Future of Customer-owned Cable Modems: Looking Dire?

ViRGE · 2025-06-27T03:12:21+00:00

With all of the hoopla over today’s major changes to Comcast’s bread & butter Internet service plans, I wanted to break out a separate discussion on the future of cable modems. In short, am I off base in thinking that, with these latest changes, Comcast has all but killed the future of customer-owned modems? For the last 25 years, owning your own modem has been the way to get around paying Comcast’s increasingly absurd fees for renting one of their gateway modems. As well as getting your hands on a better modem than some of the devices that Comcast has offered in years past. But now that Comcast has stopped charging for modem rentals - or let’s be pragmatic here: baked it into the cost of service so that everyone has to pay for a rental, whether they use it or not - it seems like Comcast has killed the major economic incentive to own your own modem. Since you’re no longer saving money by renting, buying your own modem is now an economic liability, costing owners $100-$300 on top of everything else. And since owning your own modem doesn’t get you anything else in terms of speed, the cost benefit of not paying for modem rentals was the defining reason to get one. Even Comcast’s recent XB7/XB8 modem gateways, though still kind of lackluster as routers, are pretty good as bridged modems. Not great, by any means, but probably good enough for most people. Which, to get to the crux of my thoughts, is ultimately going to lead to the end of customer-owned modems. Even if Comcast continues to support them into the DOCSIS 4.0 era - which is looking unlikely, given the lack of announcements thus far - what’s the incentive for even most technical customers to rent a modem on current D3.1 systems? And if there is no incentive to buy modems, why would Arris and the others continue to even produce consumer modems? We’ve already seen the customer-owned modem market go into a funk with the recent mid-split changes. Only a handful of modems have been approved, and only one of those modems (CODA56) comes close to qualifying as affordable. So for Comcast to undercut the remaining demand for those modems seems like a sure-fire way to knock the legs out from under the customer-owned modem market for good. Perhaps I’m just being paranoid here? But am I wrong in thinking that we’re heading for a future where all cable modems on Comcast’s network are going to be rental modems?

MacLeech

SpottedCat If you use a VPN for everything they’ll know you’re using a VPN, and how much data you move and when. That’s it.

How much and when, is enough to pattern match most common traffic. Gaming traffic patterns are different than streaming, which are different than posting on message boards.

CommunityMember

terabitz Charter has been doing this for at least a decade now, and since they’ve introduced DOCSIS 3.1 it has been a standalone modem, too.

And people on Charter still purchase their own modem (for their own reasons)[0]. However, it should be noted, that no COAM has gone through validation for Charters (at this point limited locations) high-split service[1]. Whether any modem manufacturer will choose to pursue that high-split validation is also unclear (it is up to the modem manufacturer, and while, in theory the Netgear CM3000 should be capable, Netgear has not indicated whether they intend to go through the additional validation processes).

[0] And those still on L-TWC HSI plans are charged a modem fee, so a COAM makes some sense there. However, in most cases, one can get faster and cheaper by changing to newer Charter plans (but that can also impact the customers L-TWC TV plans, which some people do not wish to lose, and while one can sometimes finesse that problem, it requires some careful planning and ordering).

[1] As with most new technology roll outs, the operator can choose to require using their own equipment initially, but at some point, they will need to allow COAMs, should the modem manufacturers choose to participate.

CommunityMember

MacLeech How much and when, is enough to pattern match most common traffic. Gaming traffic patterns are different than streaming, which are different than posting on message boards.

How quickly people forget about who were/are allegedly running some of the largest TOR exit nodes…. Just sayin’.

badtlc4

CommunityMember I cant believe people still think Tor is secure/safe with the well known public history it has.

px_eliezer_

ViRGE

Good analysis but it’s NOT just about money.

I have Optimum (owned by Altice) and by funny coincidence, I spent several hours this morning getting my new (customer-owned) modem activated.

Optimum does NOT make it easy to do.

As far as cost, Optimum (AFAICT) sometimes includes a modem, sometimes not—

But that’s irrelevant for me.

Now, I have two locations: Business and Residential.

