Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Hidden Cost of Your New Xfinity Router

timothy posted about 2 months ago | from the opt-out-options-obviate-opposition dept.

Wireless Networking 224

An anonymous reader writes "The battle over Comcast's public WiFi network that is hosted on your cable modem continues. Comcast responded to Speedify's earlier power measurements by rushing them a new Cisco cable modem. The new modem proved to be more power hungry than the last, and also introduced some tricky IPv6 problems that caused major headaches for the team."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Crapfinity (1)

Bodhammer (559311) | about 2 months ago | (#47626405)

I dropped Comcrap for OTA and DSL and I save $150/mo.

Re:Crapfinity (0)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 2 months ago | (#47626485)

I dropped Comcrap for OTA and DSL and I save $150/mo.

Sure, Comcast sucks... But what kind of Comcast plan were you on that you could have switched to DSL (or whatever) and reduce your bill by $150 and still have "high speed" Intertubes? I mean, what are you paying now? What was your Comcast bill? $250? Really?

Re:Crapfinity (4, Insightful)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 2 months ago | (#47626521)

He said he switched to OTA, so he likely dropped a pricy cable TV plan at the same time he dropped them as his ISP, hence the savings. After the special deals as a new customer expire (i.e. 12 months into the 24-month contract), several of Comcast's TV plans exceed $150, so even if he was paying the same for Internet with DSL, he could be saving $150 simply by having dropped cable TV for OTA.

Re:Crapfinity (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 2 months ago | (#47626529)

It sounds like he had a $150 Comcast Internet + cable TV package and switched to a $30 DSL package + rabbit ears. A good move, IMO.

Re:Crapfinity (2)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 months ago | (#47626553)

I dropped Comcrap for OTA and DSL and I save $150/mo.

Sure, Comcast sucks... But what kind of Comcast plan were you on that you could have switched to DSL (or whatever) and reduce your bill by $150 and still have "high speed" Intertubes? I mean, what are you paying now? What was your Comcast bill? $250? Really?

I'm not him, and this was years ago, but when I moved from Comcast to Speakeasy DSL, (lucked out and got 3Mbps over my phone lines -- the best Verizon could do was something like 750K) I also made the decision that I also didn't need the ubiquitous cable TV and unlimited long distance calling that was bundled in. The savings really was about $150/mo. But arguably, that's cheating, because fewer services. But not really cheating, because they were services I wasn't using.

Currently have fiber to the house and no cable TV at all, and pay a fraction (a sizable fraction, but a fraction nonetheless) of the bundles Comcast keeps trying to sell me.

Re:Crapfinity (1)

bondsbw (888959) | about 2 months ago | (#47627841)

But not really cheating, because they were services I wasn't using.

That's still cheating. It wouldn't have been cheating if you removed the cable TV and unlimited long distance you weren't using before making the comparison.

Re:Crapfinity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47626677)

I know someone who is paying about $190/month for Comcast, but I'm paying about $70/month for DSL. That's not a $150 difference, but it's in the ballpark. I think an "introductory offer" for the same DSL is $10/month less for year, so at this point we're realistically within $20 of his scenario. Throw another "premium channel" into the Comcast figure (to be fair I'm pretty sure the $190 figure already includes some of that, so maybe we're stretching things a little) and you're there.

This is probably in a different city than the OP, so .. yeah, it's believable. Near the edge, but definitely within range.

Comcast is for people who have more money than they know what to do with, and who also don't care how well TV works, and don't mind watching lots of ads. I think someone invented Comcast for the purpose of being The exception to the "you get what you pay for" rule. It's basically one of the worst things you can spend money on for .. "fun?". Even a heroin habit is arguably more prudent.

Re:Crapfinity (1)

PNutts (199112) | about 2 months ago | (#47626775)

Comcast isn't forcing anyone to buy anything so these comparisons are apples (upper tier of TV / Internet / phone) and oranges (Internet). With Comcast I have fast Internet for around $50 plus their $15 lowest tier cable TV. Their modem was $7 / mo. so I bought my own. I'd cancel the cable TV except by doing that my Internet would be priced $15 more a month. Bottom line I'm paying about $70 for Internet plus some TV.

