Papas Fritas writes:
"Robert Channick reports at the Chicago Tribune that Comcast is set to turn hundreds of thousands of Chicago-area homes into wi-fi hot spots, using existing Comcast equipment to build out its publicly accessible wireless network.
The neighborhood hot spots initiative, rolling out during the next several months, will send a separate Wi-Fi signal from Comcast-issued home equipment, enabling anyone within range to get online. Soon, entire residential blocks will begin to show as hot spots on Xfinity's Wi-Fi mobile app. Because the Comcast subscriber's signal will be kept separate from the second, publicly available signal, the subscriber's speed and privacy shouldn't be affected. 'They'll look like two separate networks and they'll act like two separate networks,' says Tom Nagel. 'Any use on the public side doesn't impact the private side.' Once the dual-mode modems are activated remotely by Comcast, visitors will use their own Xfinity credentials to sign on, and will not need the homeowner's permission or password to tap into the public Wi-Fi signal.
Non-subscribers will get two free hours a month; beyond that, they can access Xfinity Wi-Fi on a per-use basis. Rates run from $2.95 per hour to $19.95 per week, according to Comcast. Xfinity subscribers can travel from hot spot to hot spot in this case, from home to home without needing to log on again through their mobile device. 'The Utopian ideal of a massive, free Wi-Fi network has been around since the early days of Wi-Fi, but there was never an economically viable path to deliver it,' says Craig Moffett. 'Comcast has a better shot at it than just about anybody else.'"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Boxzy on Wednesday March 05 2014, @09:38PM
This isn't a doubling of wifi access, its a magical attempt to create extra wifi frequencies where all those are already used! my block has already filled all 15 channels of wifi, speeds are massively impacted. This program can only do harm.
Go green, Go Soylent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 05 2014, @09:45PM
It's not using additional frequencies. An AP can run multiple SSIDs on one frequency and that's what they're doing here.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Boxzy on Wednesday March 05 2014, @10:02PM
If all channels are used, then doubling up any one of them will more than halve throughput of both. Its attempting to use a private persons resources including electricity to provide internet to others. Expect an increase in sales of conductive paint and ethernet cables. Failing that, turning the damn thing off when not being used or a metal can over the antenna.
Go green, Go Soylent.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Wednesday March 05 2014, @10:19PM
That's what I would do. Just forcibly disable the antenna.
AP's on most home routers are absolute shit in terms of code quality. It's a router trying to be an access point, without committing the development resources to really do either well.
Residential gateways I find, are about the worst quality consumer devices possible, 2nd to the corn on the cob toilet paper roll.
I've always advised people to shut them off and invest in a decent dedicated access point. Netgears are generally pretty good in that regard and a $70-$90 AP works great. Added Bonus: It will have all the modes, and you can create point-to-multi-point bridges and obtain solid service all over your home.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday March 05 2014, @10:25PM
So if you are an ignorant and participating customer who did not forcibly disable the antenna, and some dick-kneader steals credentials and gets into your "other" network to download The Anarchist's Cookbook or illegal dolphin porn, does that mean that the FBI and the ICE will still kick down your door on a no-knock warrant and shoot your wife and kids dead?
What could possibly go wrong?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday March 05 2014, @10:42PM
That's actually a very very good thing though.
I know Germany went full-retard, and then finally, said they don't care if it was you or not, you would be financially and criminally responsible. That effectively shut down open access hot-spots, and certainly, and kind of guest wireless services.
However, in this case, Comcast does make the distinction (at the IP address and network level) that the guest services you operate is not you. It's explicitly not you.
Furthermore, since Comcast receives revenue, is responsible for the authentication (via XFinity), and is operating a separate network in your home, and this is not owned by you, it is Comcast that will be raided and shot in the head, not the consumer .
The access if fully authenticated at every point, on a separate network, and Comcast will only identify the area the signal came from. Not the subscriber property in which they are operating their own equipment.
