Virgin Media Starts Turning Customer Routers into Public Wi-Fi Hotspots

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Virgin Media customers from across the pond may soon find complete strangers tapping into their Internet service, as the company’s “Super Hubs” (their fancy name for wireless routers) are being turned into public Wi-Fi Hotspots. While subscribers may opt out, Virgin Media has decided to opt in "hundreds of thousands" of customers by default. Will Brits be getting their doors kicked in for sharing illegal content they know nothing about?

There are some curious differences between BT and Virgin Media's approach, though. For starters, it seems only Virgin Media customers will have access to this nationwide Wi-Fi network; BT grants free access to BT customers, but non-customers can pay for access (£4 [$5] per hour). The owner of that subverted hotspot doesn't get any of the money, of course. Furthermore, while BT customers must share their ADSL or VDSL bandwidth with any public Wi-Fi users, Virgin Media promises that "your home network is completely separate from Virgin Media WiFi traffic, meaning the broadband connection you pay for is exclusively yours, and just as secure."
 
Such bullshit. It'd be one thing if the opt-in gave you a bill credit. But instead, these companies do it on the downlow and hope you don't notice that they're using your power/location to expand their WiFi footprint.


This should be required to be an opt-in and not an opt-out. That won't happen because they'd have to give something up to get the customer to opt-in to it (they know they won't, and the plan will die).

I have seen some business locations here in Vegas have "CoxWiFi" which requires authentication for Cox customers. I don't know if that's something like this or if that's just Cox installing their own routers in business comm rooms.
 
necrosis said:
Sounds no different than what Comcast has been doing for a few years now in the US.
Click to expand...


Yep. It's sleazy.

This is why you always, always, ALWAYS need to use a third party router, preferably one built yourself running pfSense, and if your ISP ties to force you into using theirs, run - don't walk - the other way.

Your ISP should be giving you a simple WAN Ethernet line you can plug into your router, not something ties into a multifunction device for TV and other services, and if they don't, they have no business offering internet service.
 
I have a 3rd party router and no unauthorized WIFI access on my network....

I also have an MAC address list of EVERY SINGLE device that has access to our network. Not on my device list, no access.... also firmware is hacked so the default admins account password is a nice fat long multiple upper lower special character numbers...
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
I have a 3rd party router and no unauthorized WIFI access on my network....

I also have an MAC address list of EVERY SINGLE device that has access to our network. Not on my device list, no access.... also firmware is hacked so the default admins account password is a nice fat long multiple upper lower special character numbers...
Click to expand...


It's fairly trivial to sniff for devices Mac addresses connecting to a WiFi access point, and then spoof the mac address, so I wouldn't rely on mac address filtering for security.

And no, hidden SSID's don't help either.

Unless you want to go Enterprise style authentication which can be complicated and a pain in the ass to set up, the best we can do as consumers is a strong WPA2 password.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
It's fairly trivial to sniff for devices Mac addresses connecting to a WiFi access point, and then spoof the mac address, so I wouldn't rely on mac address filtering for security.

And no, hidden SSID's don't help either.

Unless you want to go Enterprise style authentication which can be complicated and a pain in the ass to set up, the best we can do as consumers is a strong WPA2 password.
Click to expand...
the average idiot is not going to be able to get on my network and that's all that counts
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
the average idiot is not going to be able to get on my network and that's all that counts
Click to expand...

Yep, just remembered to disable TKIP, it's too easy to break. Keep it AES only.

(Of course, some older devices may need TKIP in order to work, and if you have any of those, it's a bummer...)
 
you know, I'd almost be ok with the ISP public hotspot plans if they mounted a public facing Access point in the Demarc box they install powered off the pole or from solar, or both.

the issue is they want the costumers to facilitate their hotspot plan on the same equipment the customers internal rented equipment is running off and they don't just turn on 1 SSID, they turn on 3-5 and pollute the already saturated airwaves with more wifi noise and make it "hidden" when you opt-out but still broadcast but don't try and run intelligent mesh setups so you and your neighbors all make the network better but instead just setup up the CPE gear to blast wifi and hope the customers don't know better as to why their connections suffer.
 
Hmmmm.....time to learn to build a Faraday Cage for certain customers? Simple hardline out to your router from there.
 
talk about double dipping

First they sell the internet line to the primary customers.
Then they sell the same lines access to secondary customers...
 
And this is on a router people pay $10 a month to rent from Comcast and other companies. This why you use your own.
 