Re:Crapfinity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47627573)

Hence, Comcast is essentially forcing you to buy Cable TV.

Re:Crapfinity (1)

bondsbw (888959) | about 2 months ago | (#47627847)

For years, my Comcast Internet service has been reduced by $20/month by purchasing $12/month basic cable. I've never even plugged the cable to a TV.

Re:Crapfinity (1)

Bodhammer (559311) | about 2 months ago | (#47626777)

I was paying $180/month for Basic plus with 4 digital converters and 1 set top box + a cable card for the Tivo. No premium channels. We added 40Mps/5Mbps DSL to our phone from CenturyLink for $30/month.

Re:Crapfinity (3, Funny)

the_skywise (189793) | about 2 months ago | (#47626689)

Ptphpht.. I switched to Geico for DSL and save $300 for half the time...

Re:Crapfinity (1)

antdude (79039) | about 2 months ago | (#47626705)

For me, I can't get DSL and fiber. I can get satellite Internet, dial-up, etc. but why? Cable wins. TV is Internet and OTA though!

Re:Crapfinity (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 2 months ago | (#47626963)

If you're clever with squid, local DNS, and openvpn it's a viable alternative. I live on a 3Mbps DSL line and while it's not the fastest, it's totally usable for Netflix, VOIP, gaming, etc.

Re:Crapfinity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47627115)

Good thing there's no areas where Comcast has a monopoly on high speed internet...

Re:Crapfinity (1)

crashumbc (1221174) | about 2 months ago | (#47627247)

Like where I am :(

anything over 1.5 mb is Comcastshit, that's it....

Re:Crapfinity (1)

JDAustin (468180) | about 2 months ago | (#47627441)

It all depends on where you live.

Even though I live in the East SF Bay (not inland either), OTA, DSL, and non-landline phone are not much of option for me. OTA I get 2 channels - QVC and HSN, so my choices are Comcast or DirectTV/Dish. Price wise, there both basically the same. I had DSL for years, but I would barely get 3megs. For a family of four w/ 2 teenagers, that just cant keep up. And as to using a cell phone instead of landline? Those hills that screww w/ OTA tv also screw with cell signal. I cannot get calls where I live, not matter the carrier (one reason I stick with sprint is the Airrave).

So I have a comcast bundle for 2 years. If they jack the prices, then i'll drop cable in a heartbeat for DirectTv again...

Re:Crapfinity (1)

PRMan (959735) | about 2 months ago | (#47627495)

How? I mean, I'm surprised you're not still on the phone.

Google + IPv6 = Bad (2)

Manuka (4415) | about 2 months ago | (#47626413)

I too have had really bad results with IPv6 (TunnelBroker) when connecting to anything Google. You would think that Google of all companies would have their IPv6 poop in a group.

Re:Google + IPv6 = Bad (1)

TyFoN (12980) | about 2 months ago | (#47626461)

That is odd. I have 6rd via my fiber connection and youtube etc is so much better when connecting with ipv6.
I suspect this is because no one are using those network paths yet, but maybe it's just the local content cache that sucks or something and ipv6 goes straight to google.

Re:Google + IPv6 = Bad (1)

hjf (703092) | about 2 months ago | (#47626493)

That's outrageous. You should ask TunnelBroker for a full refund.

Re:Google + IPv6 = Bad (1)

Streetlight (1102081) | about 2 months ago | (#47626549)

I have an older Netgear router (WNDR3700 v1) with the latest software update connected to a Zoom 5341h modem and have absolutely no problem with IPv6 using Google apps, Gmail, Google News, and Google search. I'm on Comcast cable high speed internet. There is a thread on DSL Reports about IPv6 problems w/ Netgear routers but I've not had problems.

Re:Google + IPv6 = Bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47626937)

What problems have you been having?

