Canada – 382 (0 new yesterday) registered users
11 – Switzerland – 331 (1 new yesterday) registered users
12 – Belgium – 296 (0 new yesterday) registered users
13 – Portugal – 237 (0 new yesterday) registered users
14 – Mexico – 208 (0 new yesterday) registered users
15 – Japan – 198 (2 new yesterday) registered users
16 – Chile – 195 (0 new yesterday) registered users
17 – Austria – 177 (1 new yesterday) registered users
18 – Ireland – 170 (0 new yesterday) registered users
19 – Brazil – 169 (0 new yesterday) registered users
20 – Denmark – 135 (1 new yesterday) registered users
21 – Israel – 129 (0 new yesterday) registered users
22 – Norway – 125 (0 new yesterday) registered users
23 – China – 120 (0 new yesterday) registered users
24 – Australia – 109 (1 new yesterday) registered users
25 – Finland – 108 (0 new yesterday) registered users
26 – Poland – 85 (0 new yesterday) registered users
27 – India – 77 (1 new yesterday) registered users
28 – Colombia – 74 (0 new yesterday) registered users
29 – Venezuela – 71 (0 new yesterday) registered users
30 – Estonia – 63 (0 new yesterday) registered users
http://english.martinvarsavsky.net/fon/fonas-top-30-countrie...
and their current map - http://maps.fon.com/
We encourage all subscribers to keep this feature enabled as it allows more people to enjoy the benefits of XFINITY WiFi around the neighborhood. You will always have the ability to disable the XFINITY WiFi feature on your Wireless Gateway by calling 1-800-XFINITY. You can also visit My Account at http://customer.comcast.com/, click on “Users & Preferences”, and then select “Manage XFINITY WiFi.”
http://wifi.comcast.com/faqs.html
edit - and it was announced in June of last year apparently. Though they may have had a sign on the door saying 'beware of the leopard'.
* At least: Orange, Bouygues, SFR, Free.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTFON#Collaborations
Belgium, Germany, Greece, Jersey...
It was a good idea, but I never found it useful. It was only on residential broadband, and I never found myself hanging out in residential areas (if I went to a friends house they would just give me their wifi password).
[0] http://www.btfon.com/images/media/common/btfonLaunch041007.p...
I called Comcast to ask them to wtf was going on, they refused to disable is saying it was a service to the public, bla bla bla. I was able to disable in their admin panel though.
The only time having my own modem has ever been an issue is when I called customer service about network issues. They wanted to blame my modem, but that's never been the actual problem (last time it was a bad cable outside the house).
You could also shield that thing so it can't effectively broadcast wifi and connect your own wifi router with a cable.
HOWEVER, after installing the device, I eventually started to notice that the firmware was being updated remotely, without my intervention. At one point the Motorola administrative web UI was replaced completely with a new Arris UI (this was a few months ago when Comcast was experimenting with their IPv6 rollout). This lasted for about a month before the firmware was reverted back to an older Motorola image (and now I no longer have IPv6 at home -- I guess there were issues).
So yes, you can install your own router. But at least in some (most?) instances, your cable provider may have direct access to the firmware on your router, which essentially means that they can pull shit like this whenever they want, without your knowledge or intervention.
TLDR: Comcast can update the firmware on my cable modem without my knowledge or intervention. Because it's an all-in-one device, that basically means they can do whatever the fuck they want.
The claim seems to be that Comcast has the ability to update the firmware of any modem that is physically connected to their network. I don't know if this is actually true. There might be some obscure part of the DOCSIS spec (or an extension) that specifies how firmware updates can be delivered from the coax side (if so, I've certainly never been able to find it, and I don't even want to think about what they're (not) doing for security and authentication).
If this claim is true, then the best you can do is to get a dumb "modem only" device, in order to minimize their control of your hardware and network. Use your own router and/or your own wireless gateway and maintain exclusive firmware control over those devices.
