Apple's Insistence On DRM And Other Restrictions Means EFF's New App Is Android-Only

from the eff-your-walled-garden dept

Mon, Jan 12th 2015 3:45am — Tim Cushing

The EFF has produced a new mobile app that allows users to access its alert center and instantly take action on issues pertaining to digital rights and other areas the group focuses on. And, it's Android-only, because the EFF took a long look at Apple's walled garden and said, "Include us out."

Sadly, though, we had to leave out Apple devices and the folks who use them. Why? Because we could not agree to the outrageous terms in Apple’s Developer Agreement and Apple’s DRM requirements.

What specifically bothers the EFF about Apple's Developer Agreement? Well, how about the fact that you can't talk about the agreement? The agreement forbids "public statements" about a public document.

Apple also bans reverse engineering, prevents rejected apps developed with its development kit from being distributed by competing app stores and forbids jailbreaking of its devices. The EFF would prefer more open platforms, hence its decision to bypass Apple and its defensive perimeter.

Going beyond Apple's tight control of apps and its app store, there's the problem with the company's insistence on saddling software with some form of DRM. For a company that fought off the major labels' insistence that iTunes include DRM in its offerings, it seems rather hypocritical that it insist others do the very thing it refused to do for others.

As of now, the app is still in its infancy. There's not much to do with it (at least not until the next alert rolls through the system) other than install it and recommend it to others. But the EFF is seeking input both on features and design (contact rainey@eff.org) and has made the code available for forking at Github.

Apple obviously loses nothing but a bit of its reputation by EFF's shunning. But the EFF is still pushing to make the Apple App Store a better environment for all developers.

We’re inaugurating our new mobile app with a suitable campaign: a petition calling on Apple to change its Developer Agreement to respect the privacy and innovation rights of developers. Add your signature today to stand up for free speech and oppose DRM.

Apple's tight control does more damage to its reputation than any rogue app that sneaks past its controls. It has played the villain in the past, booting controversial apps and exposing itself as a guardian of nothing more than the safe and inoffensive. It has also deployed its developer agreement inconsistently, making navigating its lists of "don'ts" an aggravating exercise in minefield tiptoeing. And that's when it's not booting apps simply because they might jeopardize the home team's offerings.

Its similar control of its devices is starting to work against it, as a recently-filed class action lawsuit over its internal storage claims makes clear. When you can't add removable memory or swap out the internal storage for something bigger, you're forced to rely on the manufacturer's claims of how much room is actually available on your phone. And once you've preloaded everything Apple wants you to have on your iPhone, you're left with far less than the 8/16/32GB printed on the outside of the box. (Apple's software will "helpfully" suggest your purchase some iCloud storage when your phone nears capacity.)

Walled gardens are the antipathy of the open internet and free speech, as the EFF points out. So, as long as Apple wants to force developers to play nice with a long list of limitations, the EFF will be having no part of it.

Filed Under: android, apps, drm, ios, restrictions, walled garden
Companies: apple, eff

51 Comments

With Rollover Data, AT&T Just Keeps Walking Face First Into T-Mobile Attempts To Make It Look Stupid

Wireless

from the faking-it dept

Thu, Jan 8th 2015 9:04pm — Karl Bode

We've noted more than a few times how T-Mobile has been slowly improving the wireless industry by doing something outrageous: giving customers things they actually want. So far that's included unlimited data options at a time when the bigger carriers have embraced caps and steep overages -- and a move away from the old subsidized handset model, where users can now often buy handsets outright or subsidize them over payment plans. While some of the actual pricing promotions have been cosmetic in nature, there's no doubt that T-Mobile's consumer-friendly policies and wise ass CEO have been a great thing for the industry.

The latest example of T-Mobile disruption is its recent introduction of roll over data, a common sense approach that lets users store their unused monthly data allotments for future use in what T-Mobile calls a "Data Stash." It's certainly not a revolutionary idea, and it's not even original in the last month (a Southern wireless provider named C Spire offered the option a week or two before T-Mobile), but in a wireless industry dominated by just two players, we're at the point where god-damned common sense is the very height of innovative disruption.

