Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dispute Over IP Sharing Escalates

CmdrTaco posted more than 13 years ago | from the now-that-is-scary dept.

The Internet 251

This story was sent in anonymously, but has several interesting points. The major part of the story is a dispute over sharing IPs on DSL lines (this is in Korea, keep that in mind). The scariest part is that they cut off service to a customer using their line to run a petition site to get them to change the policy. Disagree with the telcom, and we cut your service! Anyone else see anything scary about that? Obviously I think we should be able to use our DSL lines to host as many PCs as we want up to the bandwidth cap, that's simply our choice. But that's secondary to what happens when you mess w/ the telco!

cancel ×

251 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

New Tech, Old Attitudes (1)

carlhirsch (87880) | more than 13 years ago | (#417779)

"We don't care, dHave to care; We're the Phone Company."

- An old Lily Tomlin bit from SNL in the 70s.

carl

Bandwidth vs. Lines (2)

BgJonson79 (129962) | more than 13 years ago | (#417780)

I would appear the telco says you are renting the lines, while most consumers feel they are renting the bandwidth. My roommates and I take a 640kbps down line and split it 3 ways... but the way it works out is that each of us almost always gets full speed because we haven't used it all at the same time since we downloaded a few gigs of pr0n when we first got it. This must work out the same way for a lot of Slashdotters.

Road Runner (1)

jcausey (253286) | more than 13 years ago | (#417781)

Time Warner's Road Runner actually encourages NAT's -- they'll even sell you special software to do it with Winblows :)
(I think they're just stingy with their cable modems)

New Tech, Old Attitudes (Garf. Repost from garble) (1)

carlhirsch (87880) | more than 13 years ago | (#417782)

"We don't care, we don't have to care; We're the Phone Company."

- An old Lily Tomlin bit from SNL in the 70s.

carl

Funny line in here... (5)

lambda (4236) | more than 13 years ago | (#417783)

"The scariest part is that they cut off service to a customer using their line to run a petition site to get them to change the policy. Disagree with the telcom, and we cut your service!"

I guess that trolls on Slashdot that disagree with the way the service is run are treated first-class, eh?

Borrowing IPs on home broadband in Palo Alto (5)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#417784)

Ah, reminds me of the good old days of cable modem service in Palo Alto and Menlo Park...go obtain a cable modem somewhere, plug it in, claim an IP address you know to be in the Cable Co-Op number range, and voila! you're on. Heaven forbid someone already may have legitimately been issued your IP address. The Cable Co-Op response? "We control the distribution of cable modems, so this can't happen". Ever been to Fry's? I know of at least a dozen people who "borrowed" IPs on the Cable Co-Op network to get months of free service, often at the expense of legit users.

Terms of Service (3)

Godeke (32895) | more than 13 years ago | (#417785)

Even in the States we have companies with terms of service such as these. And it is easy to detect NAT running, because so many "odd" port numbers keep passing through. However, as long as the user keeps under the bandwidth cap (which is a legitimate business decision to have one) I don't see why the service would be concerned with why the packets are the way they are. Nor have I heard of someone being shut down for NAT'ting out 2-5 machines. I *have* heard of quake servers being shut down, but there is at least one real concern above bandwidth when a user creates a server - they create an obvious attack point for denial of service and other attacks.

A disgrace (4)

MartinG (52587) | more than 13 years ago | (#417786)

Disagree with the telcom, and we cut your service!

What! That's outrageous! Why should the slashdot admins cut off my service just because I disagree with the telecom. I mean, I can understand the telecom cutting me of themselves, but this goes WAY too far!

:)

This is a very scary trend (1)

Krispinator (241937) | more than 13 years ago | (#417787)

Why shouldn't someone be able to split their internet connection with their housemates, pets, whoever? A permanent connection via dsl or cable is expensive enough. I don't see what the problem is for noncommerical usage. I know my cable provider does not allow the sharing of IP's, but seems to turn a blind eye anyways. I agree that you should be allowed to use and distribute the bandwidth you have purchased anyway you like (by distribute I non-commercial distribution).

So like what? (1)

DirkGently (32794) | more than 13 years ago | (#417788)


They're bitching because of people doing NAT?! What would this mean if one were to run a firewall, with a single desktop host behind it?

And likewise, how can they tell? NAT can mangle the packets so they all originate from one host. Micro$oft's ICS does the same thing.

I'm not surprised that the telco silenced the petition site. The petitioners were goofy for hosting it on the aforementioned telco company's DSL network.

Dirk

I think theres a difference in sharing computers, (5)

rigor6969 (240549) | more than 13 years ago | (#417789)

and re-selling their high speed access. I mean one customer, may have a couple of boxes at home tied to a network, so the family can surf. but i'd bet a lot of folks in korea are so poor, they wire up buildings, blocks, etc, from one dsl line and are paying the personal use fees. I do think its unfair to not allow 2-3 personal pc's to share a link, and how would they determine if you were NAT'ing? but if you have like 3 or 4 neighbors or more leeching off the same line, come on. DSL doesn't make any money if you're flogging the bandwidth 24/7. Its hardly profitable at all as it is.

Ah journalists... (1)

madumas (186398) | more than 13 years ago | (#417790)

Journalists are never able to tell the difference between a bacteria or virus (all diseases are caused by virus, according to them), or between a software and a site (see Napster case).

Now, they aren't even able to tell the difference between a site and a newsgroup(sig.kornet.net.adsl)! ;-)

Absolutely (2)

NineNine (235196) | more than 13 years ago | (#417791)

Even in the US, most DSL and cable providers say that you're not allowed to run 'servers' with their bandwidth. Under ANY circumstances, you should be allowed to do whatever you want with the bandwidth as long as it doesn't cause any added liability for the provider. What is really happening is that the DSL provider really doesn't expect to be providing the true bandwidth. Their business model and infrastructure would fall apart if they actually had to provide what they are selling you. In protest, all DSL users should mak out their lines with NON-'server' traffic. Make the providers hold up their end of the deal. We're buying bandwidth, and they had better damn well provide it, instead of hiding behind bogus 'no server' rules.

Move to South Australia! (3)

CarrotLord (161788) | more than 13 years ago | (#417792)

We don't have any of those kinds of problems here...

reads earlier story...

oh... :(

rr

Isn't NAT undetectable by the ISP? (2)

Peter Millerchip (166655) | more than 13 years ago | (#417793)

I may be wrong, but my understanding of the NAT (Masquerading) used by most devices is that they change the source address of the packets they send so that it looks like the data all comes from the device itself. Certainly the Masquerading kernel option in the Linux 2.2 series kernels works this way.

Surely then, the ISP would not be able to detect a NAT/Masquerading box? It would look to them as though you still have only one PC, but you're just downloading a lot of stuff simultaneously. So why are people bothered by any terms and conditions that these ISPs write into their agreements? You could easily turn around to them and say that you are just running one PC, and there's no way they could prove you wrong short of getting a search warrant!

