# Comcast is forceing users of Comcast WiFi modem to create a public wifi hotspot



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

I just read this article and it does not make me happy.
I put this out, as all TiVo users use the internet (I would guess), and Comcast is providing their own modem/router/WiFi in a single box, I use my own purchased modem with phone connection and WiFi router. But many others use the convenience of the Comcast total system.

User writes

_So again, my ability to turn WiFi off via the Users & Preferences page did not exist. Calling the 800 number and going to internet support gave me someone who only suggested trying to disable & re-enabe bridge mode (which didnt eliminate xfinitywifi). He then suggested I (get this!) read up on the Comcast customer forums on their website as there are constantly updates to the firmware in our modems and this is probably just an update that has an issue at the moment. 
When I told him that wasnt acceptable, he transferred me to the WiFi department (who actually seemed to be both U.S. based & knowledgeable!) This rep empathized with me and admitted that although I have the WiFi set to off and I have my gateway in bridge mode, he could apparently see that xfinitiywifi was active on my account. THIS DEPARTMENT SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY ONE ABLE TO DISABLE THE XFINITYWIFI ON GATEWAYS AT THE MOMENT. Their direct # is 855-308-9453 (Im glad I asked the clueless tier 1 tech for it before being transferred) I can confirm that this person was able to ultimately able to fix the issue.

The only solution, according to forum members, is to buy your own modem/router, a solution that seems quite simple. Sadly, however, there are also complaints of Comcast failing to remove router rental fees even after multiple requests. While most users are obviously fine with Comcast sharing their bandwidth, this Kafkaesque experience for those who dare think a bit different looks quite frustrating.
_


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Yes, been going on a while.

http://arstechnica.com/information-...your-xfinity-modem-into-public-wi-fi-hotspot/


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

This is ancient, no?


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

SullyND said:


> This is ancient, no?


Yes over a year.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

To turn off..


comcast said:


> 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 https://customer.comcast.com/, click on Users & Preferences, and then select Manage XFINITY WiFi.


----------



## jrtroo (Feb 4, 2008)

Sounds like those who think they get a free DVR from their cableco. Free wifi router? Ha.


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

jrtroo said:


> Sounds like those who think they get a free DVR from their cableco. Free wifi router? Ha.


It is free. Just not for the paying customers.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

SullyND said:


> This is ancient, no?


It's both ancient and new. It's ancient that they're doing this.

But there has been a recent kerfluffle over users turning it off, and comcast turning it back on, comcast hiding/moving/disabling the ability to turn it off, and then CSR's being nasty to customers who want it off. And this has made another round in the press again.

So it's kinda new, but also old.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

It's not quite a "public" hotspot since you have to be a Comcast customer to log onto it. But I get WiFi over much of my dog-walking route thanks to it, so there's that (I have my own modem and router).


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

So now Comcast owns the airwaves in your home. Got it.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

MikeAndrews said:


> So now Comcast owns the airwaves in your home. Got it.


No.. Comcast owns the modem and is choosing to use it in what *I* and many others feel is a very inappropriate manner.

Solution? own your own modem. :up:


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

I have never understood why so many feel the wifi hot spots are a problem. I often use the xfinitywifi hot spots when out an about and have no problem if some passer by uses the one my box generates. It costs me near nothing (far less than the value of the wifi elsewhere) and does not use any of my bandwidth or effect any of my devices in any way. There is no security risk to my network.

Never understood why folks are so upset with this shared service. The Comcast provided Cisco box still does everything I have paid for and if it stops, they have the cost of replacement.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

I've never used xfinitywifi - isn't it ripe for being a honeypot?


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

SullyND said:


> I've never used xfinitywifi - isn't it ripe for being a honeypot?


This Computerworld article agrees, although most of their rationale seems to be, "We don't know what they're doing, it might be Very Bad."


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

BTW, AT&T hotspots (McDonald's etc.) pose the same risk to the wireless user.


----------



## southerndoc (Apr 5, 2003)

Does xfinitywifi use by guests count against your monthly data allotment?

I turned off xfinitywifi on my iPhone. Nothing like my iPhone connecting to it and it be a poor connection or needing me to validate I'm a Comcast customer and thus not sending an iMessage. Would rather just stay on LTE.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

geekmedic said:


> Does xfinitywifi use by guests count against your monthly data allotment?


In those areas that have data caps, no, it does not. Nor does it effect the speed of your connection when its in use. IE the pipe is bigger than what you are allocated by your subscription, the xfinitywifi hotspot uses capacity in addition to your subscription.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

jcthorne said:


> In those areas that have data caps, no, it does not. Nor does it effect the speed of your connection when its in use. IE the pipe is bigger than what you are allocated by your subscription, the xfinitywifi hotspot uses capacity in addition to your subscription.


That seems like a claim that needs a big gigantic "citation needed."

The idea that your modem is ALWAYS faster than you allocated speed and the modem can smartly allocate additional speed over your actual paid cap to JUST the xfinitywifi hotspot connection seems like a really fancy piece of engineering for such a mediocre feature.

What you're saying is certainly not IMPOSSIBLE, but seems unlikely and I'd need to see a source to believe it.

Link speculates:



> Some DOCSIS 3.0 modems have 4 channels in each direction, others have 8 downstream channels (from the Internet to you) and 4 upstream (from you to the Internet). It is possible that the Comcast gateway devices (Arris Touchstone models in Houston) are configured to send guest traffic over a different channel or channels than traffic from the homeowner. But, to be clear, this is speculation on my part.


But no confirmation. Just speculation.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Grakthis said:


> seems like a really fancy piece of engineering for such a mediocre feature.


Xfinity seems to think it's a big deal. Not having to use LTE when you're out & about has a certain appeal if you're on a limited plan.

The Computerworld article is full of speculation because the author isn't an Xfinity subscriber so he has zero firsthand knowledge.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Let not forget the stranger sitting in your driveway to use your xfinitywifi to get his E-Mail, etc. That all I need is people parked on my street to get my xfinitywifi. If you were driving, the connection to my xfinitywifi would be to quick to matter as it not going more than what, 200 feet from my home at best.


----------



## Teeps (Aug 16, 2001)

Put a Faraday cage over the comcast all in one... problem of unwanted wi-fi transmissions solved.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

At least in my case, and I would assume true for many others. I have a Comcast subscription at 50/10 Mbps. The Cisco router/modem is capable of 300/100 if I chose to pay for it. There is PLENTY of bandwidth for the xfinitywifi connection that is not going to me.

I also tested it. Had a friend log in to the xfinitywifi and start an HD Netflix stream while I had my server download a large media file. My connection never wavered and never dropped below the 50 Mbps I pay for. This was mid day on a Sat. The overall network speeds do drop a bit during evening prime time but again, my network speeds are not effected by the additional xfinitywifi connections. its not the pipe that is the limiting factor, its the Comcast network.

As far as the 'complexity' of a device to do all this, it's simple QOS router tables and has been in use for a LONG time on the commercial side. The Cisco unit provided to me has this sort of bandwidth manangement for my use as well as managing the two separate wifi networks. There really is no downside.

Never had anyone park in my driveway to use my wifi. Just a few folks walking the sidewalk with their dogs or folks from the minimart across the street. I really cannot tell who is on it, as I cannot see that device table, only the ones on my side of the network.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

Teeps said:


> Put a Faraday cage over the comcast all in one... problem of unwanted wi-fi transmissions solved.


That pretty much kills your own wifi network as well.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Just turn off the feature.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Use your own equipment. Comcast jacked up their rental rates anyway from what I hear.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

trip1eX said:


> Use your own equipment. Comcast jacked up their rental rates anyway from what I hear.


They shot themselves in the foot on that one. At least on the business side. you see the rental rate is stated in the contract. And there is no provision to change it until the contact ends. They did anyway and they have no provision in their own billing system to alter the rental rate, contract or no.

All you have to do is call and ask to cancel the contract for breach. They quickly 'negotiate' a lower contract price point with the new rental rate included. Net smaller monthly charge due to their screw up.

Also, my annual average equipment cost due to replacement of routers, access points and modems prior to rental has been higher than their monthly rental rate. Between obsolete wifi standards and dead equipment. I have no complaint on the rental rate and the Cisco unit they have provided has been pretty darn reliable so far and has the latest 802.11n specs.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

pdhenry said:


> Xfinity seems to think it's a big deal. Not having to use LTE when you're out & about has a certain appeal if you're on a limited plan.
> 
> The Computerworld article is full of speculation because the author isn't an Xfinity subscriber so he has zero firsthand knowledge.


I mean, I looked elsewhere too. No one has any actual information on how this impacts your bandwidth. We have claims from TWC that it's "minimal" but "minimal" is not "zero."


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

jcthorne said:


> At least in my case, and I would assume true for many others. I have a Comcast subscription at 50/10 Mbps. The Cisco router/modem is capable of 300/100 if I chose to pay for it. There is PLENTY of bandwidth for the xfinitywifi connection that is not going to me.
> 
> I also tested it. Had a friend log in to the xfinitywifi and start an HD Netflix stream while I had my server download a large media file. My connection never wavered and never dropped below the 50 Mbps I pay for. This was mid day on a Sat. The overall network speeds do drop a bit during evening prime time but again, my network speeds are not effected by the additional xfinitywifi connections. its not the pipe that is the limiting factor, its the Comcast network.
> 
> ...


This is a good practical test, but not an actual proof of anything. I think we can all admit that the PRACTICAL reality is that it SHOULDN'T impact you, but the way the technology works, unless the router is opening a new channel to the head end for the Xfinitiy traffic, it *IS* using some amount of your bandwidth.

People walking by on your sidewalk wouldn't have time to connect to your wifi and do anything before they were past your house. It takes a sold 15-20 seconds for a phone to disconnect from one network and connect to another.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

the related story i read on consumerist today referenced an email comcast sent to customers, with a deceptive link for information that automatically places an order for a new rental modem:



> Over on his personal site, consumer advocate Bob Sullivan writes about numerous complaints from Comcast customers who say they have received e-mails from the cable giant saying that company records indicate that your cable modem needs to be upgraded if they want to take full advantage of the Xfinity network.
> 
> Of course, this doesnt mention that one of those benefits is that the new Comcast-supplied equipment could be used to provide public WiFi access that piggybacks on your home WiFi.
> 
> Regardless, what seems to be the real sticking point about these e-mails is the link under How to get your replacement modem. *Customers complain that clicking on the link doesnt take them to a page with more information or a form to fill out, but actually places the order for the new equipment *which will cost them $8/month and possibly twenty times that amount of money if its installed by a Comcast-contracted tech.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

If someone is downloading contraband or making threats, it's going to be traced back to the xfinity customer's router. 

The police can put the xfinity customer in jail for up to 48 hours without charging them, until they are satisfied it wasn't the xfinity customer. They don't have a special xfinity customer jail, they will go to the same jail with all the other criminals. Hopefully an inmate named Bubba isn't waiting to help the xfinity customer get in touch with their feminine side.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

jcthorne said:


> They shot themselves in the foot on that one. At least on the business side. you see the rental rate is stated in the contract. And there is no provision to change it until the contact ends. They did anyway and they have no provision in their own billing system to alter the rental rate, contract or no.
> 
> All you have to do is call and ask to cancel the contract for breach. They quickly 'negotiate' a lower contract price point with the new rental rate included. Net smaller monthly charge due to their screw up.
> 
> Also, my annual average equipment cost due to replacement of routers, access points and modems prior to rental has been higher than their monthly rental rate. Between obsolete wifi standards and dead equipment. I have no complaint on the rental rate and the Cisco unit they have provided has been pretty darn reliable so far and has the latest 802.11n specs.


I heard it was $10/mo to rent a cable modem from Comcast. My brother went out and bought one cause of that. And he's loaded. (granted my info is coming from non-techies. I actually don't know what the $10/mo represents. Might have been the cost of the new gateway thing.)

3 years ago I grabbed a $30 refurbished Cisco modem from a 3rd party seller on Amazon (who probably tested and sold customer returned equipment from the cable company) and still going strong. My provider's monthly fee wasn't that much. $3/mo, but the purchased cable modem has paid for itself. On the router side I've had an Apple Extreme for years now. Maybe it hasn't paid for itself quite yet now that I look at the rates to add wireless to a cable modem. IT's only $2/mo more to get a wireless modem (as they call their router/modem combo) from my provider. Probably not quite break even on that. But not sure what the provider's equipment is. Even if I'm not break even on the router side of things - The way I look at it is - I got a big discount for a router I preferred to use.

btw, also saw the big new honking box they give customers. I assume that's the gateway. My parents (I think) are renting it. That thing is huge. The size of a big computer tower split in 2 vertically.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> If someone is downloading contraband or making threats, it's going to be traced back to the xfinity customer's router.
> 
> The police can put the xfinity customer in jail for up to 48 hours without charging them, until they are satisfied it wasn't the xfinity customer. They don't have a special xfinity customer jail, they will go to the same jail with all the other criminals. Hopefully an inmate named Bubba isn't waiting to help the xfinity customer get in touch with their feminine side.


This has happened but not using the xfinity WiFi, I would think Comcast will know if their customer or another user that log into the internet using the 1st customer router is the bad guy, as you do have to log in so Comcast know who you are, even if your on somebody xfinity WiFi.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

Grakthis said:


> This is a good practical test, but not an actual proof of anything. I think we can all admit that the PRACTICAL reality is that it SHOULDN'T impact you, but the way the technology works, unless the router is opening a new channel to the head end for the Xfinitiy traffic, it *IS* using some amount of your bandwidth.
> 
> People walking by on your sidewalk wouldn't have time to connect to your wifi and do anything before they were past your house. It takes a sold 15-20 seconds for a phone to disconnect from one network and connect to another.


No, its NOT using ANY of YOUR bandwidth. The modem is capable of 300Mbps with its 8 channels but the SUBSCRIPTION limits your connection to 50 or 75 or what ever you are subscribed to. The xfinitywifi bandwidth comes out of the EXCESS capacity above your subscription rate. IE the modem is throttled to your subscribed rate.

My phone can connect to a previously remembered wifi signal in a lot less than 20 seconds. Since all the xfinitywifi hotspots are the same ssid and loging, your phone sees all of them as the same spot.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

NorthAlabama said:


> the related story i read on consumerist today referenced an email comcast sent to customers, with a deceptive link for information that automatically places an order for a new rental modem:


Replacing your old equipment with the newer unit costs the user NOTHING. Or at least the same equipment rental they were already paying. They do not have different rates for different boxes.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> If someone is downloading contraband or making threats, it's going to be traced back to the xfinity customer's router.
> 
> The police can put the xfinity customer in jail for up to 48 hours without charging them, until they are satisfied it wasn't the xfinity customer. They don't have a special xfinity customer jail, they will go to the same jail with all the other criminals. Hopefully an inmate named Bubba isn't waiting to help the xfinity customer get in touch with their feminine side.


