Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house
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 concerned about is not the service itself, which is interesting, and has the capability to be a good utilization of resources (as in, a cheap way to provide a beneficial service). 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 a significant majority of the tenants are Comcast customers (cuz in 'murica we loves us some monopolies) I see a lot of strong xfinity signals stomping on an already crowded 2.4 G spectrum. So just to be clear, I'm not being critical at this point, I'm simply interested in separating the facts from the hype. Doug On 12/11/14 12:42 PM, Mike wrote:
Doug,
I use my own router at home, so I opted out, and I can use the service without issue.
Mike
On Dec 11, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> wrote:
On 12/11/14 10:16 AM, Livingood, Jason wrote: On 12/11/14, 1:06 PM, "Kain, Rebecca (.)" <bkain1@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. The rollout has been happening since probably 2009 or 2010.
Jason,
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 e-mailed?
And are we correct in assuming that this is strictly opt-out? And is the report that if you opt out with your account that you are not then able to access the service elsewhere correct?
Completely aside from the fact that other services have done something similar, I regard all of this as quite troubling, as it seems others here do as well.
Doug
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@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 a significant majority of the tenants are Comcast customers (cuz in 'murica we loves us some monopolies) I see a lot of strong xfinity signals stomping on an already crowded 2.4 G spectrum.
So just to be clear, I'm not being critical at this point, I'm simply interested in separating the facts from the hype.
Here is an additional data point that can hopefully satisfy your curiosity. TL;DR: In my experience, Comcast appeared to hide the fact that they are running this new wifi service by using my device, and they pushed the idea of upgrading my router by saying it would improve uplink speeds (which may be true). IF you find out that the XFINITY wifi service will be running on your device, then it is not hard to disable it. I received an email from Comcast that they were offering a free upgraded wifi router for my home. Here is a snippet from the email: """ At Comcast, we're constantly improving our Internet network. For you, that means access to faster in-home WiFi speeds, more bandwidth, and more coverage for your whole home. With all of these technology advancements, devices need to be upgraded in order to fully maximize our service offerings. Recently, we increased the speeds of some of our popular Internet tiers at no additional cost to you. Our records indicate that your cable modem needs to be upgraded in order to ensure you're getting the most out of your XFINITY® Internet service. To ensure you're receiving the full benefits included with your service, we want to replace your existing modem with a Wireless Gateway free of charge. """ The rest of the email is instructions and contact information for customer service. I didn't really pay attention to much else (e.g. separate emails or marketing campaigns), but why not mention that by installing this new device, I would be enabling the XFINITY wifi service in this email? At the time, I kept wondering what the real incentive was for Comcast to send me anything for free. The first step of the provided instructions in the email was a link, which I assumed would walk me through some steps to sign up. I think that brought be to a login screen, so I logged in. As soon as I did that, I was notified that my new device was on its way. All I really wanted was more information, so this annoyed me quite a bit. After I received the device, I decided to give it a try. Before I did, I researched a bit online and figured out that they were planning on offering the XFINITY wifi service from my device. The management interface for the device is a bit limited. It was annoying enough that I *wanted* to go back to my old setup, but it was not annoying enough for me to actually jump through the hoops I'd have to go through to actually carry that out. I agree that the XFINITY wifi service in it of itself is not a bad thing, but I personally didn't want to run it on my device. I agree with folks saying it is easy to opt out. Instructions for disabling the public connection were easy to find and simple to perform. I am comfortable with my current situation, but the whole process left me with a distrust of clicking any link that Comcast provides me in the future when the email says "ACTION REQUIRED" in the subject. As a consumer, I personally felt that I had been misled, but I was glad that the opt-out process was simple. -- Tim Upthegrove
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 used by DOCSIS-2 modems. Similarly, **if** a cableco has moved to 8 channel DOCSIS on the coax, it may cost less to send new 8 channel capable modems to customers compared to all the node splits they would need due to congestion on the 4 channels. OR It may have just been marketing to deploy that Xfinity wi-fi thing, thinking it would be seen as a marketing advantage for Comcast instead of the marketing liability it has become.
On 12/11/14, 4:37 PM, "Tim Upthegrove" <tim.upthegrove@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 longer up to the task. If you got an email like that you had a D2.0 device and needed a D3.0 device. A side benefit is the device either now or very soon supports native dual stack. Jason
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 your customers don't know they are providing a public access point out of their homes by just being comcast HSI customers? I am all for wifi everywhere, but this isn't the way to do it. http://i.imgur.com/R3xCpZO.png Pic is related, one of those access points isn't owned by Comcast. On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Livingood, Jason < Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
On 12/11/14, 4:37 PM, "Tim Upthegrove" <tim.upthegrove@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 longer up to the task. If you got an email like that you had a D2.0 device and needed a D3.0 device. A side benefit is the device either now or very soon supports native dual stack.
