Comcast sued for turning home Wi-Fi routers connection into public hotspots

[ahhming]

Two East Bay residents are suing Comcast for plugging their home’s wireless router into what they call a power-wasting, Internet-clogging, privacy threatening network of public Wi-Fi hotspots.
 

Toyer Grear and daughter Joycelyn Harris, claims Comcast is “exploiting them for profit” by using their Pittsburg home’s router as part of a nationwide network of public hotspots.

 

The secondary signal is supposed to be separate from the private Wi-Fi channel customers use, and it is intended for houseguests or Comcast subscribers who happen to be in range and using mobile devices.

Comcast has said its subscribers have the right to disable the secondary signal, the suit claims the company turns the service on without permission and places “the costs of its national Wi-Fi network onto its customers.”

Tests showed that under heavy use, the secondary channel adds 30 to 40 percent more costs to a customer’s electricity bill than the modem itself, the suit said.

 

 

 

“the data and information on a Comcast customer’s network is at greater risk” because the hotspot network “allows strangers to connect to the Internet through the same wireless router used by Comcast customers.”

 

Although Comcast has said it has enough bandwidth to handle the extra traffic, the suit claims Grear and Harris have suffered from “decreased, inadequate speeds on their home Wi-Fi network.”

 

Source:

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Comcast-sued-for-turning-home-Wi-Fi-routers-into-5943750.php

[connorpiper]

Good thing they did not do this to California. But I was not using their router. 

[shermantanker]

yeah...that's low Comcast.

[CoolaxGaming]

Wholy shit, wow?

I use comcast a month ago an AT&T guy comes and gives me a huge brief on Comcast doing that. ...

[Texhnlyze]

They just keep on digging. I wonder who will get down to the center core first between them and Ubisoft.

[SirSquid]

And this is why (most if not all) ISPs are evil.

[VincentC]

Good thing they did not do this to California. But I was not using their

Pittsburg is in California, the customers are East Bay residents, and the article is from the sfgate a newpaper from San Franscisco. 

[KungPaoChino]

Comcast, use money to lobby politicians!

It is super effective! 

[connorpiper]

Pittsburg is in California, the customers are East Bay residents, and the article is from the sfgate a newpaper from San Franscisco. 

 

No, on the east coast, they forced some users to get their router. 

[JAKEBAB]

30% - 40% more to there elextricity bill?! I call bs! A router consumes like 15w how can it add that much to there bill wtf!

[TacticlTwinkie]

And that's why I always recommend using your own router. Even its not a top of the line router, at least you have control of your network.

[KungPaoChino]

And that's why I always recommend using your own router. Even its not a top of the line router, at least you have control of your network.

Or you could not use Comcast.

[TacticlTwinkie]

30% - 40% more to there elextricity bill?! I call bs! A router consumes like 15w how can it add that much to there bill wtf!

Mayhaps they mean that the router it pulling 30-40% more power, not the whole house is pulling 30-40%. I smell fancy wordplay to get people's panties in a bunch.

[TacticlTwinkie]

Or you could not use Comcast.

Not always an option unfortunately.

[S1lentThund3r]

Mayhaps they mean that the router it pulling 30-40% more power, not the whole house is pulling 30-40%. I smell fancy wordplay to get people's panties in a bunch.

But does it matter? The biggest part is the slower speeds for the home owner, and the fact that other people are using the same router as you, with the security of the router taken out of your hands.

[VincentC]

30% - 40% more to there elextricity bill?! I call bs! A router consumes like 15w how can it add that much to there bill wtf!

1080w = (15w * 3days)

$21.60 per month = (1080w * $0.20) * 10

My decimal point might be wrong and i'm too tired to check.

[geforceftw]

I remember Logan and Wendell talking about this a while ago on the Tek, they were not pleased. Screw you Comcast and most other ISP's.

[Sharp_3yE]

WOW, isn't that in their Terms and Conditions or somewhere where they can read that. If they don't want it I guess they never read or asked to realize that they can not participate if they don't want to. Though, id rather have it an opt in then opt out but then no one would care to opt in. It's better for Comcast customers but bad for the actual people with the private wifi.

I dont think its illegal cuz they aren't hiding and allowing an opt out. The ones who are suing I bet either just didn't know cuz they didn't read or really just want Comcast to have at least an opt in.

I'm not saying that I like it, id opt out, but o dont think its technical illegal cuz I'm sure it says they are doing this and you can opt out but you actually have to read your terms and conditions and contracts and everything when you go with a company for a service.

[Techhog]

They probably won't win, because a lot of ISPs do this. Mine is included, unfortunately, which is why my current router is a temporary one.

[Mooshi]

The same lot that Wheeler used to lobby for. 

[Psykomantis00]

Whoever wrote that article is dumb and should stop writing tech articles. 

[Spev]

Comcast getting rekt again.

[mc141]

They won't win they don't have to use Comcast modem router. They are free to use there own modem and own router. Comcast doesn't say it's our stuff or nothing. My cable Co only restrict the cable boxes to there's. but we can use any device that supports cable card and use our own modems/routers.

I do think that they should have it clearly printed on work order about the wifi and to be signed by the sub saying there aware. Also the sakes rep should be required to telL the potential subscriber about router and modem and inform them of there option to purchase there own equipment.

[TheGamingBarrel]

BT Have been doing this for ages...

[mr moose]

30% - 40% more to there elextricity bill?! I call bs! A router consumes like 15w how can it add that much to there bill wtf!

 

The article says it's 30-40% more over using the modem by itself, meaning the modem consumes 30-40% more when this service is enabled not 30-40% of the total household bill. 

 

 

 

Also If comcast believe they provide enough bandwidth to enable a service like this then why are they arguing for fast lanes and shaping consumers connections?  either they have enough bandwidth or they don't,  they can't have both :angry: .