If the claim is false, then they're likely able to get in via some sort of Comcast-specific protocol. This protocol might be in the generic firmware because Comcast also happens to sell this particular device themselves, and maintaining a single firmware image is probably easier for Motorola logistically. I wonder if there are similar update channels for other ISPs on the same device.
Any configuration done by an end user is limited to the LAN portion of the network. WAN should be cut off entirely.
I know how much your country (rightfully) hates Comcast but this should be a good thing. Take off your blinders for a second and look at the good things an Opt-Out Guest (my assumption) WiFi network could do.
1. Adoption of ubiquitous internet hotspots by customers for public use. It shouldn't affect your personal bandwidth because you'd be getting priority over guests.
2. Accessibility of potential emergency services without cellular networks. Which provides an option not to use a carriers service. More choice and competition could be amazing.
3. Lowering the legal barriers of opting into being a public hotspot (many ISPs are against it)
4. New potential developer opportunities like updating maps and such for travelers.
5. Herd Immunity when it comes to flimsy IP Address based legal attack vector. Fighting this in court is a huge pain/cost.
6. It could be more economic for customers to distribution their internet for a fee? Which would enable higher quality while the cost is distributed.
7. Provoke more conversation about emphasizing internet privacy/security without using locked routers which doesn't protect users from determined local attackers.
I don't know if this is what they're enabling or not but it's food for thought.
tl;dr Comsat did this to me. Learned how to change wifi channel on my router
I may have had bad luck, but I've not managed to get near those speeds when all I've had was access to a local DNS server, through which to connect to my iodine server.
There may be bandwidth bottlenecks in Comcast's network (the reason for the NetFlix peering charges) but they're not between the fiber-optic transmitter and the home. The HFC network (hybrid fiber-coax) has effectively seen a huge increase in capacity due to the elimination of the analog channels (which consumed 6MHz of bandwidth each). Each 6MHz channel now digitally carries 10-12 MPEG compressed channels.
The rest of the available bandwidth can be used for data transmission and with the adoption of the MQAM, the same modulators can be switched between video and data as bandwidth demands. SDV (Switched Digital Video) and DOCSIS 3.0 both help manage the infrastructure's efficency - you probably can't even use all the bandwidth Comcast could provide from the head-end.
From the head-end to the Internet is another matter - because the large cable operators grew through acquisition, it's uncommon to have similar data capacities between their "systems". Since Comcast's backbone capacity is miniscule in comparison to their "last mile" capacity, the real problem is where to inject NetFlix data and how to transport that data to each head-end. If NetFlix could peer into each Comcast head-end, this wouldn't even be an issue.
(Disclaimer: 20 year CATV industry veteran now in higher education)
It sounds like nothing but one of the ways laws developed around FAX machine spam was judges said you were costing the end person real money in sheets of paper. Certainly running the second WiFi has some small amount of additional power requirement. I'm not sure it's even barely measurable but it is more then zero which makes it like the fax paper reasoning.
Generally in the US, the Owner of the property will own any improvements which the cable company makes to the property unless their was an encumbrance on the land title (or deed) - in which case their remedy for not allowing their use of the improvement would be foreclosure but would be in line behind all previously recorded encumbrances such as mortgages and covenants. This would historically include anything buried or running through the walls. Overhead wires also would likely fall in this category. Real property is funny that way.
Contrary to the article's implication, the cable company could retain ownership of the wire between the box and the wall socket. It's just equipment, like the box itself. But the improvements to the land convey with the land...if your neighbor builds his fence on your side of the property line, it's not his fence it's yours. That's why the cable company cannot insist you share your infrastructure.
And I'm not remembering the terms for this, but I've heard there are situations where your neighbor building his fence on your land and you not taking action within a certain amount of time would cede that part of your land to your neighbor.
Recording an easement requires paperwork at the courthouse, doc stamps, and approval of any lien holders (such as a mortgager). The reason is that the lien holder has a secured interest in the property secured by the title - that they have joint ownership is the easiest way to think about it.