I would be more worried about my operation of a TOR exit node quite frankly, not Comcast running a signal out of my place.
P.S - Is dolphin porn really illegal? I need to know.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Geotti on Wednesday March 05 2014, @10:59PM
It's explicitly not you.
So, you're saying that if *you* want to download The Anarchist's Cookbook (assuming you didn't do so in the 90's), you just connect to the second SSID? Ingenious!
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday March 06 2014, @12:23AM
Yep. They allow temporary guest access apparently. Afterwards it's authenticated, but hey, you don't need that long to download all the dolphin porn and anarchist materials do you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 06 2014, @06:35AM
Better: Connect to your neighbour's second SSID ;-)
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Thursday March 06 2014, @04:12PM
Except that, no doubt, you're authenticating to the second network using your own Comcast subscriber/email account, linked to your real name and address. It will be more explicitly you than if you used your own WiFi SSID, because at least your own WiFi might be given out to friends, etc. However, if some flaw were found in the hotspot authentication protocol...
(Score: 1) by Ryuugami on Thursday March 06 2014, @04:54AM
Is dolphin porn really illegal? I need to know.
Only if the dolphin was underage.
The trouble with being punctual is that people think you have nothing more important to do.
(Score: 1) by Taibhsear on Thursday March 06 2014, @05:01PM
What is the age of consent for a dolphin?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Foobar Bazbot on Thursday March 06 2014, @03:00AM
In general, yes. Because if I have two APs, one 10m east of the other, then a client that's way off to the east, so that it's just in range of the east one, isn't in range of the west one at all -- so the west one doesn't hear it, talks over top of it, and causes packet loss. The normal 802.11 solution to the hidden node problem, rts/cts, doesn't work here; it depends on the AP knowing the channel state, and the west AP doesn't know about the far-east client it can't hear.
But that's not how it works when you use the same AP to provide two SSIDs. The AP can hear all connected clients, no matter which SSID they're connected to, so RTS/CTS works fine. Aggregate throughput of the two SSIDs is essentially the same as for a single SSID. (Yes, beacon frames eat up a tiny bit, but you could just halve the beacon rate to get that back...)
(There are also ways of coordinating independent APs that share a wired connection to minimize this and other problems. Enterprise-class wifi solutions (from e.g. Juniper Networks) can do that, cable-company-provided modem/router/ap boxes absolutely don't. But it doesn't matter here, because it's a single AP and can therefore always hear all connected clients.)
It is, although the electrical use is so small as to be ridiculous to squabble over. The only real resource that it's a real problem for is the 2.4GHz band, which is already clogged to death. Even though this particular thing carries next to no intrinsic penalty (as explained above), any passerby using it when the cable subscriber wants maximum throughput or minimal latency is degrading their WLAN connection's utility. That's not particularly bad, since the same diminution of utility (if not worse) would arise from any other way of giving that passerby a 2.4GHz WLAN connection.
I hope not. I hope people will let Comcast roll out publicly-accessible (and way overpriced, unless my guesses as to the traffic cap on that $20/week plan are way off) 2.4 GHz internet access, but buy their own 5 GHz AP and move their WLAN to that, entirely avoiding the tragedy of the commons that is the 2.4GHz band. Not only is there way more bandwidth available, but it intrinsically limits the area within which networks can interfere in built-up areas (the very ones where congestion is worst); 5GHz has the nice characteristic of being partially blocked by typical walls, such that it works well enough in the next room over, but falls off by the time you're two apartments over. We'll all be better off if most people move to 5GHz for most stuff, reserving the limited bandwidth in the 2.4GHz band for the few who actually need it (whether for compatibility with old hardware, because they actually do have more absorbent/numerous walls to get through, or whatever).
userscript: Expand/Collapse buttons on every comment [userscripts.org]
(Score: 1) by gottabeme on Thursday March 06 2014, @03:14PM
Hey man, I just gotta say, thanks for putting that in your sig. This is amazing. Why bother to rewrite Slash to do AJAX when this script works fine and FAST! So nice to not have to go back and forth between pages to read replies.
