Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Xfinity public wifi basics
330 views
Skip to first unread message
Glenn Geller
Aug 2, 2013, 4:21:49 PM8/2/13
to
Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner Cable, Cox, and Bright House jointly own
a wifi network that covers mainly some major urban areas (including the Bay Area).
See the map at:
http://hotspots.wifi.comcast.com
If you zoom in on the map for the Bay Area, each blank red dot eventually becomes
either a circle with waves or a square with waves. A circle marks an outdoor hotspot,
and a square marks an indoor hotspot. When you click the circle or square, it reveals
the address. The outdoor hotspots are more powerful, reaching about a block. The
outdoor device is this:
http://americannewsreport.com/belair-networks-small-cell-base-station-combines-wifi-and-lte-889909
They dangle from the Comcast wiring that runs from pole to pole, and they're large
and easy to spot. At night, you'll see a blue LED lit at one end. In areas where utilities
are buried, outdoor hotspots aren't placed; Comcast tries to fill in with indoor hotspots
and by placing outdoor hotspots at the point where buried utilities commence (often a
side street, just off a major street, as is the case for Solano Avenue in
Albany/Berkeley).
Each hotspot broadcasts 2 SSIDs: CableWiFi (for non-Comcast customers) and
Xfinitywifi (for Comcast customers). The wifi can be very fast if you're close to the
transmitter. The connection has no password or encryption: it's a walled garden.
Access is recorded by MAC address: once you sign in with a particular device, the
system doesn't seem to ask you to sign in the future. IPhones apparently can have a
hard time getting on.
The service is free to Comcast subscribers, who only have to enter a COMCAST.NET
email address and the email password.
Each Comcast subscriber is eligible for 5 or 10 COMCAST.NET email accounts, which
means that they could activate additional email accounts for the sole purpose of giving
them to friends without Comcast who want to access Xfinity Wifi. I currently use a Time
Warner Cable email address from New York, and it works, too.
Slightly more information:
http://corporate.comcast.com/news-information/news-feed/cablewifi-alliance-offers-access-to-more-than-150000-wifi-hotspots-creates-largest-wifi-network-in-the-u-s-2
What are your impressions of this wifi service?
a wifi network that covers mainly some major urban areas (including the Bay Area).
See the map at:
http://hotspots.wifi.comcast.com
If you zoom in on the map for the Bay Area, each blank red dot eventually becomes
either a circle with waves or a square with waves. A circle marks an outdoor hotspot,
and a square marks an indoor hotspot. When you click the circle or square, it reveals
the address. The outdoor hotspots are more powerful, reaching about a block. The
outdoor device is this:
http://americannewsreport.com/belair-networks-small-cell-base-station-combines-wifi-and-lte-889909
They dangle from the Comcast wiring that runs from pole to pole, and they're large
and easy to spot. At night, you'll see a blue LED lit at one end. In areas where utilities
are buried, outdoor hotspots aren't placed; Comcast tries to fill in with indoor hotspots
and by placing outdoor hotspots at the point where buried utilities commence (often a
side street, just off a major street, as is the case for Solano Avenue in
Albany/Berkeley).
Each hotspot broadcasts 2 SSIDs: CableWiFi (for non-Comcast customers) and
Xfinitywifi (for Comcast customers). The wifi can be very fast if you're close to the
transmitter. The connection has no password or encryption: it's a walled garden.
Access is recorded by MAC address: once you sign in with a particular device, the
system doesn't seem to ask you to sign in the future. IPhones apparently can have a
hard time getting on.
The service is free to Comcast subscribers, who only have to enter a COMCAST.NET
email address and the email password.
Each Comcast subscriber is eligible for 5 or 10 COMCAST.NET email accounts, which
means that they could activate additional email accounts for the sole purpose of giving
them to friends without Comcast who want to access Xfinity Wifi. I currently use a Time
Warner Cable email address from New York, and it works, too.
Slightly more information:
http://corporate.comcast.com/news-information/news-feed/cablewifi-alliance-offers-access-to-more-than-150000-wifi-hotspots-creates-largest-wifi-network-in-the-u-s-2
What are your impressions of this wifi service?