Again, NO. The xfinitywifi signal has a completely different IP address than your home network. Any traffic is not traced back to you but to the xfinitywifi hot spot. Comcast also knows what comcast user had that xfinitywifi signal at that time. Its traced to a USER not the box.

I am NOT a comcast fanboy. In fact I think they have among the worst customer service of any company I have to do business with. My only other option for net connect was ATT but they started using caps even for business lines. With the per GB data charges, Comcast is far cheaper for a Business line. But the amount of disinformation and myths being spread about this hot spot idea is just astounding.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

jcthorne said:


> Replacing your old equipment with the newer unit costs the user NOTHING. Or at least the same equipment rental they were already paying. They do not have different rates for different boxes.


Right, but I understood that they were sending the email to customers who owned the modem and then redirecting them to a page where they'd sign up for a Comcast-provided modem.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Grakthis said:


> I mean, I looked elsewhere too. No one has any actual information on how this impacts your bandwidth. We have claims from TWC that it's "minimal" but "minimal" is not "zero."


It doesn't impact your cable bandwidth according to Comcast. It could, however, impact your wireless data capacity if their gateway is your primary SSID.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

shwru980r said:


> If someone is downloading contraband or making threats, it's going to be traced back to the xfinity customer's router.
> 
> The police can put the xfinity customer in jail for up to 48 hours without charging them, until they are satisfied it wasn't the xfinity customer. They don't have a special xfinity customer jail, they will go to the same jail with all the other criminals. Hopefully an inmate named Bubba isn't waiting to help the xfinity customer get in touch with their feminine side.


Wrong, it's an entirely separate VLAN with it's own IP - anyone using it has to login to Comcast as a condition of use and therefore Comcast will supply that user's info to police, not yours.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> Right, but I understood that they were sending the email to customers who owned the modem and then redirecting them to a page where they'd sign up for a Comcast-provided modem.


Ahh, that is underhanded.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> It doesn't impact your cable bandwidth according to Comcast. It could, however, impact your wireless data capacity if their gateway is your primary SSID.


\

Nope, it broadcasts 4 SSIDs. 2 of your own naming convention for 2.4 and 5Ghz and 2 for Xfinitywifi. It might as well be a completely different access point. They can even operate on different channels and usually do.


----------



## danm628 (May 14, 2002)

Comcast has been sued over the issue: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ers-for-turning-routers-into-public-hotspots/


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Comcast is using your airspace - airwaves - radio spectrum. If they have the public wifi on a separate channel (or not) it, interferes with the spectrum available for the private WiFi of you and your neighbors.

You can't host a company's PA system and not hear it.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Maybe the APs default to Channel 1 for the customer's use and 11 (or 6) for the hotspot...


----------



## danm628 (May 14, 2002)

MikeAndrews said:


> Comcast is using your airspace - airwaves - radio spectrum. If they have the public wifi on a separate channel (or not) it, interferes with the spectrum available for the private WiFi of you and your neighbors.
> 
> You can't host a company's PA system and not hear it.





pdhenry said:


> Maybe the APs default to Channel 1 for the customer's use and 11 (or 6) for the hotspot...


Assuming they don't overlap the channels then the WiFi interference won't impact the user who owns the modem. This applies to both 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz operation.

It will impact anyone in an adjacent apartment or condo in the 2.4 GHz band. It's probably ok if they do this in the 5 GHz band but then there isn't much point in that since the range is limited due to the RF isolation supplied by the walls at 5 GHz. A public WiFi hotspot that only works within a few feet of the customer's walls isn't going to work very well.

This implies at least 3 radios (customer 2.4 GHz, customer 5 GHz and public 2.4 GHz). Four radios if there is a public 5 GHz AP also (I don't think this is likely but possible). There are enterprise APs that do this but I haven't seen any consumer ones that have three radios before this. I'm also not spending as much time tracking consumer WiFi so there could be product I don't know about.

The other alternative is two radios (2.4 and 5 GHz) and sharing of WiFi bandwidth between public and customer. Personally I would object to this due to the impact on my usage if a public users happens to be online at the same time.

This can be partially mitigated by QOS controls on the WiFi but WiFi QOS is mostly an exercise in specmanship. Most (all?) of the 802.11 point control function QOS features have never been implemented. The few that have have never been common in products. I believe that some of them can't be implemented since the specifications won't work as written. (This is one of the many things on the list for 802.11ax to resolve. Some of the newer IEEE members working on 11ax really care about QOS working.)

The sharing on the cable side shouldn't be an issue since I believe all Comcast data plans are slower than the max cable data rate (DOCSIS 3.0). This could become an issue in the future if Comcast ups data rates to match fiber services (Google, AT&T, Centurylink).

Having three or four radios will consume more power. If well designed it won't be a huge amount of power but it is definitely not zero (3 or 4 PAs in radios vs. 2 is a measurable difference depending on workload). If there are only two radios and the public WiFi shares a channel with the customer WiFi the power difference will be very small (IDLE: an additional beacon every 102.4 milliseconds; ACTIVE: Public data traffic).

I know Comcast wants to get into the wireless WAN business. They invested in Clearwire (WiMAX) to achieve this though they never did much afterwards. They have tried to buy spectrum and/or operators in the past. That was all activities in licensed bands where they would own (or lease) the spectrum. The WiFi move is different since it is in an unlicensed ISM band. A band where consumers feel that they own the spectrum instead of large companies owning it.

My understanding is that in some countries this would be illegal since it is use of public spectrum for private/commercial use. It's commercial since Comcast requires public users to be Comcast customers.

- Dan


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

danm628 said:


> My understanding is that in some countries this would be illegal since it is use of public spectrum for private/commercial use. It's commercial since Comcast requires public users to be Comcast customers.
> 
> - Dan


There are companies that run ISPs on wifi, it's not illegal here. The spectrum is not just public, it's unlicensed. No one has exclusive use for any purpose, commercial or not.


----------



## webcrawlr (Mar 4, 2004)

MikeAndrews said:


> Comcast is using your airspace - airwaves - radio spectrum. If they have the public wifi on a separate channel (or not) it, interferes with the spectrum available for the private WiFi of you and your neighbors.
> 
> You can't host a company's PA system and not hear it.


The "airspace" doesn't belong to you, Comcast or anyone else.

This problem is so easy to solve. Buy your own router, configure it how you want, eventually save money in rental fees. Win, win, win.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

jcthorne said:


> \
> 
> Nope, it broadcasts 4 SSIDs. 2 of your own naming convention for 2.4 and 5Ghz and 2 for Xfinitywifi. It might as well be a completely different access point. They can even operate on different channels and usually do.


Sorry, should have said gateway and not SSID. There's only so much wireless cap to go around, so an xfinitywifi user theoretically *could* take up cap in your setup depending on how it works.

But as mentioned, the easy way around all this nonsense is to buy your own modem and router.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> Sorry, should have said gateway and not SSID. There's only so much wireless cap to go around, so an xfinitywifi user theoretically *could* take up cap in your setup depending on how it works.
> 
> But as mentioned, the easy way around all this nonsense is to buy your own modem and router.


Not sure what you are trying to tell me here. The gateway device provides 4 distinct wifi networks. And in my case, I can verify they are each on different wifi channels. No idea if Comcast uses the same channels for xfinitywifi on all boxes for consistency or not. But MY wireless networks (2.4 and 5GHz) are on different channels than the xfinity ones.

I just don't get all this animosity of people that think Comcast has stolen something they supposedly own. Comcast is using the wifi spectrum same as Starbucks or McDonalds or the stores in the strip center near my home.


----------



## bootman_head_fi (Aug 3, 2008)

Isn't anyone informed enough to care is already using their own wifi router anyway?
If not, get your own modem and router and set it up.

This is like me complaining what Tivo does to my box at night with my viewing habits info.


----------



## jcmeyer5 (Sep 16, 2011)

My opinion (and only my opinion).

If I am paying rental on the modem, and powering it with the electricity that I pay for, and protecting it from the elements with the dwelling I pay for, then Comcast needs to let me decide if I am providing someone the opportunity to squat outside my house and use wifi (that I pay for) that originates from my house.

Seems I am not the only one... Comcast Sued for turning User Routers into Public Hotspots


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

jcmeyer5 said:


> My opinion (and only my opinion).
> 
> If I am paying rental on the modem, and powering it with the electricity that I pay for, and protecting it from the elements with the dwelling I pay for, then Comcast needs to let me decide if I am providing someone the opportunity to squat outside my house and use wifi (that I pay for) that originates from my house.
> 
> Seems I am not the only one... Comcast Sued for turning User Routers into Public Hotspots


I think you are somewhat miss-representing what Comcast is trying to do.

First anyone using these hotspots has to have a Comcast user ID and password so the intent is they already have Comcast high speed Internet in their own home and are not some random person trying to access free Internet - in other words it is a feature/benefit Comcast Internet Customers receive to have easy access to WiFi for their mobile devices in more places (visiting other Comcast customers or just walking on the sidewalk in Comcast neighborhoods - if the system works correctly your mobile device could auto connect and switch to new routers as you walk/run).

Second the intent again is to benefit the Comcast customer who has this feature turned on by reducing the number of family and friends they need to allow on their own network - in another words you don't have to give out your WiFi password and they are not using your bandwidth.

Frankly I don't see how someone is really negatively impacted by this.


----------



## danm628 (May 14, 2002)

hefe said:


> There are companies that run ISPs on wifi, it's not illegal here. The spectrum is not just public, it's unlicensed. No one has exclusive use for any purpose, commercial or not.


It's not illegal in the USA. It would be illegal in some other countries.

The ISM bands used by WiFi, Bluetooth, Zigbee, etc. have restrictions on RF wave forms and power levels. These restrictions are fairly well aligned between countries with some exceptions on power levels. Some countries have additional restrictions about commercial use of the ISM band.

- Dan

(Disclaimer: I work in the wireless field for a large silicon manufacturer. I am aware of some, but not all, regulatory restrictions for different spectrum allocations. I am not a regulatory expert.)


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

slowbiscuit said:


> It doesn't impact your cable bandwidth according to Comcast. It could, however, impact your wireless data capacity if their gateway is your primary SSID.


According to the Comcast statement I found, it "minimally impacts" your bandwidth. Which is not the same as "doesn't." Do you have a citation?


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

webcrawlr said:


> The "airspace" doesn't belong to you, Comcast or anyone else.


Right. But it's shared by the public like street parking. People have a problem with commercial vehicles taking up all of the parking spaces. Similar thing.

I'd have a problem if the ISP was placing access points all over using the same channels, much less placing them in customer homes.



webcrawlr said:


> This problem is so easy to solve. Buy your own router, configure it how you want, eventually save money in rental fees. Win, win, win.


Right. For you and me. Joe Six Pack doesn't know from "my own router."

Part of the lawsuit is that Comcast is using customer's power without compensation.

Comcast is also conning customers into "upgrading" to the new modem and rental fee without explicitly telling them.

Pretty scummy, even for Comcast.

Other ISPs have WiFi in the gateway by default for free. 
_Comcast: Huh? Did you say something?_


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

jcthorne said:


> No, its NOT using ANY of YOUR bandwidth. The modem is capable of 300Mbps with its 8 channels but the SUBSCRIPTION limits your connection to 50 or 75 or what ever you are subscribed to. The xfinitywifi bandwidth comes out of the EXCESS capacity above your subscription rate. IE the modem is throttled to your subscribed rate.
> 
> My phone can connect to a previously remembered wifi signal in a lot less than 20 seconds. Since all the xfinitywifi hotspots are the same ssid and loging, your phone sees all of them as the same spot.


I've asked once already, so I'll ask again. Do you have any citations for your claims? If not, I'm just going to assume you're a shill.

I have a WiFi "expander" in my house. I hate it, because when I walk from the area where I have primary coverage to the expander, it takes about 20 seconds for my phone to "lose" the primary network, then drop it, and connect to the secondary one, despite them both having the same SSID.

Your phone CAN do it a lot faster, if you do it manually, but if you are under the incredibly misguided and mistaken belief that just because an AP has the same SSID it casually and simply hands off your phone from AP to AP seamlessly then you don't actually know anything about networking.

There's a reason why an actual repeater is expensive, whereas expanders are dirt cheap or can be created from converting an old WAP.


----------



## Teeps (Aug 16, 2001)

jcthorne said:


> That pretty much kills your own wifi network as well.


True, I watched a youtube video where the person demonstrated a Faraday Cage made with chicken wire. It appeared to reduce, not eliminate the transmission strength. I suppose a person could configure such a device to limit range, and perhaps impose a directional limit.

But at that point, as others have stated, might as well purchase your own router/wi-fi device.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Grakthis said:


> ...
> 
> I have a WiFi "expander" in my house. I hate it, because when I walk from the area where I have primary coverage to the expander, it takes about 20 seconds for my phone to "lose" the primary network, then drop it, and connect to the secondary one, despite them both having the same SSID.
> 
> ...


Interesting I have 3 routers broadcasting on my property. One attached to an outside antenna that I use to connect to a remote building (about 400 feet) a second again attached to an outside antenna setup as a wireless repeater in the remote building and a third in my house for in house use.

The 2 used to connect my house to my remote building are locked to each other. I allow the router in the remote building to rebroadcast and it uses the same channel as the one it is connected to (it is primarily used to connect wired devices in the remote building to my network) There is pretty seamless transition when mobile devices switch between those 2 routers. The one in my house uses the same SSID & password as the other 2 but is not interlinked to them - not really sure how long it takes for devices to switch to one of the other rooters when I go outside never paid much attention to it.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

jcmeyer5 said:


> If I am paying rental on the modem, and powering it with the electricity that I pay for, and protecting it from the elements with the dwelling I pay for, then Comcast needs to let me decide....


Yeah that is what bugs me.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

jcthorne said:


> Replacing your old equipment with the newer unit costs the user NOTHING. Or at least the same equipment rental they were already paying. They do not have different rates for different boxes.


unless you own your current modem, and the link is for rental.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

http://consumerist.com/2014/12/09/c...making-their-home-routers-into-wifi-hotspots/


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

What if Apple or Linksys or Netgear sold routers with the guest networking always on?

All in the name of public wifi hotspots.


----------



## jcmeyer5 (Sep 16, 2011)

jcthorne said:


> I just don't get all this animosity of people that think Comcast has stolen something they supposedly own. Comcast is using the wifi spectrum same as Starbucks or McDonalds or the stores in the strip center *near my home*.


Near your home... not in it. Big difference.