So where's the problem? Unless I've missed something fundamental, this seems to be a non-issue.

Pricing based on average use.... (5)

NetJunkie (56134) | more than 13 years ago | (#417794)

The reason the telcos and cable companies can give people broadband cheaply is that they base the price on "average" use. If people start putting 8 systems on there (and..uh..who would do that?) the average goes out the window. Many companies, I know my RoadRunner service does, will give you another IP (you can get another dynamic) for like $10/month to help cover costs.

But, they also don't seem to mind NAT here. I think they should hand out NAT routers with every cable modem, or integrate it in, just for the sake of security. I know I tell everyone at the office to buy one RIGHT AWAY when they get cable or DSL.

Anti KT (1)

gwjc (181552) | more than 13 years ago | (#417795)

To bad the Anti-KT folks were so clueless to run their Anit-KT site in on a server/link controlled by KT.
Maybe they'll be smart enough to host it offshore for round 2.
Many @homeish service providers here would cut you off if they found you MASQing a bunch of PC's by reason of sheer ignorance if nothing else. They will also add charges for each PC - and use the same stupid bandwidth illogic. Hell many standard service agreements here say they can cut you for running a server.. For my mouth shall speak truth and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.

Network Nazi's (1)

iomud (241310) | more than 13 years ago | (#417796)

Stealing IP's is one thing simply NATing is another, as long as I'm not taking any more resources than I'm paying for and am promised then it shouldnt be a problem. I should be able to run my company's LAN off of your stinking DSL. That one ip is mine and if I choose to NAT it out that's my business the ISP is doing the traffic shaping so there's now way for me to go over my bandwidth cap, what are they worried about?

Re:A disgrace (1)

Kalzus (86795) | more than 13 years ago | (#417797)

Bear in mind that this is happening in a *different* country from the United States.

Bear in mind that, although the Republic of Korea is more-or-less considered a representative democracy, it has been less than 15 years since a military-installed president has *not* warmed the seat in the Central Assembly Building.

Bear in mind that, from about 1918 (officially; and I think this is off by a bit anyway) until 1945, Korea was occupied by the Japanese, who tried to systematically eliminate the Korean culture from the face of Earth.

I'm not saying I agree with these practices, but give them a little credit for being authoritarian-by-survival-instinct ^_^

IP vs IP (1)

walnut (78312) | more than 13 years ago | (#417798)

Ok... Taco and Hemos and so on, I have a simple request. When you use an abreviation for something which can be taken more than two ways in common geek-speak please refer to the words which it stands for first...

IP stands for Intellectual Property and
IP stands for Internet Protocol.

I'm sure IP stands for a whole heckofa lot more too, but those are the common geek-speak uses. If you can think of a third, then you definitely need to consider what you are writing...

Technically, yes... (1)

Akardam (186995) | more than 13 years ago | (#417799)

But if you're using something like the Sonicwall SOHO firewall that you can set to drop ICMP packets, they might be a little suspicious if they try and ping you, and get no response, whilst all the while the data keepeth flowing.

That and if they track 170 hits to Yahoo! at once, someone at the NOC might be scratching his head saying, "There's something not quite right with this picture". :)

Akardam Out

Let's not forget the obvious (1)

the_tsi (19767) | more than 13 years ago | (#417800)

Korea != United States.

Yeah, they're not a "communist regime" but they still don't have the US government and things just work differently. Applying your morals to a situation abroad may not be right in all circumstances.

-Chris
...More Powerful than Otto Preminger...

Agreement (1)

HongPong (226840) | more than 13 years ago | (#417801)

If it said so in their original agreement with the ISP, they aren't allowed to use NAT. If they wanted to use NAT, they shouldn't have signed up for the service, or tried to cross that clause off the contract. And running your petition off the same service you're bitching about? Come on, guys...

--

My take... (3)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 13 years ago | (#417802)

Is very simple.

IP space wasn't supposed to be a commodity, but it is now, due to ineffective planning (or whatever you want to call it).

An ISP should *only* ever enforce two rules.

1) How much bandwidth you can use.
2) Reserve the right to terminate your account if you cause them grief (spamming, etc..).

They shouldn't say 'don't run servers' 'only one computer' 'only for casual at-home use' etc.... they should simply make the bandwidth rules and prices reflect this.

Nothing to see here, move along... (2)

Tin Weasil (246885) | more than 13 years ago | (#417803)

I don't see anything scary here.

It makes complete sense that a telco would not allow their bandwidth to be used for someone to protest their company. Would you expect McDonalds to be okay with letting PETA protesters carry their signs behind the cashier counter? Of course not.

If someone wants to run a sight protesting the telco, for whatever reason, they should run it on a server that is not connected with the telco.

Duh.

Laugh In, not SNL (1)

Nick Driver (238034) | more than 13 years ago | (#417804)

and it was half a decade before SNL!

That's what I told the ISP when I signed up... (1)

Akardam (186995) | more than 13 years ago | (#417805)

I explicitly told them that I was going to be placing a firewall and several PC's behind it, and I explicitly told them that if they didn't like that I'd take my business elsewhere. Of course, the had no problem, so all was good. It's a shame you don't find more ISP's like that these days. Of course, I am paying 100/mo for my DSL, but I'm happy to.

The telco world works on average load (1)

Hairy_Potter (219096) | more than 13 years ago | (#417806)

not maximum load, which you geeks seem to be pushing.

For instance, telephone lines. The telco's pick a number of lines to allow the maxium average load access, but if too many people call (ie. during a natural distaster or such), you may not get through, you get a message like all circuits are busy. Now I don't know what algorithm they use, but they probably scale to something like 98%.

Now, they could scale expected calls to 99.9 %, but do you want your telephone bill to triple just so once or twice a year you don't get the "all circuits are busy" message? Is that one call worth $1200 USD to you?

So, apply this to DSL, same thing. They figure a high maximum average load, becuase most normal users aren't going to be maxing their download speed. Some will download, some will read a webpage, some won't even use it. The users share the bandwidth, it's a common bandwidth, and if you try to hog it all, well, look up Tragedy of the Commons.

Now, if you want to get your gauranted bandwidth, 24-7, I'm sure a DSL provider will sell you a nice guaranteed business connection, with uptime and bandwidth gaurantees. Just be prepared to shell out several times what home DSL costs, if you don't want to pay that, stop bitching.

For the record, I just got home DSL, and almost immediately asked my DSL provider for 5 IP addies instead of 1. It's a nonimal charge, $4.99 USD a month. Sure, I could have have NAT, but I'd rather pay a little and be honest. I thought being honest and upfront and paying your own way was what Oepn Source was about, but I guess it's really abotu stealing all that you can.

