Cable Companies Saying No to WiFi Sharing 419
blastedtokyo writes: "According to this story from CNet, Time Warner Cable is going after people who share their wireless connections via NYC Wireless or other public share networks. All we need is a warchalking symbol that conveys 'I'm a lawyer who doesn't have time to figure out how to set up a WEP link.'" This might remind you of a story posted the other day about other ways cable ISPs are trying to lock down their networks.
lawyers (Score:3, Funny)
Re:lawyers (Score:3, Informative)
Another fine game of whack a mole... (Score:4, Interesting)
In the end the providers will try to prvent this excess usage from happening, but they can hardly take on all of the people who simply forget to lock down their networks. They'll take on those who advertise, but then with the growing volume of wireless networks, will people really need to be advertising? You'll just go to wherever you want, whip out your roaming software, and be on-line. If anything your problems getting connected will likely be tied more to interference than lack of open networks.
Overall I'd expect that there will be a slight increase in overall network usage because of this extra roaming and this will end up causing a slight increase in prices and a balance will be achieved. The providers will go after egregious abusers and the rest of us will happily roam without them ever noticing.
Re:who's next? (Score:2)
Following right along (Score:2, Insightful)
Simple Solution... (Score:2, Insightful)
Plus, it doesn't give them the evil ogre look when they just try to make a profit. (At least not as much so.)
Re:Simple Solution... (Score:2)
Because (Score:2)
Re:Simple Solution... (Score:3, Insightful)
As a Time-Warner NYC cable customer I LIKE not having to worry about bandwidth charges, and I sure as hell wouldn't be "happy" if a bunch of cheap yahoos who are too 37337 to just follow the damn TOS messed it up for the rest of us.
Re:Simple Solution... (Score:2)
I completely agree with you on that. But in the back of my mind, I always hate to rely on things staying the way they are. I always want to just get to the point where things can't erode any further. I myself run services on my cable modem at home. I dislike knowing that at a whim they can be shut off. I would rather pay extra and know that they wont turn my ports off. Likewise, if I used a lot of bandwidth, I would rather pay the full value of the full bandwidth, if I were in a position to afford such a thing. (If I got my full bandwidth off of my cable modem 100% of the time, I would probably have to pay my cable ISP about 8 or 900 dollars a month, and they could conceivably still be taking a hit). I use less bandwidth than many people who dont run services; I just like to access my machines at home, as my work machines are not fast enough to help me do my job (another thread).
There always seems to be two main points when ISPs dont want you letting other people share your connection. A, ISPs hate it when people share their bandwidth cause it breaks their business model (well current business models, ISPs will adapt someday, like I say above)- they plan on being able to oversell by some magic factor. If people can start adding people without paying their "share", then this model breaks and the ISP is like "what are we supposed to do? Now we dont make enough money!" Cause they have to pay that overage that wasnt being used before, statistically. B. It avoids a hassle when someone hacks the network you're providing and their packets land on the Internet via their egression point. Cause then they have to deal with more noise. Legal stuff. It's annoying. If you get 100 spams from what looks like an ISP, you're not going to care if it was from "them" or "behind them from some network they didnt want someone to be running but did anyways". Extra money would probably cover the cost of managing administrative issues that come from this model.
Anyways, my point is that I hate that lingering feeling when I know things are going to change, but base the way I have things set up, and am used to, the ways things currently are.
I feel restricted when soemone else decides what I cannot do, and does not let me pay a little extra to get that ability back. If they do, then thats cool and thats business. If they don't, I feel trapped and I don't feel like its the way things should be. I lost something, and resent it.
Re:Simple Solution... (Score:2)
Anxiously awaiting the heat death of the Universe, are we?
Re:Simple Solution... (Score:2)
Don't put up wifi, causing your bandwidth to peak all the time. ISPs are depending on the fact that they can service more customers with a smaller line to keep prices down AND not have a bandwidth problem (in general).
Or pay your share, which you obviously don't want to do. Heck, we have meters for water, electricity, gas. What's wrong with actually keeping track of a resource that has limits to it?
Re:Simple Solution... (Score:2)
As a Time-Warner NYC cable customer I LIKE not having to worry about bandwidth charges,
Most people are like you, they want a reasonably priced flat fee, but don't mind a few restrictions on it. Some people want unrestricted access, and are willing to pay for it. It's easy enough for ISPs to offer both options as separate plans.