Comcast is clearly not making it easy for users to opt out. It appears that when a customer turns off the "feature," it eventually gets turned back on by Comcast directly or indirectly through a firmware update. Comcast is pushing customers to essentially work for Comcast to provide the service for a benefit to Comcast, AND violating the property and privacy rights of their customers.

Put another way... a cellular company cannot just locate a tower on my property without first getting permission and possibly providing compensation. Why should Comcast be any different?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> What if Apple or Linksys or Netgear sold routers with the guest networking always on?
> 
> All in the name of public wifi hotspots.


Well none of those companies are providing the bandwidth for guest networking, and they all used to ship without any passwords which is why there are/were so many open networks, which effectively made them free hotspots that do use the owners bandwidth if anyone connected to them.

I understand the desire for control but honestly it appears the biggest beneficiary is the home owner. Their friends and family who are Comcast customers get access to WiFi when visiting and home owner doesn't have to do anything. I understand in dense areas (town homes, apartments etc.) other people will likely also have access to the signal but if most homes are broadcasting the signal I find it unlikely very many people that are not that homes guest would be connecting to anyone router.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

jcmeyer5 said:


> Near your home... not in it. Big difference.
> 
> Comcast is clearly not making it easy for users to opt out. It appears that when a customer turns off the "feature," it eventually gets turned back on by Comcast directly or indirectly through a firmware update. Comcast is pushing customers to essentially work for Comcast to provide the service for a benefit to Comcast, AND violating the property and privacy rights of their customers.
> 
> Put another way... a cellular company cannot just locate a tower on my property without first getting permission and possibly providing compensation. Why should Comcast be any different?


The reality is all Comcast has to do is put about 2 lines of text in their user agreement and it all become moot you either agree or don't get service.

As far as Comcast benefiting well I am sure it is part of their overall service plan to combat competition but for that to be true then many/most of Comcast's customers will have to believe this service is beneficial to themselves - that is normally considered a win win.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> Interesting I have 3 routers broadcasting on my property. One attached to an outside antenna that I use to connect to a remote building (about 400 feet) a second again attached to an outside antenna setup as a wireless repeater in the remote building and a third in my house for in house use.
> 
> The 2 used to connect my house to my remote building are locked to each other. I allow the router in the remote building to rebroadcast and it uses the same channel as the one it is connected to (it is primarily used to connect wired devices in the remote building to my network) There is pretty seamless transition when mobile devices switch between those 2 routers. The one in my house uses the same SSID & password as the other 2 but is not interlinked to them - not really sure how long it takes for devices to switch to one of the other rooters when I go outside never paid much attention to it.


so, I didn't go into long details because, it didn't seem necessary. But here goes.

It's going to depend on how you have them configured. Is it two APs on the same backbone, operating on different channels, with the same configuration info (SSID, security, etc)? Then you're going to see minimal issues. In fact, many devices will transition seamlessly without you ever knowing. Why? It's the same backbone, you're just moving to a different AP. There's no re-registration required.

Is it ONE AP that is wired in, and then a second one acting as an extender of the first? You're going to see delay in the handoff. Because it's a new network being created by the second device... even if the SSID is the same, it's still a new network. Also, most of these are consumer grade at best, and will just be slower. This is what I have. It's not ideal, but it's fine for stationary devices. It's pretty bad for mobile devices.

If it two different APs on two different networks that happen to have the same SSID? You're going to see HUGE delays in the handoff as your device has to register itself on an entirely new network, receive a new IP address, and resend any dropped packets from the old network. This is the case in the Xfinity setup... it's entirely different networks with entirely different backbones and entirely different DHCP servers. Unless it's giving your device an external IP, which is pretty terrifying IMO.

I'm a coder, not a network engineer, but this should still be pretty accurate.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Grakthis said:


> so, I didn't go into long details because, it didn't seem necessary. But here goes.
> 
> It's going to depend on how you have them configured. Is it two APs on the same backbone, operating on different channels, with the same configuration info (SSID, security, etc)? Then you're going to see minimal issues. In fact, many devices will transition seamlessly without you ever knowing. Why? It's the same backbone, you're just moving to a different AP. There's no re-registration required.
> 
> ...


I am neither a coder nor a network engineer, but I did work as an IT specialist about a decade ago and worked with networking in an office setting.

When I setup my home network I decided I wanted everything (including the remote building) on one Network. I actually have a forth router/modem combination provided by my ISP that is the DHCP server. The 3 wireless routers have DHCP turned off, the 2 wireless routers in my house are hard wired to router provided by my ISP and of course the one in the remote building is also a wireless bridge and logged into the wireless signal of the router in my home connected to the outside antenna. So yes everything on one network so devices do not need to get new IPs when moving between the wireless signals of the 3 WiFi routers and of course all using same SSID & Password (this is automatic and not optional for the 2 routers bridging between my home and the remote building). The whole setup works pretty good - I did do some custom configuration of the wireless routers, but unless there is some real need for separate networks I would keep extenders on the same network as the main router and only have one router acting as a DHCP server.


----------



## jcmeyer5 (Sep 16, 2011)

atmuscarella said:


> The reality is all Comcast has to do is put about 2 lines of text in their user agreement and it all become moot you either agree or don't get service.


And then I would have to make that decision as a consumer, but that isn't what they are doing (yet). They are trying to stealth ninja this in there (not so stealthy maybe, but not being forthright about it either). I have a problem with that, and I think they either lose the case or settle very quickly.

Then again, if I were (un)fortunate enough to be a Comcast customer, I would likely get my own router.


----------



## Teeps (Aug 16, 2001)

jcthorne said:


> That pretty much kills your own wifi network as well.


Not if a separate router is attached to the cable modem, outside the cage.
This is assuming that comcast does not allow owner supplied cable modem.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

They should just give the customer the option of turning it on or off regardless of which Gateway/Modem they use, Comcast's or their own. The caveat being that if they turn it off then they are no longer able to login to any other APs in use by the customers that have it turned on, thereby making them lose the benefits of it should they choose to turn it off.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

The people who are complaining about this are baseless whiners. I would have some sympathy if Comcast were abusing their monopoly position and forcing users to use their POS wireless gateway contraption, but they aren't. You can be slightly less of an idiot and rent a modem from them, or be a smart customer and own your own modem/eMTA.

Comcast owns the gateways, and the user rents them. That gives Comcast the right to manage them how they see fit, and if that includes adding xfinitywifi to them, then that's fine. If the customer doesn't like it, they may return the POS gateway to Comcast and get their own modem. There is no monopoly issue at play, as there are many approved modems and one approved eMTA on Amazon that you can own in lieu of renting Comcast equipment.

Lastly, the joke is on Comcast. This is going to result in people not subscribing to Comcast. I know for a fact that this is already happening. A friend of mine is using xfinitywifi instead of actually subscribing. He has an email on his mom's Xfinity account, so that gets his "free" wifi access. This will become commonplace among college students and other young adults who have parents or relatives with active Comcast accounts.



jcthorne said:


> Nope, it broadcasts 4 SSIDs. 2 of your own naming convention for 2.4 and 5Ghz and 2 for Xfinitywifi. It might as well be a completely different access point. They can even operate on different channels and usually do.


I believe it uses one channel in each band, and separates the networks by SSID/VLAN, not by physical channel. If they doubled the number of physical channels in use by each subscriber, the 2.4ghz band would go from kind of unusable to totally unusable in any urban or dense suburban area.



MikeAndrews said:


> Part of the lawsuit is that Comcast is using customer's power without compensation.


That is a patently absurd allegation. First, the router doesn't use any more power whether it is on and running a single set of SSIDs/VLAN or running two sets of SSIDs and 2 VLANs. It's the same hardware, doing the same thing. In theory, the radios use more power when actively transmitting, but the difference is immeasurable at the plug and electric meter. We're talking about milliwatts here.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Is their telephone unit a combined modem/phone box/router? I could see that making it hard to opt out of having a Comcast box if you wanted to be an Xfinity Voice subscriber for some reason.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

pdhenry said:


> Is their telephone unit a combined modem/phone box/router? I could see that making it hard to opt out of having a Comcast box if you wanted to be an Xfinity Voice subscriber for some reason.


I purchased my combiner Arris modem and voice system on Amazon, don't even have to call Comcast to activate the new system, just connect and log onto the web and the new system asks you a few questions and after about 20 min. all phones are working and the modem is working, than just return the old system and the $8/month goes away. (for CT anyways)


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Lastly, the joke is on Comcast. This is going to result in people not subscribing to Comcast. I know for a fact that this is already happening. A friend of mine is using xfinitywifi instead of actually subscribing. He has an email on his mom's Xfinity account, so that gets his "free" wifi access. This will become commonplace among college students and other young adults who have parents or relatives with active Comcast accounts.


This is a good pt. IF your neighbor has a Comcast wifi network and you get great signal then all you need to do is get a Comcast email from someone.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> Well none of those companies are providing the bandwidth for guest networking, and they all used to ship without any passwords which is why there are/were so many open networks, which effectively made them free hotspots that do use the owners bandwidth if anyone connected to them.


Doh. Good point, but I could play devil's advocate and say so? It's just a little bit of your bandwidth. It benefits everyone including yourself. Not like you are hitting your bandwidth cap every month.

And if you don't care about the cable company using your power or your home to setup a public wifi hotspot why would you care about guest networking being on (automatically) in a router and using some of your bandwidth that you never use?



atmuscarella said:


> I understand the desire for control but honestly it appears the biggest beneficiary is the home owner. Their friends and family who are Comcast customers get access to WiFi when visiting and home owner doesn't have to do anything. I understand in dense areas (town homes, apartments etc.) other people will likely also have access to the signal but if most homes are broadcasting the signal I find it unlikely very many people that are not that homes guest would be connecting to anyone router.


I think that's a fairly dubious benefit. I mean I'm still going to have to dig out my password for some people. If I don't want to give it out I might as well set up my own guest network which many already do. Hell Comcast should give you that option to set up a guest network for all. Maybe they do for all I know.

Plus if it such a benefit why not make it easy for us to turn it on and off. Let us choose. Why not give a discount on the rental fee for those that keep a wifi hotspot up and running? I mean if they are serious about the whole thing just give people the routers for a free. No monthly fee. That would create incentive.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> Doh. Good point, but I could play devil's advocate and say so? It's just a little bit of your bandwidth. It benefits everyone including yourself. Not like you are hitting your bandwidth cap every month.
> 
> And if you don't care about the cable company using your power or your home to setup a public wifi hotspot why would you care about guest networking being on (automatically) in a router and using some of your bandwidth that you never use?
> 
> ...


I actually agree that Comcast isn't doing what they should with this. Either they should have an easy way to turn the feature off or they should be clear upfront that running the service is part of the cost of Comcast Internet.

I also look at the bandwidth issue a little different than you are. I am not so concerned with caps as I am with actual bandwidth. I am stuck with a 6Mbps DSL line so the thought of Frontier installing a dual line modem to provide a similar service would actually make me happy - I might off load some of my own devices onto the second stream at times


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

Grakthis said:


> I've asked once already, so I'll ask again. Do you have any citations for your claims? If not, I'm just going to assume you're a shill.
> 
> I have a WiFi "expander" in my house. I hate it, because when I walk from the area where I have primary coverage to the expander, it takes about 20 seconds for my phone to "lose" the primary network, then drop it, and connect to the secondary one, despite them both having the same SSID.
> 
> ...


Whatever, not going to argue network hardware names with you and don't like being called names. I told you my first hand personal experience. That is more than you have presented to argue a problem. Good day sir.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

jcmeyer5 said:


> Near your home... not in it. Big difference.
> 
> Comcast is clearly not making it easy for users to opt out. It appears that when a customer turns off the "feature," it eventually gets turned back on by Comcast directly or indirectly through a firmware update. Comcast is pushing customers to essentially work for Comcast to provide the service for a benefit to Comcast, AND violating the property and privacy rights of their customers.
> 
> Put another way... a cellular company cannot just locate a tower on my property without first getting permission and possibly providing compensation. Why should Comcast be any different?


Because its in your terms of service. If you don't want the xfinitywifi, you ask to turn it off or you use an alternate provider or equipment.

Would it really make all these folks complaining about $1 a month worth of electricity if Comcast shows a $1 electric usage credit on your bill and then raises some other fee by $1? That is where that ill founded lawsuit is headed. The electrical and 'use of my premises' arguments are easily ended by very slight changes to the terms of service and billing statements. All with no net change to the user. Its a frivolous lawsuit that will only benefit the lawyers that filed it.

The new hardware roll out benefits all Comcast network users. Its a feature they are trying to build out. Not some scheme to make money on your back.

OK, I get it. You don't like it. Fine, they have given you options not to participate. I think they should also disable the use of xfinitywifi service from those users accounts that decide to opt out.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

trip1eX said:


> This is a good pt. IF your neighbor has a Comcast wifi network and you get great signal then all you need to do is get a Comcast email from someone.


Actually the bandwidth you can use via the xfinitywifi system is somewhat limited. If all you do is email and a few websites daily, it would likely work but if you use more, you will hit the limit pretty quickly.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

Teeps said:


> Not if a separate router is attached to the cable modem, outside the cage.
> This is assuming that comcast does not allow owner supplied cable modem.


They do, and makes the whole choice thing much simpler. If you don't want to participate or use the Comcast provided gateway for this or other reasons, just get your own from the approved list.

I have actually been pretty pleased with the Cisco unit provided. Its router tables etc are easy to configure and our network works pretty well managed by it. Even lets me prioritize traffic by type or user.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> I actually agree that Comcast isn't doing what they should with this. Either they should have an easy way to turn the feature off or they should be clear upfront that running the service is part of the cost of Comcast Internet.


I completely agree. If Comcast had been a little more forthright in how they rolled this out, it would have gone MUCH smoother. Just not in their nature I suppose.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

I sure have no problems with Comcast, the service is reliable, the price competitive. All of this whining is about what might be around 1 cent of electricity cost per year and no loss of the service being paid for and the upside is hotspots for Comcast customers around the city. I am with Comcast on this one and if I didn't own my own modem and router would be happy to participate.

I am sure the whiners will cause a change and as usual, no consumer benefit will result, just money for attorneys, what a funny world this is.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Bigg said:


> The people who are complaining about this are baseless whiners. I would have some sympathy if Comcast were abusing their monopoly position and forcing users to use their POS wireless gateway contraption, but they aren't. You can be slightly less of an idiot and rent a modem from them, or be a smart customer and own your own modem/eMTA.
> 
> Comcast owns the gateways, and the user rents them. That gives Comcast the right to manage them how they see fit, and if that includes adding xfinitywifi to them, then that's fine. If the customer doesn't like it, they may return the POS gateway to Comcast and get their own modem. There is no monopoly issue at play, as there are many approved modems and one approved eMTA on Amazon that you can own in lieu of renting Comcast equipment.
> 
> ...