Cox has been doing this for a long time in Vegas, I use my own modem and then FW down stream and don't have it here but my neighbor does.
 
bugleyman said:
This question is probably naive, but: Is this even legal?
Click to expand...
I'm sure at this point it's buried in your TOS so you have already agreed to allow this making it legal. The way Comcast explained it is that no outside data usage would count against your cap, they have a secure private network for public usage on your router and that they have ways of making sure you always get QOS over any strangers. The biggest complaint made was that technically because your router might be in use for a greater period of time serving as a public hotspot that your electricity bill would go up. Obviously the change would be trivial at best but it's still valid, why should you even have to pay $0.01 extra per month to provide public hotspots for comcast. Of course there's all sorts of trust issues that ensue when it comes to exactly how comcast can make sure your hotspot and the segmented public one's are truly hidden from each other. There's even possible complaints about additional EMI that you would never be a victim of with normal usage loads but a hotspot operating at 100% peak performance all day/night might interfere with other electronics in the house that you never knew about because that's atypical usage of your spectrum.

Who knows, but all in all no way am I letting anyone connect to anything I pay for out of principle alone.
 
Ziggo (Liberty Media?) does this in the Netherlands. Thing is, it's a seperate network from your own wifi network, and the speed does not impact your own (capacity is higher than the contracts they sell). Plus, you get free access anywhere if you're a customer, so since they're so widespread you basically have wifi anywhere.

Also, you have to login with your own credentials, so your (illegal) activities get attributed to yourself, not the person whose network you're on.

This is probably similar.
 
They charge someone else $5 an hour to use your bandwidth and your electricity? Sounds reasonable.

I didn't know about the Comcast Xfinity issue, so glad you guys brought that up.

That being said, here is where I would <possibly> be ok with it.
  • The router must supply the additional bandwidth to any Hotspot users, meaning their bandwidth cannot impede on the maximum bandwidth of the original customer.
  • The hotspot network must be completely isolated from the original customers network.
  • IP Addresses must be totally seperate (Comcast claims it is).
  • The "increased power" thing I actually don't buy in to much. The router is always running regardless. So the cost would be minimal, but I see the principal of it.
Because I do see a practical benefit to having a "node" type system where you can get real wifi from random locations throughout a city. It's going to happen eventually, but current technology requires localized infrastructure.
 
LMT MFA said:
Ziggo (Liberty Media?) does this in the Netherlands. Thing is, it's a seperate network from your own wifi network, and the speed does not impact your own (capacity is higher than the contracts they sell). Plus, you get free access anywhere if you're a customer, so since they're so widespread you basically have wifi anywhere.

Also, you have to login with your own credentials, so your (illegal) activities get attributed to yourself, not the person whose network you're on.

This is probably similar.
Click to expand...

This sounds reasonable to me.
 
westrock2000 said:
They charge someone else $5 an hour to use your bandwidth and your electricity? Sounds reasonable.

I didn't know about the Comcast Xfinity issue, so glad you guys brought that up.

That being said, here is where I would <possibly> be ok with it.
  • The router must supply the additional bandwidth to any Hotspot users, meaning their bandwidth cannot impede on the maximum bandwidth of the original customer.
  • The hotspot network must be completely isolated from the original customers network.
  • IP Addresses must be totally seperate (Comcast claims it is).
  • The "increased power" thing I actually don't buy in to much. The router is always running regardless. So the cost would be minimal, but I see the principal of it.
Because I do see a practical benefit to having a "node" type system where you can get real wifi from random locations throughout a city. It's going to happen eventually, but current technology requires localized infrastructure.
Click to expand...

I'd add one more:

The Public wifi component is, electrically and electronically completely isolated, at a hardware level, to my modem. If there is an interconnect in anyway, that's a no from me.

Essentially, they'd have to get my permission to setup additional wiring in my house, and pay for it themselves.
 
Cant put my finger on it, but I got a major case of deja-vu going on here.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Yep. It's sleazy.

This is why you always, always, ALWAYS need to use a third party router, preferably one built yourself running pfSense, and if your ISP ties to force you into using theirs, run - don't walk - the other way.

Your ISP should be giving you a simple WAN Ethernet line you can plug into your router, not something ties into a multifunction device for TV and other services, and if they don't, they have no business offering internet service.
Click to expand...
While not a fan of the idea, it's not a bad idea. Comcast also has a mobile phone service coming that is likely along the lines of Google's ProjectFi that likes open wifi. The "open" would allow providers to get into the mobile business or sign deals with other providers.
 
I was thinking about this a bit more and while I don't let it happen at my house. There has been more than once that I have used the Cox connection when not at my house and needed some connectivity.
 
Following the Xfinity mission statement "public hotspots covering 100% of the nation with TX range, 10% RX range"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top