dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer

Search Topic:
uniqs
77
share rss forum feed


newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1

Typical Comcast

Turning it on by default in order to circumvent subscriber's wishes is only benefiting Comcast, NOT the subscriber.

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
This was already told to the customers up front and was in the news for days. This report is nothing new and a trojan horse? LMAO!


newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1
Reviews:
·DIRECTV
·Comcast

1 recommendation

said by TBBroadband:

This was already told to the customers up front and was in the news for days. This report is nothing new and a trojan horse? LMAO!

Ok ... just for shits & giggles I called my brother, both my daughters and a friend up on the phone, all Comcast subscribers, and asked if they knew anything about this.

Neither of them knew anything about it. I suspect that's true of a majority of Comcast subscribers.

Granted, calling it a Trojan horse is a little far-fetched, but so is the expectation that Comcast has the users will read and understand an agreement that says their home WiFi network will be shared with the public. It's unexpected, and fails the test of what a customer expects of the service he signs up for.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
On the plus side, I guess it negates any responsibility for Copyright infringement, doesn't it? Nope wasn't me.... call Comcast. Cya!
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


Napsterbater
Meh
Premium,MVM
join:2002-12-28
Milledgeville, GA
Nope, they are on a different Public IP and Network.

stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13

5 recommendations

reply to newview
I'm going to sound like a troll, but if Comcast segregates the signal, doesn't count it towards me, and gives me reciprocal roaming rates, shouldn't I be applauding them rather than criticizing them.

When I visit Paris, I borrow a friend's Free password and do the same over there. It is one of the benefits of being a Free subscriber. I'm going to dissent and say "way to go Comcast."


newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1
Reviews:
·DIRECTV
·Comcast
Click for full size
omer_block
said by stufried:

I'm going to sound like a troll, but if Comcast segregates the signal, doesn't count it towards me, and gives me reciprocal roaming rates, shouldn't I be applauding them rather than criticizing them.

When I visit Paris, I borrow a friend's Free password and do the same over there. It is one of the benefits of being a Free subscriber. I'm going to dissent and say "way to go Comcast."

Do you REALLY want Comcast selling their service using YOUR service that you pay for, YOUR electricity that you pay for, the modem that YOU pay a monthly fee for? All the while hiding what they've done in an agreement that you might be unaware that you agreed to because it was buried in pages upon pages of legalese?
»www.comcast.com/WiFi/default.htm ··· er_block

I don't.

And I think it's pretty damn shady of Comcast to not be wholly up front and forthcoming in no uncertain terns what they are doing with EVERY one of these modems that are capable of providing public WiFi to each and every subscriber who has one.

Thanks to jmn1207 See Profile for pointing this out later in this thread.


PlusOne

@comcast.net
reply to stufried
said by stufried:

I'm going to sound like a troll, but if Comcast segregates the signal, doesn't count it towards me, and gives me reciprocal roaming rates, shouldn't I be applauding them rather than criticizing them.

When I visit Paris, I borrow a friend's Free password and do the same over there. It is one of the benefits of being a Free subscriber. I'm going to dissent and say "way to go Comcast."

I agree. People like to dump on big companies because it is fashionable. This Comcast offering is a good thing.

stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13
reply to newview
As I said, if the system works like Free, it isn't your internet. Here is an outline of how Free's system works:

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_(ISP)

It is a great system. You can get a free internet connection almost anywhere in the country. It doesn't come out of the homeowner's pool of data or even speed cap. It is completely partitioned.


newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1
Reviews:
·DIRECTV
·Comcast
said by stufried:

As I said, if the system works like Free, it isn't your internet. Here is an outline of how Free's system works:

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_(ISP)

It is a great system. You can get a free internet connection almost anywhere in the country. It doesn't come out of the homeowner's pool of data or even speed cap. It is completely partitioned.

So I guess it'd be OK for me to peek through your window and watch your TV, huh? It doesn't cost you anything, your TV is on anyway.

And I guess it'd also be OK for to sell space on my peek spot to other passersby too, huh? After all, it's my peek box.


Napsterbater
Meh
Premium,MVM
join:2002-12-28
Milledgeville, GA
Reviews:
·Xcelerate Broadb..
·VOIPO
·Windstream
said by newview:

So I guess it'd be OK for me to peek through your window and watch your TV, huh? It doesn't cost you anything, your TV is on anyway.

And I guess it'd also be OK for to sell space on my peek spot to other passersby too, huh? After all, it's my peek box.

How in the hell is that in any way the same?

They are not on that same network as your computer so they cant see or access any of your stuff, they use a different WAN IP so anything illegal is not on you, and having the 2nd SSID uses no more power then the modem is already using.
--
ASUS M4A79T Deluxe | AMD Phenom II x3 720 BE AM3 w/4 Cores @ 3.41Ghz(OC) | 8GB DDR3 Memory @ 1600mhz | Sapphire ATI HD4870 1GB 800mhz/1000mhz(OC) | 2x500GB HDD's Raid 0 | Windows 7 Ultimate x64| Xcelerate Broadband FTTH GPON 30Mbps/30Mbps


newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1
It's not meant to be exactly the same.
It's more a loose analogy of what it feels like to be used by someone else, in this way Comcast ... to line their pockets at your expense, with absolutely NO compensation or permission.

stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13
reply to newview
I don't think your analogy is correct. Peaking through your window is invading your privacy, watching your TV involves entering your home. This is analagous to walking across the public easement with the easement holders consent.


newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1
I guess those packets aren't entering my home?
Bottom line ... I do not trust Comcast.
Period.

stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13
reply to newview
I don't think your analogy is correct. Peaking through your window is invading your privacy, watching your TV involves entering your home. This is analogous to walking across the public easement with the easement holders consent.