But rest assured, that if you build a fence on your neighbors side of the line its his fence. You can have a contract that gives you the right to access it and prohibits your neighbor from demolishing it, but it's with your neighbor as an individual. If they sell the property the new owner owns the fence and is not bound by the contract.
Personally I love it, it's perfect for when you're at a friends house and want to check out something real quick.
Of course, that doesn't mean where their network connects to the internet won't get more congested...
Remember, Comcast is part of the cable company fuckery that is pushing for a "fast lane"
"At first, Varsavsky says, he "couldn't see a business model" in his idea. "But I thought it could be a great thing. I thought, 'I'm going to develop some firmware that people can download into their router.'" By November 2005, Fon's firmware was ready. Users could install it on the hack-friendly Linksys WRT54G router, which was built around Linux."
from http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2011/09/features/ope...
They now have about 12 million spots ( http://gigaom.com/2014/05/20/fons-crowdsourced-wi-fi-network... ) so doing ok but still a minority thing
Additionally, there is the profit benefit, assuming they will charge non-subscribers when their free 10 minutes is up.
WiFi services are competitive because of coverage, and therefore geographic location. When they are attached to buildings they need (small) amount of power and physical protection. You're providing all of this to Comcast, for free, to build their coverage network. I think compensation is warranted. In more expensive areas, both in terms of rent and location-based taxes, this becomes even more important of an issue.
Of course, i agreed to this when subscribing so theres that - and in fact I can turn it off if i want (its opt out)
SSID customer-net = VLAN1, nat VLAN1 192.168.1.0/24 to WAN-IP1
SSID public-net = VLAN2, nat VLAN2 192.168.2.0/24 to WAN-IP2
To share the cable modem device, the device just needs to switch packets internally.
Translated article: http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=da&tl=en&u=...
While it was running, some people reported that not opting out and then putting your cable model in bridge mode, would disable both wireless networks, but allowing you to use the extra bandwidth for your own use. Didn't get to try it myself before the feature was disabled due to the bug mentioned above.
And incidentally, what part of "the property you own" is being used here? The cable modem, which isn't yours? The Comcast network, which you don't own? The wireless spectrum, over which you have no exclusivity? Your IP connectivity, which isn't affected?
I find it baffling that people can be so hugely resistant to such harmless ideas. Seriously, where does that come from?
The property you own that they are utilizing is just that, your property, or your estate. They are using the land that you work your entire life to rent or own to scan mobile devices around it and gather information which they are profiting from.
I just think it is a stretch to go from a simple cable modem (which customers could easily own, but they'd rather give away their natural right to control their own property for ease of use/access) which should just simply be providing access to the bandwidth you are paying for (like cable boxes would just provide you a connection to your TV channels of choice), to operating an internet service to anybody in your area.
What is the basis of your claim that they are using this as a way to 'scan mobile devices .. and gather information which they are profiting from'? What information? Profiting how?
Without facts, what you're saying is indistinguishable from any other conspiracy theory.
You say 'operating an internet service to anybody in your area' and in the main it's not "anybody" - it's Comcast customers. Of which you, if you are so affected, are likely to be one. Comcast using their equipment, their facilities, their network and their backhaul to operate an internet facility to THEIR customers.
The long and the short of services like this is that people - where they have a choice - are more likely to choose, or stay with, or be happier paying for, an Internet Service Provider if they get more value from it. If your Comcast internet service suddenly comes with the ability to access that service from wifi hotspots throughout the town or city where you live [and there's a great chance of there being a significant number of such hotspots available in a locale served by a dominant cable operator] then you, as a Comcast customer, are likely to get a good value from that.
Good value equals more and happier customers willing to keep paying the same or more. Simple business. No covert data-gathering and "seeing what people are doing" conspiracies required.
Fact: Once you have a XfinityWIFI added to your device and wifi turned on, you are automatically connecting to these hotspots.