Not quite... (2)

Dick Richards (307933) | more than 13 years ago | (#417807)

Disagree with the telcom, and we cut your service!
Probably more like violate the TOS and get TOSsed. If you want to host a site from home, pay for it.

Why only KT, hang all of them (1)

ishrat (235467) | more than 13 years ago | (#417808)

But currently, private line operators such as KT, Dreamline, Dacom and Hanaro Telecom ban such line sharing.

The site's operators plan to open an "anti-KT" site to publicly inform of the injustice of KT's acts of banning IP sharing devices and the shutdown of its site.

The fight should be "Anti-Ban" against all those guys who think only of monopolising and fleecing customers.

Its the ISP's line, and their contract (1)

boaworm (180781) | more than 13 years ago | (#417809)

What is really the big issue ?
--zap--
... private line operators such as KT, Dreamline, Dacom and Hanaro Telecom ban such line sharing...
--zap--
If it sais so in the contract you sign with the ISP, then change ISP if you dont like the policy.

Re:Bandwidth vs. Lines (2)

sharkey (16670) | more than 13 years ago | (#417810)

Absolutely. First thing I did was install Dead Rat 6.2 over the net. Then I spent several hours w/Napster trying out songs. Since probably August 2000, my (Comcast) bandwidth has been mostly free. I check my mail at night, and browse whatever topic has caught my attention during the day that I feel guilty about using works bandwidth for, but that's about it. I am using NAT, and ipchains on a firewall, but just for my single PC inside. Basically, it's there for security, so that I don't have my Win9x PC connected directly.

--

I payed for 512K... (1)

oooga (307220) | more than 13 years ago | (#417811)

Not 3 computers. Or one. If I have 300,000 computers running SETI@HOME, and each of them need to access the internet only once every 3 months (they're slow, okay?), then what's the problem with using only one line. If I'm not supposed to use the bandwidth the telco's have sold me, why don't they just sell me less?

Draconinan, but (3)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 13 years ago | (#417812)

in a weird way I can understand the differances between personal use of bandwidth, and Commercial use.

When I am personally using dsl or better bandwidth, I am certainly not taking full advantadge of the pipe. So If I use 10% of the pipe or 20% of the pipe, or whatever, the service provider can charge me one third of what he charges a business customer, and still make a profit. Even If I use 30 or 40%, unlikely unless I streaming video 24/7, and doing other things, The average usage for most people probably is around 5 or 10% (all numbers are speculative) and so based on this the service can be priced accordingly.

Now if I suddenly have dozens or hundreds of computers using this line, the bandwidth can max out. If I am the provider, I am possibly charged by the number of bits that go overthe wire. This is where it gets alarming, since I had made my profit calculations based an average usage of 10% and charged appropriately. No suddenly I have bunches of people who want to use the personal private lines for their business without paying the businnes rates. Instead of 10% the usage soars to 50% or higher. This is not a good thing.

The options are either to just charge everyone business rate (no private rates) or to crack down on abusers. The personal rates are offered with this balance between business use and personal use understood, at least internally.

Now some people do not understand this. I suppose when it was only one or two ubergeeks doing this, they could let it slide. But when you start promoting this for everyone, then it messes up the business model.

I supposed you could have some sort of metered service, but I do not know how easy it would be to set that up. Even so metering is an added cost, and might not be practical for someone cutting costs a little thin in the above scenario. (price competition and all)

Re:Terms of Service (2)

theLunchLady (97107) | more than 13 years ago | (#417813)

I think it's pretty obvious why they want to stop NAT; they can charge more people. You'll remember that these companies are often the same people who supply cable to your home, and there are regulations (which everyone ignores) that stipulate you can only have one TV hooked up to your cable box. Splitters permit may people to illegally hook up many TVs in their home. Even the telephone agency (Ma-Bell) tried to charge per phone instead of per phone-number. This is all pretty typical stuff. We've had the same argument with software licensing for ages (one use, or one install?).


The difference, of course, being that it's easier to pick out the NATs. But what really stops people from networking their neighborhood, or at least their neighbor. I know in my apartment building I could easily drop a line down to the floor below and give them access to my IPMasq box.


The Korean pro-NAT people make a strange, and ultimately undefendable argument, that the people should do what they can to save money. When, in reality, the comsumer saving money will mean the company losing money. And we all know what happens next: higher prices.


Then again who really believes that Bill Gates would lower the price of his OS to $5 if China decided to actually pay for all of its copies of the OS.

-theLunchLady

Confusing stance (5)

Prophet of Doom (250947) | more than 13 years ago | (#417814)

I am confused. Why is it that Taco supports a guy who chooses to use his DSL connection in a way that isn't agreeable to the company that provides the service but when the company wants to exercise their ability choose the customers to whom they provide service we get

Disagree with the telcom, and we cut your service! Anyone else see anything scary about that?

It seems to me that things need to flow both ways. Why should a company be forced to provide a service to someone who obviously isn't happy with it? Is that not forcing someone (some company I guess) to do something against their will? I see something far more scary about that. I'm also wondering who should do something about it, consumers? Despite all of the talk people really don't vote with their wallets. On the whole we'll buy the product that gives us the best balance between price and features (or price and whatever it is we want) In the case of DSL we probably only have one choice in the first place so buying from a competitior is not really an option. Government is the only other entity that can force the company to change and they seem to be forcing enough people to do enough things against their will as it is.

A cry goes up when we talk about restrictive software licenses and the thinking it usually along the lines of 'you own it, you should be able to do with it what you want'. I think because a company is essentially faceless we think it is ok that even though they own something, they shouldn't be allowed to choose how or by whom it is used. The bottom line is that they own the servers that run the ISP, they lease the lines, they probably own the modem in the guy's house, but we don't want them to be able to shut off his service. Something about that just doesn't jive.

Do you want DSL to cost $20 or $200/month? (1)

Hairy_Potter (219096) | more than 13 years ago | (#417815)

See my post downbelow.

If you really want gauranteed bandwidth, get a business DSL line. Yeah, it will cost a lot more than a home DSL line that's only promises average bandwidth, but at least then you have a point worth bitching about.

It is fair to connect 100 computers to my DSL line (2)

stain ain (151381) | more than 13 years ago | (#417816)

If I had a DSL I would connect as many computers as I'd like (no reselling though) and no telecom company should complain about that, because I am not playing out of the rules; they give me a line with an allocated bandwidth, as long as I stay within the bandwidth I am playing correctly. If they want to charge me a flat-rate instead of charging for bytes, it is their problem.
Can you imagine an insurance company rejecting some long-time customers because they get more sick than average recently?
This is the same, flat-rate for everybody (makes a nice ad) and then if you use too much bandwidth compared to the rest, your line is cut.