David Kaye
Aug 4, 2013, 5:35:35 PM8/4/13
to
"Glenn Geller" <g...@ziiz.co> wrote
> Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner Cable, Cox, and Bright House jointly own
> a wifi network that covers mainly some major urban areas (including the
> Bay Area).
> See the map at:
>
> http://hotspots.wifi.comcast.com
Cool! Thanks for sharing. Information overload has done me in. I thought
I knew just about everything Comcast was doing and this one sneaked up
behind me. As a Comcast subscriber I plan to check out the various hotspots
and see how they work.
> Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner Cable, Cox, and Bright House jointly own
> a wifi network that covers mainly some major urban areas (including the
> Bay Area).
> See the map at:
>
> http://hotspots.wifi.comcast.com
I knew just about everything Comcast was doing and this one sneaked up
behind me. As a Comcast subscriber I plan to check out the various hotspots
and see how they work.
David Kaye
Aug 4, 2013, 5:46:22 PM8/4/13
to
"Glenn Geller" <g...@ziiz.co> wrote
> Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner Cable, Cox, and Bright House jointly own
> a wifi network that covers mainly some major urban areas (including the
> Bay Area).
Y'know it's funny that with all the technologies coming out every week,
802.11, a concept never intended to be more than a 100-foot wire-free system
for homes and small offices, has stretched beyond anything anybody could
have thought of. I just hooked up an extender in a cafe that takes a feed
from one wireless router, which takes its feed off another router. So,
that's 3 hops. Yeah, it slows down the speed to about 2 Mbps from Comcast's
original 20 or so, but even so, it works well enough to be usable. It was
either that or pay Comcast $10,000 to extend service into a commercial area
they haven't wired. (Comcast has a lot of those situations -- they're only
mandated in SF to pass cable through residential neighborhoods, not
commercial districts.)
> Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner Cable, Cox, and Bright House jointly own
> a wifi network that covers mainly some major urban areas (including the
> Bay Area).
802.11, a concept never intended to be more than a 100-foot wire-free system
for homes and small offices, has stretched beyond anything anybody could
have thought of. I just hooked up an extender in a cafe that takes a feed
from one wireless router, which takes its feed off another router. So,
that's 3 hops. Yeah, it slows down the speed to about 2 Mbps from Comcast's
original 20 or so, but even so, it works well enough to be usable. It was
either that or pay Comcast $10,000 to extend service into a commercial area
they haven't wired. (Comcast has a lot of those situations -- they're only
mandated in SF to pass cable through residential neighborhoods, not
commercial districts.)
Marcus Allen
Aug 4, 2013, 11:32:17 PM8/4/13
to
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013 14:46:22 -0700, "David Kaye" <sfdavi...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>I just hooked up an extender in a cafe that takes a feed
Extender...yuck! Wireless pollution device.
>from one wireless router, which takes its feed off another router. So,
>that's 3 hops. Yeah, it slows down the speed to about 2 Mbps from Comcast's
>original 20 or so, but even so, it works well enough to be usable. It was
>either that or pay Comcast $10,000 to extend service into a commercial area
>they haven't wired.
I assume you mean it was either that or use a $50 wireless 'client' rather
than a similar-priced extender.
(client = a wireless router configured to act as a client)
wrote:
>I just hooked up an extender in a cafe that takes a feed
>from one wireless router, which takes its feed off another router. So,
>that's 3 hops. Yeah, it slows down the speed to about 2 Mbps from Comcast's
>original 20 or so, but even so, it works well enough to be usable. It was
>either that or pay Comcast $10,000 to extend service into a commercial area
>they haven't wired.
than a similar-priced extender.
(client = a wireless router configured to act as a client)
Roy
Aug 5, 2013, 12:50:13 AM8/5/13
to
channels and avoid the dreaded hidden transmitter problem.
Radio #1 acts a a station (aka client) on original wifi and delivers it
to the second radio which is a router. The two radios are on different
channels.
If you need a simple station radio, check out the Ubiquiti LocostationM.
Less than $50
David Kaye
Aug 5, 2013, 1:53:12 AM8/5/13
to
"Marcus Allen" <mall...@none.invalid> wrote
>
> Extender...yuck! Wireless pollution device.