Ultimately, however, brick and mortar analogies are often flawed. They are emotionally compelling, but often flawed. More importantly, it creates a contest for who can come up with the best analogy which might be an interesting side event, but ultimately rarely convinces anyone.

I'm currently litigating the issue of whether courts should extend special protection to computers based on the special nature of them. US courts are split. Some say that a computer is more private than a person's bedroom. For example, the Ninth Circuit said social guests routinely enter people's bedrooms to toss their coats on beds. At parties this is expected, but most hosts would be floored if the same guest was rifling through the computer. Other courts say that it is just a container and subject to the same search standards as a shopping bag.

The other issue is that Comcast probably did disclose the sharing arrangement, but it is probably buried in the fine print. This often raises the question of whether the fact that most people (including me more than I'd like to admit) don't thoroughly scrutinize these documents..


newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1
Reviews:
·DIRECTV
·Comcast

1 recommendation

said by stufried:

The other issue is that Comcast probably did disclose the sharing arrangement, but it is probably buried in the fine print. This often raises the question of whether the fact that most people (including me more than I'd like to admit) don't thoroughly scrutinize these documents..

Knowing that people do not read these legalese agreements, and then continuing to use those same types of agreements as well as purposefully burying an unexpected and heretofore unused or new "feature" in order to obscure the fact of it's inclusion is near to fraud.

Comcast's own statements make it obvious that the company isn't going out of its way to help customers turn the hotspot off.

quote:
Q. How do I disable/enable the XFINITY WiFi Home Hotspot feature?
A. We encourage all subscribers to keep this feature enabled as it allows more people to enjoy the benefits of XFINITY WiFi around the neighborhood. You will always have the ability to disable the XFINITY WiFi feature on your Wireless Gateway by calling 1-800-XFINITY.
»www.comcast.com/WiFi/faqs.htm

So ... a no-answer answer. Call Comcast ... wait on hold for one of their knowledgeable [/sarcasm] CSRs who will know exactly what you are talking about [/sarcasm] and they will turn it off ... or not.

stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13
How is this different from the crap in our cell phone agreements. We have no ability to negotiate a contrary contracts, people don't know it is there, but courts routinely say that this doesn't matter?


newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1
We are not talking about cell phones right now ... we're talking about Comcast. Comcast, who routinely lies about damn near everything ... until they are caught.

stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13
reply to newview
I can't speak to corporate trust factor. Given the evidence about the massive hacking of Comcast emails today I think I'm going to sit on the sidelines and just observe.

Gunni

join:2005-12-06
Bethesda, MD
reply to stufried
What happens if some felon logs onto your shared WiFi point and downloads child pornography or commits some oner felonious act and the FBI or the local police come knocking at your door?

Won't sound like such a good idea then, will it?

stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13
First of all, I stated that I presumed everything was separated and that they'd have records. Under these circumstances there wouldn't be probable cause. See my prior discussions about Franks v Delaware and Franks omissions. You can also consider the fact that courts have recently held that an IP address isn't probable cause.

Gunni

join:2005-12-06
Bethesda, MD
Please believe me when I say that I am not trying to start an argument when I sat that the legal niceties to which you refer are right, in theory. But what do you tell your neighbors when the police cars with the flashing lights are parked out front or the guys in FBI wind beakers are walking out of your house with your computer(s) and devices in hand?

stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13
In all of the search warrants I've read in child porn cases (probably upwards of 100), the police have a nominal expert swearing to the technical facts in support of the affidavit. If a so-called expert is that incompetent that he/she is unaware of a program of this nature by a carrier as large as Comcast, I think the fault is not Comcast's. The same blundering expert would probably be unaware about how dynamic IP addresses work. Should we ban those?

How do we deal with the fact that some police don't have the technical expertise to do their job? I don't think the answer is by shuttering valuable programs because some cop posing as an "expert" may get his/her technology wrong. I think the answer is by courts applying the same standards for expert testimony in criminal cases that they do in civil cases, and recognizing a beat cop plus a one week seminar doesn't create an "expert."

I don't question that there may be some blundering cop whose affidavit for a search warrant might slip by a lazy judge, but this shouldn't create the standard of care and we shouldn't ban valuable programs because of this. I get the hassles that the incompetent police department might create, but that fault doesn't lie with Comcast. One thing I wish the law did was force the police to pay damages when they get it wrong. Very few states have that.

I also pray that this is a very small minority.


simlesa
Premium
join:2006-04-14
Astoria, NY
reply to stufried
I agree. I can't see what the problem is with this.