Re:Simple Solution...(still Simple) (Score:2)
Re:Simple Solution... (Score:2)
Like this? [attaway.net]
Re:Simple Solution... (Score:2, Interesting)
in NYC, or any other large city it would fairly trival to set strategically places antennas/access points in a large apartment building and give everone in there free (or even charge) internet access. The reson broadand is so cheap (and yes it is cheap, if you do not agree, check into the price of leasing a T1 AND getting access to it), is the 'Economy of Scale' and the fact that the average person will only use 5% - 25% of their alloted bandwidth. Like it or not that is how the system works.
If you want to become your own wireless ISP, do what an ISP does (I worked at one, and while not an expert, I know how things went), buy your bandwith the same way, pay for the actual usage at X per MB, X per bandwidth Mbit and with 'permission' to resell it, usually anywhere from 2x- 10x what you would pay not to be able to resell it.
(Note: this is regarding those who set up to intentially resell/provide access, those who provide incendental/accidental access, most have no clue they are even doing so.0
What's the problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with them (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I agree with them (Score:5, Interesting)
I own a small ISP too, and my clients pay by the sip. They get a "cheap" T1 access, but they have to limit the usage of it, or pay more. It is that simple.
The idea of crazy fast bandwidth for a cheap low monthly rate is good, but ripe for abuse.
Bandwidth costs money, plain and simple. To account for consumption you need to charge by the byte, that way a fair price is paid by all, and there are no free loaders.
Ultimately it is the only fair way of paying for bandwidth consumption.
Re:OT: i liked the sig... (Score:2)
Re:I agree with them (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't adversite Always On, Always Fast, Unlimited Internet and then provide Usually On, Only Fast from 1am to 8am and 5pm to 7pm, Limted No mta/sshd/ftpd/vncserver Internet. (Yes, I'm talking to you RoadRunner.)
Road Runner (Score:2)
* if you're running sshd, why are you exposing your vncserver rather than ssh-ing in and port forwarding?
Re:Road Runner (Score:2)
Re:I agree with them (Score:2)
What's the point in having an internet? Should I have to use the ISP's mail servers that are down hours a day that also don't use spam filters at the ports? I run my own mailserver and will NOT use an ISP that blocks port 25. I like making my own email addresses when I sign up for something to control spam. And no ssh to check my mail and do stuff away from the house? No encryption?
I bet hackers will love it when people try to play port games with unproven shareware that circumvents and doesn't match the reliability of the old proven ssh, ftp, etc... Look at what kazza has done. Its best to deal with bandwidth hogs on an individual basis, not ruin it for the rest of us by restricting ports.
Re:I agree with them (Score:2, Interesting)
Successful business follow markets and rarely make them. I suggest you look at your Terms of Service and alter your product to fit demand. Offer shareable bandwidth, but charge what you can make a profit on. People don't need a friggin' T1 just to share DSL bandwidth. DSL is the cheaper alternative. Why do you insist on selling junk ISP based on a 5 year-old product (the ISP of a bygone era)? Who really needs webspace? People may not need your email service, either. But some home or small business users might want to OWN their web servers. Sell them a fixed IP address and offer upstream DNS services. Don't try to control what your customers do, sell them a way to do what they want to do!
Re:I agree with them (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, I don't buy your argument. You aren't selling me a license, you're selling me a service to route N packets from my access point to the outside world. You have no right to ask where they go once they're inside my LAN.
Re:I agree with them (Score:2)
Here's a novel concept. How about if the perpetrator takes responsibility for his actions?
Re:I'm paying. It's MY connection and I'M PAYING. (Score:5, Interesting)
Cable Exec: Well...see...we did some math and figured that we could sell cable internet services for $n per month and make a profit doing so. Our original calculations were based on assumptions about average customer usage. To make a long story short: we fucked up. It turns out there are people using WAY more bandwidth than we ever bargained for...and we find our profits unsatisfactory. So, we are rectifying our prior mistake. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere...
Re:I'm paying. It's MY connection and I'M PAYING. (Score:2)
Hopefully people will do just that, and said fuckup Cable Execs will realize the problems inherent in harrassing their own customers. If they are worried about people using excessive bandwidth, why not just meter or cap the user's bandwidth to a given throughput per month? Done right, most people wouldn't even notice it was happening.