Enter AT&T, bloated and groggy from decades of regulatory capture and unfamiliar with real competition (despite what groups like the CTIA claim). AT&T's been quietly admitting it's starting to feel the pinch from T-Mobile's shenanigans, which is of course precisely why AT&T tried to acquire and eliminate T-Mobile several years ago, and why regulators stepped in to block it.

Now forced to at least pretend to compete, AT&T this week introduced its own roll over data program, though in traditional ham-fisted AT&T fashion it has more than a little fine print. Unlike T-Mobile's plan that lets you store unused data bytes and bits for up to a year, AT&T lets you store your roll over data for all of one month. Worse perhaps, before you can even use your rolled-over data you have to first burn through your primary data allotment. Meanwhile, much like it did when AT&T pretended its very limited 1 Gbps offerings in Austin wasn't an obvious response to Google Fiber, AT&T is busy telling some reporters that this me-too effort (a poor one at that) has nothing whatsoever to do with T-Mobile.

It's another example of AT&T trying to fake and head bob its way past competition, in the process walking face first into T-Mobile's attempts to make the company look stupid. Amusingly, in an end of 2014 prediction blog post, T-Mobile CEO John Legere found it pretty easy to predict AT&T's behavior:

"AT&T will find new ways to cause their customers pain - especially those still on grandfathered unlimited plans. Just to squeeze more money out of them. (Meanwhile, we’ll keep embracing unlimited.) I’m also betting AT&T will introduce a weak Data Stash™ knock off – but the fine print will be massive, and they’ll miss the first and most important step in the process – which is to stop punishing their customers with domestic overages and instead get rid of them."

Again making AT&T look bad isn't hard, since AT&T is the one doing most of the heavy lifting. Legere quickly took to Twitter to mock AT&T for its efforts, in turn scoring even more PR points among consumers annoyed by AT&T and Verizon:

Only day 7 of 2015 and my predictions are coming true! Want to bet they won't give you 10GB to start or end overages? http://t.co/MyTQvGDU5l
— John Legere (@JohnLegere) January 7, 2015

It's perpetually entertaining to watch T-Mobile dismantle a giant by doing little more than treating consumers well and then just sitting back and waiting for AT&T to do something stupid. Of course with AT&T and Verizon's bottomless lobbying pockets, stranglehold on spectrum reserves, dominance of 80% of the wireless retail market and an even greater dominant share of the special access (cell tower backhaul) market, being a pain in the ass can only get T-Mobile so far. Still, it's progress for an industry that has spent ten years pantomiming what competition actually looks like. As T-Mobile and Sprint (not to mention the ocean of smaller MVNOs) gain their footing, pretending to compete is simply not going to be good enough for the nation's dopey duopoly.

Filed Under: fine print, john legere, rollover data
Companies: at&t, t-mobile

39 Comments

Wireless Carriers Admit Their Service Plans Still Far Too Confusing For Most Consumers To Actually Understand

Wireless

from the I-have-three-degrees-and-can't-understand-my-Verizon-bill dept

Wed, Jan 7th 2015 12:30pm — Karl Bode

I've written about the telecom industry for going on fifteen years now, and even I have to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to decipher many of the industry's new pricing offerings and promotions when they first hit the newswires. Of course, this confusion is often by design; the more complicated moving parts in play when choosing a plan and device (should I enroll in early phone upgrade programs? Will I have enough pooled data? Do I really need device insurance?), the more difficult it is for the average consumer to understand what it really is they're buying and make direct comparisons.

