Not really, this is much more like the mesh networks that have been put in place by lots of WISPs where every customer is also a relay. It's also comparable to pico cells that many of the LTE operators use to extend coverage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_networking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picocell https://wirelesstelecom.wordpress.com/tag/picocell/ Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:23 AM, TR Shaw <ts...@oitc.com> wrote: > Seems to me that they (Bright House Networks, Cox Communications, Optimum, > Time Warner Cable and Comcast) are effectively operating a business out of > your house and without a business license. I am sure that this is illegal > in many towns and many towns would like the revenue. > > In fact does this put the homeowner at risk since they are effectively > supporting a business running out of their house? > > Tom > > On Dec 11, 2014, at 9:02 AM, Scott Helms <khe...@zcorum.com> wrote: > > > All of the members of the CableWiFi consortium have been. > > > > Bright House Networks, Cox Communications, Optimum, Time Warner Cable and > > Comcast. > > > > http://www.cablewifi.com/ > > > > Liberty Global, the largest MSO, also does it and this year announced an > > agreement with Comcast to allow roaming on each other's WiFi networks, > > though that is not extended to the other members of CableWiFi at this > time. > > > > > http://corporate.comcast.com/news-information/news-feed/comcast-and-liberty-global-announce-agreement-to-connect-u-s-and-european-wi-fi-networks > > > > > > Scott Helms > > Vice President of Technology > > ZCorum > > (678) 507-5000 > > -------------------------------- > > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > > -------------------------------- > > > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Ryan Pavely <para...@nac.net> wrote: > > > >> http://bgr.com/2014/05/12/cablevision-optimum-modem-wifi-hotspots/ > >> > >> I thought cablevision has been doing this for years. > >> > >> I had a higher level tech at mi casa within the last two years and he > >> suggested their goal was to get enough coverage to start offering CV > voip > >> cell phones. "pay a little less, for not guaranteed coverage' > >> > >> > >> > >> Ryan Pavely > >> Net Access > >> http://www.nac.net/ > >> > >> On 12/10/2014 9:35 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote: > >> > >>> Why am I not surprised? > >>> > >>> Whose fault would it be if your comcast installed public wifi would be > >>> abused to download illegal material or launch a botnet, to name some > random > >>> fun one could have on your behalf. :-/ > >>> > >>> (apologies if this was posted already, couldn't find an email about it > on > >>> the list) > >>> > >>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/10/disgruntled_ > >>> customers_lob_sueball_at_comcast_over_public_wifi/ > >>> > >>> "A mother and daughter are suing Comcast claiming the cable giant's > >>> router in their home was offering public Wi-Fi without their > permission. > >>> > >>> Comcast-supplied routers broadcast an encrypted, private wireless > network > >>> for people at home, plus a non-encrypted network called XfinityWiFi > that > >>> can be used by nearby subscribers. So if you're passing by a fellow > user's > >>> home, you can lock onto their public Wi-Fi, log in using your Comcast > >>> username and password, and use that home's bandwidth. > >>> > >>> However, Toyer Grear, 39, and daughter Joycelyn Harris – who live > >>> together in Alameda County, California – say they never gave Comcast > >>> permission to run a public network from their home cable connection. > >>> > >>> In a lawsuit [PDF] filed in the northern district of the golden state, > >>> the pair accuse the ISP of breaking the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act > and > >>> two other laws. > >>> > >>> Grear – a paralegal – and her daughter claim the Xfinity hotspot is an > >>> unauthorized intrusion into their private home, places a "vast" burden > on > >>> electricity bills, opens them up to attacks by hackers, and "degrades" > >>> their bandwidth. > >>> > >>> "Comcast does not, however, obtain the customer's authorization prior > to > >>> engaging in this use of the customer's equipment and internet service > for > >>> public, non-household use," the suit claims. > >>> > >>> "Indeed, without obtaining its customers' authorization for this > >>> additional use of their equipment and resources, over which the > customer > >>> has no control, Comcast has externalized the costs of its national > Wi-Fi > >>> network onto its customers." > >>> > >>> The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages for themselves and on > behalf > >>> of all Comcast customers nation-wide in their class-action case – the > >>> service was rolled out to 20 million customers this year." > >>> > >>> > >> > >