If they're just geolocation issues, I ran into those when using a particular tunnel endpoint in HE.net's tunnelbroker service, and have not had these issues with the native IPv6 provided by my ISP.

Compared to what?!? (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 2 months ago | (#47626415)

So, uh, where's the other 10 popular routers they tested?

Re:Compared to what?!? (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 2 months ago | (#47626581)

Exactly. If Comcast is sending people a new cable modem with this extra functionality built in, then the question is not how much power it uses, but how much more than your old gear it uses.

This story can only be taken literally if Comcast is sending a new, separate device used in addition to whatever else you used previously.

Re:Compared to what?!? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 months ago | (#47627197)

Yup, Comcast is making subscribers fund the public wifi via their electric bills.

Aint it grand?

Re:Compared to what?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47627215)

Equipment A (provided by Comcast) was swapped out for Equipment D (provided by Comcast) and power usage increased. What is wrong in the comparison?

In their original test, is was Equipment A with public hotspot turned off vs Equipment A with public hotspot turned on. Again, where's the issue?

These tests were how much power usage providing the Xfinity public hotspot added. You don't get that from other equipment. And All non-Comcast equipment wasn't changed and was outside the power usage metering.

Re:Compared to what?!? (3, Informative)

un1nsp1red (2503532) | about 2 months ago | (#47626605)

It's not a router comparison. You don't need an Xfinity public-facing WiFi router, so this is energy usage in addition to what you would otherwise need for your own purposes.

Re: Compared to what?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47626699)

I'm already running wired and wireless 24/7.

So pennies a day more ? Big wup.

Re: Compared to what?!? (1)

un1nsp1red (2503532) | about 2 months ago | (#47626731)

And that's what they're betting on. I can pay a few pennies more a day, but why would I? Fuck Comcast. How about they give me one dollar a day for every one of their subscribers? Because it's not my money and I'm not entitled to it? Precisely.

Re: Compared to what?!? (1)

Teun (17872) | about 2 months ago | (#47627001)

You seem to miss the point, you give access to others and when you travel they'll give access to you.

Those that don't give access won't get it themself, simple.

Re: Compared to what?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47626757)

A penny here, a penny there, next think you know it adds up to a DOLLAR!

Re: Compared to what?!? (2)

PNutts (199112) | about 2 months ago | (#47626849)

That's a valid opinion, but it's a line of thinking that can get people in over their head. The article mentioned $30 a year. I dumped Comcast's $7 / mo. modem for my own. $7 a month is still kind of a big wup, but that's $84 year. Both together are $114 a year. Still not a bank-breaker for me but I'd rather spend my money stupidly somewhere else then hand it to Comcast and get no benefits in return. My work Aruba router is on a timer. Mostly to keep yet another WiFi network out of my house, but a little cost savings here and there adds up.

Re:Compared to what?!? (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 2 months ago | (#47626973)

You're 100% correct, and they offer no comparison to that...unless of course you believe people should be plugged directly into their cable modem.

Just refuse the new gear (3, Insightful)

anthony_greer (2623521) | about 2 months ago | (#47626435)

I advise all my contacts when they get new comcrap or slime warner installs to go to the local big box store and pick up a router, then to demand that they get just a regular modem and not a modem/switch/wifi combo...They will often say that it is not an option...if you say "fine, I decline service, please leave immediately if you cant find a non integrated modem" suddenly one just happens to have slid under the seat in his van.....

Re:Just refuse the new gear (4, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 2 months ago | (#47626655)

comcrap or slime warner

Do you also type "Micro$oft"?

Grow up.

Re:Just refuse the new gear (1)

PNutts (199112) | about 2 months ago | (#47626883)

Too bad you're getting modded down and I don't have any mod points to give you a boost. What folks don't realize is that their point may be valid but that language and tone will cause their post to be skipped over or dismissed. Without those four words I would have moderated the GP insightful.

Re:Just refuse the new gear (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47627249)

Do you not look at who you're responding to? That's Frosty Piss, one of our biggest trolls. And now you support his position.