In this case there is no other way. Well, I could have put up two wireless
routers, but that would have been a mess. The extender was a simple plug-in
device no larger than a power adapter.
> I assume you mean it was either that or use a $50 wireless 'client' rather
> than a similar-priced extender.
Two routers, not one. One to talk to the feed, the other to talk to the
computers that want the feed. So, we're talking a $45 extender versus 2
$19.95 (Computer Central) routers. But the main thin is I just wanted
something simple that could be put in a back office that nobody would be
tempted to touch. It's been working just fine for several weeks now. Well,
the feed router loses Comcast from time to time, but that's out of my
control. The guy who has that router is planning to replace it with
something more stable.
>
> Extender...yuck! Wireless pollution device.
In this case there is no other way. Well, I could have put up two wireless
routers, but that would have been a mess. The extender was a simple plug-in
device no larger than a power adapter.
> I assume you mean it was either that or use a $50 wireless 'client' rather
> than a similar-priced extender.
computers that want the feed. So, we're talking a $45 extender versus 2
$19.95 (Computer Central) routers. But the main thin is I just wanted
something simple that could be put in a back office that nobody would be
tempted to touch. It's been working just fine for several weeks now. Well,
the feed router loses Comcast from time to time, but that's out of my
control. The guy who has that router is planning to replace it with
something more stable.
Peter Lawrence
Aug 5, 2013, 3:49:00 PM8/5/13
to
On 8/4/13 2:35 PM, David Kaye wrote:
>>
>> http://hotspots.wifi.comcast.com
>
> Cool! Thanks for sharing. Information overload has done me in. I thought
> I knew just about everything Comcast was doing and this one sneaked up
> behind me. As a Comcast subscriber I plan to check out the various hotspots
> and see how they work.
Just an FYI. This Comcast WiFi service is *not* available to Comcast Cable
>>
>> http://hotspots.wifi.comcast.com
>
> Cool! Thanks for sharing. Information overload has done me in. I thought
> I knew just about everything Comcast was doing and this one sneaked up
> behind me. As a Comcast subscriber I plan to check out the various hotspots
> and see how they work.
internet subscribers who are on Comcast's lowest cost tier. It's available
though to Comcast internet subscribers who are on the next higher tier (or
higher).
- Peter
Marcus Allen
Aug 6, 2013, 10:46:13 PM8/6/13
to
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013 22:53:12 -0700, "David Kaye" <sfdavi...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>"Marcus Allen" <mall...@none.invalid> wrote
>
>>
>> Extender...yuck! Wireless pollution device.
>
>In this case there is no other way. Well, I could have put up two wireless
>routers, but that would have been a mess. The extender was a simple plug-in
>device no larger than a power adapter.
Translation: There *was* another way, a way which was far superior but was
nevertheless ruled out summarily.
>> I assume you mean it was either that or use a $50 wireless 'client' rather
>> than a similar-priced extender.
>
>Two routers, not one. One to talk to the feed, the other to talk to the
>computers that want the feed. So, we're talking a $45 extender versus 2
>$19.95 (Computer Central) routers.
It appears that the $10,000 claim was a bit of an exaggeration, to the tune
of about $9950.
>But the main thin is I just wanted
>something simple that could be put in a back office that nobody would be
>tempted to touch. It's been working just fine for several weeks now. Well,
>the feed router loses Comcast from time to time, but that's out of my
>control. The guy who has that router is planning to replace it with
>something more stable.
Sounds like a pretty loose definition of "working just fine." You went from
a 20 megabit connection to a spotty connection at 1/10 the speed of the
original. Well done, sir! :-)
wrote:
>"Marcus Allen" <mall...@none.invalid> wrote
>
>>
>> Extender...yuck! Wireless pollution device.
>
>In this case there is no other way. Well, I could have put up two wireless
>routers, but that would have been a mess. The extender was a simple plug-in
>device no larger than a power adapter.
nevertheless ruled out summarily.
>> I assume you mean it was either that or use a $50 wireless 'client' rather
>> than a similar-priced extender.
