<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
In general, I like Comcast service, when it's working, which is almost
all of the time. I get beautiful hidef tv (not much to watch, but
that's another matter), fairly high speed internet, and decent phone
service. I don't like it when I have to do any interacting with them
past the level 1 support staff. The same applies to any big company.
We customers pay them to maintain and operate a multi billion dollar
infrastructure and staff to get those services to us and maintain
them. I get that, and I get that it ain't cheap. Of course, there's
all the royalties to the tv media companies, etc. I certainly wouldn't
mind if they were cheaper, but I wouldn't want to sacrifice the quality
of service.<br>
<br>
On the topic of being cheeky bastards, over the years, Ive become a bit
cynical, after observing on the news hundreds and hundreds of cheeky
bastards, and sometimes really evil people. I've come to the
unfortunate conclusion that almost every company over 100 people is run
by cheeky bastards; and, at that level, almost none of them operate
based on any kind of moral compass, and almost none of them really care
about your personal health, privacy, rights, security, or well being.
Obviously, there are exceptions, and those are refreshing to find.<br>
<br>
The Lord cares about us. Most people's close family, friends, and
associates care, but for most people, those aren't the people with real
power. Beyond those spheres of influence, you have to look out for
your own health, privacy, rights, security, and well being. Else, no
one will. I think the EFF cares too. I sent them a copy of my
original message.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately, when it's profitable to be cheeky bastards, the cheeky
bastards usually get away with it.<br>
<br>
In terms of them profiting from your wifi, supposedly, if you're a
subscriber, you get access to all this free wifi when you're on the
road. I don't know where or how that works.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
Ron<br>
<br>
<br>
On 6/12/2013 8:55 AM, Edward Holcroft wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAN8XfE-bOmirEfvE3v7RJcrgBocGrr3JHKSxgEDbAsq6BXHznQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default">
<div class="gmail_default" style=""><snip></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="">Don't see how it would be against
the law. They're going to replace a<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">device they own connected to a service
they own with another device</div>
<div class="gmail_default">they own connected to a service they own?</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style=""><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style=""><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="">This may be true, but I certainly
felt my discomfort level rise when I saw this article. Not so much on
the threat level, but more on the "Comcast are cheeky bastards" level.
They may own the device and the service, but they do not own my house
nor my electrical supply. The way Comcast nickels and dimes one, I'd
want to return the favor and charge them an exorbitant rental for
housing and powering their public wifi device on private property. I
could throw in (without even asking them if they want it) an unexpected
$3.95 monthly fee for preventative dusting of the device "to ensure
maximum operating efficiency". Or how about a fee to ensure that their
public wifi device is not tampered with, since they are now effectively
regarding people's homes as public spaces, and you know, anything can
go wrong in a public space.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style=""><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="">Actually, now that I think about
it, to heck with them on this one. I'd share my wifi with the neighbors
for free, but as long as it's Comcast, or any private company behind
it, they can forget about profiting with my cooperation. I'm sure this
list can come up with multiple ways to make this atrocious idea fail.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style=""><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="">ed</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:45 PM, David
Tomaschik <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:david@systemoverlord.com" target="_blank">david@systemoverlord.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Ron Frazier (ALE)<br>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:atllinuxenthinfo@techstarship.com">atllinuxenthinfo@techstarship.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
> Hi guys,<br>
><br>
> I thought you'd like to know about this. I heard the host on the
Tech News<br>
> Today podcast ( <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://twit.tv/tnt" target="_blank">http://twit.tv/tnt</a> ) say
something similar to the following:<br>
> Comcast will be expanding its wifi network by putting wifi
gateways in<br>
> Xfinity users homes. ... Comcast users will get free access. ...
Guests get<br>
> two free accesses. ... If you don't want to participate, you have
to opt<br>
> out.<br>
><br>
</div>
<snip><br>
<div class="im">><br>
> Supposedly, they replace your cable modem with this new wifi
gateway device.<br>
> It broadcasts two wifi signals. You log into one of them and use
YOUR<br>
> service as normal. Guests login into the other, for free if they
are<br>
> Comcast Xfinity customers, and get two free accesses if they're
not Xfinity<br>
> customers. SUPPOSEDLY, the 2nd connection is independent of the
main one,<br>
> and it doesn't reduce your bandwidth. Yeah, I believe that. The
APPARENT<br>
> plan is to replace all the gateways and enable this internet
sharing without<br>
> the customer's knowledge. That's got to be against the law
somehow.<br>
<br>
</div>
Don't see how it would be against the law. They're going to replace a<br>
device they own connected to a service they own with another device<br>
they own connected to a service they own?<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> Now, I know some people willingly share their wifi. I'm not one
of them. I<br>
> have my wfi encrypted with long ugly passwords. There are 3 main
reasons.<br>
> 1) Any other user on my modem is a potential security risk.<br>
<br>
</div>
I don't know how they have implemented this, but it would be trivial<br>
to assign a 2nd public IP (or even NAT through a single<br>
neighborhood-wifi-network IP) for the 2nd hotspot and route all<br>
traffic over that. In that case, a user connected to that has the<br>
same amount of access as anyone else on the internet.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> 2) It does<br>
> reduce my bandwidth and performance.<br>
<br>
</div>
Citation needed. The biggest limitation to your bandwidth is the<br>
traffic shaping comcast performs at their head end unit. If the<br>
"public" hotspot is shaped separately, then I don't see how it would<br>
impact your bandwidth. *Maybe* you could make an argument regarding<br>
wifi interference, but a 2nd hotspot on your device won't be any<br>
different from a 2nd device somewhere nearby.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> 3) If someone else does something<br>
> illegal while connected to your wifi, the police can ( and HAVE )
showed up<br>
> at your door and arrest you. You then have to prove you didn't do
it and<br>
> it's a royal mess.<br>
<br>
</div>
Actually, no, the prosecution still has to prove you did it (at least,<br>
legally), but yes, I suppose it could cause some headaches, unless<br>
they can look at wifi hotspot vs private network. Not sure how that<br>
would work.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> Regardless, no ISP should be able to enable this type of access
without the<br>
> user's knowledge and consent.<br>
<br>
</div>
On this, I agree. This should be with the user's consent, but I don't<br>
see it as a big bad threat.<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
David Tomaschik<br>
OpenPGP: 0x5DEA789B<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://systemoverlord.com"
target="_blank">http://systemoverlord.com</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:david@systemoverlord.com">david@systemoverlord.com</a><br>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr">Edward Holcroft | Madsen Kneppers & Associates Inc.<br>
3020 Holcomb Bridge Rd. NW | Norcross, GA 30071<br>
O (770) 446-9606 | M (678) 587-8649<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<span style="font-family: arial;"><font size="2">MADSEN, KNEPPERS
& ASSOCIATES USA, MKA Canada Inc. WARNING/CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This message may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the
intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately then delete it
- you should not copy or use it for any purpose or disclose its content
to any other person. Internet communications are not secure. You should
scan this message and any attachments for viruses. Any unauthorized use
or interception of this e-mail is illegal.</font></span>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
(PS - If you email me and don't get a quick response, you might want to
call on the phone. I get about 300 emails per day from alternate energy
mailing lists and such. I don't always see new email messages very quickly.)
Ron Frazier
770-205-9422 (O) Leave a message.
linuxdude AT techstarship.com
Litecoin: LZzAJu9rZEWzALxDhAHnWLRvybVAVgwTh3
Bitcoin: 15s3aLVsxm8EuQvT8gUDw3RWqvuY9hPGUU
</pre>
</body>
</html>