Coming to a Comcast router near you!

[Swampman]

http://blog.chron.com/techblog/2014/06/ ... 24139101=0

Comcast will begin activating a feature in its Arris Touchstone Telephony Wireless Gateway Modems that sets up a public Wi-Fi hotspot alongside a residential Internet customer’s private home network. Other Comcast customers will be able to log in to the hotspots for free using a computer, smartphone or other mobile device. And once they log into one, they’ll be automatically logged in to others when their devices “see” them.

Better manage that account setting now. Comcast says it's only in Houston . . . yeah, right.

[FiremanBob]

Is that only if you rent a cable modem/hotspot from Comcast? I own my own modem and have a separate router attached to it. I wonder if that would immunize me.

[Reverenddel]

Bob, NEVER take that chance! Password, lock that sucker up HARD!

All you need is ONE time for someone to surf for child porn, bombmaking plans, or a jihadist website, and SLAP! You've been "SWAT'ted".

[Swampman]

^^^What he said^^^

[snatale42]

Bob, NEVER take that chance! Password, lock that sucker up HARD!

All you need is ONE time for someone to surf for child porn, bombmaking plans, or a jihadist website, and SLAP! You've been "SWAT'ted".

Nothing a user can do about it. Different SSID (CableWiFi) and different IP.

[MarcSpaz]

Is that only if you rent a cable modem/hotspot from Comcast? I own my own modem and have a separate router attached to it. I wonder if that would immunize me.

The article points out a specific model that they provide. If you are using your own modem, then you are good to go. Should still harden your own device... but for other security reasons beyond the articles topic.

[ShotgunBlast]

Around Richmond the "public" wireless network is named xfinitywifi. A Comcast Internet subscriber can join that network, provide their Comcast user credentials and use your Internet connection (separate from your internal network). I don't like it.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MarcSpaz]

I'm pretty sure they are all doing it. Right now, Verizon is pimping out their FiOS subscribers. Mostly at apartment complexes, but it's just a matter of time every house with an internet connection will be setup this way.

I normally wouldn't care, but I don't want my service impacted. I am paying for guarantied bandwidth and if I don't get it... strongly worded letter heading their way.

[dorminWS]

Saw an article a few weeks ago where coca-cola in some of the African countries was using their vending machines to host wifi hotspots. That what they mean by "internet of things", you think?

[HighExpert]

The way I read this they are setting up a secondary network using the user's hard connection. If done properly, separate IP address, it should not bother the user's bandwidth or increase security issues. I agree you should have your wireless locked up tight and you may want use some extra security on your hardwired internal net. While I say this, it should be no different whether the outsiders log on through your connection or through any other connection.

[thekinetic]

For anyone in IT security this is F***ing stupid. My brother could find said person on his network and hack their butt into oblivion in 2.3 seconds. He caught someone doing just that and destroyed their computer.

[HighExpert]

The whole point is they will not BE on your network. This is not war driving. The user must log on to the Comcast system with user name and password. Every router will have to have the public network access or you would have to resign on to each individual router if it were not a public network. You don't have to as you move. I am in IT security and have been for 20 years. It is not f..ing stupid although some comments are.

[FiremanBob]

Thanks. It is as secure as I can make it without spending $hundreds on special hardware and software.

[MarcSpaz]

The whole point is they will not BE on your network. This is not war driving. The user must log on to the Comcast system with user name and password. Every router will have to have the public network access or you would have to resign on to each individual router if it were not a public network. You don't have to as you move. I am in IT security and have been for 20 years. It is not f..ing stupid although some comments are.

I wouldn't be to upset with non-techs and the comments. Not many people understand networking or IT security, even when they are in the field.

But yes... providing the network security is setup correctly on the router... anyone who connects is no more or less able to hack your private network then if they were on a hardline in their own house.

Like I mentioned earlier, bandwidth utilization would be my only concern... and not for me per se, but for folks in towns and cities. I'm no where they would want to do this, but in heavily populated areas, there is only so much traffic your router can handle before you start to notice performance issues. I highly doubt service providers are sending out commercial grade wireless AP's to single family homes. At about $1,000 for a Cisco Aironet, roughly 10 times the price of a home wireless router, that hardware is not cheap.

[Reverenddel]

Luddite? Anyone? Luddite?

[dorminWS]

If I have properly understood this, it could be characterized as a sort of electronic trespassing; or at least a retention of the use of part of your cable equipment for the use of Comcast. Comcast is saying, "Here's your cable box, and you must pay a monthly fee to use it, but I'm going to also use it for the benefit of strangers." An apt analogy might be if the landlord rents you a house but tells you he'll only rent you the house on the condition that anybody who drives by on the road out front can stop and stay the night in the front bedroom; but you have nothing to worry about because it has a private entrance. On the other hand, it is presumably a scheme that makes wireless coverage more ubiquitous and seamless, so the counterargument would be that the public good is advanced by making it a condition of receiving Comcast service.