Wow, this is a giant pile of non-sequitur and strawmanning.

No one said Comcast couldn't do something like this. The discussion was about

A) The morality of it
B) The legality of doing it without properly telling people
C) The business logic of not giving people the option to turn it off

You come in here swinging insults, totally missing the point of most of the complains, and making a bunch of unfounded unsupported claims.

Yeah, time for you to go away. You're adding nothing to this discussion.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

jcthorne said:


> Whatever, not going to argue network hardware names with you and don't like being called names. I told you my first hand personal experience. That is more than you have presented to argue a problem. Good day sir.


So, you're not going to cite.

Everyone, just ignore every post this guy makes ITT. He's making unfounded claims that he refuses to support with any citations at all, and his claims directly dispute things said by Comcast on this topic.

He refuses to recant or back-peddle from his claims, and his response to being called out for it is to play the victim because I called him a "shill." Poor thing!

This forum needs an ignore button so I could make posters like you who have a clear and apparent agenda just vanish.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Chris Gerhard said:


> I sure have no problems with Comcast, the service is reliable, the price competitive. All of this whining is about what might be around 1 cent of electricity cost per year and no loss of the service being paid for and the upside is hotspots for Comcast customers around the city. I am with Comcast on this one and if I didn't own my own modem and router would be happy to participate.
> 
> I am sure the whiners will cause a change and as usual, no consumer benefit will result, just money for attorneys, what a funny world this is.


Presumably you also support opt-out organ donation, right?

I mean, it supports the public good, doesn't cost you anything (you're dead!) and would save thousands of lives each year.

I mean, what a bunch of whiners, complaining about such a policy. All they are doing is hurting us. What a funny world this is.


----------



## kbmb (Jun 22, 2004)

If you have your own router, just have them put the gateway in bridge mode and the wireless on the gateway goes away (including the xfinitywifi).

I for one am not trusting of these xfinitywifi hotspots unless I know the business running them. Wouldn't be that difficult to setup a network broadcasting that name and spoof a login page capturing all people trying to connect.

-Kevin


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

jcmeyer5 said:


> Near your home... not in it. Big difference.
> 
> Comcast is clearly not making it easy for users to opt out. It appears that when a customer turns off the "feature," it eventually gets turned back on by Comcast directly or indirectly through a firmware update. Comcast is pushing customers to essentially work for Comcast to provide the service for a benefit to Comcast, AND violating the property and privacy rights of their customers.
> 
> Put another way... a cellular company cannot just locate a tower on my property without first getting permission and possibly providing compensation. Why should Comcast be any different?


So you are paying for every bit of bandwidth to your house? If not they are just using the bandwidth that you are not paying for to service other costumers. As far as the tower goes, aren't you allowing them to put that Wi-Fi in your home? Do you think the signal should stop at your property line? As long as you are getting the bandwidth you are paying for I don't see what the problem is.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> I actually agree that Comcast isn't doing what they should with this. Either they should have an easy way to turn the feature off or they should be clear upfront that running the service is part of the cost of Comcast Internet.
> 
> I also look at the bandwidth issue a little different than you are. I am not so concerned with caps as I am with actual bandwidth. I am stuck with a 6Mbps DSL line so the thought of Frontier installing a dual line modem to provide a similar service would actually make me happy - I might off load some of my own devices onto the second stream at times


A router maker could just prioritize the bandwidth. Maybe the guest networking feature in most routers already does this by default?

DSL is a bit of a different story compared to cable. I don't think I routinely use up all my bandwidth of my cable modem at any given time.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

jcthorne said:


> Actually the bandwidth you can use via the xfinitywifi system is somewhat limited. If all you do is email and a few websites daily, it would likely work but if you use more, you will hit the limit pretty quickly.


Oh yeah? I had a feeling there was a bit of a catch or that if there wasn't there would be soon because it otherwise seems ripe for abuse.

************
Overall I don't really see the point of Comcast's wifi movement given that cellular data is faster and faster and covers more and more areas and gets cheaper and cheaper and the data caps on it get higher and higher.

I know, I know, in some areas it might be a boon where the cell signal sucks. But overall I don't see the great usefulness. I mean in my suburban neighborhood I see 0 need for it.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Chris Gerhard said:


> I sure have no problems with Comcast, the service is reliable, the price competitive. All of this whining is about what might be around 1 cent of electricity cost per year and no loss of the service being paid for and the upside is hotspots for Comcast customers around the city. I am with Comcast on this one and if I didn't own my own modem and router would be happy to participate.
> 
> I am sure the whiners will cause a change and as usual, no consumer benefit will result, just money for attorneys, what a funny world this is.


The consumer benefit seems dubious to me anyway.

And who wants to be forced to foot the bill for a private company's wifi network?

Comcast really wants to do this so they can reduce their cellular phone bills for their techs (says the nefarious part of my brain.)

Also like how you put down those who don't want to be forced to do this and play up the "consumer benefit" while you yourself have opted out by having your own equipment.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> A router maker could just prioritize the bandwidth. Maybe the guest networking feature in most routers already does this by default?
> 
> DSL is a bit of a different story compared to cable. I don't think I routinely use up all my bandwidth of my cable modem at any given time.


I think you are correct it appears Comcast is just splitting out unused bandwidth for this service. With DSL you can increase total bandwidth by using multiple phone lines each with a modem and going to a router with Dual (WAN) Link support. Not very cost effective but if you had a household with multiple users and no other option at least it does work.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> I think you are correct it appears Comcast is just splitting out unused bandwidth for this service. With DSL you can increase total bandwidth by using multiple phone lines each with a modem and going to a router with Dual (WAN) Link support. Not very cost effective but if you had a household with multiple users and no other option at least it does work.


I wasn't trying to say Comcast is using unused bandwidth for the service. (Though I'm sure they realize most customers aren't making use of all of their bandwidth at any given time let alone making use of it 24/7.) CAble modems are far from maxed out with a typical 50-60mbps package. So if you were using all your bandwidth Comcast could easily give your public wifiComcast hotspot extra bandwidth.

I was saying I have plenty of unused bandwidth most of the time in response to your point that router manufacturers don't supply the bandwidth (unlike Comcast.) IF my router secretly had a 10mbps guest network I doubt I could tell in my day to day use of the internets. I have plenty extra most of the time. Even when I download stuff from servers I think many of them limit how fast I can download.

DSL at 6mbps is a different story. As you pointed out you'd need to get another phone line. OR move some equipment in the field closer to your house.  So my crazy scenario, where router manufacturers forced guest networking onto customers, wouldn't work very well in a 6mbps DSL home where bandwidth is scarce.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

lessd said:


> This has happened but not using the xfinity WiFi, I would think Comcast will know if their customer or another user that log into the internet using the 1st customer router is the bad guy, as you do have to log in so Comcast know who you are, even if your on somebody xfinity WiFi.


I understand the separate ID, but it's not Comcast who would initiate the prosecution, it's the police. The police might not differentiate between IDs initially. The IP address is enough for probable cause.

In my opinion, it's too big a of a risk to take. Even if you can ultimately prove you aren't the perpetrator, it could still become a big hassle.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> I understand the separate ID, but it's not Comcast who would initiate the prosecution, it's the police. The police might not differentiate between IDs initially. The IP address is enough for probable cause.
> 
> In my opinion, it's too big a of a risk to take. Even if you can ultimately prove you aren't the perpetrator, it could still become a big hassle.


Meh. That's a lottery type risk. Like saying I don't want to risk not winning the lottery so I'm buying a ticket.

IN the mean time you drive a car with a 1000x greater (maybe more) chance something bad happens to you. "You" meaning the average joe schmoe.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> The police might not differentiate between IDs initially. The IP address is enough for probable cause.


If Xfinity WiFi is a separate AP wouldn't it be a different IP address than the home network?

It would be easy enough for anyone actually affected by this to verify.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

danm628 said:


> (Disclaimer: I work in the wireless field for a large silicon manufacturer. I am aware of some, but not all, regulatory restrictions for different spectrum allocations. I am not a regulatory expert.)


/secret handshake
I'm in wireless too, but I don't deal with unlicensed bands.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

> While the e-mail says that there would be no cost to the customer, the reader who complained about this says that he was charged a $160 installation fee and $8 per month. That's silly if you own a modem or router already.
> 
> The same thing happened to Sullivan, who uses his own modem, but when he contacted Comcast to inquire, he was told that his order would not be fulfilled and not to worry.
> 
> ...


A Comcast installer will be stopping by to install that new modem free of charge.* 
*YOU WILL ALLOW THE INSTALLATION.*

_*Subject to a $89 truck roll fee._


----------



## danm628 (May 14, 2002)

hefe said:


> /secret handshake
> I'm in wireless too, but I don't deal with unlicensed bands.


/secret handshake

I used to work on WiFi but that was over a decade ago. So my knowledge of unlicensed restrictions has faded and I know some of the rules have changed. And WiFi has evolved a lot in that time from 802.11g, to 11n (last thing I worked on) to 11ac and 11ad. All my work since then has been in licensed bands. Though the simple licensed/unlicensed split is starting to get complicated.

Currently I work with 3GPP release 12 and later technologies. Some of them aren't even targeting a specific release yet. The future takes a lot of work in the present before it happens. 

- Dan


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> Is their telephone unit a combined modem/phone box/router? I could see that making it hard to opt out of having a Comcast box if you wanted to be an Xfinity Voice subscriber for some reason.


The XFinity gateway they are pushing is a combo 8x4 D3 modem, router, wireless N AP with separate VLAN for xfinitywifi, MoCA adapter, and 2-line eMTA.

However, there are other options:

1. User-owned eMTA. There is one model available for about $160 on Amazon.
2. User-owned modem. There are many Comcast-approved modems available for $50-$100 on Amazon.
3. Rented modem - $8/mo.
4. Rented eMTA - IIRC $8/mo

Comcast seems to be over-provisioning their own equipment, interestingly enough, both their gateway AND modems by about 10mbps. They have historically done a 10% over-provision, but now they are doing a 10mbps over-provision, even on the 50mbps package. I believe that xfinitywifi is limited to about 10mbps, as when I tested it, it seemed to be about that.



jcthorne said:


> Actually the bandwidth you can use via the xfinitywifi system is somewhat limited. If all you do is email and a few websites daily, it would likely work but if you use more, you will hit the limit pretty quickly.


I don't believe there is a monthly limit, but it's limited to about 10mbps, which is more than enough for most casual use, including streaming Netflix and the like.



Grakthis said:


> A) The morality of it
> B) The legality of doing it without properly telling people
> C) The business logic of not giving people the option to turn it off


A) The morality of up-selling users to their awful hardware and charging them $10/mo is a much bigger problem than running another VLAN and SSID that has literally no effect on the customer. Although here, I would say that it's the customer's fault for listening to Comcast's BS about their crap hardware. People should buy their own modem and router and get a TiVo system, and just have a CableCard from Comcast.

B) It's their hardware. Why should they have to tell anyone? And people should expect the ISP to do stuff if they are using ISP-supplied hardware.

C) There is an option to turn it off.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I've read that people are having trouble getting it to stay shut off, though. Maybe it's incidental - something like Comcast pushing a firmware update that conveniently forgets about the opt-out.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

shwru980r said:


> I understand the separate ID, but it's not Comcast who would initiate the prosecution, it's the police. The police might not differentiate between IDs initially. The IP address is enough for probable cause.
> 
> In my opinion, it's too big a of a risk to take. Even if you can ultimately prove you aren't the perpetrator, it could still become a big hassle.


Have you not read this thread? It's a completely separate VLAN with its own IP, and Comcast will give the police the user that logged into that IP with their Comcast credentials. The police HAVE to go to Comcast to get that info because it's a Comcast IP.

It's not traceable to you, but go ahead with the tin foil paranoia.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

I think if we have this thread popping up, we should also start putting out there what people would recommend for the following products:

1) Cable Modem

2) Combo cable modem/wifi router

I am an old fogey still on Verizon DSL (no Fios in my town) and my only other option is comcast. If I switch (when I switch), I'll go back to using my own router and will pick up a cable modem. would love to know what good values are out there.

IIRC, do you have to select a modem that is known to "work with comcast"?


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

Ok, I found the link for the Comcast approved devices.

I guess what I am looking for is what people recommend out of that list.

Would love to keep the cost close to the $100 range. I like the idea of a combo modem/router as that makes it easier for my family to maintain (i.e., if the modem needs to be power cycled, etc.).


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

looking at the netgear N300.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

There is ongoing discussion of Comcast cable modem options in this thread.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

Thanks! 

I think this may be a go. I'm chatting and they are offering a 12 month bundle for my lifeline basic (currently about $12/mo) plus Performance/25 for $29.99 a month. That's great. And I can haggle for another bundle after 12 months......


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

That's a good price. I'm paying more than double that for Internet Plus, which is limited basic, HBO and Performance Internet (with my own hardware).


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

trip1eX said:


> Meh. That's a lottery type risk. Like saying I don't want to risk not winning the lottery so I'm buying a ticket.
> 
> IN the mean time you drive a car with a 1000x greater (maybe more) chance something bad happens to you. "You" meaning the average joe schmoe.


There's this interesting thing about security... so we're exposed to thousands of security risks every day. Someone could car jack us. Someone could break into our houses. Someone could hold us up at gun point. Someone could pickpocket our wallet, etc etc etc.

But what we do is, we minimize each risk. Because if we didn't, then while the chances of EACH ONE of those things happening would still be very small, the chances of ONE of them happening would become VERY high (over time).

For example, the chances of someone walking up to my front door and trying to open it are VERY slim. But I still lock my front door all the time, even when I am home. I assume you do too.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Bigg said:


> A) The morality of up-selling users to their awful hardware and charging them $10/mo is a much bigger problem than running another VLAN and SSID that has literally no effect on the customer. Although here, I would say that it's the customer's fault for listening to Comcast's BS about their crap hardware. People should buy their own modem and router and get a TiVo system, and just have a CableCard from Comcast.


Obviously, I agree with you. THose are all good choices. Of course, I own a TiVo, my own modem and my own router. So, we're kind of sitting in our ivory towers looking down on the average person here, which is not fair.

I think the term "check your privilege" was invented for exactly this.

You say "literally no effect" but you don't know that. People keep assuming that. Even Comcast says "minimal." Not "literally none."



> B) It's their hardware. Why should they have to tell anyone? And people should expect the ISP to do stuff if they are using ISP-supplied hardware.


All economic transactions are assumed to happen with full knowledge of both parties. This is true of rentals or purchases. If one party or the other does not disclose all reasonable information, there is an opening for litigation.



> C) There is an option to turn it off.