(Score: 2) by Foobar Bazbot on Thursday March 06 2014, @03:37PM
Why bother? well, for one thing, I haven't had much luck with userscripts on Android. Supposedly Opera Labs handles them, but this one loads, but doesn't work right; there's a dedicated browser (oilcan?) that runs userscripts, but none of the other Android browsers (at least the ones I already use) handle it at all, and I'm not keen to add another one, especially on my wristwatch.
But for desktops, yeah, it's great. Can't take much credit, as I just tweaked a couple lines to make it work with modern browsers (instead of 2008 browsers) and to match SN instead of /., but I'm glad it's helping people.
userscript: Expand/Collapse buttons on every comment [userscripts.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 06 2014, @06:32AM
Not only that, but in addition, even if they somehow managed to double the wireless capacity, the cable the internet connection runs on will not magically get more capacity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 05 2014, @10:44PM
I don't think that more usage = harm. If it's too expensive then no one would use it and it should not use up too much bandwidth. If people use it then it is providing utility to those that do use it. If the problem is that there isn't enough wireless bandwidth to serve everyone's needs then the laws of supply and demand would lead to the optimal economic solution. (and I do think this program is way overpriced due to a lack of competition in the broadband market).
If this service does result in a net consumption of more bandwidth that's actually a good thing because that's enabling the usage of more bandwidth that was previously unused and that extra usage provides more utility (after all, people wouldn't use it if it doesn't provide utility). Preventing this program only serves to (artificially) limit the usage of available bandwidth.
Of course there are other issues to work out. I want my router giving me priority and only providing others with bandwidth to the extent that it doesn't take away from my bandwidth (ie: when I'm not using it maybe). I want it to be secure so that I can't get blamed for the actions of others and I don't want to enable others to access my home network (they can have a separate network, kinda like how wireless routers have a guest network). I don't want them being able to surf the Internet with my IP address (yes, IP addresses are dynamic but, for the most part, mine may go weeks or months without changing). Perhaps those using the wifi of others can be assigned a separate set of IP addresses that are different from those that aren't.
Another issue maybe that when someone else uses your neighbors wireless and you're too far from your wireless that extra usage interferes with your ability to use your own wireless. So there is harm it could do but that's not to say it can't do any good either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 05 2014, @10:54PM
(same poster, sorry)
Also, that last criticism can be mitigated if the wireless router is programmed to not provide external guests with bandwidth when other routers are using that bandwidth (the other routers presumably being those using their own routers).
The ISP may also enable me to freely use some of the routers surrounding my house and to have priority over external guests (but not over the owners of those routers) who don't live in the neighborhood (they can provide me with some way of authenticating myself) so that when I am far away from my computer but within my house and a neighbor's router may provide me with better service my device would automatically switch to the neighbor's router.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RedGreen on Wednesday March 05 2014, @09:58PM
"Rates run from $2.95 per hour to $19.95 per week, according to Comcast. Xfinity subscribers can travel from hot spot to hot spot in this case, from home to home without needing to log on again through their mobile device. 'The Utopian ideal of a massive, free Wi-Fi network has been around since the early days of Wi-Fi, but there was never an economically viable path to deliver it,' says Craig Moffett. 'Comcast has a better shot at it than just about anybody else.'""
Somehow I am failing to see the free part in all this, looks an extra $80 a month made off of the existing customer base through their installed hardware...
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 1) by captain normal on Thursday March 06 2014, @02:21AM
Well there is the "2 free hours per month. Not much for a power user. Sure couldn't spend much time on SN or something like sailonline.org. But if you run a POP email client, you could send and receive a lot of messages in a couple of minutes.