Re:Problem Solved: (Score:4, Interesting)
Most traffic patterns are very bursty, somewhat less so, if you aggregate foerign "freebee" Wifi traffic with your own (and that's generally the problem, because the traffic models break). There are times when I'd want to suck data flat out for a short period of time (downloading the latest GNU/Linux distro, for example), and I'll be damned if I have to suck that data through a bandwidth-capping straw. I like my 768kb/s downstream DSL speed for that, thankyouverymuch.
Of course, the US$80 a month I pay (includes $15 for a dedicated pair 'cuase I'm too far from the DSLAM to ride on top of POTS) is nowhere near what it costs to deploy 3/4 of a T1 line, so using that bandwidth flat out is out of the question. The presumption is that, over the course of a month, use will average out, despite the bursty nature.
Now, compare that to a modem capped at, oh, 128 kb/s. Flat out that's 41-1/2 gigabytes over the course of a month. A recent check of the past 6-1/2 days traffic into my home LAN via the firewall showed 149 MB. This works out to 269 bytes per second, about 700 MB over the course of a month. I haven't downloaded any new distros lately, so lets add, oh, 1.5 Gig to that (multiple CDs, restarted downloads, etc.) That adds up to 2.2 GB/month or 6784 b/s, sustained. My use is probably on the heavy side.
The point is that 6.8 kb/s is a far cry from a 128 kb/s rate cap. So, such a rate cap would be (a) crippling for the occasional massive download, and (b) still too high if the traffic were anywhere near steady, as if it were shared. About the only thing the 128 kb/s rate cap does is even out use of a shared medium. Load balancing during peak use times would be better, and is generally used on DSL connections (because of the centralized nature of aggregation), but would require dynamic control of upstream traffic from distributed cable modems in a cable environment, with it's own overhead issues (though TCP could be rate-limited by delaying packet ACKs, the "interesting" traffic is not TCP).
The only solutions this leaves us with are either (a) pitifully crippling rate caps, (b) metered access, or (c) a certain amount of "free" traffic, followed by metered access to the rest. Option (d), "use all you want until we tell you its a problem", while currently common is crude and fraught with difficulty and misunderstanding.
Now, with a more intelligent network, and local traffic rate capping, shaping, and balancing, interesting possibilities abound: why not permit open access during off-peak times, when there is a light load? To some extent, this needs to be saved to average out heavy use later, but there's no rule that says this has to be 100%, as it is now. Off-peak discounts for bandwidth become possible. Maybe I know I won't be downloading a new distro this month, and my use will be below normal. Maybe next month, my neighbor's will be below normal. Maybe between us (and others), we can offer that excess for free. How much should be under our individual control, but one can see an opportunity to smooth out a neighborhood's overall traffic use by dumping occasional "excess" for free access -- without going to the trouble to secure a dedicated fat pipe, setting up a company to manage it, etc.
This does require technical improvements (local traffic shaping and load-balancing, with shared ISP/user control -- imagine an "ISP meter" like an electric meter, but not as draconian as current attempts at this sort of thing that completely lock out the user), as well as looking at a user's average traffic pattern as averaged over their use over time more than over the sumultaneous use by other users (so, you don't balance you're low use as much against your neighbor's high use, but rather your higher use in the past or the future). This creates the opportunity for "credits" for unused bandwidth to carry from month to month, with some fraction "lost" if not used (you can't carry them forever -- the ISP would have to carry the credit on it's books as earned but unpaid in your favour). Given a "use it or lose it" scenario, sharing of unused bandwidth should naturally happen.
WiFi Sharing (Score:4, Insightful)
Setting up a wireless network for sharing on purpose, or gaining money by it, is wrong unless your ISP has given you permission to do so.
Setting up a wireless network for yourself in your own home should not be a problem, unless you do it so sloppily that anyone can log on with your access. That's not good for your security, and it is not good for the provider, who is losing bandwidth and gaining nothing.
If you want to set up a network for yourself, you ought to take steps to secure it to prevent unauthorized access. That protects you and the provider, as well as protecting you from lawsuits....
Re:WiFi Sharing (Score:2)
Re:WiFi Sharing (Score:2)
Re:WiFi Sharing (Score:2, Flamebait)
This is nonsensical. Just stop for a moment and think... it's like blaming me for drinking the whole bottle of coke instead of throwing it away half-full; it would be better for Coca-Cola, wouldn't it?
As long as *they* like to advertize "non-metered", "unlimited" access, there's ABSOLUTELY NO WRONGDOING in using the bandwidth (they cap it in your modem, but that's another story).