There isn't though? That's been the discussion. Or, at least, not without some serious hoop jumping with tech support.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

slowbiscuit said:


> Have you not read this thread? It's a completely separate VLAN with its own IP, and Comcast will give the police the user that logged into that IP with their Comcast credentials. The police HAVE to go to Comcast to get that info because it's a Comcast IP.
> 
> It's not traceable to you, but go ahead with the tin foil paranoia.


So, your argument is, Comcast (a company noted for ethical behavior) was save you if the police accuse you of doing something illegal or you are sued by the RIAA? Comcast will come to your rescue. That's where you're placing your faith. Comcast. Big Hero Comcast.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Grakthis said:


> There's this interesting thing about security... so we're exposed to thousands of security risks every day. Someone could car jack us. Someone could break into our houses. Someone could hold us up at gun point. Someone could pickpocket our wallet, etc etc etc.
> 
> But what we do is, we minimize each risk. Because if we didn't, then while the chances of EACH ONE of those things happening would still be very small, the chances of ONE of them happening would become VERY high (over time).
> 
> For example, the chances of someone walking up to my front door and trying to open it are VERY slim. But I still lock my front door all the time, even when I am home. I assume you do too.


Risk and risk management are interesting topics. The first thing is that most people have no idea what the actual risk of a certain thing happening is. Which means they really don't know what to focus on to actually affect the best results. Second I don't agree that people in general strive to minimize the risk of negative things happening to themselves, if that were true no one would drive a car without a seat belt on or after drinking, use tobacco products, or eat the stuff we do, etc., etc..

In my experience people tend to worry about stuff they have no or little control over that actually have a fairly low or even zero chance of negatively affecting them and refuse to alter their own actions even when their own actions are highly likely to negativity impact them. The media knows this and knows "fear" sells just look at the stupid stuff that went on with Ebola or the other crap that comes out of the months of the talking heads on TV.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Grakthis said:


> So, your argument is, Comcast (a company noted for ethical behavior) was save you if the police accuse you of doing something illegal or you are sued by the RIAA? Comcast will come to your rescue. That's where you're placing your faith. Comcast. Big Hero Comcast.


Actually he was saying the only way the police or organizations like the RIAA can get the info is from an ISP and with this system if Comcast were forced to provide that info it wouldn't lead to the home owner, but to the user ID that logged in.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

pdhenry said:


> If Xfinity WiFi is a separate AP wouldn't it be a different IP address than the home network? (edit: oops, should have kept reading. slowbiscuit made that same point already)
> 
> It would be easy enough for anyone actually affected by this to verify.


And more specifically, wouldn't the police have to talk to Comcast to get the physical address associated with the IP address?

Those things are dynamic, so they'd have to have the IP, and the time, and Comcast's logs to look up which customer's router had it at the time. Comcast would know right then that the IP was through their wifi roaming service, not through the home wifi or Ethernet of that physical customer.

So their response to the police shouldn't be "123 Main Street", it should be "That IP was on our roaming wifi and the account using it at the time was [email protected]"

Is it possible that Comcast could screw that up? Sure. But it's not hugely more likely that someone making a typo and looking up the wrong IP address, or looking up the IP address for the wrong time, and erroneously sending the police to your house anyway.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> I've read that people are having trouble getting it to stay shut off, though. Maybe it's incidental - something like Comcast pushing a firmware update that conveniently forgets about the opt-out.


This is Comcast we're talking about. They can't do anything right.



jlb said:


> I think if we have this thread popping up, we should also start putting out there what people would recommend for the following products:
> 
> 1) Cable Modem
> 
> 2) Combo cable modem/wifi router


You don't want a combo, even if you own it. The best routers right now are ASUS. ASUS is the true successor to what Linksys was a decade ago with the WRT-54G(v.1-v.4) There is a lot of debate out there about the top-end AC routers, like the AC-87U, and whether they are worth the extra money, so generally the best bet right now, unless you just have to be bleeding edge, would be the AC66U or AC68U. I have an N66U, unless the market drastically changes before I upgrade, my next router will be an AC68U, and I'll give my N66U away to family.

Arris is the big name in town for cable modems, and they bought Motorola's cable business. Comcast currently only supports 8x4 D3, so in theory, the SB6141 is top dog (I have one), but now that the 16x4 (16x8???) SB6183 is out, that's probably the best bet, just to future proof through to the end of D3.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> Risk and risk management are interesting topics. The first thing is that most people have no idea what the actual risk of a certain thing happening is.


This is an epidemic in America.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> In my experience people tend to worry about stuff they have no or little control over that actually have a fairly low or even zero chance of negatively affecting them and refuse to alter their own actions even when their own actions are highly likely to negativity impact them. The media knows this and knows "fear" sells just look at the stupid stuff that went on with Ebola or the other crap that comes out of the months of the talking heads on TV.


Yep.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> You don't want a combo, even if you own it.


I agree with this.

If your provider requires a new modem you just have to change the new modem. IF you want to update to a newer wifi/router technology down the road then you just need to get a new router.

There is more competition/choice in the separate markets as well than in the combo market.

I bought a refurb cable modem (Cisco 3010) from a 3rd party seller on Amazon (maybe it was Ebay) for $30. It has worked fine for years. I think the seller was getting customer returns from a cable company, testing them out and pairing them with a working power supply and then selling them. Anyone looking for a modem might want to check out some refurb resellers with good reps.

Just make sure to look at your provider's approved cable modem list and get a D3 modem or ask your provider for its top recommendations.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Grakthis said:


> There's this interesting thing about security... so we're exposed to thousands of security risks every day. Someone could car jack us. Someone could break into our houses. Someone could hold us up at gun point. Someone could pickpocket our wallet, etc etc etc.
> 
> But what we do is, we minimize each risk. Because if we didn't, then while the chances of EACH ONE of those things happening would still be very small, the chances of ONE of them happening would become VERY high (over time).
> 
> For example, the chances of someone walking up to my front door and trying to open it are VERY slim. But I still lock my front door all the time, even when I am home. I assume you do too.


Your risk in the things you mention don't become very HIGH over time. Just because something didn't happen to you last year doesn't mean your chances go up the next year. They stay the same.

Unless lets say your door gets kicked in every year and every year it gives in a little more and so every year the chances of it finally giving away are higher. That kind of risk gets very high over time.

But just because you didn't wear your seatbelt the last 5 years doesn't mean you are at a greater risk to get into an accident this year.

Many people go through life without ever being carjacked, pickpocketed, held up at gunpoint, and having their home broken into or having an attempted break in.

People don't understand odds very well. When they talk about bad neighborhoods it really is a lot more subtle than you'd think from all the talk.

And what I was saying is your risk in some of these things like having the police knock on your door, drag you to the station and arrest you and then you sit in jail for weeks because someone got on your Comcast wifi internet are so low that lightning is bound to hit you 3x before that happens. I'm exaggerating to make the point, but you get the idea.

And even if had 100 of these extremely low risk scenarios in which you took no extra steps to minimize them it wouldn't make a difference. BEcuase we're talking extremely low odds. Especially compared to the much higher odds of other risks.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Jonathan_S said:


> And more specifically, wouldn't the police have to talk to Comcast to get the physical address associated with the IP address?
> 
> Those things are dynamic, so they'd have to have the IP, and the time, and Comcast's logs to look up which customer's router had it at the time. Comcast would know right then that the IP was through their wifi roaming service, not through the home wifi or Ethernet of that physical customer.
> 
> ...


There are places that can hide your real IP for stuff you don't want anybody to know your doing, I don't think a semi- public WiFi with limited download speed would be used for this purpose, so that part of the my WiFi having a semi-public component to it is not what bother me, it is other people (I don't know) using my rented equipment at my private home that I object to, and only on principal.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Strictly speaking, you're not renting the public hotspot. Comcast is just attaching it to the modem/router that you are renting.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

Thanks for the other thoughts on routers. I'll be using my Linksys E1200 for now once I make the switch to Comcast. But I like the sound of the AC66U/AC68U. Once I get past the holidays, I may look at upgrading my router.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> If your provider requires a new modem you just have to change the new modem. IF you want to update to a newer wifi/router technology down the road then you just need to get a new router.


Yeah, exactly, plus it is way easier to troubleshoot if you can swap one out and see if it fixes the problem. And if one part dies, you only have to replace that part.



lessd said:


> There are places that can hide your real IP for stuff you don't want anybody to know your doing, I don't think a semi- public WiFi with limited download speed would be used for this purpose, so that part of the my WiFi having a semi-public component to it is not what bother me, it is other people (I don't know) using my rented equipment at my private home that I object to, and only on principal.


If you object to that in principle, you would have objected to the idea of Comcast owning anything more than a CableCard in your house, and not rented their crappy gateway in the first place.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Grakthis said:


> So, your argument is, Comcast (a company noted for ethical behavior) was save you if the police accuse you of doing something illegal or you are sued by the RIAA? Comcast will come to your rescue. That's where you're placing your faith. Comcast. Big Hero Comcast.


The police will never get your info because it's not associated with Comcast's IP. Again, reading comprehension.


----------



## GBL (Apr 20, 2000)

jlb said:


> Ok, I found the link for the Comcast approved devices.
> 
> I guess what I am looking for is what people recommend out of that list.
> 
> Would love to keep the cost close to the $100 range. I like the idea of a combo modem/router as that makes it easier for my family to maintain (i.e., if the modem needs to be power cycled, etc.).





Bigg said:


> This is Comcast we're talking about. They can't do anything right.
> 
> You don't want a combo, even if you own it.





trip1eX said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> If your provider requires a new modem you just have to change the new modem. IF you want to update to a newer wifi/router technology down the road then you just need to get a new router.
> 
> There is more competition/choice in the separate markets as well than in the combo market.


In the South West Florida area Comcast is increasing rental fees from $8 to $10/month starting Jan 1, 2015, even more reason to own!:










While I can see your point about combo units, sometimes a combo unit makes more sense.

For example, I have separate modem (Motorola SB6120) and router (Netgear WNDR3700) at my main residence and a combo (Netgear N450) in Florida. Reason for the combo is simplified management during unattended use - it's on a timer that reboots it every night to recover from any issues that might occur in my absence. I need WiFi to connect to the thermostat and other remote monitors.

The N450 is on Comcast recommend list (as Netgear CG3000Dv2) and costs about $115, pays for itself in under a year (at $10/month). I installed it 6 month ago and it has been performing well.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> If you object to that in principle, you would have objected to the idea of Comcast owning anything more than a CableCard in your house, and not rented their crappy gateway in the first place.


That exactly what I have in my home, I own all the equipment except the cable cards, so I don't pay any rentals fees (except for the cable cards)


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

GBL said:


> In the South West Florida area Comcast is increasing rental fees from $8 to $10/month starting Jan 1, 2015, even more reason to own!:


WOW. I didn't realize that they were raising the modem rates as well! That's incredible, renting at a 5-6 month payback period, probably even less, as I doubt that they are paying full retail for their crappy Ubee modems.



lessd said:


> That exactly what I have in my home, I own all the equipment except the cable cards, so I don't pay any rentals fees (except for the cable cards)


There you go! Problem solved!


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

slowbiscuit said:


> Have you not read this thread? It's a completely separate VLAN with its own IP, and Comcast will give the police the user that logged into that IP with their Comcast credentials. The police HAVE to go to Comcast to get that info because it's a Comcast IP.
> 
> It's not traceable to you, but go ahead with the tin foil paranoia.


Yes, I read the thread. The activity is traceable to the Xfinity customer's physical address irrespective of VLAN and IP attributes. Furthermore, it's highly likely that the a person wouldn't use their own ID for illegal activity. You can even find Xfinity credentials by searching online and Xfinity credentials are often shared with others so they can use online services.

The police are not going to eliminate the physical Xfinity customer just because different credentials were used. You have to be fairly close to the physical address, if not inside the residence to even connect to the wifi.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

trip1eX said:


> Meh. That's a lottery type risk. Like saying I don't want to risk not winning the lottery so I'm buying a ticket.
> 
> IN the mean time you drive a car with a 1000x greater (maybe more) chance something bad happens to you. "You" meaning the average joe schmoe.


I agree that it's not likely to happen, but why take the risk when you can buy your own modem or use another internet provider?


----------



## kokishin (Sep 9, 2014)

My friend allows me to use his Comcast SSID/password for my cell phone when I am in his home. Of course after I initially setup my phone, it automatically connects when I am in his home. 

Since I am using his Comcast SSID/password, does this allow me to access the Comcast public wi-fi network?


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I think to access the public Wifi network you need the actual account login ID (typically the comcast.net email address) and account password. Probably not the same as what your friend is using.

Look at it this way - not all Comcast internet customers have a Comcast router.


----------



## kokishin (Sep 9, 2014)

pdhenry said:


> I think to access the public Wifi network you need the actual account login ID (typically the comcast.net email address) and account password. Probably not the same as what your friend is using.
> 
> Look at it this way - not all Comcast internet customers have a Comcast router.


He is using the Comcast provided gateway (integrated modem/wireless router) with the Comcast technician assigned SSID: HOME-6A72.

While connecting to the Comcast public wi-fi outside the home, not sure how a comcast.net email address would come into play unless you had to enter your email address into a web page to get authorized every time you want to connect to a Comcast wi-fi.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I'm not sure whether it's MAC based but once you've authenticated once it remembers you for future connections. The SSID for the public network is xfinitywifi, not something like what you've entered (which would appear to vary by customer)

The procedure's explained here.

Also some technical discussion/supposition here.


----------



## kokishin (Sep 9, 2014)

pdhenry said:


> I'm not sure whether it's MAC based but once you've authenticated once it remembers you for future connections. The SSID for the public network is xfinitywifi, not something like what you've entered (which would appear to vary by customer)
> 
> The procedure's explained here.
> 
> Also some technical discussion/supposition here.


Thanks


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

Just to toss in my 2 cents. Since the feature can be turned off how are you being FORCED to do it? Since Comcast owns the box they can do what ever they want with it. If you don't like it buy your own or don't use their gateway just rent their modem and buy your own wifi router. Since the box is divided into your private wifi network which you control the ssd and the passwords, and into a second network owned by Comcast, there is no way the home owner is going to get blamed for what the public user is doing. The only thing Comcast id doing what could be called wrong is they are using your electricity to power their public network. To cover that they can issue a price increase of 25 cents a month on the rental and then give you a 25 cents a month electricity credit.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> The police are not going to eliminate the physical Xfinity customer just because different credentials were used. You have to be fairly close to the physical address, if not inside the residence to even connect to the wifi.


Get real. Comcast's system ties it to who is logged into xfinitywifi, not who's router they were going through. That's the way the system fundamentally works, so suggesting otherwise is simply false.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

SNJpage1 said:


> The only thing Comcast id doing what could be called wrong is they are using your electricity to power their public network.