Lots of customers don't understand the implication of this, which is that Comcast knows where you are located.
Fact: You can see a lot more information about devices connected to the an internet access point if you control the lowest routing layer. Just try hooking up a router into another router, and try seeing the devices connected to the first router on the second.
Giving Comcast control of routing the internet connection available on your property is allowing them to see details about devices in the area, which they would not see if they were simply providing you a single connection to a router that you own. Sure, plenty of providers had wifi built into their modems (all those crappy 2WIRE things), but at the very least the customer is able to set a password and control who Comcast is able to see is near their property. With this service it just seems like Comcast is making all it's customer's homes a tracking point for everybody else.
Why should customers be able to access the internet at random locations based on where other customers live? Isn't that what a mobile data connection is for? Sure, the more hotspots available the better, I guess, but if comcast wants to provide access to the internet it should create a technology that can do it without using other people's property/land/estate, and without being able to gather useful information about peoples' locations and maybe more detailed device and network traffic information.
Also, I don't know much about analyzing a single network interface for internet traffic from multiple users, like what we hear about the NSA doing at major internet hubs, but I assume a lot of work needs to be done to filter through information like that. I admit I don't have enough knowledge/experience/evidence/facts about networking, even though I did study computer engineering, but I will make an assumption (at least educated?) that if you have control over the lowest layer of routing you can get a lot more information about the activities taking place on the clients.
My guess is that there's no way this doesn't degrade the customers' connection.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/technology/telstra-phones-ho...
As long as my speed doesn't degrade and I'm using my own router behind the modem, I don't mind if they make it a public hot spot.
Of course, most people use the cable companies modem as their wifi/router. I wouldn't be surprised if people discover major security vulnerabilities in these mix-public/private modems.
If your wireless router is near the modem and it's broadcasting on an overlapping channel then it will definitely degrade your speed.
Second, other WiFi networks are not really the cause of interference. Certainly, if two networks are sharing the same channel and both have stations that want to use the full bandwidth at the same time, that won't work. But WiFi does listen before it transmits, and does not transmit when it can hear other stations transmitting. This lets many networks share the same channel.
Where this goes wrong is when two stations want to talk to the same access point, but can't hear each other. (The "hidden node" problem.) In that case, station A can't tell that station B is transmitting, and so station A might transmit over station B's transmission, resulting in garbage at the access point. (Access points that can both hear a station but not each other can also do this, of course.)
In the scenario you mention, your own access point and Comcast's access point are almost in the same place, so they should be able to hear the same set of stations. If they pick the same channel (and autoselection _is_ notoriously poor), they should not interfere except to share bandwidth.
Finally, there's so much crap in the 2.4GHz band already that another WiFi network isn't going to make a difference. From my apartment I can hear 20+ WiFi networks, and if I look at a spectrum readout, can see tons of other things that I have no idea what they are. https://plus.google.com/115192122236060613729/posts/RZHLmV5K...
I was assuming these comcast modems were 2.4GHz. But you have a point, if you're using a 5GHz router this problem is avoided.
>Finally, there's so much crap in the 2.4GHz band already that another WiFi network isn't going to make a difference. From my apartment I can hear 20+ WiFi networks, and if I look at a spectrum readout, can see tons of other things that I have no idea what they are.
That depends on where you live. At my house there are only 2 wireless networks near enough to matter and I moved my network to a non-overlapping channel. Also I use 2.4GHZ because 5GHz doesn't cover my entire house.
You sure? If you are connecting a CAT5 between the modem and a router, you are still using the modem. Are you sure you can stop the modem from acting on its own?
My understanding is that you should instead replace the modem with your own, not just the router.
We do have the old equipment, but it's not that bad honestly.
Seems like a couple of those incidents would bring this to a screeching halt.
So if you're an xfinity customer, you can use their public wifi hotspots. But if you're not an xfinity customer, you have to pay.