[ale] heads up - warning - you could be sharing comcast wifi without knowing it
Ron Frazier (ALE)
atllinuxenthinfo at techstarship.com
Wed Jun 12 09:56:23 EDT 2013
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.
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.
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.
Unfortunately, when it's profitable to be cheeky bastards, the cheeky
bastards usually get away with it.
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.
Sincerely,
Ron
On 6/12/2013 8:55 AM, Edward Holcroft wrote:
> <snip>
> Don't see how it would be against the law. They're going to replace a
> device they own connected to a service they own with another device
> they own connected to a service they own?
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> ed
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:45 PM, David Tomaschik
> <david at systemoverlord.com <mailto:david at systemoverlord.com>> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Ron Frazier (ALE)
> <atllinuxenthinfo at techstarship.com
> <mailto:atllinuxenthinfo at techstarship.com>> wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I thought you'd like to know about this. I heard the host on
> the Tech News
> > Today podcast ( http://twit.tv/tnt ) say something similar to
> the following:
> > Comcast will be expanding its wifi network by putting wifi
> gateways in
> > Xfinity users homes. ... Comcast users will get free access. ...
> Guests get
> > two free accesses. ... If you don't want to participate, you
> have to opt
> > out.
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > Supposedly, they replace your cable modem with this new wifi
> gateway device.
> > It broadcasts two wifi signals. You log into one of them and
> use YOUR
> > service as normal. Guests login into the other, for free if
> they are
> > Comcast Xfinity customers, and get two free accesses if they're
> not Xfinity
> > customers. SUPPOSEDLY, the 2nd connection is independent of the
> main one,
> > and it doesn't reduce your bandwidth. Yeah, I believe that.
> The APPARENT
> > plan is to replace all the gateways and enable this internet
> sharing without
> > the customer's knowledge. That's got to be against the law somehow.
>
> Don't see how it would be against the law. They're going to replace a
> device they own connected to a service they own with another device
> they own connected to a service they own?
>
> > Now, I know some people willingly share their wifi. I'm not one
> of them. I
> > have my wfi encrypted with long ugly passwords. There are 3
> main reasons.
> > 1) Any other user on my modem is a potential security risk.
>
> I don't know how they have implemented this, but it would be trivial
> to assign a 2nd public IP (or even NAT through a single
> neighborhood-wifi-network IP) for the 2nd hotspot and route all
> traffic over that. In that case, a user connected to that has the
> same amount of access as anyone else on the internet.
>
> > 2) It does
> > reduce my bandwidth and performance.
>
> Citation needed. The biggest limitation to your bandwidth is the
> traffic shaping comcast performs at their head end unit. If the
> "public" hotspot is shaped separately, then I don't see how it would
> impact your bandwidth. *Maybe* you could make an argument regarding
> wifi interference, but a 2nd hotspot on your device won't be any
> different from a 2nd device somewhere nearby.
>
> > 3) If someone else does something
> > illegal while connected to your wifi, the police can ( and HAVE
> ) showed up
> > at your door and arrest you. You then have to prove you didn't
> do it and
> > it's a royal mess.
>
> Actually, no, the prosecution still has to prove you did it (at least,
> legally), but yes, I suppose it could cause some headaches, unless
> they can look at wifi hotspot vs private network. Not sure how that
> would work.
>
> > Regardless, no ISP should be able to enable this type of access
> without the
> > user's knowledge and consent.
>
> On this, I agree. This should be with the user's consent, but I don't
> see it as a big bad threat.
>
>
> --
> David Tomaschik
> OpenPGP: 0x5DEA789B
> http://systemoverlord.com
> david at systemoverlord.com <mailto:david at systemoverlord.com>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Edward Holcroft | Madsen Kneppers & Associates Inc.
> 3020 Holcomb Bridge Rd. NW | Norcross, GA 30071
> O (770) 446-9606 | M (678) 587-8649
>
> 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.
>
--
(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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20130612/1b906832/attachment.html>
More information about the Ale
mailing list