What folks don't realize is that their point may be valid but that the language, tone, and those you associate with will cause their post to be skipped over or dismissed.

Re:Just refuse the new gear (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47627087)

What is wrong with Micro$oft? The only people I've seen that it bothered were racist Republicans. Are you a racist? Are you a Republican? I guess you are both since you whine nonstop about this tiny thing. It's just a $. Why is your kind afraid of it? Why do you get so angry and lash-out about it?

Re:Just refuse the new gear (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47627515)

I would type "MacroViru$" but no one would get it.

Re:Just refuse the new gear (1)

sg_oneill (159032) | about 2 months ago | (#47627771)

Do you also type "Micro$oft"?

Grow up.
Typical AmeriKKKan! Fuck you dad.

Re:Just refuse the new gear (0)

Arker (91948) | about 2 months ago | (#47626667)

Indeed. Every router-and-modem-in-one-box I have seen yet is a POS. The very best case is if they will accept bridge mode and imitate a modem properly. Very often they actually will not (though they may appear to agree at first, and only cause problems later. I would actually go one better and refuse to take their modem as well, since they will only have old beat-up returned modems in stock. Buy a decent modem and tell them to provision it then leave it alone.

Re:Just refuse the new gear (3, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 2 months ago | (#47626801)

That's a terrible idea. Every Comcast customer should use his own router and his own modem!

In fact, the only Comcast-owned equipment a customer should ever accept is a CableCard -- wait, no, scratch that. Customers should accept precisely no Comcast-owned equipment at all, because they should only use Comcast for Internet, not TV (and even then, only if there's no other reasonable choice).

Re:Just refuse the new gear (1)

crashumbc (1221174) | about 2 months ago | (#47627251)

Exactly

Re:Just refuse the new gear (1)

fermion (181285) | about 2 months ago | (#47627393)

The equipment supplied by Comcast or ATT or Verizon or whoever has traditionally been notoriously wasteful in terms of energy. I myself but a router and DVR. The router pays for itself in a year, and both probably have a return on investment of two years in terms of electricity and rental savings.

No thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47626483)

These routers literally give Comcast all the power over your connection, allowing them to throttle however much they want and anybody they want easily without affecting everybody else, by claiming you use too much bandwidth or other BS like that.

Re:No thanks (4, Informative)

bws111 (1216812) | about 2 months ago | (#47626653)

Uh, they already have all the power over your connection. What are you talking about?

Re:No thanks (1)

crashumbc (1221174) | about 2 months ago | (#47627269)

it's more difficult if you have your own modem..

Re:No thanks (1)

tarius8105 (683929) | about 2 months ago | (#47627863)

Except that the public wifi doesnt go over the same channels and is not added to your data usage. It is essentially a different network.

As someone who had the DPC3939 (4, Insightful)

Lothsahn (221388) | about 2 months ago | (#47626491)

The device has stability problems as well, as mentioned in the post. In normal (routed) mode, it worked fairly well, although I noticed odd lag spikes and other issues I didn't experience with the old modem. However, once you place the router into bridge mode (disabling all wifi features so I can use my modem direct), the router would reboot itself every 3-8 minutes.

I eventually, after talking to 20+ Comcast reps, got them to put a different modem back in. Even though my plan is 250d/30u, I'm only getting 30d/5u, because the modem won't provision with my plan. However, it works, so I'd rather have that than a laggy, rebooting faster plan.

I strongly recommend avoiding the DPC3939 until the problems are resolved. It lalso ooks to me like all of the problems are software related, not hardware--usually they can be avoided by changing configuration options, etc.

Re:As someone who had the DPC3939 (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 months ago | (#47626589)

Wow, that sounds like a similar problem I was having with a dlink router years ago. It worked like a champ until my connection was upgraded (from 15Mbps to 25 Mbps) and then it started regularly rebooting. I read online it was something to do with the router not being able to keep up with the speed of the modem, an overflow would occur, causing a router reboot. Replaced router, worked fine. Later used old dlink router when setting up DSL at mother-in-law's house, and it worked fine. Still in use now. If she ever switches to cable modem / fiber, it'll probably have to be replaced, though.