Re:I think theres a difference in sharing computer (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#417817)

Why do you assume that people in Korea are "so poor"? That was true 40 years ago after the Korean war, but not so today. My wife and I here in Canada are using NAT to share a connection, yet I don't consider us to be "so poor". It's just a practical way to use bandwidth. That's how ISPs split up their bandwidth from the telcos to their dial-up customers. That's how the phone companies give us phone lines (splitting up a resource, I mean). People shouldn't be penalized for using the same techniques at home as their providers use to get the service to them.

Re:Pricing based on average use.... (1)

ave19 (149657) | more than 13 years ago | (#417818)

You bought a NAT? I dusted off a PentiumPro 200.

Chilling (2)

CaptainZapp (182233) | more than 13 years ago | (#417819)

Not so much that KT dictates that you have one ADSL line per box (hey, they are a greedy corporation after all), but that they just cut off service for somebody disagreeing.

Is there possibly a face saving issue involved ?

Losing face in most Asian countries is about as bad as it gets, and maybe the TK folks feared face loss when too many petitioners stated the opinion that they run an overpriced, monopolistic, bureaucratic, crap shop!

Surely one of the Asian /. posters is better able to qualify such an assumption.

Re:Funny line in here... (2)

Tim C (15259) | more than 13 years ago | (#417820)

That's somewhat different, don't you think?

In the case of /. trolls, it is their fellow site users who choose to censor them, and you can *always* browse at -1 and read everything. Also, the trolls can (and do...) still post, and read the rest of the site.

In the case of this telco, they've removed service to this user; no-one can access the site they were running, and they can't access the internet (at least via that connection).

Now, personally, I think they were dumb hosting the site on their telco's network, and that the telco was perfectly within its rights in withdrawing service (it is their network, after all).

Cheers,

Tim

its just like the old days (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#417821)

If most people would just look back to the 70' and 80's that Ma Bell and most local cable companys used to want to charge you for extra extentions in your house. Our local cable company in the 80's used to have a guy that would come by and check your line for spliters and if he found one he would unhook it and take it with him. It all ended one day when I called the police and got him charged with theft of property. While the telco can't be charged with theft for turning down a line unless there is a law on their side you might still win in court.

Useless business rates (2)

Darth RadaR (221648) | more than 13 years ago | (#417822)

I set up NATD in an office with cablemodem service. I told the sales person that I was going to set up a gateway, and the sales person went on saying that she could only give me 2 ip addresses and she'd better not see any more, or she'll have to charge the "Business Rate".

The Business Rate is $70 more a month, has the same bandwidth and same amount of IPs. For 1 year and going, they (obviously) haven't seen more than 1 IP address though it's got over 50 users in the building. Of course, the cable company scans the hell out of the gateway, tripping off portsentry all over the place, but no problems. The company is still paying residential rates (US$50.00/month).

Y'know, instead of just selling Business Rate and Residential Rate why don't they just sell by bandwidth?

Re:Pricing based on average use.... (3)

ocbwilg (259828) | more than 13 years ago | (#417823)

But they're not advertising based on "average use" (at least not where I live). They are advertising a full 640k or whatever connection. If a DSL company advertises to me that I can get a 640k downstream and 384k upstream (just pulling numbers out of my bum) for $49.95 a month, then I should be entitled to use every last drop of that bandwidth in any way that I see fit. After all, they are selling me (or renting me, whatever) a connection with a defined connection rate. If I want to run a web server or a Quake server or any other kind of server, then I should be allowed to. Otherwise, the DSL providers need to change their marketing so that they aren't misleading consumers about what they are providing.

As far as NAT/Firewall/IP Masqing goes, that should be OK too. After all, they are selling you bandwidth. How you use it should be up to you so long as you are not reselling it or something goofy like that. If I want to put my network up behind a NAT/Firewall device and have 3 PC's simultaneously connected PLUS a dial-up server for when I'm on the road with my laptop, then so be it. There is not increased demand on their network because I cannot exceed my badnwidth cap.

Now cable modems are a different issue because the bandwidth is shared. Time Warner's RoadRunner service (my ISP) is very careful to make no claims as to the amount of bandwidth that you get. They market it as "super fast" and "many times faster than a dialup modem." Then in the small print they point out that it's a shared system, available bandwidth varies according to utilization, etc. In that situation, I don't want Quake servers or Web servers on the network. I'm paying my $39.95/month for fast access and I don't want it torpedoed because the kid next door runs a game server, or has a web server with nude pics of his girlfriend on it (well...maybe THAT would be ok).

Someone above claimed that RoadRunner actually encouraged users to use NAT solutions. But in my RoadRunner ToS it says that it's forbidden to connect more than one machine to their service via "IP sharing". It says that if you want to connect a second machine then you HAVE to purchase a second IP address for the $10 or $15 per month that they charge. I still do it anyways because I don't eat up any more bandwidth with my PC's than I would if there were just one of them. I can only use one at a time effectively, and I live alone. So I guess that you could say that I don't agree with that provision, depending on how it's used.

Re:Absolutely (2)

Shimbo (100005) | more than 13 years ago | (#417824)

What is really happening is that the DSL provider really doesn't expect to be providing the true bandwidth. Their business model and infrastructure would fall apart if they actually had to provide what they are selling you.

But that's not what they are selling you; they are selling a discounted rate that factors in usage. It's like buying standby tickets and whining when you get bumped.

If you don't like the terms find another provider.

Re:It is fair to connect 100 computers to my DSL l (2)

dieman (4814) | more than 13 years ago | (#417825)

Can you imagine an insurance company rejecting some long-time customers because they get more sick than average recently?

No, but I can imagine insurance companies looking at average group expense and calculating out a value that makes them allways win. Thats why many small businesses have really expensive insurance. Only takes a couple of chronically sick people to tip the scales that premiums *have* to go up to keep the agreement profitable.

Exactly. Why should I pay for them? (2)

flatpack (212454) | more than 13 years ago | (#417826)

Why on Earth should it be other users who have to pay for what certain abusers are doing with their broadband connections? If I'm paying the same as them, then there's no way in hell it's fair for me to be basically subsidising their net access.

In this case, running a Quake server is the same as sending out spam. They both waste valuable bandwidth which others are paying for, and neither should be tolerated.

Don't you people get it? It's the phone cops!! (1)

awch (134042) | more than 13 years ago | (#417827)

Johnny, hearing all the sirens: It's the phone company. They know what I did here today.
Venus: What are you talking about?
Johnny: They're coming to get me, man!
Venus: That's paranoia, man!
Johnny: Wake up, sucker, this is the phone company we're talking about! They see everything, they know everything, they got their own covert police force! I'm probably wired for
sound right now! I gotta get out of here!
Venus: Johnny!
Johnny: Don't use my name!!

Re:Bandwidth vs. Lines (1)

isomeme (177414) | more than 13 years ago | (#417828)

My roommates and I take a 640kbps down line and split it 3 ways... but the way it works out is that each of us almost always gets full speed because we haven't used it all at the same time

This is a tradeoff as old as voice party lines. If your bandwidth needs are high but bursty, holding a high-bandwidth connection of your own is wasteful (= expensive).