While T-Mobile's recent competitive assault on Sprint, AT&T and Verizon has helped encourage some positive changes in the sector (the shift away from device subsidies and contracts in particular), many of the competitive responses and promotions have been largely cosmetic in nature with even the carriers admitting they're still not all that interested in really competing on price. As a result, despite progress, a lot of the industry's problems remain, including intentionally-confusing bills that require several advanced degrees to truly fully understand. Even T-Mobile, which is cultivating a reputation as a consumer hero, acknowledges that consumers will never be able to understand what it is they're buying:

"Industry insiders acknowledge that, short of creating a spreadsheet to sort out the pitches, expecting consumers to navigate all of these offers is unrealistic. "We’re in a state of the industry where the carriers have sown a massive amount of confusion," Mike Sievert, the chief marketing officer for T-Mobile USA, said in a telephone interview. "Can you even decipher what’s going on with the carriers anymore?"

Of course T-Mobile laughs this off as a sort of "gosh, that's just how it is" affair, when again, this confusion is by design. AT&T, the company that has so far been hit the hardest by T-Mobile's often hilarious attacks on industry compatriots, takes the opportunity to imply that this confusion is the fault of increased T-Mobile competition, not the carriers themselves:

"I think we’re propagating some confusion in the marketplace — us as an industry," Glenn Lurie, the new chief executive of AT&T Mobility, said in a recent interview. "There’s been so much noise that customers are getting confused." Criticizing his competitors’ limited-time discounts, Mr. Lurie of AT&T said his company’s reputation was built around being respectful and transparent to customers. "Deal of the day is not necessarily how you get there."

Of course that's the same AT&T that has been at the vanguard of making wireless plans headache-inducing for years. It's also the same AT&T that just settled an investigation by the government into not only turning a blind eye to cramming and spamming, but for intentionally making bills more confusing so such scams would be harder to detect. While the press loves to make a lot out of the wireless industry's current price war, there's still a long, long way to go in terms of generating enough competitive pressure to force carriers to offer truly lower prices and a product people can understand. Of course, when the majority of consumers don't even know what a gigabyte is, that may be easier said than done.

Filed Under: cellphone service, competition, confusion, mobile phones, wireless plans
Companies: at&t, sprint, t-mobile, verizon

17 Comments

Dumb Criminal Proves Again That Open WiFi Doesn't Mean Everyone Gets Away With Everything

Wireless

from the open-and-shut dept

Mon, Dec 29th 2014 9:10pm — Timothy Geigner

For as long as people have been discussing the strategy of offering open wireless connections as an incentive to customers, there has been a rather silly debate about whether this would allow all the criminals to get away with all the crimes. It won't, of course. There's nothing negligent about offering open wifi and we've already seen cases in the past in which criminals using open wifi still, shockingly, manage to get themselves caught. The reason for this should be obvious: criminals are generally fairly stupid.

Here to drive that point home is this convicted child-porn-loving asshole who thought he could go to a Starbucks to download more child porn and get away with it. Turns out he couldn't.

Detectives on Saturday arrested a registered sex offender while he was allegedly downloading child pornography at a Hillsboro Starbucks, the Washington County Sheriff's Office said. The lead detective in the case arrested Robert Dietz, 59, for similar crimes in 2009, according to Sgt. Vance Stimler.

Detectives arrested Dietz at the Starbucks located at 1st Avenue and Main Street while he allegedly tried to download child porn using free Wi-Fi, Stimler said.

Dietz has since taken up residence in prison because he's an idiot for thinking this would work out well for him. It turns out that open wifi connections can (gasp!) be monitored by the companies that offer them. Couple that apparently not-obvious fact with the notion that traditional police work, such as gathering leads and information from the public, still totally exists, and it's hard to imagine how Dietz could think he wouldn't get caught.

But we should stop a moment and thank Robert Dietz, two-time child porn offender, for providing us advocates of open wifi with another example of how offering it doesn't suddenly render all police work useless. Thanks, Bob! Now back to jail with thee!