Re:As someone who had the DPC3939 (4, Informative)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 2 months ago | (#47626833)

Just buy your own DOCSIS 3.0 modem (e.g. Motorola SB6121 or Zoom 5341). I mean, you realize they're charging you $3-5 per month for their crappy one, right? It pays for itself in a year or so.

Re:As someone who had the DPC3939 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47626955)

I believe Comcast charges $7/mo for a modem now, so even less than a year.

Re:As someone who had the DPC3939 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47626971)

Or since he's happy with 30/5 Mb he could pick up a DOCSIS 2 modem at Goodwill for $4 which would pay for itself in 2.5 weeks.

Re:As someone who had the DPC3939 (2)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 2 months ago | (#47627033)

I was forced to buy a DOCSIS 3.0 modem to replace my perfectly-good DOCSIS 2.0 one because Comcast shut off my access entirely otherwise.

Re:As someone who had the DPC3939 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47627429)

D2 = 32-40mbps (qam 256) x 1 channel / 50-100 modems in your area = dead throughput
D3 = 32-40mbps (qam 256) x 8 channels / 50-100 modems in your area = ok throughput

DOCSIS 2 is about dead these days

IPv6 works fine with Google (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47626535)

I use it from work and home. At home I use Comcast's IPv6.

Your tech misled you. Or you've configured your computer rather strangely.

As to the power, yes doing stuff takes more power than not doing stuff. While those power figures are very reasonable, I don't find it unreasonable that a person would not want to spend even the $8/year it will cost to run the hotspot. In that case, turn off the hotspot, there is a method of doing so.

Service in exchange for a free modem? (4, Interesting)

Memophage (88273) | about 2 months ago | (#47626573)

I actually think this could be pretty cool if Comcast would offer customers *something* in exchange for them hosting a public hotspot out of their house.

How about a free modem, instead of charging them $3/mo to rent one?

I own my modem outright, so have negative incentive to upgrade. But if they were to offer me a free basic IP phone line, or a free upgrade to the next speed tier, or free access to this service I'm hosting, or *anything*, I'd certainly consider it.

But otherwise, yeah, it seems like they're forcing everyone to pay for their network electricity as a requirement of getting their own internet, with no added benefit in return.

Re:Service in exchange for a free modem? (2, Insightful)

bws111 (1216812) | about 2 months ago | (#47626635)

It isn't a 'public' hotspot, it is a hotspot for Comcast customers. And you are getting something - the ability to use those same Comcast hotspots.

Re:Service in exchange for a free modem? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47626755)

It is a 'public' hotspot in that you can use it for a limited amount of time for free (or unlimited if you know what a MAC is). It was EXTREMELY helpful when I moved into an apartment a few months ago. It took four weeks to get Verizon FIOS and I seriously considered Comcast because they were offering this service (and non-business and weekend installation hours). However, the free wifi was also EXTREMELY slow. During peak hours it was worse than dial-up. It was fine late night and early morning hours.

Re:Service in exchange for a free modem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47627093)

If you are a Comcast customer you always get access to the hotspots even if you decline to host your own.

Re:Service in exchange for a free modem? (3, Insightful)

Mr_Wisenheimer (3534031) | about 2 months ago | (#47626637)

You get the added benefit of Comcast using up a big chunk of your dwelling's wireless spectrum with absolutely no benefit for your own devices.

Re:Service in exchange for a free modem? (0)

Arker (91948) | about 2 months ago | (#47626687)

What you are getting is the ability to use similar hotspots as you move around. The actual utility of that seems questionable - most are going to be in someones home where you cannot use them anyway.

If you own your own modem and it works I would advise you to keep it no matter what they offer. The wireless gateways are absolute junk.