Re:WiFi Sharing (Score:2)
Not to nitpick, but you would have already bought the full bottle of Coca-Cola so whether you throw it out full or drink it all doesn't matter to them. A better analogy would be going to an all-you-can-eat buffet. If you only eat a half plate full of food then the restaurant is happier and loses less money than if you ate 3 or 4 plates full.
Really though, the bubble has to burst some time. You can't expect an ISP to offer you T-1 speeds for $50/month when their costs are many times that amount. Just like with dialup they need to oversubscribe their services to survive at that pricepoint and make it an attractive service for everyone.
Re:WiFi Sharing (Score:2)
Bandwith vs. Soda Pop (Score:2, Informative)
Uh, no. Your analogy doesn't work. Disclaimer - I work for a very large company that makes soda. I won't say which one since I don't speak for them officially. I work in IT, not sales, but after 14 years with this company I have a *some* idea of how the business works.
Actually we don't care if you drink the entire bottle or not. A case of soda costs x to make and sells for y. All we care about is keeping x as low as possible and y as high as we can get away with, just like any other production / distribution business. You'd be surprised how hard we work to cut the cost of producing a case by a penny. It adds up in a hurry.
The closest analogy you could make to unlimited bandwidth and the Carbonated Soft Drink business is fountain sales in restaurants. Fountain CSD (outside of convenience stores) is generally sold for a flat price and all you can drink. And we still don't care. You could drink until you bust in some stupid "beat the system" game and it still doesn't change the fact that the fast food place selling you the soda payed more for the cup than they did to us for the amount of soda it takes to fill that cup several times. Mickey D's or BK or KFC are still making money.
Anyway, the analogy is getting stretched a bit, but what the hell. It's only bandwidth.
Re:WiFi Sharing (Score:2)
Setting up a wireless network for sharing on purpose, or gaining money by it, is wrong unless your ISP has given you permission to do so.
No, it's fine unless your ISP explicitly disallows it. When you paying for bandwidth there are no implcit restrictions on how you can use the bandwidth, and sharing is just one way you can use it.
And they have to explicitly disallow it within the terms of the agreed upon service agreement, they can't give you one set of terms of service, and go "oops" six months later and change it.
Re:WiFi Sharing (Score:2)
So, let me ask you this. How exactly do you make the distinction between say, a Tier 2 provider buying access from a Tier 1 provider and reselling it to Tier 3 isps, and someone buying access from a Tier 3 isp and reselling or even just giving it away to others?
What gives the Tier 3 isp the right to say I can resell this bandwidth I bought from my Tier 2 isp, but you can't? If you signed a contract to that effect, then fine. But if not then you are well within your rights to resell that service.
If I paid for X amount of bandwidth, then that bandwidth is mine, and it's ridiculous for an ISP to say otherwise.
That said, if it's in your contract, and you agreed to it, then you have to abide by it or find another service. If you don't like your isp's policies, find a new isp.
As a side note, I too once "ran" an ISP. I didn't own it, but I did everything but the billing of customers, support of home users, and the raking in of profits.
I had to fight this battle there too. Certain folks had the absurd idea that a company with multiple users should be charged some absurd amount of money per month (400$ or so?) for the same dialup line as our home users got, simply because there were multiple users.
Does this mean that more data will be transferred? Yes, but we weren't billed for the T-1 based on bytes transferred, but rather on bandwidth utilization. Given that both had the same amount of maximum usage it was ridiculous to try and bill them 20 times as much for the same service. The same thing applies here. I paid for the bandwidth, and whether I use it all myself or other people help me doesn't matter. If I rent a car, I don't get charged more because I give some friends a ride. Yet the rental car company potentially lost business cause we shared a ride. Why is that different?
Easy: (Score:2, Interesting)
They will change the license, or lose clients.
Re:[Not So] Easy: (Score:2)
No ISP will give away it product for free. If they are losing money to a few bad clients because they are hogging up all the bandwidth, the ISP will be forced to cut them off.
There is no such thing as "free" bandwidth to the Internet. You can have free bandwidth to your neighbor though.
Read the license, if you feel that you can get a better deal with fewer restrictions, then by all means do.
How strict are they being? (Score:2)
As an Apple Airport user with a secured station who is looking to get into cable internet in the next six months, this is a critical question for me to answer. Guess I need to talk to my local cable company personally.
Not strict at all. (Score:2)
They (and they have made this clear in the article) are only going after those who publically advertised their open APs on the NYC Wireless site.