I still don't like it. That make me a Luddite? So be it. But I only smash the machines I don't like.

[MarcSpaz]

eh... just do what I did and buy your own router... you'll be fine. SonicWall products from Dell are some of the best ones you can buy but lean more toward SOHO. Asus has 3 models in the top ten (c|net & PCMAg) that are more "Home User" friendly.

[jdonovan]

If I have properly understood this

you have not.

An apt analogy might be

You rent an apartment, that has 10 total units and each unit includes the use of 2 parking spaces. The parking lot has 50 spaces. The current tenants use 20. The landlord decides to rent out 10 spaces to non-residents.

Your use of what you have rented is not impacted. What was inside your apartment and private, is still so. The 'shared' part of the land lords property has a few more users, but everyone is still getting what they contracted to get.


First thing everyone is missing is, the box you rent, is not something you own, so you do not have complete control over it. Notice how the announcement indicates that only certain Comcast provided modems will enable this service.

Second, Comcast is creating a second wireless network, that is not connecting to the customers network, only the upstream (to comcast) network. If implemented properly, from inside your current network, this new network is no more able to access your computers than the guy a mile down the street.

Third. You have a 'best effort' contract with the provider... go read your terms and conditions. If you got a 25/10 service tier, they will 'try' to meet that, but if they don't... you basically have no recourse.

[j1mmyd]

Just using your own router doesn't help. They will still leave their WiFi on on the modem unless you get a "Level 3" tech to disable it. Just tell them you're not using it and that its interfering with your other wireless devices and they are required to turn it off. If you're using your own router, you should also ask the same tech to set it to "bridging" mode. This won't be true transparent bridging, but for some reason the NATing on your router will work better.

[j1mmyd]

If I have properly understood this

you have not.

An apt analogy might be

You rent an apartment, that has 10 total units and each unit includes the use of 2 parking spaces. The parking lot has 50 spaces. The current tenants use 20. The landlord decides to rent out 10 spaces to non-residents.

Your use of what you have rented is not impacted.

Second, Comcast is creating a second wireless network, that is not connecting to the customers network,

Sorry, jdonovan, but you're wrong on a couple points. While Dorm's analogy may not be perfect, he is correct in principle.

Additional RF in the vicinity of my access point (my router in this case) *ALWAYS* interferes to some extent with other APs. The closer the competing sources are, the greater the interference.

The parking spaces analogy is not really applicable, but one related to sound is very apt. Radio Frequency (RF) and sound are actually similar in a few ways.

Your home wireless devices are essentially trying to have "conversations" with each other and with devices outside your home. Generally, your access point (AP; usually same device as your "router") MUST relay every word of the conversation between the devices. Your iPhone does not "talk" directly to your printer except in "ad hoc" networks.

(The discussion of modem, router, AP & NAT services and devices are outside the scope this response. They are all separate functions, sometimes combined inside single boxes. Call the box whatever you want. APs manage/broker all wireless communications in this scenario.)

Now imagine these devices are humans competing for the attention of the AP in order to get their messages in and out. If these devices were people, the volume of noise would go up pretty quickly and people would begin to try to talk over one another, competing for the AP's attention. A good AP can manage this, and this is why using good routers/APs matter.

In this scenario, Comcast is now putting another AP right next to yours (inside the "modem"). This AP is of no value to you and only has "conversations" with the guy down the hall or driving down the road. It competes directly with your AP and your devices for available RF spectrum/channels in exactly the same way another person would compete with your family for audible spectrum. Imagine your family going about its business and having some guy from Comcast sitting next to your router, occasionally yelling things to passersby.

Is this an actual problem? It depends on how saturated the RF spectrum in your immediate area is, but why have that guy sitting in your house, just to relay messages for strangers? Also, do you trust the security of the devices and their ability to segregate your traffic from "others"? Who's door gets kicked in (and who's dog gets shot) when a guy in a van uses a borrowed account to serve kiddie porn from the "Comcast_Guest" network riding your connection?

And before this turns into an argument over qualifications, I'm not a trained RF Engineer. I am, however, a self-taught guy who built and ran WISPs with networks in FL; Reykjavik, Iceland; and Gothenburg, Sweden. My former team holds the distance record (according to Cisco) for 802.11b "over water" point-to-point shots. A buddy and I also developed the Army's first method for sending secure data using SINCGARS radios. So, I'm no scientist, but not completely ignorant on these matters either. When it comes to WiFi, I can't do the math, but I know what works in the real world.