Re:Service in exchange for a free modem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47626723)

> The actual utility of that seems questionable - most are going to be in someones home where you cannot use them anyway.

If you spend time in an urban area, basically anything remotely "downtown" then it is a BIG win. Time Warner has been doing exactly this for a couple of years now and nearly everywhere in los angeles proper is covered by at least one time warner access point.

Re:Service in exchange for a free modem? (1)

JohnFen (1641097) | about 2 months ago | (#47627121)

If you spend time in an urban area, basically anything remotely "downtown" then it is a BIG win.

This must depend on which urban area you live in. In mine, this is not a big win at all. It's a bit pointless, since you're almost always in range of a public wifi hotspot anyway.

Re:Service in exchange for a free modem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47626701)

Agreed, the major #fail in this whole scheme was to make the system opt-out and not giving users who host public Wifi hotspots any compensation. I'd certainly be more willing to host a hotspot if they waived the equipment rental fee in return.

Re:Service in exchange for a free modem? (2, Interesting)

fhic (214533) | about 2 months ago | (#47626733)

Not mention the potential liability issues.

I can easily see the cops kicking in my door because somebody used the hotspot in my house to download kiddie porn or copyrighted files.

Does anyone really think the cops are going to differentiate between the public side and private side of the router? No, they're going to call (or subpoena) Comcast for the address where that router lives. My house.

Yeah, it'll probably get straightened out, eventually, after I get dragged away in handcuffs to the amusement of my neighbors, spend a weekend in jail, get branded in the media as a baby-raper, and get fired by my media-phobic employer. And in the meantime, I'm going to have to pay a lawyer, bail myself out, and put back together my ruined life. And Comcast will point to a sentence in their 20,000 line EULA or ToS that says it's not their problem.

And then if I have any money left, some scumbag lawyer will sue me civilly for conspiring with Comcast because I paid for the power for the router that the real kiddy porn collector used.

Not a chance.

Re:Service in exchange for a free modem? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47626865)

why is this being modded up? you have to login to xfinitywifi access points which gives them tracability.

this entire post is FUD

Re:Service in exchange for a free modem? (1, Troll)

fhic (214533) | about 2 months ago | (#47626911)

Do you know any cops? Any feds? (I'm speaking of USA-ians; other places might be different, but Comcast doesn't live there.) Subtlety is not their strong point. Arrest everybody and let the courts straighten it out is what they do.

Sure, they're going to get the person who used the credentials to log in. And the address where they logged in from. And then the scenario I just described happens.

Re:Service in exchange for a free modem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47626953)

Because the only one with the login credentials is the bill payer, right.

Re:Service in exchange for a free modem? (1)

pipedwho (1174327) | about 2 months ago | (#47626959)

The GP post is more an indictment on the mob^w justice system that all too often seems to presume guilt before evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is required.

It also goes both ways. You may need to login to these systems to identify yourself, but when doing so you'd sure hope your transport stream was completely protected from the owner of the router. Otherwise, you may find someone kicking down your door when you arrive back home.

Re:Service in exchange for a free modem? (1)

fgouget (925644) | about 2 months ago | (#47627141)

The GP post is more an indictment on the mob^w justice system that all too often seems to presume guilt before evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is required.

Sounded more like the rant of a paranoid tinfoil hat wearer. That or given that hotspots are not a newfangled invention he should have no problem finding dozens of small businesses or hotels that got raided because they offered internet access.

Re:Service in exchange for a free modem? (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about 2 months ago | (#47627465)

Exactly. You have a greater chance getting killed in your car than you do having the cops break down your door because of open wifi.

Re:Service in exchange for a free modem? (4, Informative)

Teun (17872) | about 2 months ago | (#47627015)

Not a chance, only registered customers are able to log in and any suspicious traffic would be tracable to said Comcast customer.

It is not a public and open WIFI hotspot.