As long as you don't publish your name on a site advertising that you're giving away free wireless, you're fine.
And as to NYC Wireless, etc. - They simply need to anonymize their operations so that AP providers can't be linked easily to cable modem accounts. Right now, the site is providing a name and address, which makes it easy for RR to bust them.
This is why I don't do this. (Score:2)
AT&T offers wireless options - will they restr (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.attbroadband.com/homenetworking [attbroadband.com]
redirects to
http://www.computers4sure.com/linksys/store/att_z
If you drop in your zip code you will see that AT&T not only doesn't deny you wireless but in fact offers a one-stop-shopping for wireless products from Linksys.
So, while this specific article is about sharing your wifi with people that don't live in your apartment/home/discarded fridge box, I have to wonder if AT&T will even care about such sharing. They're pushing wifi as a solution, so they have to expect this sort of thing to happen...
Depends on what it's used for. (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, despite the contract saying it was verboten, TW employees would hang out on the Linux support forums and sometimes even give unofficial IP Masq advice. (This was the Ithaca, NY area)
The difference in this situation is - The users that got "the letter" advertised on the nycwireless site that they were running an open AP, saying, "Hey everyone, feel free to use my cable modem."
If it's for yourself and your friends, they don't care. If you're providing unmonitored open access to strangers, that's a different story.
So it's right to steal resources? Some Solutions.. (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Turn off the service on these thieves.
2. Acknowledge the fact that this is happening and place a cap of some sort on their monthly transfers or bandwidth.
3. Acknowledge the fact that this is happening and charge them for usage accordingly.
4. Acknowledge this is happening and set up a public information infrastructure, where the cost would be shared by businesses, providers AND taxpayers. This is akin to setting up public streetlamps, wastebaskets, water fountains, etc. The public has shown an interest in this type of thing, so it's alternately good business and good public policy - something you don't see too much of.
PERSONALLY - I prefer the fourth option.....
Re:So it's right to steal resources? Some Solution (Score:2)
Re:So it's right to steal resources? Some Solution (Score:2)
If i've paid for the bandwidth, why am I not allowed to shove it over WiFi and have a few mates use it? What is the difference between that and a Linux box running IP Masquerading hooked up to a home network?
Unless they are charging people for using the bandwidth (ie. reselling it) then once they've purchased the bandwidth then they're pretty much free to use it how like like.
(unless the terms and conditions they signed in the first place expressly disallow this)
2. Acknowledge the fact that this is happening and place a cap of some sort on their monthly transfers or bandwidth.
I'm surprised there isn't a default monthly cap at the moment. It could be set to something very high that would cause a problem for only a select few people but would easily knock out WiFi sharers.
Mind you, if they advertise unlimited bandwidth then this is going to be a problem. I do however see the side of the network company who offer bandwidth only to find that they lose a number of customers simply because one person is sharing out his.
Re:So it's right to steal resources? Some Solution (Score:2)
The cable companies should, rightfully, either shut off service or charge by the byte. Frankly, charging by the byte is ludicrous for the residential sector -- virtually everything is moving to flat rate. Consumers like flat rate because it allows you to budget far more easily.
Want a "public" wireless network? Start a company, decide how much it'll cost, and bill subscribers appropriately. No, it's not this pipe dream of a free-for-all wireless network where you can plug in anonymously and do whatever you want. Maybe it'll be viable in 10-15 years, but right now it's not.
EFF is Searching for ISPs with Good AUPs (Score:3, Informative)
But why? (Score:2, Insightful)
I do not understand why they are doing this. Are they losing money? Why? After all, their costumer agreement is either one of:
- Guaranteed bandwidth with a fixed charge
- Pay-per-MB, or
- A mixture of both.
Thus they charge for the traffic on their leased links, regardless of wether it is generated by the costumer or Wi-Fi free-riders.Another point is that they lease the link on a particular costumer, and the costumer can do with the link whatever he pleases. If only the costumer can use the link, then that means his family/friends/flatmates cannot?? I think this is absurd.
In the end, it is up to the costumer himself to regulate traffic on his local network. If he gets charged a lot, or his connection is slow because there are a lot of free-riders taking advantage of his open Wi-Fi system, then he can limit access (by allowing only specific MAC addresses to connect). I think this is easy enough.