One of the articles I read tonight complained that they were making use of customer-owned coax.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

shwru980r said:


> Yes, I read the thread. The activity is traceable to the Xfinity customer's physical address irrespective of VLAN and IP attributes.


No, it's not. You are completely wrong about this, but as I said feel free to put on the tin foil hat.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

slowbiscuit said:


> The police will never get your info because it's not associated with Comcast's IP. Again, reading comprehension.


Oh really? Who, pray tell, is the IP associated with, then?


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

trip1eX said:


> Your risk in the things you mention don't become very HIGH over time. Just because something didn't happen to you last year doesn't mean your chances go up the next year. They stay the same.
> 
> Unless lets say your door gets kicked in every year and every year it gives in a little more and so every year the chances of it finally giving away are higher. That kind of risk gets very high over time.
> 
> ...


Holy ****, It's like a kid who took stats 101 decided to be pedantic on the internet. You spent like 5 paragraphs on pedantic vaguely true but totally irrelevant points, then wrapped it up by going "Nah, still not likely to happen" without supporting any of the above.

Many things are not likely to happen. You should still take basic precautions to stop them from happening. I imagine you also don't stand outside in a thunderstorm, no?


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Jonathan_S said:


> And more specifically, wouldn't the police have to talk to Comcast to get the physical address associated with the IP address?
> 
> Those things are dynamic, so they'd have to have the IP, and the time, and Comcast's logs to look up which customer's router had it at the time. Comcast would know right then that the IP was through their wifi roaming service, not through the home wifi or Ethernet of that physical customer.
> 
> ...


Do you guys have an actual source that Comcast will EXCLUSIVELY have the data logged this way?

Let me put it this way, do you know that Comcast won't first see an address, then, only if asked to dig deeper, will they see that it wasn't being used by the home owner but instead by a roaming person?


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Grakthis said:


> Oh really? Who, pray tell, is the IP associated with, then?


Comcast. But not your home's network IP.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Grakthis said:


> Oh really? Who, pray tell, is the IP associated with, then?


The IP address of the xfinitywifi access point in associated with the physical address of the unit it's installed in. But the address the police would be looking for is the IP address of the wireless device connected _through_ the access point - an address that isn't provided, or at least won't pass traffic, until that device provides a Comcast account log-in credentials. So the IP address is associated with Comcast - it belongs to the pool of IP address they are assigned. Beyond that, if the police ask Comcast for more information it would be associated with the account used to log-in - and through that to the billing or installation address for _that_ Comcast account.

Now if you shared your Comcast username/password with someone and they did malicious things using it, through anybody's xfinitywifi access point, then the police might well come knocking on your door. But that's because the bad stuff was done by someone using your account, not because someone was using your router.

The IP address of the xfinitywifi access point side would show up in the list of servers that the connection went through, but Comcast should treat than any differently from all the Comcast owned routers sitting in Comcast data centers that the connection passed through - its one of half a dozen or more IP addresses of Comcast equipment the signal happens to traverse between the source (the malicious user's wireless device) and the destination (the computer they're connecting to, or attacking, or whatever)


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Comcast is planning many public hot spots, not just with private homes, I assume (mabey incorrectly) that Comcast knows what their doing if somebody abuses their internet from wherever.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

So far the hotspots near me are associated with business accounts, one of which is located in a home down the street. For business accounts the name and address of the business is visible through the Xfinity hotspot app.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

pdhenry said:


> So far the hotspots near me are associated with business accounts, one of which is located in a home down the street. For business accounts the name and address of the business is visible through the Xfinity hotspot app.


But you still have to log in under your Comcast account ?


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

lessd said:


> But you still have to log in under your Comcast account ?


Yes, once on a device after which it automatically connects to any of them. The SSID is XfinityWiFi just like they're rolling out in homes.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Jonathan_S said:


> The IP address of the xfinitywifi access point in associated with the physical address of the unit it's installed in. But the address the police would be looking for is the IP address of the wireless device connected _through_ the access point - an address that isn't provided, or at least won't pass traffic, until that device provides a Comcast account log-in credentials. So the IP address is associated with Comcast - it belongs to the pool of IP address they are assigned. Beyond that, if the police ask Comcast for more information it would be associated with the account used to log-in - and through that to the billing or installation address for _that_ Comcast account.
> 
> Now if you shared your Comcast username/password with someone and they did malicious things using it, through anybody's xfinitywifi access point, then the police might well come knocking on your door. But that's because the bad stuff was done by someone using your account, not because someone was using your router.
> 
> The IP address of the xfinitywifi access point side would show up in the list of servers that the connection went through, but Comcast should treat than any differently from all the Comcast owned routers sitting in Comcast data centers that the connection passed through - its one of half a dozen or more IP addresses of Comcast equipment the signal happens to traverse between the source (the malicious user's wireless device) and the destination (the computer they're connecting to, or attacking, or whatever)


Comcast would track it to the account using xfinitywifi, not the account that leases the hardware and lives at the physical address.

And I'm not convinced that you're right about sharing an IP. I have not actually done a traceroute to confirm, but I would suspect that the xfinitywifi VLAN has a separate IP address from the CMTS all the way up to Comcast's servers, with the local network getting a real WAN IP, and the xfinitywifi SSID getting a CGN IP, and both IPs being used to move traffic from the CMTS to the modem. IIRC, way back in the early days of DSL, you could get a whole bunch of IPs assigned to one modem from the ISP. Those days are long since gone, and the world is kind-of sort-of out of IPs, but I don't see why they couldn't generate a whole bunch of new IPs for xfinitywifi using CGN.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Here's something to puzzle over. It seems that every device that connects to an Xfinity wifi hotspot is given the address 192.168.1.10 no matter how many other users are logged in at the same time.

http://computers.findincity.net/vie...cts-to-comcast-xfinitywifi-gets-192168110-how


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> Here's something to puzzle over. It seems that every device that connects to an Xfinity wifi hotspot is given the address 192.168.1.10 no matter how many other users are logged in at the same time.
> 
> http://computers.findincity.net/vie...cts-to-comcast-xfinitywifi-gets-192168110-how


It's doing something to separate the users from each other, so they're all effectively on their own networks. I'm not sure if this is another layer of VLAN'ing, or what. I'm thinking that each of those users has their own NAT session in the router, and each NAT session is using a different "public" CGN IP, creating double NAT, and traceability for what each user is doing by account. I'm going a little beyond my networking knowledge though, so I could be wrong here.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Grakthis said:


> Holy ****, It's like a kid who took stats 101 decided to be pedantic on the internet. You spent like 5 paragraphs on pedantic vaguely true but totally irrelevant points, then wrapped it up by going "Nah, still not likely to happen" without supporting any of the above.
> 
> Many things are not likely to happen. You should still take basic precautions to stop them from happening. I imagine you also don't stand outside in a thunderstorm, no?


Talk about vague and irrelevant. I have no idea what you're trying to say or where you're coming from. The attempted insults are out of left field in the twilight zone.

I can only take your post as you having nothing to say.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

GBL said:


> Reason for the combo is simplified management during unattended use - it's on a timer that reboots it every night to recover from any issues that might occur in my absence. I need WiFi to connect to the thermostat and other remote monitors.


? YOu can put a cable modem and wifi router on a timer. A cable modem is just a dumb box. There is no management of it except power on/off.

And yes one reason to own your own stuff is because of the monthly fees. And I did hear Comcast raised their fees and that the fees must be a lot more than before because even my brother (or his personal assistant) called me and asked what cable modem to buy.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Bigg said:


> It's doing something to separate the users from each other, so they're all effectively on their own networks. I'm not sure if this is another layer of VLAN'ing, or what. I'm thinking that each of those users has their own NAT session in the router, and each NAT session is using a different "public" CGN IP, creating double NAT, and traceability for what each user is doing by account. I'm going a little beyond my networking knowledge though, so I could be wrong here.


That's what I'm thinking, and also that it should alleviate the concern that someone's activities would be traced to the homeowner.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> I agree that it's not likely to happen, but why take the risk when you can buy your own modem or use another internet provider?


Do you take the risk of not winning the lottery by not buying a ticket?


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> ? YOu can put a cable modem and wifi router on a timer. A cable modem is just a dumb box. There is no management of it except power on/off.


Not that dumb as it also runs my land Tel. lines.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

trip1eX said:


> I can only take your post as you having nothing to say.


Yeah, that's about the response I expected given the level of savvy you're showing ITT.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

trip1eX said:


> Do you take the risk of not winning the lottery by not buying a ticket?


This is the kind of post I should book mark so whenever I think about responding to you seriously, I just go "Oh yeah, he's the guy who made THAT post. Nevermind." Like, somewhere during the process of typing this, you had to have thought "Oh man, what a good post. This makes total sense! High-Five me!"


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> Do you take the risk of not winning the lottery by not buying a ticket?


We know it is separated out by login, how exactly it assigns IPs to the xfinitywifi side of things is where I'm doing some educated guessing.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Comcast knows that they can't have the FBI coming to your home if somebody connects to your Comcast hot spot that Comcast provided no matter what they did on that hotspot, so I am sure that it will never be a problem (or a big legal problem for Comcast itself), but I still will not let it happen on my home network.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Grakthis said:


> Holy ****, It's like a kid who took stats 101 decided to be pedantic on the internet. You spent like 5 paragraphs on pedantic vaguely true but totally irrelevant points, then wrapped it up by going "Nah, still not likely to happen" without supporting any of the above.





Grakthis said:


> Yeah, that's about the response I expected given the level of savvy you're showing ITT.





Grakthis said:


> This is the kind of post I should book mark so whenever I think about responding to you seriously, I just go "Oh yeah, he's the guy who made THAT post. Nevermind." Like, somewhere during the process of typing this, you had to have thought "Oh man, what a good post. This makes total sense! High-Five me!"


??? I don't get why the conversation turned ugly for you. But to each their own.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Bigg said:


> Comcast would track it to the account using xfinitywifi, not the account that leases the hardware and lives at the physical address.
> 
> And I'm not convinced that you're right about sharing an IP. I have not actually done a traceroute to confirm, but I would suspect that the xfinitywifi VLAN has a separate IP address from the CMTS all the way up to Comcast's servers, with the local network getting a real WAN IP, and the xfinitywifi SSID getting a CGN IP, and both IPs being used to move traffic from the CMTS to the modem. IIRC, way back in the early days of DSL, you could get a whole bunch of IPs assigned to one modem from the ISP. Those days are long since gone, and the world is kind-of sort-of out of IPs, but I don't see why they couldn't generate a whole bunch of new IPs for xfinitywifi using CGN.


You guys all keep telling us how this works, and what it does, but literally not a single one of you has proven, cited or demonstrated any of this.

It MIGHT be working on a whole different connection back to the head end... it's possible. A single "box" can do that. But is it? You have no idea. It might be using a different set of IPs that are not associated with your address. But is it? You have no idea. It might not be associated in their logs with your address at all. But is it? You have no idea.

People keep going "it works like this" and I keep going "Cite?" and not a single person of the 6+ people who have said "it works like this" has provided a cite.

We literally do not have a single expert source anywhere that is telling us how this works. We have a bunch of tuesday-morning network engineers telling us how it SHOULD work.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Grakthis said:


> You guys all keep telling us how this works, and what it does, but literally not a single one of you has proven, cited or demonstrated any of this. It MIGHT be working on a whole different connection back to the head end... it's possible. A single "box" can do that. But is it? You have no idea. It might be using a different set of IPs that are not associated with your address. But is it? You have no idea. It might not be associated in their logs with your address at all. But is it? You have no idea. People keep going "it works like this" and I keep going "Cite?" and not a single person of the 6+ people who have said "it works like this" has provided a cite. We literally do not have a single expert source anywhere that is telling us how this works. We have a bunch of tuesday-morning network engineers telling us how it SHOULD work.


Haha, welcome to wacky, wild world of TCF!!!


----------



## ggieseke (May 30, 2008)

Get over it, everyone. If you don't want Comcast to use your house as a wifi hotspot just turn it off in your account settings.

This forum is supposed to be about TiVos, and helping out folks with problems or questions about TiVos. Even the Coffee House shouldn't degenerate to this level of name-calling.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Grakthis said:


> Holy ****, It's like a kid who took stats 101 decided to be pedantic on the internet. You spent like 5 paragraphs on pedantic vaguely true but totally irrelevant points, then wrapped it up by going "Nah, still not likely to happen" without supporting any of the above.





Grakthis said:


> Yeah, that's about the response I expected given the level of savvy you're showing ITT.





Grakthis said:


> This is the kind of post I should book mark so whenever I think about responding to you seriously, I just go "Oh yeah, he's the guy who made THAT post. Nevermind." Like, somewhere during the process of typing this, you had to have thought "Oh man, what a good post. This makes total sense! High-Five me!"





Grakthis said:


> people who are passive agressive dicks always like to act surprised when someone calls them out for being a dick.
> 
> "what?!?! ME?!?! I don't understand why you're so angry at ME?!?!"
> 
> ...


I think your last 4 replies to me speak for themselves.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

ggieseke said:


> Get over it, everyone. If you don't want Comcast to use your house as a wifi hotspot just turn it off in your account settings.


Right, but one of the main topics of this thread, or one of the threads on the subject, or maybe threads got merged (I lost track) - was that you turn it off, and mysteriously find it back on.

So the real answer becomes, if you really don't like it, turn it off, and check it daily to make sure it's off. And since you can't actually trust the setting on the website, check your cable gateway daily to see if it's broadcasting a couple of extra SSIDs. *

And that's just a bit too far. For something that maybe should have been Opt-In with a discount, it's now the customers responsibility to keep an eye on it.

And if you don't trust them to handle an On/Off switch... It's a little hard to trust them on all the unverifiable security issues involved on simply a handwave of *trust us, we're comcast, we know what we're doing*.

They could have done this is a non-bungly fashion. But they kinda bungled some things...

* Or of course buy your own non wireless capable device. An excellent plan for you and I, but shouldn't be something everyone has to do.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Grakthis said:


> You guys all keep telling us how this works, and what it does, but literally not a single one of you has proven, cited or demonstrated any of this.
> 
> It MIGHT be working on a whole different connection back to the head end... it's possible. A single "box" can do that. But is it? You have no idea. It might be using a different set of IPs that are not associated with your address. But is it? You have no idea. It might not be associated in their logs with your address at all. But is it? You have no idea.
> 
> ...


I was clear in saying that while I know users are tracked by accounts as they log into xfinitywifi, and not by the address that the physical hardware is installed at, and they are have separate SSIDs and VLANs, I'm not exactly sure how the addressing scheme works beyond that in terms of assigning IPs.

If you're so curious, why don't you go out there and search around? I'm sure there's plenty of info about how it works on DSLReports, among other sources.



kdmorse said:


> * Or of course buy your own non wireless capable device. An excellent plan for you and I, but shouldn't be something everyone has to do.


