Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

This thread is out of control... I will attempt to summarize the salient points in hopes we can stop arguing about 
inaccurate minutiae.

I don't like the way Comcast went about doing what they are doing, but I do like the general idea...

Reasonably ubiquitous free WiFi for your subscribers when they are away from their home location is not a bad idea.

The way Comcast has gone about it is a bit underhanded and sneaky. The flaws in their plan are not technical, they are 
ethical and communication-oriented in nature.

To wit:
        There's nothing wrong with Comcast adding a separate SSID with dedicated upstream bandwidth on a WAP I rent 
from them[1].
        There's no theft of power, as the amount of additional power used is imperceptible, if any.
        There's no theft of space, climate control, or other overhead as this is performed by existing CPE.
        There's probably no legal liability being transferred by this to the subscriber.

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.

As I see it, there are a couple of ways Comcast could have made this an entirely voluntary (opt-in) program and 
communicated it to their customers positively and achieved a high compliance rate. Unfortunately, in an action worthy 
of their title as "America's worst company", instead of positively communicating with their customers and seeking 
cooperation and permission to build out something cool for everyone, they instead simply inflicted this service on 
chosen subscribers without notice, warning, or permission.

In short, Comcast's biggest real failure here is the failure to ask permission from the subscriber before doing this on 
equipment the subscriber should control.

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 not), but it certainly won't improve their standing in the court of public opinion. 
OTOH, Comcast seems to consider the court of public opinion mostly irrelevant or they would be trying to find ways not 
to retain their title as "America's worst company".

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...


Scenario A: Positive outcome

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?"

ME      "Well, since I currently own my modem, and it's already DOCSIS 3, I don't want to give up any of my existing 
functionality
        and I have no desire to start paying rental fees. If you can provide the 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."


Scenario B: Class Action?

CC      ""

ME      -- Discovers Xfinity WiFi SSID and wonders "WTF is this?"
        -- Tracks down source of SSID and discovers CC Modem in my garage is doing this.
        -- Calls Comcast "WTF?"

CC      "blah blah blah, updated ToS, you agreed, blah blah"

ME      Starts calling lawyers

========

Unfortunately, it seems to me that Comcast (and apparently other Cable WiFi assn. members) have chosen Scenario B. Very 
unfortunate, considering how much easier and more productive scenario A could be.

Owen