Filed Under: criminals, detective work, police, wifi

15 Comments

Throwing Tax Breaks At AT&T And Verizon Shockingly Not Creating Promised Jobs, Investment

Failures

from the we-don't-appear-to-be-learning-anything dept

Wed, Dec 24th 2014 6:17am — Karl Bode

Time and time again we're told by incumbent ISPs that if lawmakers give them "X," we'll soon be awash in all manner of miraculous network investment and job creation. Sometimes "X" is an acquisition, as when AT&T promised to magically increase competition if it was allowed to remove T-Mobile from the marketplace. Often "X" is broad deregulation. Other times it's significant regulation of they other guy. Sometimes it's just subsidies. Lately we've been told that if we only don't apply net neutrality rules, we'll be awash in amazing network investment and next-generation broadband in no time.

Of course, if you stop and actually pay attention, time and time again you'll shockingly find that these repeated telecom Utopias never arrive, and by giving your favorite lumbering telecom duopolist everything it wants, things generally only get worse. Deregulate AT&T broadly in California under promise that you'll see lower rates and greater competition, for example, and watch miraculously how things actually get worse (and nobody wants to talk about it). AT&T's currently telling state lawmakers that if they gut all regulations requiring it maintain DSL and POTS networks (so AT&T can hang up on users it doesn't want to upgrade) we'll soon be awash in the technology miracles of tomorrow. Downgrades are upgrades, you see.

"X" is also all-too-frequently tax breaks and incentives. You might recall that Verizon promised the States of New Jersey and Pennsylvania it would deliver fiber broadband to every home in exchange for billions in tax cuts. After getting the incentives Verizon simply threw money at the States, and a decade later both States were willing to forget Verizon's obligations entirely.

Similarly, the Wall Street Journal recently dug through the history books, and found that bonus depreciation -- imposed as part of the 2008 Stimulus Act and pushed for by the telcos to spur job creation and investment -- also never delivered the goods. Essentially an interest-free loan that lets companies defer tax obligations, the Journal notes that, once again, the promised job growth and investment spikes never actually happened:

"But that isn’t how it has worked, at least at AT&T and Verizon, whose vast networks of towers and cables make them two of the country’s biggest investors in infrastructure. AT&T estimated its federal tax bill last year at $3 billion, down from about $5.9 billion in 2007, before the tax relief was enacted. Verizon estimated that it would get $197 million back last year, compared with a 2007 bill of $2.6 billion. Meanwhile, the companies have kept their capital spending relatively flat since the stimulus was adopted, and their employee count has dropped by more than 100,000 people, a fifth of their combined work forces."

This was, the Journal notes, despite studies years earlier clearly illustrating that bonus depreciation didn't really work, though AT&T (as it does with everything) is threatening reduced investment if the policies aren't extended. While wireless spending remains strong, the Journal fails to note that AT&T's fixed-line investment has actually been dropping significantly -- even while the company pretends to be expanding gigabit fiber to get its DirecTV acquisition approved by regulators. It's a never-ending cycle of bluffing and bullshit, and at some point you'd think we'd stop and realize that maybe just giving lumbering, pampered duopolists absolutely everything they want may not be the quickest path to telecom nirvana.

Filed Under: broadband, investment, jobs, shovel ready, stimulus, telcos
Companies: at&t, verizon

20 Comments

After A Ten Year Nap The Government Wakes Up On Cramming, Finally Holds Big Carriers Accountable (Sort Of)

Scams

from the better-late-than-never dept

Mon, Dec 22nd 2014 2:28pm — Karl Bode

Most people are familiar with the practice of cramming -- or suddenly waking up one day to find your wireless phone bill stocked with $10 per month services (usually horoscopes, "premium text message" or ringtones) you didn't ask for and don't want. While the government has occasionally come down hard on the small companies engaging in these scams because they're easy legal wins, it has historically left the big carriers (and campaign contributors) alone, despite the fact that AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint all turn a blind eye to the practice in exchange for up to 40% of the proceeds. After a deep slumber, the government has finally started taking bigger companies to task, even if it's a day late and more than a few dollars short.

