<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Stupid and ignorant are not the same thing. </div><div><br><span style="font-size: 13pt;">Geoffrey Myers</span></div><div><br>On Apr 25, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Brian Mathis <<a href="mailto:brian.mathis+ale@betteradmin.com">brian.mathis+ale@betteradmin.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Lightner, Jeff <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:JLightner@dsservices.com" target="_blank">JLightner@dsservices.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">Saying things done by corporations are not stupid or unethical or illegal doesn’t match my experience at all.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u></span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br><br></div><div>I like how you linked those 3 concepts even though they are distinctly separate. Being stupid is ignorance, and being unethical is frowned upon. Neither of them are illegal.<br>
<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">Just because it would be “obvious” to people that think that things should be a certain way is no reason to believe that they are that way. Most corporations
are more interested in rolling out new things quickly than they are in insuring they don’t do them stupidly. Assuming that they might actually NOT gouge you by charging you for the bandwidth they are providing to others would be foolhardy. Whether they
would do that by design (which is feasible) or by lack of attention to detail (which is also feasible) would be anyone’s guess. I’ve had to call Comcast on more than one occasion after seeing the antics they’ve played with my bills.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></div></div></blockquote><div><br><br></div><div>I don't say it's obvious because I live in a world of unicorns and have no basis for such an opinion. It's obvious because if they didn't do those things, they'd be getting sued left and right and you'd already be hearing about huge class-action lawsuits against them, especially given the increased scrutiny Comcast is receiving lately. <br>
<br></div><div>Services like this take a long time to be developed in a company -- it's not some guy who just decided to stick extra wifi chips in cable modems. Anything this big would have to go through all sorts of internal hurdles, and given the size of my Comcast bill, I'm sure they have plenty of money for lawyers and engineers to make sure things are implemented correctly, both technically and to minimize liability. One thing you can say about Comcast is that, given the number of customers they support, the service generally performs well and is technically sound (video on demand notwithstanding).<br>
</div><div><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">If you don’t think corporations do things to maximize their profits I’ll point out the recent article mentioning how very large banks (Chase, Wells Fargo, and
Bank of America all mentioned) are posting transactions that overdraft your account from largest to smallest rather than chronologically to insure you end up paying more overdraft fees on smaller (yet chronologically earlier) checks. They were previously
caught doing exactly the same thing with debit card transactions but I think that got outlawed when they did some of the hasty banking reforms back in 2008/2009.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">Or look at the fact that GM is only now recalling parts that have been known to kill people over a long period of years.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u></span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br>Way to setup a huge straw man here. No one said that corporations don't try to maximize profit, or that they don't do illegal things (and neither of those things you mentioned are currently illegal, even if unethical). I'm saying that <b>*in this case*</b>, there's just no way to do it otherwise without a huge backlash. Also there's no profit motive for them to comingle network traffic on the same subnet as opposed to making it separate, unless you try to say that they want public users to run up your personal data cap so they can start to charge overage fees, in which case you're really descending into conspiracy theories.<br>
</div><div></div><div><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">Corporations are in business to make money and pretending they don’t do shady if not outright illegal actions to that end is silly given all evidence to the
contrary.</span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br><br></div><div>There's simply no, or very little, profit to be had in this scenario (comingling network traffic vs. keeping it separate), and when compared to the risk it wouldn't be worth it.<br>
</div><div><br><br>❧ Brian Mathis<br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> <a href="mailto:ale-bounces@ale.org" target="_blank">ale-bounces@ale.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:ale-bounces@ale.org" target="_blank">ale-bounces@ale.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Brian Mathis<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, April 25, 2014 11:23 AM</span></p><div class=""><br>
<b>To:</b> Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [ale] OT: Comcast Wi-Fi<u></u><u></u></div><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Michael H. Warfield <<a href="mailto:mhw@wittsend.com" target="_blank">mhw@wittsend.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, 2014-04-24 at 14:40 -0400, Boris Borisov wrote:<br>
> Yesterday I've noticed Comcast silently enabled additional wireless<br>
> network on my cable router named "xfinitywifi". I didn't get the<br>
> reason behind the idea but is open with web based login. Someone else<br>
> with same issue.<br>
<br>
Congratulations. You just became the newest member of the Comcast<br>
wireless internet cafe provider club. Someone with a Comcast login can<br>
now log in through the Comcast app gateway and take advantage of their<br>
expanded WiFi footprint through your free bandwidth that they're<br>
offering up!<br>
<br>
This has been mentioned in a number of forums over the last several<br>
months. I don't recall if you can or how you opt-out of them offering<br>
your bandwidth to all comers. Since I don't have Comcast, I can not<br>
test and say for sure from first hand experience.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Mike<u></u><u></u></p>
</div></div></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please stop with the conspiracy theories. Comcast may be evil, but they are not stupid, and anything they do is most certainly going to be legal.<br>
<br>
Adding this service from a customer location is:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">1) Most likely in your customer agreement somewhere<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
2) OBVIOUSLY not going to count against bandwidth caps on your own account<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
3) OBVIOUSLY isolated to a different subnet/channel, just like any neighbor of yours could not see your traffic<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
4) Uses a totally separate wifi subsystem, which is why they need to "upgrade" your equipment for this service to work. The new cable modem needs to have a totally separate AP, or at least a chip that can support multiple wireless APs.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
5) Your own service speed will not be affected any differently than if your neighbor was using their own bandwidth.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">No, I don't have a source for any of this, but these are clearly the first questions anyone would ask inside a company when they decide to roll out a service like this. Common sense isn't all that common, but this stuff is just bloody
obvious.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">If they didn't do any of these, they could easily be sued by customers for either exposing their networks to security risks, and/or using up the data caps they paid for. The only possible complaint you could make is more power usage, but
at only a few hundred milliwatts for the additional wifi network, that's barely costing you a penny per year in power usage, if that.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br clear="all">
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"MS Mincho"">❧</span> Brian Mathis<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><br></p></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Ale mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Ale@ale.org">Ale@ale.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</a></span><br><span>See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at</span><br><span><a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>