Optimum supplies a GOOD gateway/modem for Business customers—so I use that. It was included the first year, and now is $15/month, but that’s ok.

But Optimum supplies CRAPPY equipment for the Residential customers—so even if it’s free, I will NOT use it.

Likewise, customer-provided modems often are more secure, more customizable, more friendly to 3rd-party VoIP phone service, etc.

And SOME of the Cable-Company modems create a public hot-spot from your house, whether you want it or not.

Donut417

MacLeech I mean, you trust them if you want to sail the 7 seas. Because they can tell the FBI and the DMCA to pound sand.

MacLeech

Donut417 Except it’s the MPA and RIAA, worldwide organizations that are going after pirates. They use the DMCA to aggressively warn and kick off pirates on American ISPs, with some enforcement by the FBI. They use other countries anti-piracy laws for other countries.
https://torrentfreak.com/mpa-backs-automated-pirate-site-blocking-sees-role-for-vpn-and-cdn-companies/

Donut417

MacLeech Except many countries dont give a flying fuck about copy rights. I see it on forums all the times, people speak up, like my country doesn’t care and or enforce copy rights. Those are the countries that host a lot of the pirated materials. Hell even in the US it’s hard for them to win piracy cases.

Even then they would have to prove that it is you who downloaded it and I highly doubt the MPAA or the RIAA have the time or money to track you thru a VPN. I doubt they have the power to shut down these companies, as I stated if the copyright laws are not strong in said country they cant do shit.

ElQuintron

Dks01 I have FTTH with Teksavvy at one property and Rogers at the other. Teksavvy requires me to remove the ONT, put it into a Media converter run an Ethernet wire to my router in order to use my own hardware, Rogers OTOH has an Nokia ONT, with the media converter build in and it’s trivial to bypass their router. So it’s not all doom and gloom for the BYOD crowd yet.

CommunityMember

ElQuintron So it’s not all doom and gloom for the BYOD crowd yet.

Comcast’s EPON service kicked the complexity up a notch (not only is there additional authentication involved, but a MACSEC key which is 802.1x based). There was a suggestion that Comcast may, eventually, allow 3rd party routers without the need for an XB7/8 in the link (you can apparently put the XBn in bridge mode, but that still requires the XBn), but there is no stated time frame to do so.

bigcoda

Donut417 Even then they would have to prove that it is you who downloaded it and I highly doubt the MPAA or the RIAA have the time or money to track you thru a VPN. I doubt they have the power to shut down these companies, as I stated if the copyright laws are not strong in said country they cant do shit.

The only problem is now there going after the ISP’s, with these frivolous lawsuits. If the Supreme court doesn’t step in and put a stop to this. ISP’s may have no choice but to start disconnecting internet accounts, even though the account holder may have not did anything wrong, or had anything to do with it.

“Quote”
After a Virginia jury ordered internet provider Cox to pay $1 billion in damages for failing to take appropriate actions against pirating subscribers, shockwaves rippled through the ISP industry.

The verdict, in favor of major record labels including Sony and Universal, was a catalyst for many other ‘repeat infringer’ lawsuits. This resulted in yet more multi-million dollar claims and awards, with more still in the pipeline today.

Meanwhile, Cox did all it could to fight the verdict. This resulted in some small wins, including a recent ruling that the billion-dollar damages calculation needs a re-evaluation. However, the liability ruling stands.

In a final attempt to find the law on its side, Cox petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court last year. In essence, it argued that an ISP shouldn’t be held liable simply because it knew that subscribers were pirating, while challenging the assertion that merely knowing about subscriber piracy constitutes ‘willful’ copyright infringement.
https://torrentfreak.com/record-labels-rebuff-u-s-government-in-landmark-isp-piracy-liability-showdown/

Frontier Settles Twice

Frontier was fighting not one, but two legal battles. The troubled company faced a pair of similar piracy liability lawsuits filed by movie and music companies. Both cases were scheduled to go to trial this spring, but that didn’t happen.

Last month, we reported that the movie companies’ lawsuit had been settled on undisclosed terms. As a result, demands for pirate site blocking were also off the table.