But the $2.95 per hour or $19.95 per week! For that 3 bucks and a tip you could spend a morning or an afternoon at Starbucks or MickeyD's or most any coffee shop in the free world...plus get a cup of coffee. And why layout $19.95 a week for access. I have a 4G hotspot that I pay $35 for 30 days of pretty fast internet when I travel or am staying on the boat. That is access anywhere there is a cell tower which covers a lot more territory than Cable. Plus I only pay when I need it.
Comcast is not offering a good deal. Of course that seems to be their business plan from the get-go.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Thursday March 06 2014, @03:49AM
Comcast is not offering a good deal.
It's a great deal... for Comcast. They sold you the bandwidth; now they are selling it again, to someone else, and you are acting as a reseller, for free. Comcast needs no investment, outside of the already scheduled replacement of routers. It's free money! Imagine that you sold a bike to your friend, and then you charge a fee if someone wants to borrow that bike when your friend isn't using it!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 06 2014, @10:47AM
Imagine that you sold a bike to your friend, and then you charge a fee if someone wants to borrow that bike when your friend isn't using it!
You mean:
Imagine that you sold a bike to your friend, and then you charge a fee if someone wants to borrow that bike when your friend is STILL using it!
The wire leading from the customer's house to the box outside does not magically get bigger: your home's bandwidth will shrink if more people are using it, regardless of how they hopped on your network. It's still one pipe, even if evil Comcast is allowing strangers to use it now.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 05 2014, @09:58PM
I support the idea of sharing and I've done so for years. This, however, is nothing more than Comcast using privately purchased plans as a platform for advertising to my neighbors. Please explain why I should allow my connection, equipment and power to be used for this purpose.
Disclaimer: I don't subscribe to Comcast for anything (thank god) and I didn't read TFA...
Also, GO SOYLENT NEWS! :)
(Score: 2, Informative) by Sir Finkus on Wednesday March 05 2014, @10:05PM
If I've guessing correctly, they'll be using the modems people rent from them. If you provide your own equipment, you won't be a hotspot. With the default equipment you can't even turn off the wireless.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 06 2014, @11:39AM
If this is the case, then I can breathe a sigh of relief. I'm a loyal Comcast customer (not by choice; it's either them or the even-shittier Verizon), but I have my own equipment.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Taibhsear on Thursday March 06 2014, @05:08PM
This would explain why they've been trying so hard to get me to rent their new modems (that are 4 times larger in physical dimensions than before) instead of using the one I bought, which "isn't utilizing my full connection".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday March 05 2014, @10:07PM
don't use THEIR routers! uhm, DUH!
I have comcast and I certainly did NOT buy their modem/router. its interoperable and with docsis standards, there is zero reason to rent a router from 'bad guys' (ie, comcast).
my router is wire-in and wire-out, so even if they tried to turn my wifi on, nothing would happen ;)
this sounds like punishing stupid users for being stupid. I have a hard time feeling sorry for someone who rents a home router these days.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by gishzida on Wednesday March 05 2014, @10:38PM
It is also disingenuous for Comcast to say the "freeloading" won't impact bandwidth. Network connections on cable are aggregated into one amount of bandwidth... for an value of "n" users the available bandwidth to one user is 1/n... If the network originally had ten users a single user gets 1/10th of the bandwidth. When n=20 you get 1/20th... adding more users divides the available bandwidth into smaller and smaller chunks and everything slows to a crawl.
(Score: 2) by zim on Thursday March 06 2014, @04:26AM
Comcast changes their cable system to use a proprietary version of docsis that only works with comcast modems.
Bet.
It'll be after they get ahold of time warner. They can say since they are THE cable company. The one and only. It's only right they have THE cable modem.