Back in October, the FTC announced it had struck a $105 million settlement with AT&T, with an investigation finding that not only did AT&T turn a blind eye to crammers and the mountains of consumer complaints, it actively worked to make getting refunds more difficult. The telco also intentionally made bills more confusing so customers would have a harder time figuring out that they were being ripped off:

"The structure of AT&T’s consumer bills compounded the problem of the unauthorized charges, according to the complaint, by making it very difficult for customers to know that third-party charges were being placed on their bills. On both the first page of printed bills and the summary of bills viewed online, consumers saw only a total amount due and due date with no indication the amount included charges placed on their bill by a third party. The complaint alleges that within online and printed bills, the fees were listed as “AT&T Monthly Subscriptions,” leaving consumers to believe the charges were part of services provided by AT&T."

AT&T's not alone. Rumors indicate that Sprint is about to face similar penalties, and it seems like only a matter of time before Verizon joins the party. The FTC has also struck a settlement deal with T-Mobile that has the "uncarrier" paying $90 million in consumer refunds, $18 million in fines and penalties to the attorneys general of all 50 states, and another $5 million in fines to the FCC. Despite their recent reputation for consumer friendly behavior (the company said the FTC's allegations were "unfounded and without merit" earlier this year), T-Mobile, like AT&T, made getting refunds nearly impossible and intentionally made the charges hard to see on consumer bills:

"According to the FTC’s July complaint, T-Mobile’s phone bills made it nearly impossible for consumers to find and understand third-party subscription charges. The FTC’s complaint against T-Mobile noted that in many instances information about the third-party charges crammed on to customers’ bills was buried deep in phone bills that totaled more than 50 pages in length."

Of course if you figure out that carriers were getting 40% of $10 per month charged to tens of millions of customers for more than a decade, the fines don't even come close to the amount of money these companies made by ripping off their subscribers. Better late than never?

Filed Under: carriers, cramming, fcc
Companies: at&t, sprint, t-mobile, verizon

21 Comments

Techdirt Podcast Episode 5: The Internet From Space!

Techdirt

from the not-so-crazy dept

Thu, Dec 18th 2014 1:40pm — Leigh Beadon

This week's episode of Techdirt Podcast is all about thinking outside the box (and the atmosphere) on the subjects of broadband and global connectivity. There have been many attempts to build practical satellite-based internet access over the years, and though so far they have all been multibillion-dollar failures, there's still a huge amount of potential in the concept — not to mention other innovative concepts, like internet from balloons, blimps or floating platforms. This week, Mike, Hersh and Dennis discuss the past and future of such ideas, and the revolutionary disruptions that they could usher in.

If you still haven't subscribed, you should follow us on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes, or simply plug the RSS feed into your favorite podcatcher app (we have a few recommendations). Of course, you can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

If you've already subscribed, please note: we've moved our podcast RSS feed to a new location — techdirt.com/podcast.xml — which will be its permanent home going forward. The old RSS feed will continue to work indefinitely, but the new address (which acts as a redirect) safeguards against disruption from any future changes to our podcast hosting setup.

Filed Under: balloons, cubesats, internet, internet access, nano satellites, nanosats, net neutrality, satellites, space

3 Comments

Conflicts Of Interest, Lack Of Transparency Mar Our Attempt To Build A Nationwide Emergency Wireless Network

Wireless

from the when-can-we-officially-call-it-a-boondoggle dept

Tue, Dec 16th 2014 3:52pm — Karl Bode

Prompted by the communications network failures during 9/11, roughly fourteen years ago the government began exploring the building of a nationwide emergency communications network specifically for first responders and emergency personnel. While it took a decade of Congressional bickering, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 finally created the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet). FirstNet was given $7 billion and tasked with building a nationwide LTE network that largely piggybacks on the networks of existing carriers, delivering what the project's website declares will be a "a force multiplier, increasing collaboration to help emergency responders save more lives, solve more crimes and keep our communities safer."