The thing is, the telcos build out capacity based on a bursty model of individual subscriber useage. If too many people saturate their lines, the central office becomes a bottleneck. Of course, they don't tell you this when you sign up.

This is just the old telco dream of charging higher rates for digital-over-voice local connections, since they tend to tie up exchanges longer than voice calls.

--

Public accomodations (3)

coyote-san (38515) | more than 13 years ago | (#417829)

This occured in Korea, but in the US the part of any business that deals with the public (e.g., everything up to the McDonalds counter) is a "public accomodation" and they can impose very few restrictions on the public in that space. It's not as "free" as a public park, but it's not as restrictive as office or industrial spaces.

The space behind a counter is not a public accomodation and McDonald's could have anyone there arrested for trespassing, no matter what they're wearing, but they can't say anything about a peaceful group wearing PETA shirts in the order line. They can ask protesters waving signs to move on, but only because they're disrupting others and only to the extent that they ask other protesters to do the same.

Finally, telcos in the US are "common carriers" and <b>required</b> to carry all content, in exchange for immunity to conspiracy charges for the same. If a DSL drops a customer's service because he criticized their policy, then that same DSL may find itself named codefendant to a murder conspiracy charge because they permitted other customers to discuss a planned murder.

I ping flood the FUCK out of IP squatters! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#417830)

When I bought a second static IP address, it seems that some squatter was already using it. Bastard! I set up a ping -f [ip addr] and let it run for an intended duration of a week. After about 2 days, though, the other site disappeared (confirmed from many other IP addresses too to make sure he wasn't just firewalling me). This was after referring his MAC address and illegal presence to the CATV company got no results.

Luckily, out CATV company has it now so that no cablemodem with a MAC address not on their "valid list" gets to send or receive anything.

Re:Nothing to see here, move along... (2)

Erasmus Darwin (183180) | more than 13 years ago | (#417831)

It makes complete sense that a telco would not allow their bandwidth to be used for someone to protest their company.

No, it doesn't. By prohibiting online activities that aren't objectionable on "neutral" criteria (such as being illegal, consuming excessive amounts of bandwidth, or creating a security risk), the telco is taking upon itself responsibility for monitoring the appropriateness of all traffic.

Additionally, telcos are usually granted a partial monopoly to operate. What they do just isn't feasible without government provided easements for them to place cable. As such, they have a certain degree of civic responsibility to provide fair service to all their customers. It's not unlike how I could mail postcards with text on the back that is critical of the US Postal Service. They aren't allowed to refuse such a postcard, provided I comply with the appropriate postal regulations (which again are "neutral" criteria -- for example, it isn't censorship when the post office returns to me a postcard that doesn't have the stamp in the upper-right hand corner; it's merely a means of allowing them to efficiently process letters and ensure that I've paid the appropriate fee for my letter to be sent).

Re:Road Runner (NOT) (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#417832)

i work for roadrunner and we are currently looking into devices to detect the use the NAT. They will allow it but they will also be charging more for the use of NAT.

Re:Isn't NAT undetectable by the ISP? (1)

Erik Hensema (12898) | more than 13 years ago | (#417833)

Yes, but Linux masquerading sets the source port to some insanely high number (around 60000+ or so), while connections normally originate from relatively low ports, below 10000.

However, all of this is configurable offcourse ;-)

Re:Pricing based on average use.... (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 13 years ago | (#417834)

But the thing is, if you're buying 'average' usage, then they shouldn't be selling DSL or cable or whatever as the highest bandwidth number that you can max out at, because that's just bullshit. They should just sell x amount of bandwidth, at $x/month.

Re:Pricing based on average use.... (1)

Dimensio (311070) | more than 13 years ago | (#417835)

I'm using a PII233 that I'm upgrading to 400 soon, so I can use it as a game server as well (local games only, of course, I'd *NEVER* run a public server through my cable connection). Of course I've secured it with a strong ipchains ruleset based on TrinityOS (which I'll replace with iptables once I figure it out)

I never mentioned it to the cable guy, but someone had to come and look at the lines when our signal got weak and he didn't say anything about the modem going into a small and akwardly-set up PC in a room with three desktop machines and lots of cat 5 strewn about the room. IIRC @Home's user agreements prohibit the use of IP sharing programs like WinGate if they can detect it running -- which seems appropriate enough to me, because if they can detect it then you've set it up improperly and your machine is a security breach waiting to happpen.

What about telephone usage? (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 13 years ago | (#417836)

The same thing happened with telphone usage. When people started using modems, they used a lot more time with the same, flat-rate local service. The phone companies adapted. In some cases, by raising prices slightly. And still, we have unlimited local phone usage for a flat rate here in the US. Why can't the cable & DSL providers adapt also?

Re:In defense of slashdot... (2)

ZanshinWedge (193324) | more than 13 years ago | (#417837)

First, slashdot is not a payed service, ya gets what ya pays for. Nor is it a public utility. Second, slashdot itself doesn't do the smacking down of the trolls, that is done by the community at large (moderators). Third, anyone can browse at -1 to see all the crap. Fourth, do you honestly believe that the trolls really deserve to be heard?

Re:Terms of Service (1)

tempmpi (233132) | more than 13 years ago | (#417838)

You could easly change ip_masq.h to use "normal" port nummbers, making an NAT (almost) undetectable. After make this change there I do not know any methode to detect you running an NAT without making many mistakes.

Re:Funny line in here... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#417839)

-Snip- In the case of /. trolls, it is their fellow site users who choose to censor them... -Snip-

Err, no. Bitchslappings (default posting of -1) is applied by /. administrators only. The worst a 'fellow site user' can do is lower someone's karma to the point where they have a default posting score of 0. The ultimate act of 'censorship' is NOT user-controlled. Please don't fool yourself to thinking that this is a 'fair democracy'. This is their site, don't you forget it.

suck it up or sue them (1)

wroot (264810) | more than 13 years ago | (#417840)

... depending on your service agreement.

Wroot

Re:Isn't NAT undetectable by the ISP? (2)

Da Web Guru (215458) | more than 13 years ago | (#417841)

Technically, not much is really undetectible by your ISP. (In theory, of course...) The question is, do they really care enough and are they really willing to spend all of that time, effort, and money logging every packet that you send in and out of your measley DSL/Cable connection? Not to mention the hundreds or thousands of other customers they have to deal with. In most cases, no they don't care. Only when you do something obvious (like max out your bandwidth consistently) do they take notice. Most sysadmins have much more important things to worry about during the day. (i.e., reading Slashdot...)

Re:IP vs IP (3)

interiot (50685) | more than 13 years ago | (#417842)

Also, CmdrTaco, I've often been confused by words such as "present", "produce", and "object", each of which mean one thing as a noun and another as a verb. And it really bothers me.