And they'll get away with it too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 06 2014, @10:55AM
Agree 100% . Options for Americans to get online is getting harder and harder. :( We have only 2 options now where we live: we had 5 options 3 years ago. Soon we will have one option once Comcast gets approval by the government to become too big to fail. :( We will be forced to support evil businesses even more so than we are now (I do not see living with 0 access to one of the greatest inventions ever as a reasonable option). My personal modem will soon be outlawed on Comcast's network. :(
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 06 2014, @12:15PM
They won't be the only cableco even after the TWC acquisition: there's still Cox Cable.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 06 2014, @10:50AM
this sounds like punishing stupid users for being stupid. I have a hard time feeling sorry for someone who rents a home router these days.
My, things must be nice up in your ivory tower, looking down on all these stupid people. It is our job as technologists to help people, not belittle them. I guarantee you are "stupid" in many areas, and you will never become more educated in those areas if other experts took the same stance you do.
(Score: 1) by gottabeme on Thursday March 06 2014, @03:18PM
Why mod this funny? It's true.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by irick on Wednesday March 05 2014, @10:23PM
I think the logic here is that there is no way that the average comcast customer is using enough data to saturate their router's wifi, but I have to say that I'm pretty hugely opposed to doing this sort of thing without opt-in. I really don't trust comcast to implement vwlan in a way that won't eventually be compromised in a huge way so I take this program as a huge potential risk to the safty of those customer's network.
I can see the reasoning behind this choice. I agree that establishing wide wifi coverage is a useful service. However, I think that comcast should invest in doing so in a way that does not bring so much unknown traffic to their subscriber's home networking equipment.
(Score: 3, Informative) by jt on Thursday March 06 2014, @03:16AM
Over on Airstrip 1, our biggest telecomms provider (BT) runs a similar service with domestic users' routers. A quick wireless network scan shows my neighbours are offering this service, probably without knowing. The payback is meant to be that running this service from your home entitles you to use the BT wifi hotspots around town centres without paying by the hour, and I guess also other domestic users' routers if you happen to be out of town.
Don't like the idea at all myself. The last mile is the slowest and, even if I rarely saturate my connection, I don't want it slowing down when I am using it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Open4D on Thursday March 06 2014, @02:33PM
BT's service is called "Fon", and claims to be a global network now. If you look at their map http://maps.fon.com/ [fon.com] you may notice a significantly higher density of coverage in the UK - although I did find that 1 user in the USA (specifically Kansas) is already doing this.
Here's an article which points out that most UK users of Fon may not realize that their home Wi-Fi is being used in that way: http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240150917/BT-h elps-itself-to-Home-Hubs-for-public-Wi-Fi [computerweekly.com]
`
P.S. Yes, that's the same BT people may remember from its patent abuse (software patents) - 1 [wikipedia.org], 2 [theguardian.com]
(Score: 1) by irick on Friday March 07 2014, @01:28AM
It just seems like the big telco/cable guys seem to think that they are big enough to get away with it. I mean, if you look at it from a weird perspective, their size allows them to capitalize on their install base by making a secondary service piggyback on their primary. There is no way that a small ISP is going to be able to match their coverage and free wifi anywhere is a rather nice little perk.
I hope people get ruffled enough to really resist this, but I kinda doubt they will. Most people don't pay attention to these sort of developments. They usually get snuck into a ToS update that end users just click through.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thesis on Wednesday March 05 2014, @11:22PM
I have their service. I will not allow them to do this in my house, and you should not either. I will not pay to use their equipment with rental fees (I own my own modem and router), nor will I let them use my electric utilities in my home that I pay for, so they can offer wireless service to the masses for profit while continually raising my internet service rates in my area. They can bite me.
(Score: 1) by Main Gauche on Friday March 07 2014, @09:31PM
All those principles sound fine and dandy. But as soon as Comcast rolls out the "pay X per month if you let us do it, pay X+5 per month if you don't", I guarantee you will see hotspots popping up all over.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Khyber on Thursday March 06 2014, @03:04AM
Gonna love seeing the lawsuits roll out when people realize "Wait a second, they're using my resources and charging me for it?"
Destroying Semiconductors With Style Since 2008