Except as we previously noted, allegations emerged early on that the project had been stocked with executives from the nation's biggest wireless carriers, who were criticized for giving closed-door preference to AT&T and Verizon friends, and elbowing out folks with actual emergency, first responder or emergency backgrounds. The result was a project that has seen little actual progress, gridlocked by a raise by the carriers to corner the billions in project funds. To ease concerns, the organization investigated itself late last year and unsurprisingly found no indications of wrong doing or conflict of interest.

Fast forward a year, and the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Commerce has released a report (pdf) that's nowhere near as forgiving. According to the study, there were numerous conflicts of interest, and FirstNet board members were pretty fast and loose when it came to adhering to disclosure rules, either filing late, or when they did file -- not actually bothering to disclose conflicts of interest that did exist:

"Finally, all four of these Board members continued to engage in decision making, even though they were not in compliance with the financial disclosure requirements. Departmental officials could have elevated or called attention to these issues, in order to prevent or remedy these conditions. But, without a more effective ethics program in place for FirstNet, the Department has not created sufficient internal controls to ensure a sound process for the filing of Board members’ financial disclosures."

While it uses very polite language to say so, the report unsurprisingly found that conflict of interest problems arose because FirstNet wasn't paying very close attention to what few rules it had. The study found FirstNet also appears to have significant failures when it comes to expenditures, decision documentation, contract bids and transparency, pretty much across the board:

"...the FirstNet Board operational procedures for monitoring potential conflicts of interest need improvement...In addition, FirstNet contracting practices lacked transparent award competition, sufficient oversight of hiring, adequate monitoring, and procedures to prevent payment of erroneous costs...Inconsistencies in record keeping and administration suggest a lack of active or centralized supervision and quality control, thereby creating gaps in oversight and increasing the risk of noncompliance with disclosure requirements among FirstNet Board members. This is especially critical, given Board member ties to the telecommunications industry."

The government is apparently still in the process of determining whether any of the violations require "additional administrative action," though many of the original board members (and FirstNet GM and former Verizon exec Bill D'Agostino) have already moved on. FirstNet chair Sue Swenson, meanwhile, acknowledges that "some administrative missteps" took place, but insists that the project is finally on the right path. Hopefully that's comforting to the people who'll be impacted by the major domestic disasters of the last few years. At least we still have ham radio operators, who'll probably still be carrying disaster communications responsibilities on their volunteer shoulders a decade from now.

Filed Under: conflicts of interest, emergency, firstnet, wireless
Companies: firstnet

Verizon Admits To Investors That Title II Won't Harm Broadband Investment At All

Say That Again

from the words-are-but-wind dept

Thu, Dec 11th 2014 10:32am — Karl Bode

As the company that sued to overturn the FCC's wimpier net neutrality rules (to the chagrin of AT&T and Comcast, who liked the weaker rules), Verizon has of course been leading the charge against Title II, telling anyone who will listen that network investment will decline, innovation will stall, dogs and cats will live together, and mass hysteria will ensue if the FCC regulates ISPs under Title II. Of course you're to ignore the fact that the voice component of wireless networks and parts of Verizon's FiOS network (largely to get tax breaks) have been regulated for years under Title II without the slightest problem for the company.

Given Verizon's repeated assertions that Title II will just crush investment, it was a little amusing to hear Verizon CFO Fran Shammo this week clearly tell attendees of the UBS Annual Global Media and Communications Conference that Title II won't harm the company's network investments in the slightest. Shammo was asked about whether Title II would sour Verizon's interest in investing in United States broadband. Shammo's reply:

"I mean to be real clear, I mean this does not influence the way we invest. I mean we're going to continue to invest in our networks and our platforms, both in Wireless and Wireline FiOS and where we need to. So nothing will influence that. I mean if you think about it, look, I mean we were born out of a highly regulated company, so we know how this operates."

Companies (especially CFOs) tend to forget that the public has ears when speaking at these sort of events, but apparently Shammo quickly realized what he had just admitted -- so he then tries to backtrack:

"And I also think that if you look at other countries who have done this, it kind of leads you down to [a] path of total failure because it really, really slows down investment and slows down innovation."