Re:Service in exchange for a free modem? (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 months ago | (#47627137)

What the hell? I have used this, the wifi access point identifies as XFINITY, you have to login using your comcast account, and the IP you end up using is an IP block dedicated to XFINITY (which clearly identifies in every possible way (rdns, whois) as an XFINITY IP). You dont even share the IP with the host (who gets the usual Comcast IP). There is no way the host would get busted for it. Please stop the FUD.

Re:Service in exchange for a free modem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47627173)

Well in Europe, some parts have had this kind of feature for a couple of years.

The way it works (which in the case of Comcast I suspect will be a similar setup) is that the guest wireless network is a discrete entity in that it gets it's own IP address and bandwidth along with a private network that can't be accessed from the main network that the router operates on. Any guests then that wish to login to the guest network can do so using their own id supplied by the cable company(which will work at any of their hotspots).

This kind of setup allows you to travel around and use the wireless internet on your phone/laptop at friends houses/apartments or whatever using your own credentials. This has the advantage for the cable company of knowing who you visit and how frequently etc, but it has the advantage to the owner of the router that the cable provider knows who is logged in at any particular time on the guest network, so that in the event of downloading suspicious materials - finger pointing is quiet easy.

In saying all that, over here you can simply opt out of the service if you like. It has the side effect of you not being able to use the guest service in other locations yourself.

Re:Service in exchange for a free modem? (1)

ADRA (37398) | about 2 months ago | (#47627183)

How is this post even relevant? The only way a cop will know how and who's door to 'bust down' would be through your ISP, and be damn sure that the ISP knows which IP's are being used by whom. Centsational much? I mean, one of my neighbours could be downloading child porn as we speak so I could randomly be arrested for absolutely no reason.

more like $8-$10 mo to rent and have cable phone? (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 months ago | (#47627727)

more like $8-$10 mo to rent and have cable phone?

if you have cable phone you are just about forced to rent it.

I parted way with Comcast a long time ago. (1)

Mr_Wisenheimer (3534031) | about 2 months ago | (#47626627)

$65 a month for 110 Mbs internet rather than the $150 I was paying Comcast for 50 Mbs internet that rarely did much better than 10 Mbs.

And the company actually send techs out the same day for most problems instead of Comcast, which can take weeks.

Re:I parted way with Comcast a long time ago. (1)

sconeu (64226) | about 2 months ago | (#47626663)

Spill. Who the hell are you with?

Re:I parted way with Comcast a long time ago. (2)

mcb (5109) | about 2 months ago | (#47626711)

I pay $55/mo for 200+ Mbps, but the availability is pretty limited.
http://webpass.net/ [webpass.net]

Re:I parted way with Comcast a long time ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47626735)

I pay $70/month for 1Gbps symmetrical - available to anyone in the Chattanooga metro area. Comcast and ATT are desperate here, Comcast will give you 50mbps for $20/month (but still with a 300GB/month cap).

Re:I parted way with Comcast a long time ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47626965)

$70/month for 1Gbps! My dick got hard just reading that.

It's EPB (1)

Zynder (2773551) | about 2 months ago | (#47627289)

This AC is referring to this [epbfi.com] company, the Electric Power Board of Chattanooga. I've heard it is epic, but I moved away from there years ago.

Re:I parted way with Comcast a long time ago. (1)

Mr_Wisenheimer (3534031) | about 2 months ago | (#47627831)

http://www.astound.net/ [astound.net]

Only in certain parts of the Bay Area right now.

Re:I parted way with Comcast a long time ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47626665)

Who is your provider, and where is this?

Re:I parted way with Comcast a long time ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47626707)

Huh? Those prices are just wrong these days. Comcast just upgraded a ton of people at the 50Mbps tier to 105Mbps for free.

Re: I parted way with Comcast a long time ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47626709)

If you are using torrents, it's possible everyone is routing through a 10Mb connection in a third world country.

I get 58 down, but torrents max out at 1.5MB/s.

Why use Comcast's modem at all? (4, Informative)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 months ago | (#47626851)

They charge you eight bucks a month for the privilege of using their modem. You can buy your own from Amazon for less than you'll pay Comcast for a year's rental - and that's for a DOCSIS 3 modem that handles IPv6 just fine, even with Comcast.