1. Anyone who can do some math will quickly realize that the Comcast gateway is a complete *rip-off,* and won't use it anyway.

2. Anyone who has that thick of a tinfoil hat on that they are worried about the security of this contraption has their own router and networking equipment anyway.

So it's a self-correcting problem.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Bigg said:


> Comcast would track it to the account using xfinitywifi, not the account that leases the hardware and lives at the physical address.
> 
> And I'm not convinced that you're right about sharing an IP. I have not actually done a traceroute to confirm, but I would suspect that the xfinitywifi VLAN has a separate IP address from the CMTS all the way up to Comcast's servers, with the local network getting a real WAN IP, and the xfinitywifi SSID getting a CGN IP, and both IPs being used to move traffic from the CMTS to the modem. IIRC, way back in the early days of DSL, you could get a whole bunch of IPs assigned to one modem from the ISP. Those days are long since gone, and the world is kind-of sort-of out of IPs, but I don't see why they couldn't generate a whole bunch of new IPs for xfinitywifi using CGN.


I didn't _intend_ to say anything about sharing an IP, but I see my phrasing wasn't as clear as I meant it to be.

When I said "IP address of the xfinitywifi access point" I meant the WAN facing IP address assigned to the xfinitywifi side of the access point box; differentiating it from the WAN facing IP address of the home-user side on that same access point box. (Or at least that's how it worked in my mind; didn't come across so well in written form)


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Bigg said:


> I was clear in saying that while I know users are tracked by accounts as they log into xfinitywifi, and not by the address that the physical hardware is installed at, and they are have separate SSIDs and VLANs, I'm not exactly sure how the addressing scheme works beyond that in terms of assigning IPs.
> 
> If you're so curious, why don't you go out there and search around? I'm sure there's plenty of info about how it works on DSLReports, among other sources.


First of all, I did search around, and found statements from Comcast that were vague, at best.

And second of all, I'm not making the positive claims about how it works. It is not my job to research someone else's claims. I ask them to cite them, or I dismiss them as speculation.

So if you have sources from DSLReports, among others, then provide them.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

TWC is doing this, as well. Also, the EFF is in _favor_ of such a system. Steve Gibson covered this on his Secruity Now podcast if you want more info. Some argue it may _*NOT*_ be such a bad idea.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Grakthis said:


> First of all, I did search around, and found statements from Comcast that were vague, at best.
> 
> And second of all, I'm not making the positive claims about how it works. It is not my job to research someone else's claims. I ask them to cite them, or I dismiss them as speculation.
> 
> So if you have sources from DSLReports, among others, then provide them.


I am not writing a research paper for you. If you're that interested, go on Google and figure it out.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Here are some experiments that woud be easy for someone with an Xfinity AP to do:


Compare the public IP address when connected to the home network vs. XfinityWiFi. I believe most of us have agreed that they will be different addresses. An easy way to get this is to type *What is my IP address* into Google search.

Verify as had been claimed that the DHCP issued IP from Xfinity WiFi is always 192.168.1.10.

Most of the FUD I've read about this appears to come from people who don't actually have an Xfinity Access point.


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

Well I don't have an Xfinity gateway, but the idea they want to use me as a node for their hotspot AND charge me a rental fee for the equipment to do it is the annoying part. Add to that they are raising their rental fee starting in January. 

That's just bullsh1t. I don't care if it doesn't affect my service. If you want to use my private property and a device I'm paying for every month for your benefit, then you either give me the equipment for as long as I have service or you offer me a hefty discount for doing so. The hotspot doesn't benefit me in anyway whatsoever. Why should I get dinged for the coin and help you too? They don't do a damn thing to help the customer and if you do try to haggle on their prices they do nothing but make you feel guilty like they're already doing you a favor, and the new Comcast (Retentions is now Customer Solutions) is more likely to let you walk than offer you a deal. In my case and my mom's case, we no longer use a comcast or verizon email adr. So playing the companies off one another and switching when they become unreasonable is easy. 

And with Tivo, you swap cards, reprogram and go. I would imagine. I haven't had Tivo with FIOS. But I know right now they're offering me $60 for two years with HBO & Showtime for 2yrs, 1yr of Netlflix and 50/50mbs internet. Comcast can't touch that. So I might be switching. The only thing I think I lose is VOD. To save that much coin? I can live with that.


----------



## WVZR1 (Jul 31, 2008)

pdhenry said:


> Here are some experiments that woud be easy for someone with an Xfinity AP to do:
> 
> 
> Compare the public IP address when connected to the home network vs. XfinityWiFi. I believe most of us have agreed that they will be different addresses. An easy way to get this is to type *What is my IP address* into Google search.
> ...


When I use my Comcast "account" logged in to my modem router I get my IPV6 address. When I use my Xfinity Connect app from my laptop I get:

50.153.127.10

When I use an Android device "today" I get 98.204.224.109

If you're a Comcast user it's convenient, if your friend or someone has a "Gateway" you don't need to ask if they have a guest network or they don't need to share their SSID etc. I can use my home phone from a wireless, text from my wireless with my home and I don't even maintain anything but a very casual ATT GoPhone account, I don't share my cell number but with very few, I've turned off voice mail on the cell. Actually for me I can save considerably, I don't need a bunch of Android apps, I know where I'm going and I'm quite confident that I can be reached if needed by those that might need to.

Way to much concern by many, you need to consider it's value to "YOU". I'm quite rural and I doubt it would be very easy to get close enough to have access without being very visible by me. I have a neighbor quite a ways away and I can pick up my home phone while there, don't need the cell! It can be made to work "for you"! I don't get the concern for the most part. If I were in a Metro environment I might have different opinions but for me it seems to work.

I have never checked the IP addy from either a Comcast Xfinity "company" hot spot or a commercial establishment that advertises the Xfinity "hotspot".


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

dbpaddler said:


> Well I don't have an Xfinity gateway,


You start by admitting that it doesn't affect you, everything after that sort of reads like a rant.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

As the OP of this Thread I own all my own equipment so I can't have the issue, my point was that if I wanted to rent the equipment from Comcast, Comcast should provide me with a rental agreement that states that my rented equipment can be used as a Comcast Hot Spot and that I would have no liability for anything someone using my hot spot did on the internet, that would solve the problem IMHO.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

That would be reasonable, but others seem to as upset that Comcast is using their premises for the benefit of other customers.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

pdhenry said:


> That would be reasonable, but others seem to as upset that Comcast is using their premises for the benefit of other customers.


Yes but I would bet most Comcast customers don't even know about the public hot spot at their home, my rental agreement would solve that, if it not 20 pages long


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I visited friends for dinner tonight and my phone readily connected to their Comcast router via the XFiniyWiFi SSID. They were unaware that they had this. They live in the country where there are no neighbors close enough to camp on the AP.

Interestingly, the IP address I got from that AP wasn't 192.168.1.10. I don't recall what it was but it didn't appear to be in the format of most LAN DHCP addresses (e.g., 192.168...). Earlier today I walked by the mapped commercial XFinity hotspot in my neighborhood and I did receive 192.168.1.10. I just tried to check whether my friend's location is in the Xfinity hotspot map but that appears to be down at the moment.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

ggieseke said:


> Get over it, everyone. If you don't want Comcast to use your house as a wifi hotspot just turn it off in your account settings.
> 
> This forum is supposed to be about TiVos, and helping out folks with problems or questions about TiVos. Even the Coffee House shouldn't degenerate to this level of name-calling.


Or buy your own modem and there also won't be a hotspot. And best of all you won't be continuously paying Comcast a monthly fee to rent their modem.

That is the easiest solution and it also costs less money in the long run.


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

lessd said:


> Yes but I would bet most Comcast customers don't even know about the public hot spot at their home, my rental agreement would solve that, if it not 20 pages long


Ignorance is besides the point though. Whenever something is in Comcast's favor, it is far from transparent. On the rare chance something benefits the customer, it is front and center in bold and bright lights. And the fact that you pay to use their equipment on your property, and they are allowed to take advantage of it for their own purpose is just unsettling, especially considering they are raising their rental rates January 1.

And yes, you can buy your own equipment and call it a day. Someone mentioned you can turn off that setting in your account settings which would be interesting. But the principal of it is, they are the ones that should be compensating the customer for allowing them to grow their hotspot network on your property, and the reality is, they're not, and they are charging you more for it.

Don't you think it would go a long way if they said, "Help us build our hotspot network, and we'll discount our rental rate by 50%". You'd probably have more people on board and feel good about it than feeling taken advantage of, hence threads like this on here and other forums.

It's always a *****fest with providers, and a little transparency and goodwill can go a long way, especially when people are always trying to minimize their bill and don't want to go the route of buying equipment.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

dbpaddler said:


> Ignorance is besides the point though. Whenever something is in Comcast's favor, it is far from transparent. On the rare chance something benefits the customer, it is front and center in bold and bright lights. And the fact that you pay to use their equipment on your property, and they are allowed to take advantage of it for their own purpose is just unsettling, especially considering they are raising their rental rates January 1.


I am sure there are many reason to not be happy with Comcast and I have also said I believe Comcast should have changed their user agreements to address this and been up front on what was going on.

But your rant about Comcast and this added feature is amusing. The purposes of this hotspot feature is to provide their customers with a FREE added service. The only way this benefits Comcast is if it increases customer satisfaction and thus reduces customer retention and/or acquisition costs. You make it sound like Comcast is somehow just making money off this and customers aren't getting anything. Which is not the case.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> I am sure there are many reason to not be happy with Comcast and I have also said I believe Comcast should have changed their user agreements to address this and been up front on what was going on.
> 
> But your rant about Comcast and this added feature is amusing. The purposes of this hotspot feature is to provide their customers with a FREE added service. The only way this benefits Comcast is if it increases customer satisfaction and thus reduces customer retention and/or acquisition costs. You make it sound like Comcast is somehow just making money off this and customers aren't getting anything. Which is not the case.


Your correct BUT when Comcast is providing something to a stranger who is using the equipment Comcast has rented you in your home, and you don't agree or even know, that smells, even if there is no downside to the home owner and a + for other Comcast customers. Just let us know up front, it is like organ donation, theoretically all people should be one, no downside to the dead person and a + to the person getting the organ, but if the Gov. made it mandatory what an uproar that would cause.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

(shrug)


----------



## WVZR1 (Jul 31, 2008)

lessd said:


> Your correct BUT when Comcast is providing something to a stranger who is using the equipment Comcast has rented you in your home, and you don't agree or even know, that smells, even if there is no downside to the home owner and a + for other Comcast customers. Just let us know up front, it is like organ donation, theoretically all people should be one, no downside to the dead person and a + to the person getting the organ, but if the Gov. made it mandatory what an uproar that would cause.


You can "get over it" OR "get rid of it". Repeated Pi$$ing and moaning I'd say accomplishes very little. Find another "rant"!

If you "own your own" there's really no need for you to even be in the discussion.

There's no similarity to your comparison.

** Forgot you were the "thread starter". Oh well. You do mention you're a subscriber with "owned equipment" so I'd guess bringing it to the attention of all was a "service". You've done well. It seems your maybe more of a Comcast "beater". If Comcast is providing you with "what you pay for" and doing it reasonably well I'd say if you're still unhappy find a new provider. You maybe misused *FORCE*. I believe it's actually subscriber controlled.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

My Arris modem came in the mail yesterday. Now to find a good Saturday to schedule an install of the service and finally do away with my slow as molasses Verizon DSL.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> Your correct BUT when Comcast is providing something to a stranger who is using the equipment Comcast has rented you in your home, and you don't agree or even know, that smells, even if there is no downside to the home owner and a + for other Comcast customers. Just let us know up front, it is like organ donation, theoretically all people should be one, no downside to the dead person and a + to the person getting the organ, but if the Gov. made it mandatory what an uproar that would cause.


It's opt-out in most of Europe, and that's the way it should be here. It would make a lot of people's lives a lot better, and at worst be a net neutral affect to the deceased and their families, possibly a net positive knowing that their loved one helped someone else live.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> It's opt-out in most of Europe, and that's the way it should be here. It would make a lot of people's lives a lot better, and at worst be a net neutral affect to the deceased and their families, possibly a net positive knowing that their loved one helped someone else live.


While I do agree with you that was not the point I was trying to make in my post, as it has nothing to do with Comcast.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> ... The purposes of this hotspot feature is to provide their customers with a FREE added service. The only way this benefits Comcast is if it increases customer satisfaction and thus reduces customer retention and/or acquisition costs. You make it sound like Comcast is somehow just making money off this and customers aren't getting anything. Which is not the case.


The purpose of this hotspot is let Comcast match a feature the competition has, which, yeah, helps Comcast retain customers, but it only helps Comcast.

It's like Comcast is using you to refer new customers without compensating _you_ in any form.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

MikeAndrews said:


> The purpose of this hotspot is let Comcast match a feature the competition has, which, yeah, helps Comcast retain customers, but it only helps Comcast.
> 
> It's like Comcast is using you to refer new customers without compensating _you_ in any form.


There are valid reasons for not liking what Comcast is doing which I and others have mentioned a number of times.

There is no need for bad analogies and inaccurate statements.

Comcast customers are receiving the additional features/benefits which is effectively compensated for running one of these WiFi hot spots. If an individual Comcast customer wants or uses these additional features is another question - however the features/benefits are there.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> There are valid reasons for not liking what Comcast is doing which I and others have mentioned a number of times.
> 
> There is no need for bad analogies and inaccurate statements.
> 
> Comcast customers are receiving the additional features/benefits which is effectively compensated for running one of these WiFi hot spots. If an individual Comcast customer wants or uses these additional features is another question - however the features/benefits are there.


The issue in not bad analogies as Comcast modem rental cost is the same as the rental cost for the Comcast Modem, router, and WiFi, if you choose the latter you will also be providing a public (Comcast customers only) hot spot, so Comcast should just tell it customers that, then IMHO no problem, don't like that for some or any reason, go purchase your own equipment and not pay the Comcast the rental fee, and you don't get the free on sight service if things (on your own equipment) stop working correctly.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> While I do agree with you that was not the point I was trying to make in my post, as it has nothing to do with Comcast.


Well, you brought up that comparison.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Well, you brought up that comparison.


The comparison was for the general idea that you could be forced into something you had not agreed to, most people will not know about a WiFi hot spot at their homes, but if the Gov. forced organ donations without exception, well then people would quite upset because the news would be all over that, as opposed the Comcast Hot Spot. Everybody should know what there getting into and in most cases opt out if they want, can't op out if you don't know. If I made a bad comparison sorry.