Right. Clear as mud. Title II won't impact network investment whatsoever, but Title II will like totally impact network investment. Verizon pretty clearly wants to have its cake and eat it too, even if it makes absolutely no logical, coherent sense. Of course that's because the mega-ISPs aren't really that worried about Title II -- they're worried that the FCC will create enforceable rules that will prevent them from abusing the industry's stranglehold on uncompetitive broadband markets with all manner of "creative" pricing and content/service discrimination.

Filed Under: fran shammo, investment, net neutrality, title ii
Companies: verizon

13 Comments

Comcast Sued Over Router Update That Makes Your Wi-Fi Hotspot Public, Ignores Your Opt-Out Preferences

Legal Issues

from the pay-us-to-pay-us dept

Wed, Dec 10th 2014 10:39am — Karl Bode

In June of last year, Comcast quietly announced that it was deploying a new "Xfinity Home Hotspot" initiative that would turn user home routers into publicly-accessible hotspots. Updated routers broadcast two signals: one being yours, and the other being an "Xfinitywifi" SSID offering free Wi-Fi to Comcast users in the area (prepaid Wi-Fi for non-Comcast customers). Comcast's FAQ attempts to minimize customer worries about the initiative by noting the public Wi-Fi doesn't count against the customer's usage caps, and the router delivers extra bandwidth (above your provisioned speeds) to counter any extra usage load.

There are a number of problems with the initiative. One, you're paying Comcast a monthly fee (up to $10 in many areas) to rent hardware that's using your bandwidth (and around $30 in electricity annually) to effectively advertise and sell Comcast services. Two, the service is being deployed market-by-market without prior consumer consent. It's also opt out not opt-in, and users complain the routers continuously and mysteriously reset this preference each time the hardware receives a firmware update. Three, Comcast's sending out misleading e-mails that may place an order for the new hardware without your consent.

Complaints have been growing about this initiative for a while, but they appear to have reached a fevered pitch this week with the news that Comcast is now facing a class action lawsuit over the Xfinity Home Hotspot program. Reading the complaint, lawyers don't appear to have noticed yet that the opt-out mechanism often doesn't actually work -- but from the looks of things the fact Comcast doesn't give advanced warning about the changes may be enough for a case:

"Grear claims that Comcast does not request customers' authorization to use their residential equipment and networks for public use. "Indeed, Comcast's contract with its customers is so vague that it is unclear as to whether Comcast even addresses this practice at all," the lawsuit claims. In using its customers' home networks to build a national network, Comcast "has externalized the costs of its national wi-fi network onto its customers," Grear says in the complaint. He claims that the new routers use much more electricity than regular routers, and that this is "a cost borne by the unwitting customer."

Fortunately, Comcast customers can skip the legal proceedings and take things into their own hands by buying their own compatible router and modems, thereby avoiding paying Comcast a $10 per month rental fee to help build Comcast's nationwide Wi-Fi network. Estimates suggest Comcast makes $300 million per quarter just off of these modem rental fees alone, and the monthly fee has steadily climbed sykward over the last several years.

Filed Under: hotspots, lawsuits, modem rentals, modems, opt-out, routers, terms of service, wifi
Companies: comcast

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Read the latest posts:

read all »