Here's the one I bought - it's $68 [amazon.com] . It doesn't include wifi, so you'll have to bring your own wifi base - but those can be had cheaply as well. Plus you don't have to replace both functions just because one or the other craps out...

Re:Why use Comcast's modem at all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47627751)

I have that same modem. BEWARE though buying them. There are 2 models out there the black one and the white one.

The black one is *only* sold to cable systems. The white one is retail.

If you get a black one it seems to be iffy if you get a good one. I spent an extra 5 bucks at a local BB to get a white one. And if it didnt work I could take it right back...

I got it when TW decided to start charging 4 bucks a month (think it is 7 or 8 now). I am already positive ROI. It also used less power than the crappy one TW had given me.

Other downside: get your door kicked down by Feds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47626881)

Why the hell would I want to take the blame for what Comcast's other customers download? To make them more money while receiving nothing in return? Dear Comcast, go get fucked.

put it in bridge mode (3, Insightful)

tuffy (10202) | about 2 months ago | (#47626977)

If you call Comcast's customer service, they can put their new routers into bridge mode. This turns off its WiFi and other unnecessary features and makes it act like their old routers.

Power usage seems unrelated to Xfinity (2)

fgouget (925644) | about 2 months ago | (#47627169)

The blog post did not compare the power usage with the Xfinity hotspot enabled and disabled. So all we can say is that the new Comcast modem is crap and wastes power by the bucket, just like the old one apparently. So while the title and many comments here seem to imply the extra cost is all due to the Xfinity Hotspot functionality, that view is so far not supported in any way.

Turn it off when not in use (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47627179)

Simply turn it off when not in use. Is that as difficult as it sounds for Americans to do?

Or do you leave your TV, radio, and computer running all day when no one is using them?

So it takes a minute to start up. It's called PATIENCE! Practice it and you'll L E A R N it.

Re:Turn it off when not in use (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47627185)

Or, if you can see if it is being used, keep turning it on and off and piss off Comcast users that are trying to access it. ROFLMA at you losers.

Comcast engineer here (3, Interesting)

scubamage (727538) | about 2 months ago | (#47627305)

FYI, I'm a Comcast engineer. All CPE management interfaces (the interface between the CMTS and the CM) are moving to IPv6 and should be transitioned by the end of the summer. The only remaining devices with the CMM interface still running on IPv4 are a handful of business class devices which should be converted by september. Beyond that, any modem which runs DHCP on LAN interfaces is running in either IPv4 or dual stack mode, though the ultimate plan is to move everything to IPv6 eventually.

Re:Comcast engineer here (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 months ago | (#47627661)

What happens when people complain about Skype? I work for an ISP, and everything I read indicates that Skype is the only top 100 "protocol" that is not IPv6 capable. I'm trying to push v6, but I've been told "no Skype, no v6".

Re:Comcast engineer here (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47627681)

If you aren't making this post on an official basis, you might want to avoid such posts in the future.

I had a close friend who worked at a mid level position for PayPal and made a similarly helpful post on a forum... only to have some forum troll who hated him track down his real identity and report him to PayPal's corporate offices. Soon thereafter he was fired for speaking on behalf of the company without permission.

Just a friendly piece of advice, take it as you will.

Not hot stuff (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about 2 months ago | (#47627369)

In France, all major operators have been offering for years a public WiFi service, using their customer's modems.

The feature was pioneered by an operator called Free (with its well known "Freebox" Linux-based modem), and others had to offer the same. Free may buy T-mobile [slashdot.org] , which should seriously push Comcast to fix its problem.

article misses completely the other cost... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47627425)

... of 'helping' comcast set up their profitable (for them, not you) nationwide wifi network.......

the horrible spot of being the comcast customer in the first place, along with the financial and emotional costs involved -- either of which way overshadows the cost of running one of their fancy routers.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?