>
>Two routers, not one. One to talk to the feed, the other to talk to the
>computers that want the feed. So, we're talking a $45 extender versus 2
>$19.95 (Computer Central) routers.
of about $9950.
>But the main thin is I just wanted
>something simple that could be put in a back office that nobody would be
>tempted to touch. It's been working just fine for several weeks now. Well,
>the feed router loses Comcast from time to time, but that's out of my
>control. The guy who has that router is planning to replace it with
>something more stable.
a 20 megabit connection to a spotty connection at 1/10 the speed of the
original. Well done, sir! :-)
David Kaye
Aug 7, 2013, 2:37:11 AM8/7/13
to
"Marcus Allen" <mall...@none.invalid> wrote
> Translation: There *was* another way, a way which was far superior but was
> nevertheless ruled out summarily.
Nope. I'll have to assume that you've never dealt with people who like to
"fix" things. Having 2 routers sitting on a shelf in the office where
staffers go to count their money and take breathers is an invitation to
tinkering. The Netgear extender is an excellent solution.
> Sounds like a pretty loose definition of "working just fine." You went
> from
> a 20 megabit connection to a spotty connection at 1/10 the speed of the
> original. Well done, sir! :-)
Actually, when I ran my laptop against the source router I was getting about
1.5 Mbps, due I'm sure to the weak signal. So, the extender takes the speed
down only .5 Mbps. If speed becomes an issue I'll get a router and see if I
can find a place to stick it closer to the source, but it's really a
2-building hop, so it's amazing that the source router can reach that far at
all (Buffalo AirStation WHR-G125) since we're talking an almost 300-foot
reach and through 2 walls.
I'm very pleased with the extender (Netgear WN1000RP). I've put in 4 of
them so far and so far everybody is happy.
> Translation: There *was* another way, a way which was far superior but was
> nevertheless ruled out summarily.
"fix" things. Having 2 routers sitting on a shelf in the office where
staffers go to count their money and take breathers is an invitation to
tinkering. The Netgear extender is an excellent solution.
> Sounds like a pretty loose definition of "working just fine." You went
> from
> a 20 megabit connection to a spotty connection at 1/10 the speed of the
> original. Well done, sir! :-)
1.5 Mbps, due I'm sure to the weak signal. So, the extender takes the speed
down only .5 Mbps. If speed becomes an issue I'll get a router and see if I
can find a place to stick it closer to the source, but it's really a
2-building hop, so it's amazing that the source router can reach that far at
all (Buffalo AirStation WHR-G125) since we're talking an almost 300-foot
reach and through 2 walls.
I'm very pleased with the extender (Netgear WN1000RP). I've put in 4 of
them so far and so far everybody is happy.
Marcus Allen
Aug 8, 2013, 10:43:39 PM8/8/13
to
On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 23:37:11 -0700, "David Kaye" <sfdavi...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>I'm very pleased with the extender (Netgear WN1000RP). I've put in 4 of
>them so far and so far everybody is happy.
Happy is a relative term. Just think how happy they could have been with a
better solution.
wrote:
>I'm very pleased with the extender (Netgear WN1000RP). I've put in 4 of
>them so far and so far everybody is happy.
better solution.
David Kaye
Aug 9, 2013, 3:21:05 PM8/9/13
to
"Marcus Allen" <mall...@none.invalid> wrote
> Happy is a relative term. Just think how happy they could have been with a
> better solution.
What do you mean by "better"? The plug-in does exactly the same thing as
using two routers. The only problem is the distance from the source router
to the extender, which slows down the connection. But given that a router
couldn't have been placed in any better position than the extender, I don't
see how having routers would have helped anything. An extender is basically
two routers without all the wiring.
> Happy is a relative term. Just think how happy they could have been with a
> better solution.
using two routers. The only problem is the distance from the source router
to the extender, which slows down the connection. But given that a router
couldn't have been placed in any better position than the extender, I don't
see how having routers would have helped anything. An extender is basically
two routers without all the wiring.
Roy
Aug 9, 2013, 3:40:29 PM8/9/13
to
The extender suffers from reusing the same channel. Each packet
occupies the same channel twice (one from the client to the repeater and
once from the repeater to the WAP). The result is reduced capacity
There is also the "hidden transmitter" problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_node_problem
In the worse case of a busy channel, the client can get totally locked out.