I realize that every other english speaking person uses these confusing words without completely disambiguating them. But because you're the leader of this great site, I strongly believe that you should griped at until you change your ways, and possibly the ways of all the good english speaking people.

In short, I'd rather spend my time complaining at you instead of taking an extra second to determine a word's meaning by context.
--

Re:Road Runner (1)

dodald (195775) | more than 13 years ago | (#417843)

I'm using NAT with TimeWarner when I first got RR they where completly against it. Now they even (partially) support it. I just wish some of these providers would not frown upon servers (HTTP,FTP,...) although TimeWarner hasn't said anything to me...yet... :)

Gotta love dyndns.org [dyndns.org] free Dns Listings for Dynamic IP's! Don

Re:Technically, yes... (1)

darf (182630) | more than 13 years ago | (#417844)

I can configure iptables on Linux and ZoneAlarm on, well, you know what, to drop pings and such.

The real problem is that people believe that when they get DSL or cable that they are purchasing bandwidth and that they can use it however they want. This, according to the ISPs, is simply not true. Just because your are sold on a particular speed doesn't mean you can use it all. If you were, you would cause other people problems because it's all shared bandwidth in the back office.

Let's consider France for a moment (2)

Party Chief (61649) | more than 13 years ago | (#417845)

You think you have it bad in Korea? In France we have the dubious honour of having to rely on the national telco monopoly (France Telecom) for the basic DSL line. Then we have a choice of ISP. Two charges, one to FT the other to the ISP.

What's wrong with that?
Well some ISP's (including France Telecom's subsidiary) have managed to solve the problem of nasty thieving customers putting NAT boxes behind their DSL connections and use a PPTP tunnel for your access. So, even though you can connect a NAT box between your home LAN and your DSL modem (and use your NAT box for PPPoE authentication - as this is standard in France), you can *ONLY* use one PC at a time with the PPTP tunnel! Most NAT boxes (like Linksys) allow only one PPTP tunnel to be passed through.

At least there are some decent service providers here that can offer you a service w/o PPTP and allow NAT, but they cost about $15-$20 more per month.

If Korea Telecom were smart (or devious!) they would force all the domestic users to connect via PPTP.

Re:Pricing based on average use.... (1)

mwbingham (142101) | more than 13 years ago | (#417846)

Wouldn't it just be easier to charge based on bandwidth utilisation? After all, that's where their costs come from (aside from the installation, etc.) constant costs. 1 PC that downloads tons of stuff is worse for them than 10 PC's that are running SETI (to pinch someone else's example).

Re:Funny line in here... (1)

GlassUser (190787) | more than 13 years ago | (#417847)

Now, personally, I think they were dumb hosting the site on their telco's network, and that the telco was perfectly within its rights in withdrawing service (it is their network, after all). Actually, I have to disagree. When a company gains its infrastructure from a government-granted monopoly (well I'm speaking for the US here, but it may apply to Korea in some ways), the lines belong, at least partly, to the public.

Re:Useless business rates (2)

6ULDV8 (226100) | more than 13 years ago | (#417848)

The business and residential rate structures do sell bandwidth. There's a difference between sustained and peak usage.

Re:I think theres a difference in sharing computer (2)

bfree (113420) | more than 13 years ago | (#417849)

If I was the ISP who discovered that a building was sharing one of my connections, I would look at ways to get them to buy a second connection, and then a third etc. until they have as many connections as we would expect. Many of the people in the building may be paying for a service they would never purchase individually and in the long run we could make more money/sell more connections.

Re:Terms of Service (1)

David_W (35680) | more than 13 years ago | (#417850)

...and there are regulations (which everyone ignores) that stipulate you can only have one TV hooked up to your cable box...

Actually there WERE regulations that prevented that, but they were changed several years ago (early '90s). I've even received FAQ-type stuff with my cable bill, and one of the questions is "Can I have multiple outlets?" and they go on to say you can, and they don't have to be the ones to put them in. Every time this comes up I try to find a good source on it and fail miserably, so maybe someone else has one.

Re:Terms of Service (1)

swb (14022) | more than 13 years ago | (#417851)

And it is easy to detect NAT running, because so many "odd" port numbers keep passing through.

Explain to me how it's easy to detect NAT. From what I understand, client services use a "random" source port > 1024 for outbound connections; most NAT implementations merely rewrite the connection to appear to be coming from the NAT outside interface, and some implementations (FreeBSD with the -same ports option) are capable of maintaining the same source port that the client uses, making the NAT translation essentially transparent. You can't tell me that your average ISP is capable of "knowing" whether or not an HTTP connection established from client port 1234 to destination port 80 originated behind a NAT gateway or internally. Proxying would make it all the more difficult, since the connections would actually BE originating from the gateway and not the inside hosts.

The only way I see it as "obvious" to detect NAT would be the use of lots of non-standard INCOMING port numbers to map well-known services to inside servers (eg, 8080 to an inside web server, etc). But that would mean server hosting, which is a seperate no-no on many broadband SAs.

I'm sure a lot of dedicated traffic analysis featuring significant layer 4 protocol decoding along with some port scanning may be able to detect a difference in client OS behind NAT vs. the NAT gateway, but if they're the same OS (eg, Win2k server with NAT serving NT clients) even that won't give you anything. And anyway, that's a pretty intrusive, time-consuming waste of senior staff to "catch" some guy with two PCs on his DSL line.

Not all companies are this way! (1)

puck71 (223721) | more than 13 years ago | (#417852)

This is from the FAQ from my cable provider [cableone.net] :

Q. If I have two computers do I need two cable modems?
A. No. By design, you will use only one cable modem in your house. You should consult with a computer dealer on how to configure a small network using a proxy-type router in your house. We will configure only one modem per residence or business.

They pretty much encourage you (by telling you how) to set up a home network! Pretty good policy.

Re:Pricing based on average use.... (1)

Speed Racer (9074) | more than 13 years ago | (#417853)

When I moved recently, the cable guy was amazingly cool about the whole thing. I told him I had a BSD box running NAT and all I needed him to do was make sure I had block sync. I guess, in retrospect, it makes sense as I saved him 30 some odd minutes of work futzing with yet another Windows box.

Re:My heart bleeds.... (1)

Party Chief (61649) | more than 13 years ago | (#417854)

Hey, you should speak to Easynet UK [easynet.net] - they're at least trying to rise above the bullsh!t restrictions that BT have imposed, and they can guarantee 20:1 contention...

But I agree, the situation in the UK is way more poxy than France.