Techdirt Deals

Report this ad | Hide Techdirt ads

Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Older Stuff

Tuesday
12:38	T-Mobile Still Doesn't Understand (Or Simply Doesn't Care) That Their 'Music Freedom' Plan Tramples Net Neutrality (98)
15:46	AT&T Quietly Backs Away From Its Use of Sneaky Super Cookies (12)
Monday
09:03	Justice Department Defends US Marshals' Airborne Cell Tower Spoofers; Refuses To Acknowledge Program Exists (36)
Thursday
04:24	UK's Home Secretary Says Terrorists Will Be The Real Winners If Country's Cell Coverage Dead Zones Are Fixed (68)
Monday
11:52	Verizon Admits Wireless Industry Really Not Competitive, Has No Intention of Lowering Prices (14)
Friday
07:51	Verizon May Soon Get to Enjoy a Lawsuit Over Its Sneaky Use of Perma-Cookies (55)
Thursday
09:39	AT&T Still Proudly Makes Unlocking Phones Under Contract Annoying and Impossible (27)
Tuesday
14:49	More Cops Investigate More Teens 'Sexting.' Now What? (35)
13:38	FTC Sues AT&T For Selling 'Unlimited' Data Plans That Were Actually Throttled (22)
06:05	Stupid WiFi Hotspot Name Gets American Airlines Flight Grounded (55)
Monday
12:16	Payment Wars: How Merchants And Carriers Are Trying To Block Payment Systems They Can't Track (79)
Tuesday
13:45	FCC Used Title II To Fine AT&T For SMS Cramming And The World Didn't End: Why Would It For Broadband? (11)
Friday
14:14	FCC Fines Marriott For Jamming Customers' WiFi Hotspots To Push Them Onto Hotel's $1,000 Per Device WiFi (77)
Wednesday
20:43	Rackspace Helps Kill A Patent Troll: Rotating Your Smartphone Is No Longer Infringing (36)
Friday
03:50	Good News: Mobile Devices Now Competing To Be Much More Secure Against Prying Eyes (34)
Wednesday
13:30	FCC's Tom Wheeler Suggests He Will Crack Down On Anti-Consumer Practices By Mobile Operators (14)
Tuesday
15:50	Ryan Seacrest's Typo Blows Off Injunction, Sells Thousands Of Possibly-Infringing Keyboards (15)
Wednesday
10:06	Bad Idea: California Legislature Passes Bill To Mandate Mobile Phone Kill Switches (75)
Thursday
10:03	Music Freedom Or Holding Consumers Hostage? Letting ISPs Pick Winners And Losers Is A Problem (56)
Wednesday
10:06	Chinese Government Publishes Secret List Of Microsoft's Anti-Android Patents (20)
Monday
14:11	Chile Bans Free Delivery Of Social Media Services To Uphold Net Neutrality (22)
Friday
11:50	The $120 Smartphone Patent Tax: Patent Royalties Cost More Than The Actual Hardware In Your Phone (105)
Wednesday
05:22	Taiwan Proposes Fining 'Distracted Walking' Due To 'Smart Phone Addiction' (33)
Tuesday
08:51	NYPD Officers Expect Public To Be Stupider Than They Are; Justify Shutting Down Recording With 'iPhones Are Guns' Claim (96)
Thursday
03:27	Mobile Spyware Use In Domestic Violence Ramps Up (31)
Wednesday
14:01	Police Utilizing Private Companies, Exploits To Access Data From Suspects' Smartphones (51)
Monday
11:08	Dear Everyone: Stop Freaking Out That Malaysian Airlines Notified Victim's Families By Text Message (21)
Wednesday
05:31	Town Built Around No WiFi/Radio Waves Rules Is Right Next To NSA Snoop Center (87)
Monday
08:52	'5G' Wireless Doesn't Even Technically Exist Yet, But Everyone's Pretty Sure It's Going To Fix Everything (27)
Tuesday
08:27	Police Tell Courts Non-Disclosure Agreement Prevents Them From Getting A Warrant For Cell Phone Tower Spoofers (20)

from the eff-your-walled-garden dept

from the faking-it dept

from the I-have-three-degrees-and-can't-understand-my-Verizon-bill dept

from the open-and-shut dept

from the we-don't-appear-to-be-learning-anything dept

from the better-late-than-never dept

from the not-so-crazy dept

from the when-can-we-officially-call-it-a-boondoggle dept

from the words-are-but-wind dept

from the pay-us-to-pay-us dept

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Tools & Services

Company

Contact

More