Jason
On 12/12/14, 1:33 AM, "Javier J" <javier@advancedmachines.us<mailto:javier@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 customers? I am all for wifi everywhere, but this isn't the way to do it. What I think is that no matter what, someone will find something wrong with anything we choose to do. I also think this thread has become a bit absurd. Jason
On 12/12/14, 1:33 AM, "Javier J" <javier@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* wireless network that does authentication via a portal, because it becomes a standard phishing spoof problem that is dependent on how well you imitate the portal in question. Not really a comcast-specific problem, though this blog demonstrates exactly what you suggest: https://blog.logrhythm.com/security/xfinity-pineapple/ Hotspot 2.0 is intended to help with this problem to some extent. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/service- provider-wi-fi/white_paper_c11-649337.html Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
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 <randy@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 with ethics?
randy
On 12/11/14, 3:50 PM, "Doug Barton" <dougb@dougbarton.us<mailto:dougb@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 sometimes reporters don’t like when facts get in the way of a good story. It comes with the territory, so I’m used to it. I see a lot of strong xfinity signals stomping on an already crowded 2.4 G spectrum. Fair point. But 2.4GHz was a bit of a mess before we came along with this service. 5GHz is a lot better and we were one of many companies in favor of the recent FCC decision to expand unlicensed 5GHz spectrum. See http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/more-wi-fi-is-better-f... So just to be clear, I'm not being critical at this point, I'm simply interested in separating the facts from the hype. No worries! :-) Jason
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 router be able to detect existence of strong Xfinity signals and not enable its own ? This would reduce crowding of Wi-Fi spectrum. I take it such a feature would require special programming/firmware by modem/router manufacturer ?
On 12/11/14, 4:45 PM, "Jean-Francois Mezei" <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca<mailto:jfmezei_nanog@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 opted in ? No idea - I was just on the technical execution side of the project in the early phases. Behavioral economics would suggest that opt-in rates are almost always lower than opt-out. http://ozankocak.com/2011/01/18/dan-ariely-and-behavioral-economics-part–i/ . I suspect many tech companies have adopted similar views on opting in or out. Secondly, at a more technical level: In a MDU with a whole bunch of Comcast subscribers, could one router be able to detect existence of strong Xfinity signals and not enable its own ? This would reduce crowding of Wi-Fi spectrum. I take it such a feature would require special rogramming/firmware by modem/router manufacturer ? This is definitely specialized software logic and on the frontier of work called radio resource management. I am sure most WiFi chipsets have simple aspects of this built in but some companies are working on new technology & tools in this area for unlicensed spectrum like WiFi. Jason
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:08:51 -0500, Livingood, Jason <Jason_Livingood@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 bother to opt-out. b) Few ("no one") knows about it. Few will (can) opt-in to service they aren't aware of. Likewise, how does one opt-out if they don't know about it. (FTR, the last one is what's going on here. It's relatively unknown, and many are apparently opting out as soon as they a) hear about it, and b) learn *how* to opt-out. But, yes, there are those too lazy to bother.)
This is definitely specialized software logic and on the frontier of work called radio resource management.
Not really. It's just a simple scan of the channels looking for any xfinity wifi *BEFORE* blindly enabling the service. Yes, it's more work than the built-into-the-chipset automatic channel selection. But if the service has it's own radio, it's lame not to do this.
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 16:41:24 -0500, Livingood, Jason <Jason_Livingood@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 Comcast didn't spring for separate radios, it'll be riding what ever channel the customer's WiFi is using. Thus, interfering with *their* use of WiFi.
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: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 16:41:24 -0500, Livingood, Jason < Jason_Livingood@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 Comcast didn't spring for separate radios, it'll be riding what ever channel the customer's WiFi is using. Thus, interfering with *their* use of WiFi.
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:26:37 -0500, Josh Luthman <josh@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 different software bridge or pseudo interface.
It's an either/or... they have their own radio, thus adding to an already congested RF arena, or they ride the same channel as the customer, thus consuming (degrading) their wifi bandwidth. (bring an 802.11b device to the part if you want to see just how ugly that can get.)
Your reading comprehension could use some work: "The latest device (called an XB3, see http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/the-technology-behind-the-indust...) does have multiple radios" Regards, SG On 12/11/2014 3:19 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 16:41:24 -0500, Livingood, Jason <Jason_Livingood@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 Comcast didn't spring for separate radios, it'll be riding what ever channel the customer's WiFi is using. Thus, interfering with *their* use of WiFi.
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:32:06 -0500, Spencer Gaw <spencerg@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 would having ac (5ghz only) and b/g/n capability.
On 12/11/14, 5:19 PM, "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 16:41:24 -0500, Livingood, Jason <Jason_Livingood@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.
I think that¹s a bit overblown but respect your opinion. But as you know a massive amount of consumer electronics and whatnot if WiFi-enabled. By this logic they are all dumping gas on the fire as well. Jason
On 12/11/2014 2:46 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote:
On 12/11/14, 5:19 PM, "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 16:41:24 -0500, Livingood, Jason <Jason_Livingood@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.
I think that¹s a bit overblown but respect your opinion. But as you know a massive amount of consumer electronics and whatnot if WiFi-enabled. By this logic they are all dumping gas on the fire as well.
Jason
I think it's pretty obvious that 2.4Ghz is becoming the new 900Mhz - a place you don't want to be. 5Ghz, here we come! -- Jeff Shultz
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:46:24 -0500, Livingood, Jason <Jason_Livingood@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 of the largest companies in the country to be so self-serving. (Of course, *everyone* expects this sort of behavior from cableco's -- and telcos.)
participants (11)
-
Doug Barton -
George, Wes -
Javier J -
Jean-Francois Mezei -
Jeff Shultz -
Josh Luthman -
Livingood, Jason -
Randy Bush -
Ricky Beam -
Spencer Gaw -
Tim Upthegrove