On the other hand, the two router solution has one radio channel for the
connection to the main WAP and another for its users.
Also, you can use a directional antenna for the connection back to the
main WAP and get a better signal.
David Kaye
Aug 9, 2013, 8:56:28 PM8/9/13
to
"Roy" <aa...@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote
> There are several drawbacks.
>
> The extender suffers from reusing the same channel. Each packet occupies
> the same channel twice (one from the client to the repeater and once from
> the repeater to the WAP). The result is reduced capacity
No, this extender does not reuse the same channel. It finds a different
one. I checked this with both a laptop and the "spectrum analyzer" app on
someone's smartphone. It was clearly using a different channel. Plus, I
can set a different SSID for the "outgoing" channel. It's as if it's really
two different routers.
> There is also the "hidden transmitter" problem.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_node_problem
By using different channels this collision doesn't occur.
> There are several drawbacks.
>
> The extender suffers from reusing the same channel. Each packet occupies
> the same channel twice (one from the client to the repeater and once from
> the repeater to the WAP). The result is reduced capacity
one. I checked this with both a laptop and the "spectrum analyzer" app on
someone's smartphone. It was clearly using a different channel. Plus, I
can set a different SSID for the "outgoing" channel. It's as if it's really
two different routers.
> There is also the "hidden transmitter" problem.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_node_problem
Brad Allen
Aug 28, 2013, 9:56:10 PM8/28/13
to
In article <7192f0ec-42fb-485f...@googlegroups.com>,
said of any other wifi I know with exception of "WickedlyFastWiFi"
downtown San Jose which is hands-down the fastest wifi I've used, but
only 65% as comprehensive in coverage in its limited area as
Xfinity/CableWifi. Its signals are strong, its coverage is very
thorough, and it doesn't waste time connecting. Once in, the bits
flow effortlessly to the screen whereupon I find out quite quickly
that I need a Comcast or valid accepted account to log in or do some
other type of payment, and there, I have to stop, since I am currently
in between Comcast accounts. It allowed me one hour free use once,
and I used it at that time, and it worked very well.
I'll write back if I stumble upon this post again in a few weeks when
I've ordered Comcast again (or moved someplace where I get it).
The Comcast salespeople don't seem to know of it. If I were you, I'd
go ahead and order Comcast service and plug into their wifi after
getting the password but not to bug the ignorant sales people about
this, since the sales people are generally pretty nice at helping you
with everything else pretty well (and I'm loathe to mess that up with
unbending big corporations unless I have some pull).
Glenn Geller <g...@ziiz.co> wrote:
" Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner Cable, Cox, and Bright House jointly own
" a wifi network that covers mainly some major urban areas (including the Bay Area).
" See the map at:
" Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner Cable, Cox, and Bright House jointly own
" a wifi network that covers mainly some major urban areas (including the Bay Area).
" See the map at:
" What are your impressions of this wifi service?
I am able to get it almost everywhere in San Jose, and that cannot be
said of any other wifi I know with exception of "WickedlyFastWiFi"
downtown San Jose which is hands-down the fastest wifi I've used, but
only 65% as comprehensive in coverage in its limited area as
Xfinity/CableWifi. Its signals are strong, its coverage is very
thorough, and it doesn't waste time connecting. Once in, the bits
flow effortlessly to the screen whereupon I find out quite quickly
that I need a Comcast or valid accepted account to log in or do some
other type of payment, and there, I have to stop, since I am currently
in between Comcast accounts. It allowed me one hour free use once,
and I used it at that time, and it worked very well.
I'll write back if I stumble upon this post again in a few weeks when
I've ordered Comcast again (or moved someplace where I get it).
The Comcast salespeople don't seem to know of it. If I were you, I'd
go ahead and order Comcast service and plug into their wifi after
getting the password but not to bug the ignorant sales people about
this, since the sales people are generally pretty nice at helping you
with everything else pretty well (and I'm loathe to mess that up with
unbending big corporations unless I have some pull).
0 new messages