[176854] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Dec 12 15:56:32 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <op.xqqewkictfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 12:51:43 -0800
To: Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Dec 11, 2014, at 17:39 , Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 19:33:03 -0500, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> =
wrote:
>=20
>> In short, the only thing really truly wrong with this scenario is =
that Comcast is using equipment that the subscriber should have =
exclusive control over (they are renting it, so while Comcast retains =
ownership, they have relinquished most rights of control to the =
"tenant") how the device is used.
>=20
> Except every ISP (pretty much universally) thinks the modem/router is =
theirs and they can, therefore, do whatever they flippin' please with =
it. In some markets (not necessarily comcast), they lock down the =
router to the point the customer can't even access it; every single =
change has to go through them.
The fact that a mythology is widely believed does not make it true.
>=20
> (AT&T Uverse... you can change anything you want, with sufficient =
access (i.e. telnet), but the mothership can (and will) undo your =
changes pretty much instantly -- "apply" triggers a CWMP event.)
I have no doubt that AT&T is equally slimey to Comcast, especially in =
this regard.
I stand by my statement that if you are paying monthly for rental of the =
modem, then you have the right to exclusive use of the modem, just as =
when you rent an apartment, the landlord cannot use it for storage or =
put other people in there at his whim.
Owen