Re:Do you want DSL to cost $20 or $200/month? (1)

EllisDees (268037) | more than 13 years ago | (#417855)

If you are sold a service that stipulates 128k uploads and 384k downloads, it is their responsibility to provide it. Everyone should do what I do - listen to high-bandwidth mp3 streams 24 hours a day, every day, even when I'm not home.

obvious choice? (1)

mcdade (89483) | more than 13 years ago | (#417856)

Ok.. I did run an ISP and can see where the company is coming from.. if 5 people in a building share one connection as oppose to getting 5 seperate ones then it cuts down on revenue. However as a consumer with more then one computer, i need my dsl router to hook up my machines at the same time with out installing extra software (on in some cases software that doesn't work, like on unix)

It would make more sense for the ISP to cap the transfer rates (up and down) and also limit the the amount per month (like 30gig) they can do this for co-loc. hosts machines why can't they do it for dsl/cable lines? Then charge a rate per month for the data over and above?. People pay for the basic service, they should have a right to do what they want with it.

On a side note, i had a friend who's cable was shutdown cause he was running an insecure port number on his computer. Turned out it was 25, by all means we can't let the user run a sendmail server!!! sometimes ISP's are clueless.

Re:Exactly. Why should I pay for them? (2)

CSC (31551) | more than 13 years ago | (#417857)

Why on Earth should it be other users who have to pay for what certain abusers are doing with their broadband connections?

I'm not usually that pro-market, but this time it works quite well: let some competition (dis)solve the problem. Here in Paris one can get consumer broadband via France Telecom ADSL: expensive, with a bandwidth cap as the sole traffic limit and a decent backbone serving it; or cable access, less expensive (not cheap yet), with an undersized backbone (though it's good enough for mail and casual browsing), and a monthly upload cap. (and there are third-party DSL providers, cleverly combining the drawbacks of both)

Overall if you want real bandwidth you have to pay more; if you want Joe Average's browsing bandwidth, the cheaper service is okay.

What does their Terms of Service say? (2)

rnturn (11092) | more than 13 years ago | (#417858)

I've read some goofy terms of service for ISP that forbade you from using masquerading. Of course, when you look elsewhere on their web site they sell packages that include the ability to do masquerading. So, basically, they'd be miffed if you bypassed their package (and fee) by doing it yourself.

I don't think it's illegal. You really need to read their ToS and find out what they don't want you doing. If they catch you doing something that they specifically didn't want you doing, they can clobber you.

Ain't nice but I don't think it's illegal. Specially outside the U.S. where some countries have some pretty restrictive telecomm regulations and your ISP may just be the government. For example, I'd hate to be a modem user in Europe; the rates are horribly high.



--

It's a service, not a product (2)

Sebby (238625) | more than 13 years ago | (#417859)

The way I see it is that you are paying for a service, not a product; here's my reasoning:

Normal (voice) phone line: I consider this a product; you can get a second outlet for no additional montly cost, this makes sense because you can't get any additional benefit out of it, since you can't have 2 people making 2 different calls on the same line. The second outlet is only a convienience.

When you get a second line and have to pay and additional monthly fee, that's fair since you do get extra benefits from that additional service (can now make 2 simultaneous calls, and you get an additional phone#). Any additonal service on each line will cost more per line, again fair since it's two different products

Cable TV: I consider this a service just like sharing IP on cable - Why pay and additional montly fee when by spending a little money once ($15 for a slipper / a bit more for IP sharing sw) you can already get additional use out of it (watching 2 programs on 2 different TVs / multiple computers on same IP).

It's not fair to have to pay a additional montly fee for basically no added benefit - I don't get any extra channels by paying more, and I my bandwidth is still not maxed out.

Basically, if I can take a service and 'extend' it on my own, I don't see why I should have to pay more without them giving me more (which they don't)

Re:Pricing based on average use.... (1)

puck71 (223721) | more than 13 years ago | (#417860)

Not my cable company! [slashdot.org]

Dial-Up in Ireland (2)

bfree (113420) | more than 13 years ago | (#417861)

I recently enjoyed ringing around the Irish Dial-Up service providers to cost an ISDN dial-up account. I got the price from each provider and then told them that the connection would be used by a network and asked if that was ok. There were basically four providers two of whom said "oh you need a network account and thats about 8 times the price" while one said "oh we have a network account. You don't want it? Ok the normal dial-up is sound then" and the fourth said "why would it make any difference?" and I told them about their competitors policies. Final prices £90/£120 or £750/£850. So on a 64kb line these guys were looking for an extra £600+ per annum to let you use your dial-up account on a network (sorry you got a few more email addresses etc). Not too surprisingly the ISP who couldn't even understand the concept won the bidding :-)

Re:Chilling (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 13 years ago | (#417862)

Heaven forbid a company shuts someone down for doing something that violates an agreement that the vilators signed. They opperated a server off a DSL line when they clearly agreed not to. It just so happened that they were running a server that wasn't in line with thier views.
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\ =\=\=\=\

Re:Its the ISP's line, and their contract (1)

Carl Drougge (222479) | more than 13 years ago | (#417863)

Do most people have a chioce? Mostly not, you either use the one available (for "fast" access), or you keep using a modem (which is more expensive even, since local calls are not free in most places).

Oh so it's been down the past week. Well, we know you don't have a choice and will still use us. So we don't care. Please don't call again. Thank you.

^-- That there is the attitude of my cable-ISP. And they have ludicrus terms too. (Only one computer (or four if you pay extra), no servers, we will cut you off if you use "too much" bandwith, we refuse to tell you how much this is, etc.)

Re:Pricing based on average use.... (1)

NetJunkie (56134) | more than 13 years ago | (#417864)

I didn't buy mine. I got it free for doing a product review. :)

But, for $90 it's worth it. I don't have to worry about a hard drive dieing...or using a lot of power...or listening to ANOTHER fan... less space...etc etc.

Re:Let's consider France for a moment (1)

Mr.Phil (128836) | more than 13 years ago | (#417865)

couldn't you implement a PPTP tunnel on a Linux box with the PPTP "device" as the gateway for the internal network? or pptp to the linux box and then use another interface on the linux box to route the internal network?

I'm not seeing a problem here

Re:A disgrace (1)

Lacutis (100342) | more than 13 years ago | (#417866)

Bear in mind that he is making fun of the english language, or at least that usage of it hehe.

Re:My heart bleeds.... (1)

blowdart (31458) | more than 13 years ago | (#417867)

No you're not. Only if you connect via BT. I'm using Easynet's ethernet offering, with a nice range of 16 IP addresses, with 4 PCs hooked up to it. Mind you it is more expensive :)

Re:The telco world works on average load (2)

VP (32928) | more than 13 years ago | (#417868)

So, apply this to DSL, same thing.
No, it's not the same thing. First of all, DSL providers sell service based on bandwidth - one price for 384 Kbps, a higher one for 512 Kbps, yet higher for 768 Kbps. Secondly, with DSL, you don't share the bandwidth (not until you get to a "main switch" - the exact term escapes me for the moment).