----------



## hytekjosh (Dec 4, 2010)

I don't feel like reading the entire thread but other major providers do the same. I think its actually a good business model and allows the spread of internet to cover more territory. The hotspot wifi is completely separate bandwidth and network so no one can see into your personal network and your internet speeds will not be impacted. They are not forcing anyone either and one can always go and purchase their own equipment.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

hytekjosh said:


> I don't feel like reading the entire thread but other major providers do the same. I think its actually a good business model and allows the spread of internet to cover more territory. The hotspot wifi is completely separate bandwidth and network so no one can see into your personal network and your internet speeds will not be impacted. They are not forcing anyone either and one can always go and purchase their own equipment.


Absolutely correct, except most people (not on this forum) don't even know about this service their home is providing and should told about it explaining what you just said, then no problem.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

MikeAndrews said:


> The purpose of this hotspot is let Comcast match a feature the competition has, which, yeah, helps Comcast retain customers, but it only helps Comcast.
> 
> It's like Comcast is using you to refer new customers without compensating _you_ in any form.


I thought all Comcast cable modem customers were able to use xfinituwifi hotspots while out at and about?
I don't see how it "only helps Comcast" for you to have the option of fast, no additional fee, wifi when away from home; you seem to be helped as well.

I guess Comcast could be "fairer" and only grant access to people who leave their own router hotspot enabled - then there would be direct quid pro quo / compensation. But it's not like the xfinitiwifi service is an extra cost, or a different tier of service, you have access to it because you're a Comcast internet subscriber, and part of the way their subscribers in general have reasonable xfinity wifi coverage is by using the 2nd AP built into each others' routers.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> The comparison was for the general idea that you could be forced into something you had not agreed to, most people will not know about a WiFi hot spot at their homes, but if the Gov. forced organ donations without exception, well then people would quite upset because the news would be all over that, as opposed the Comcast Hot Spot. Everybody should know what there getting into and in most cases opt out if they want, can't op out if you don't know. If I made a bad comparison sorry.


The government shouldn't force organ donations, but it should be an opt-out process. It's people's responsibility to know if they don't want to be an organ donor. Just like it's people's responsibility to know if they don't want to have xfinitywifi running. Both have no negative effect on a person, and can only benefit others. Obviously being an organ donor could be a massive benefit to others' lives, whereas xfinitywifi could provide a convenience to others at most.

Comcast isn't hiding anything about xfinitywifi, there is no way to hide it, since if it was some hidden SSID/VLAN, then it wouldn't do what it's meant to do.



Jonathan_S said:


> I thought all Comcast cable modem customers were able to use xfinituwifi hotspots while out at and about?


It's available to all Xfinity HSI customers. I would presume, although I'm not 100% sure, that all cable customers whose providers participate in cablewifi, like CableVision and TWC, would have access as well.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Comcast isn't hiding anything about xfinitywifi, there is no way to hide it, since if it was some hidden SSID/VLAN, then it wouldn't do what it's meant to do.
> It's available to all Xfinity HSI customers. I would presume, although I'm not 100% sure, that all cable customers whose providers participate in cablewifi, like CableVision and TWC, would have access as well.


I did not use the word hide, the only point is that Comcast should let you know that when you rent their Modem-router-WiFi system you have also agreed to a public WiFi hot spot from your home, it may, as you said, no disadvantage to the home owner *BUT* they should know about it in big print, I have at least 4 friends that have this hotspot and don't know it, I am not telling them as I think it up Comcast to make sure their customers know about this. If I told them they would think it is bad and I am not going to spend my time trying to convince them is not bad, Comcast should do that job.
Someone brought up the extra power use for this combination, even if it is only one watt, it would cost the homeowner 8 to 11 cents per month extra, not much when you are paying the cable co $80 to $200 or more a month, but still  
Cell phone co put towers on privet property, but get permission and pay the owner.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

And here we have America, where people can be relied on to complain about something that benefits the greater population. Where ME is greater than WE.

The organ donation analogy is very apt, as it turns out.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> I did not use the word hide, the only point is that Comcast should let you know that when you rent their Modem-router-WiFi system you have also agreed to a public WiFi hot spot from your home, it may, as you said, no disadvantage to the home owner *BUT* they should know about it in big print, I have at least 4 friends that have this hotspot and don't know it, I am not telling them as I think it up Comcast to make sure their customers know about this. If I told them they would think it is bad and I am not going to spend my time trying to convince them is not bad, Comcast should do that job.
> Someone brought up the extra power use for this combination, even if it is only one watt, it would cost the homeowner 8 to 11 cents per month extra, not much when you are paying the cable co $80 to $200 or more a month, but still
> Cell phone co put towers on privet property, but get permission and pay the owner.


My point is that it's pretty darn obvious what they are doing, the SSIDs are right there, it's well known that these gateways are set up that way. If someone's been living under a rock for a while, well, so be it, it's not going to hurt them anyway.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Nobody can point to any real harm done to anyone here. A few milliwatts of additional power being used by Comcast equipment? A use of bandwidth that belong to you in the first place? A ridiculous scenario where FBI agents break down your door because a terrorist walked by your house and they thought it was you? Absurd!

Comcast, like all cable companies, is monopoly that treats its customers like dirt. But this is the wrong issue to focus on.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

ej42137 said:


> But this is the wrong issue to focus on.


That's a really key point right there. There is a lot of bad stuff that Comcast does. xfinitywifi ranks really, really low on the list, if it's on there at all.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> My point is that it's pretty darn obvious what they are doing, the SSIDs are right there, it's well known that these gateways are set up that way. If someone's been living under a rock for a while, well, so be it, it's not going to hurt them anyway.


You think the average Comcast customer even knows what a SSID is, My point is not that this is bad (I think it is good) it that most people don't know that Comcast is doing this in their home equipment. I can go back to my organ donation analogy, if the gov automatically check that you were an organ donor without informing you, some people would not like that even though it does not hurt you and can help other people, I think organ donation should be an op-out system, but one should know about it in advance.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I will say that my friends had no idea that they had an Xfinity hotspot in their home. The average user may not be aware. You also have to do some setup on your phone to use it as it's intended. Doesn't automatically make it a bad thing to have.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> You think the average Comcast customer even knows what a SSID is, My point is not that this is bad (I think it is good) it that most people don't know that Comcast is doing this in their home equipment. I can go back to my organ donation analogy, if the gov automatically check that you were an organ donor without informing you, some people would not like that even though it does not hurt you and can help other people, I think organ donation should be an op-out system, but one should know about it in advance.


I think you have a slightly better argument for organ donation in terms of letting people know about it ahead of time in an opt-out system, since it's not literally broadcasting it's existence 20 times per second, and it's part of your body.

However, for xfinitywifi, not only does the customer not own the gateway, they don't own the spectrum, since it's unlicensed and free for all to use within certain regulations, but it was never theirs in the first place, and it's telling them 20 times a second that it's operating xfinitywifi, so it's not Comcast's problem to explain to dummies xfinitywifi works. It's Comcast's equipment, and Comcast will do as Comcast wants with it. Although I wouldn't mind having xfinitywifi at my house, that principle is why I don't use any Comcast equipment other than the CableCard in my XL4.


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

pdhenry said:


> And here we have America, where people can be relied on to complain about something that benefits the greater population. Where ME is greater than WE.
> 
> The organ donation analogy is very apt, as it turns out.


:up::up::up::up::up:


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

As one who's had my own modem and router for years, I'm actually very happy Comcast does this. There are at least two uses I've made of these hotspots. First when out and about, they are convenient when one doesn't have a smartphone connection, but need of wi-fi. 
And second, when at home, when I need to make sure I can reach something on my home network when away from home, I link my notebook pc up to an xFinity hotspot from one of my neighbors routers. Years ago, I'd jump on a neighbor's unsecure wi-fi, but now my neighbors all know to secure their wi-fi, so the xFinity hotspot provides me with the test bed location.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

MScottC said:


> As one who's had my own modem and router for years, I'm actually very happy Comcast does this. There are at least two uses I've made of these hotspots. First when out and about, they are convenient when one doesn't have a smartphone connection, but need of wi-fi.
> And second, when at home, when I need to make sure I can reach something on my home network when away from home, I link my notebook pc up to an xFinity hotspot from one of my neighbors routers. Years ago, I'd jump on a neighbor's unsecure wi-fi, but now my neighbors all know to secure their wi-fi, so the xFinity hotspot provides me with the test bed location.


That's a good thought. I hadn't thought about the test bed type of scenario.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

While I'm not entirely in favor of how they have handled this. I think they could have provided the same functionality, in a less underhanded way, and come out ahead with something that's purely positibe. 

But I can't deny, it also does have it's uses. In addition to the remote access path, it serves as a nice emergency backup access method. Your power goes out, your cable modem goes out, your consumer router dies, your linux router goes south, etc.... And you're not entirely disconnected...


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Bigg said:


> That's a good thought. I hadn't thought about the test bed type of scenario.


Yeah I just used my mom's new XFinity Gateway a few days ago to test her new Roamio Plus for OOH streaming this way as well as the Slingbox quality. Works very well in this regard.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I still don't see why people don't just get their own modem if they don't like this? We got our 80 year old father a new cable modem for Christmas to use on Comcast. He had purchased an old one channel cable modem and used it for many years with Comcast. For $70 we got him a Motorola modem that bonds four channels up and four channels down. It was inexpensive. 

I've read that Comcast charges something like $8 a month for a modem rental. For only $70 the break even point is nine months. And you can pay even less than that for another brand modem. Or a little more and get an 8 channel modem. They seem to give a lot of bang for the buck compared to when I last used a cable modem back in 2007. I think I paid more than that for the cable modem I used back then.

So if people don't mind paying the very high rental fee of $8 a month, I don't see why they are concerned with less than a dollar a month of electricity. If they were really concerned with saving money they would purchase their own cable modem instead of renting it.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

aaronwt said:


> So if people don't mind paying the very high rental fee of $8 a month, I don't see why they are concerned with less than a dollar a month of electricity. If they were really concerned with saving money they would purchase their own cable modem instead of renting it.


If you have Comcast Voice it's a harder thing to do. Best I can tell there are only two Arris modems you can buy that are supported by Comcast, both are ~$180. Sure they still pay for themselves over time, but it's not as quick, and I've heard activating them is not as easy.


----------



## ggieseke (May 30, 2008)

SullyND said:


> If you have Comcast Voice it's a harder thing to do. Best I can tell there are only two Arris modems you can buy that are supported by Comcast, both are ~$180. Sure they still pay for themselves over time, but it's not as quick, and I've heard activating them is not as easy.


Which two are those? I have the triple-play package but haven't found anything listed on the compatibility list from Comcast.


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

And that's why I don't use Triple Play... ViaTalk all the way, and extend when they offer their 2 years for the price of 18 months promotion. They provided the VOIP box and I backwired it into my house phone wiring. No issues with using my own Motorola modem and Asus Routers.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

SullyND said:


> If you have Comcast Voice it's a harder thing to do. Best I can tell there are only two Arris modems you can buy that are supported by Comcast, both are ~$180. Sure they still pay for themselves over time, but it's not as quick, and I've heard activating them is not as easy.


I purchased the Arris model TM822 from Amazon July 3rd 2014 for $136, that model has now been replaced with TM822G for $159. Activation (Comcast CT) was easy, no phone call needed, just connect the new equipment, log into your Comcast account and you will be asked if you want to active the new equipment, answer yes and in about 20 minutes your all done, your phone will be down for that time. In January Comcast is going to $10/month for their equipment. The hard part of this is returning the old equipment to a Comcast office.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> I still don't see why people don't just get their own modem if they don't like this? We got our 80 year old father a new cable modem for Christmas to use on Comcast. He had purchased an old one channel cable modem and used it for many years with Comcast. For $70 we got him a Motorola modem that bonds four channels up and four channels down. It was inexpensive.
> 
> I've read that Comcast charges something like $8 a month for a modem rental. For only $70 the break even point is nine months. And you can pay even less than that for another brand modem. Or a little more and get an 8 channel modem. They seem to give a lot of bang for the buck compared to when I last used a cable modem back in 2007. I think I paid more than that for the cable modem I used back then.
> 
> So if people don't mind paying the very high rental fee of $8 a month, I don't see why they are concerned with less than a dollar a month of electricity. If they were really concerned with saving money they would purchase their own cable modem instead of renting it.


The problem is, you are a) rational, and b) know what you're talking about. Most people are dumb and/or can't do math, and Comcast makes literally millions every month off of them.

Also, the gateway is $10/mo, so it's even worse than that.

Cable modems used to be cheaper. My parents paid I think $45 or $50 for theirs in 2003, after 3 months Comcast gave them a rebate back for the purchase price of it. Today, 4x4 is around $60, 8x4 is around $90, and 16x4 is close to $200, although for subscribers of TWC MAXX, $200 ain't bad to get 300mbps down. But to be fair, an SB6183 literally has 16x the physical capability of the SB5100 that was ~$50 in 2003, and there might have been a little inflation in there too, and provides 200x the internet speed.

I figure my parents don't need a new modem immediately. I'll probably end up giving them my SB6141 at some point, but for now, the SB5100 handles their ~30GB/mo of usage, half dozen computers, and half dozen other devices just fine.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Bigg said:


> The problem is, you are a) rational, and b) know what you're talking about. Most people are dumb and/or can't do math, and Comcast makes literally millions every month off of them.
> 
> Also, the gateway is $10/mo, so it's even worse than that.
> 
> ...


The SB5100 looks like what my dad had. Since we hooked up the SB6121 their web pages have been noticeably quicker to pop up and the download speeds were more consistent when my brother and I were both connected.. It shows they are using four channels for downstream and three channesl for upstream. I just know he was pleased with the difference. Although we probably should have picked up the version that had the built in router and WiFi. But we'll probably just get him a new router for his birthday next year.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> The SB5100 looks like what my dad had. Since we hooked up the SB6121 their web pages have been noticeably quicker to pop up and the download speeds were more consistent when my brother and I were both connected.. It shows they are using four channels for downstream and three channesl for upstream. I just know he was pleased with the difference. Although we probably should have picked up the version that had the built in router and WiFi. But we'll probably just get him a new router for his birthday next year.


Separating the router and modem is much better than having them combined.

They must have some congestion problems on their system, my parents get 27/6 reliably on their D2 modem through a WRT54Gv.1 router with Tomato. In the case of congestion, D3 is hugely beneficial.


----------



## ewjreplay (Oct 8, 2008)

MScottC said:


> And that's why I don't use Triple Play... ViaTalk all the way, and extend when they offer their 2 years for the price of 18 months promotion. They provided the VOIP box and I backwired it into my house phone wiring. No issues with using my own Motorola modem and Asus Routers.


_I had viatalk for three months in 2012, it worked 3 out of 5 times and the customer service was not the least helpful._


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

In the first year year or so, it had issues, now it's totally problem free.


----------

