3 ms·

I hate big cable companies as much as the next person, but I really don't have a problem with this as long as a few things are in place: 1) Network isolation,

by 2bluesc 12y ago

I hate big cable companies as much as the next person, but I really don't have a problem with this as long as a few things are in place: 1) Network isolation, according to the article there is some isolation. Not sure what this means exactly but if it's a private subnet routed to Comcast on a separate IP for security/privacy reasons. There is no technical reason this can't be accomplished. I do question how much Comcast (or their vendor) engineers care about security though. 2) Doesn't affect my speed, article states this. Assuming it's true, modern DOCSIS 3.0 cable modem can support an absurd amount of traffic, way more then most WiFi APs can handle at any reasonable range. My biggest concern is that WiFi is already slow, if I'm streaming Netflix videos and it now starts to drop segments due to a person in a car on a tablet streaming the latest Gangnam style, I'll be upset.

pdonis 12y ago
Network isolation would be my biggest concern if I had to deal with this. However, since I long ago got rid of Comcast's cable modem and installed my own, and have always had my own wifi router plugged into it, I thankfully don't have to worry about it.
joesmo 12y ago
This is simply PR BS without a separate IP: "Kurn said no, anymore than Starbucks is liable for illicit behavior by the customers who use its in-store hotspots." The separate IP is the key here when it comes to network isolation. If there is no separate IP, the customer will be held liable for illegal use, despite Comcast's ridiculous denial. Starbucks doesn't have to worry about being sued or prosecuted for the crimes of its customers because it has plenty of billions to defend itself. Joe Smo, your average end user who probably hasn't read the mail or e-mail about this and has no clue that it's on, should worry as he would be a target for other corporations lawsuits and even criminal prosecution. Without a separate IP and separate audit, he's going to get sued or thrown into jail. The authorities don't look kindly on such things as kiddy porn and won't care that it was some stranger using your wifi from across the street.

by 2bluesc 12y ago

pdonis 12y ago

Network isolation would be my biggest concern if I had to deal with this. However, since I long ago got rid of Comcast's cable modem and installed my own, and have always had my own wifi router plugged into it, I thankfully don't have to worry about it.

joesmo 12y ago

This is simply PR BS without a separate IP: "Kurn said no, anymore than Starbucks is liable for illicit behavior by the customers who use its in-store hotspots." The separate IP is the key here when it comes to network isolation. If there is no separate IP, the customer will be held liable for illegal use, despite Comcast's ridiculous denial. Starbucks doesn't have to worry about being sued or prosecuted for the crimes of its customers because it has plenty of billions to defend itself. Joe Smo, your average end user who probably hasn't read the mail or e-mail about this and has no clue that it's on, should worry as he would be a target for other corporations lawsuits and even criminal prosecution. Without a separate IP and separate audit, he's going to get sued or thrown into jail. The authorities don't look kindly on such things as kiddy porn and won't care that it was some stranger using your wifi from across the street.