And thirdly, what you did will require you to secure five machines instead of one - using a NAT gateway makes sinply more sense. Not allowing NAT is a disservice to the customer.

It is funny how the lack of competition makes companies behave stupid. Where I live, we have relatively good @home service (if you don't really rely on them for e-mail or Usenet service), so the local DSL providers try to differentiate themselves by providing simmetrical DSL, specifically allowing severs, etc.

Some points they make (1)

ultraman (92114) | more than 13 years ago | (#417869)

the article does say that Korea has one of the highest internet penetration rates in the world. Maybe their lines are really clogged up to the extent that the company has to find ways to reduce the bandwidth some people are taking up. I've read somewhere that 20% or less users take up more than 80% bandwitdh; this shouldn't surprise anybody here. If i were the company i would conclude that the 'fastest' way to reduce this is to reduce the number of IP sharing clients, just because they are percieved to be using up more bandwidth, which probably isn't that far from the truth. What's riled the posters, imo, is the censorship issue, but the protesters are asking for it if they were going to use that same DSL line to put up their protest site.

The myth of the shared bandwidth.... (2)

NetJunkie (56134) | more than 13 years ago | (#417870)

I'm so tired of hearing this. ALL BANDWIDTH IS SHARED AT SOME POINT. People with DSL like to say that cable bandwidth is shared. Sure, DSL people have a copper cable from their house to the CO, but once it hits the CO it is SHARED. I have a friend in Texas on GTE. They oversold the CO's SHARED BANDWIDTH so much his ping to his ISP gateway was 500ms.

After months and months my roadrunner ping is 8ms and I still get 300K/sec. I think they are doing a damn good job.

Re:Pricing based on average use.... (1)

log0n (18224) | more than 13 years ago | (#417871)

"Speeds of up to [NUM]k/bits"

That's how the Verizon DSL (the only one in the Baltimore/DC area that offers $50/month DSL) ads are offered.

Re:Pricing based on average use.... (2)

selectspec (74651) | more than 13 years ago | (#417872)

While I agree about the advertised bandwidth should be the actual bandwidth, I discovered two things when I got my DSL service from speakeasy-covad:
  • Actual bandwidth garuanteed is only %80 of the advertised amount
  • Users are prohibitted from consuming their entire bandwidth on a 24/7 basis.

Re:Road Runner (NOT) (1)

dodald (195775) | more than 13 years ago | (#417873)

Are you gonna change your Terms of Service AGAIN? Isn't policy controlled by the local cable company? Where are you?

It's the contract, stupid (1)

adamooo (70634) | more than 13 years ago | (#417874)

OK - I'm all for creative use of the resources that you can acquire, but WHAT DOES THE USER SERVICE CONTRACT SAY? For a lot of cable service provider contracts that I'm aware of, there are restrictions - no servers, or no pr0n/warez/games servers; no reselling bandwidth; no commercial services; limit to a single residential PC; etc. If the contract says "one PC only" (not one address only) then why shouldn't the service provider have the ability to terminate service that's clearly in use by multiple PCs? Don't tell me they can't tell, 'cause they can - or can have a good guess - and it's not the point. There's no Internet Access legislation that I know of guaranteeing the right to NAT traffic, so why get up in arms? Service contracts and SLA's are not just about bandwidth, even if that's the only thing most broadband users check for....

Free markets rely on the ability of parties to a contract to enforce that contract. If you don't like a particular contract, don't sign up! If you don't like a certain product (contract restrictions included) then buy another. If there isn't any other available, well, that's an unfortunate possibility - or a likihood when a particular clause makes it tough to make money on a product or service. And yes, you have the right to bitch about it in public if no one offers the product or service you want without restrictions you can't live with. But get off your high horse about "how can they DO this?!?!" and work to puclicize and promote productive goals. It's the difference between constructive criticism and whining or rabble-rousing.

In Czech Republic, we pay per-traffic (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#417875)

In my country, there is (almost) no DSL, because of state-guaranteed monopoly of Czech Telecom.

On the other hand, many people are connected using wireless networks, based on technologies like eg. Breezenet. This gives theoretical maximum of 1.5 Mbps, and average bandwidth cca 128 kbps. Using wireless connection is the only way to avoid paing to our Telecom. Well, the monopoly was recently removed formaly, but it is still de-facto monopoly.

What is interested about these wireless connections is, that they are not payed per-bandwidth (although you can optionaly pay this way) or per-connection-time, but per-traffic: we pay about 4 Kc (cca 10 cents) for each MB transfered. Customers pay only for the direction with higher traffic, never mind which direction it is, and there is of course some traffic pre-paid (typicaly 1 GB per month). Although the prices are currently little bit too high, I think this is way to go: to let you do whatever you want with your bandwidth, but to pay for it. Because this reflects the way what is really most expensive about running Internet connectivity, and it is not the speed of data tranfer, but rather total amount od data tranfered - especially on high bandwidth networks, where huge downloads can slow down entire networks...

Well, I have even another idea, and it is different pricing for different connection speeds: so you would browse web over relatively expensive high speed connection, and download huge files overnight using some cheap "virtual leased line", with traffic shapped to something simillar to normal modem...

This sounds like a incorrect reasoning to me. (1)

Banshee (21233) | more than 13 years ago | (#417876)

"As the ground for imposing additional charges on users of IP sharing devices, KT cited possible overloading of its telecom networks. "

Ok... so.... If I have a cap of a certain speed up and down.. As a single person I could saturate that line with no overloading and everyone would be happy... yet if I saturate that _SAME_ cap split up into streams behind NAT or MASQ'ing it causes overload??? Last I checked NAT and MASQ don't add that much packet overhead. What am I missing here?

Re:Pricing based on average use.... (1)

bluesangria (140909) | more than 13 years ago | (#417877)

I agreed with you all the way up to the part where you said you don't want Quake servers running on your network segment.

Plus, after reading most of the posts here, no one seems to have mentioned the obvious - your upload speed is not the same as your download spee.

RoadRunner has always indicated that your download speed is much faster than upload. You upload speed *includes* all the people connecting to your Quake server at a not-so-blazing-anymore-128kbps connection total.

Meanwhile everyone else in the neighborhood can still *download* up to 512k, 640k, or whatever is promised.

My guess is that RR will only pick on you if you start being obnoxious with their service - like using your connection to port scan your neighbors to see if they have any trojans already installed.

Supposedly, RoadRunner is working on ways to make the connection switched instead of shared, although it may require digital cable instead of this 10bT thin-net they have everyone hooked up to now.

I also asked RR before using NAT - they had no problem with it.

Re:Do you want DSL to cost $20 or $200/month? (1)

albanac (214852) | more than 13 years ago | (#417878)

Contention ratios are built into every model of bandwidth provision lower than IP transit at the AS level. In fact, even there. That's life. Live it.
~cHris
--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>