[176836] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Kaufman)
Thu Dec 11 20:15:35 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <1DB4C29D-6C9A-41F6-951C-5E5BA0D36CBC@delong.com>
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:10:23 -0800
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Lots of other good reasons to oppose this (Comcast customers parking in your=
driveway to get the service, etc.)
What would you tell AT&T if they installed a coin phone at every residential=
outside demarc?
Matthew Kaufman
(Sent from my iPhone)
> On Dec 11, 2014, at 4:33 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>=20
> This thread is out of control... I will attempt to summarize the salient p=
oints in hopes we can stop arguing about inaccurate minutiae.
>=20
> I don't like the way Comcast went about doing what they are doing, but I d=
o like the general idea...
>=20
> Reasonably ubiquitous free WiFi for your subscribers when they are away fr=
om their home location is not a bad idea.
>=20
> The way Comcast has gone about it is a bit underhanded and sneaky. The fla=
ws in their plan are not technical, they are ethical and communication-orien=
ted in nature.
>=20
> To wit:
> There's nothing wrong with Comcast adding a separate SSID with dedicate=
d upstream bandwidth on a WAP I rent from them[1].
> There's no theft of power, as the amount of additional power used is im=
perceptible, if any.
> There's no theft of space, climate control, or other overhead as this i=
s performed by existing CPE.
> There's probably no legal liability being transferred by this to the su=
bscriber.
>=20
> In short, the only thing really truly wrong with this scenario is that Com=
cast is using equipment that the subscriber should have exclusive control ov=
er (they are renting it, so while Comcast retains ownership, they have relin=
quished most rights of control to the "tenant") how the device is used.
>=20
> As I see it, there are a couple of ways Comcast could have made this an en=
tirely voluntary (opt-in) program and communicated it to their customers pos=
itively and achieved a high compliance rate. Unfortunately, in an action wor=
thy of their title as "America's worst company", instead of positively commu=
nicating with their customers and seeking cooperation and permission to buil=
d out something cool for everyone, they instead simply inflicted this servic=
e on chosen subscribers without notice, warning, or permission.
>=20
> In short, Comcast's biggest real failure here is the failure to ask permis=
sion from the subscriber before doing this on equipment the subscriber shoul=
d control.
>=20
> Arguing that some obscure phrase in updated ToS documents that nobody ever=
reads permits this may keep Comcast from losing a law suit (though I hope n=
ot), but it certainly won't improve their standing in the court of public op=
inion. OTOH, Comcast seems to consider the court of public opinion mostly ir=
relevant or they would be trying to find ways not to retain their title as "=
America's worst company".
>=20
> I will say that my reaction to this, if Comcast had done it to me would be=
quite different depending on how it was executed...
>=20
>=20
> Scenario A: Positive outcome
>=20
> CC "Mr. DeLong, we would like to replace your existing cablemodem with a=
DOCSIS 3.0 unit and give you faster service
> for free. However, the catch is that we want to put up an additional 2.=
4Ghz WiFi SSID on the WAP built into the modem
> that will use separate cable channels (i.e. won't affect your bandwidth=
) that our other subscribers can use once they
> authenticate when they are in range. Would you mind if we did that?"
>=20
> ME "Well, since I currently own my modem, and it's already DOCSIS 3, I d=
on't want to give up any of my existing functionality
> and I have no desire to start paying rental fees. If you can provide th=
e new one without monthly fees and it will do everything
> my current one does (e.g. operating in transparent bridge mode), then I=
don't see any reason why not."
>=20
>=20
> Scenario B: Class Action?
>=20
> CC ""
>=20
> ME -- Discovers Xfinity WiFi SSID and wonders "WTF is this?"
> -- Tracks down source of SSID and discovers CC Modem in my garage is do=
ing this.
> -- Calls Comcast "WTF?"
>=20
> CC "blah blah blah, updated ToS, you agreed, blah blah"
>=20
> ME Starts calling lawyers
>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>=20
> Unfortunately, it seems to me that Comcast (and apparently other Cable WiFi=
assn. members) have chosen Scenario B. Very unfortunate, considering how mu=
ch easier and more productive scenario A could be.
>=20
> Owen
>=20