This week, the music companies, including UMG, Sony Music and Warner Music, also reached a settlement with Frontier. In a notice submitted to the New York federal court, they informed the court that all claims are settled and can therefore be dismissed.
https://torrentfreak.com/record-labels-and-isp-frontier-settle-piracy-liability-lawsuit/

Donut417

bigcoda The only problem is now there going after the ISP’s, with these frivolous lawsuits. If the Supreme court doesn’t step in and put a stop to this. ISP’s may have no choice but to start disconnecting internet accounts, even though the account holder may have not did anything wrong, or had anything to do with it.

If you use a VPN then they can’t see your traffic. The ISP is protected, can’t see the traffic then they don’t know what the hell your doing, thus not their problem. That’s the whole point of a VPN. At the end of the day the RIAA or MPAA can only point the finger at the VPN providers, many are out side the US’s jurisdiction, conveniently located in countries with weak copyright protections.

Dks01

ElQuintron OTOH, Bell no longer provides an ONT but runs fibre directly to the Sagemcom Giga Hub, which includes a built in ONT. This is their XGS-PON symmetrical service of up to 8 Gb. Older modems and the separate ONT are being phased out on Bell fibre. You can plug your own equipment into the Giga Hub, which allows you to bypass it, but there is no actual bridge mode for the consumer Giga Hub service. Rogers does allow a full bridge mode on their XB7 modems.

Dks01

Donut417 Except many countries dont give a flying fuck about copy rights.

Welcome to Canada’s Notice and Notice.

An objective of the Notice and Notice regime is to discourage online infringement on the part of Internet subscribers and to raise awareness in instances where Internet subscribers’ accounts are being used for such purposes by others.

U.S. copyright fines and penalties do not apply in Canada.

Statutory damages for non-commercial infringement in Canada do not exceed $5,000.

CommunityMember

bigcoda The only problem is now there going after the ISP’s, with these frivolous lawsuits.

The issue is that the DMCA’s safe harbor provision explicitly requires ISPs to have a policy of removal for repeat offenders.

Those ISPs that do not implement the policy are potentially in violation of the laws, and can lose their safe harbor protections (and that can mean losing the lawsuits, and having damages assessed).

No one disputes that the interpretation and implementation of the requirements do not have some challenges in the real world, but that is why one can go to court to challenge your specific case. That does not mean your actions or interpretation is right, or wrong, but that is what the court determines for the specific case in front of them.

If you want to change the DMCA, work with your congress critters (they made the law, they can change it).

KurtLandis

If you want to change the DMCA, work with your congress critters (they made the law, they can change it).

Tshirt likes this.

KurtLandis

That’s true but anybody wanting to change the DMCA and similar legislation is going to have to figure out a way to counter the Thick Brown Envelopes that find their way from media companies to key congress critters.

Man-of-Leisure

With no one to my knowledge planning to charge a modem rental fee for DOCSIS 4.0, I think the odds of there being any retail 4.0 modems are pretty remote.

You can still continue to use your own 3.0 or 3.1 modem on a 4.0 node, you just won’t get the faster speeds.

edwardp

ViRGE

But now that Comcast has stopped charging for modem rentals - or let’s be pragmatic here: baked it into the cost of service so that everyone has to pay for a rental, whether they use it or not - it seems like Comcast has killed the major economic incentive to own your own modem.

When did Comcast stop directly charging for modem rentals? My last bill from mid-June, still has the $15.00 charge.

lesmikesell

edwardp When did Comcast stop directly charging for modem rentals?

You have to switch to the new plans.

hex0101

edwardp But now that Comcast has stopped charging for modem rentals - or let’s be pragmatic here: baked it into the cost of service so that everyone has to pay for a rental, whether they use it or not - it seems like Comcast has killed the major economic incentive to own your own modem.

A sign of the times.. a lot of the fiber providers also use a similar pricing structure (never have heard anyone complain, many of the people I talk to that have fiber to the home tell me that they love the stability and faster upload speeds). Of course no one knows 100% how much of the total price goes towards equipment.

« Previous Page Next Page »