Also consider this. When a company hires a leased line/ADSL connection, they do not face a limit on the number of terminals they will have connected to their LAN. What does it matter to the provider? They still get compensated for the increased traffic.
Re:But why? (Score:2)
Those who are willing to be WALKED ALL OVER by freeloaders are those who advocate a free internet and free wireless. They want to give access to the internet to people who care less about it and more about getting food! But since they don't charge anyone, then the one's who CAN afford it figure oh I will just leech off of my neighbor's open connection. And then they tell their neihbor and so on and so on and then that Cable Modem's connection is saturated 24/7 and they wonder why the cable company did what they did. SHEESH!
Cable Companies Saying No to WiFi Sharing (Score:2, Insightful)
Customers saying "Fuck Off" to Cable Companies
what if... (Score:2, Insightful)
I admit that I don't know a whole lot about NYC Wireless, but if I'm getting the gist of things from their page, they essentially want to have everyone possible share their 802.11b bandwidth so the internet can be free and wireless for all. As altruistic as this sounds, I have to agree with the ISPs that this presents all sorts of problems as far as network security and is perfectly within their rights to limit.
Read your service agreement with AT&T Broadband, or Road Runner, or Time Warner, or whoever you go through - chances are there's some clause in your contract that tells you not to subcontract the service out to others. If you want to run your own ISP, or offer wireless broadband to all, that's for you to decide - but they're perfectly within their rights to tell you to go scratch and get your own T1 from another provider.
(I should add that I'm a law student, so my fate is sealed as far as the lawyer jokes go.)
Average user (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Average user (Score:4, Insightful)
Your roommates names and yours as well are on the lease for the room. You live there and the broadband is a utility that you all use. The old lady is not on the lease and your paying for a utility does not give her the right to use it. That's where you draw the line.
Now someone will respond and say "what if you built a heating duct from your room to the old lady's room and gave her permission to enjoy heating at your expense?"
The difference here is that heating costs in terms of energy and you are paying a fixed amount per kWh or per m^3 of natural gas. This means that the extra heating nessary to heat the old lady's place will increase your bill. On the other hand, WiFi'ing your broadband and giving the old lady access does not increase your bill.
Bandwidth costs money. More bandwidth costs more money. I think that for higher than average users, bandwidth should be paid per quantity used. In this way, it becomes easy to draw the line as to the 'cost' of sharing because no matter how you look at it, bandwidth costs money and more bandwidth costs more money.
Re:Average user (Score:3, Informative)
The difference here is that heating costs in terms of energy and you are paying a fixed amount per kWh or per m^3 of natural gas. This means that the extra heating nessary to heat the old lady's place will increase your bill. On the other hand, WiFi'ing your broadband and giving the old lady access does not increase your bill.
Bandwidth costs money. More bandwidth costs more money. I think that for higher than average users, bandwidth should be paid per quantity used. In this way, it becomes easy to draw the line as to the 'cost' of sharing because no matter how you look at it, bandwidth costs money and more bandwidth costs more money.
Although I think that TWC is actually being reasonable in this instance (and saying TWC is being reasonable about anything is a first for me), I have to take exception to your analogy.
Heat, whether delivered by gas, electricity, or oil, is derived from a physical quantity that can be measured. You can save money by turning your thermostat down. You don't pay for the gas, electricity, or oil that you don't use. Once the infrastructure is in place to deliver this stuff to your home, you only pay for what you consume, and your supplier's responsibility is to supply enough to the neighborhood so noone does without. If you consume an extra few KWh this month, your supplier hasto find a place to get it and deliver it to you.
Bandwidth is quite different in that there is no physical quantity changing hands. In fact, the infrastructure itself is the product. And maybe you're buying time also, since slower connections do everything faster connections do, and you're paying extra for the speed. If you don't use bandwidth, someone still pays for the fact that you could have used it.(Whether or not you actually pay a metered rate for bandwidth is not an issue; at some point, someone (probably your ISP) is paying for the whole pipe.) And, if you use a 100K extra bandwidth this month than last month, your supplier doesn't have to buy two more 56k modems to make up for it. All the supplier has to do is make sure he can meet the peak bandwidth demand with a reasonable amount of latency.
So, bandwidth costs money, and more bandwidth costs money, sort of. If you (being a consumer, business, or ISP) have a T1 utilized at 100% capacity, and you absolutely need an extra 1% in bandwidth, you'll have to buy another line and pay for it. But if your line is only utilized 50%, and you need an extra 10%, that extra bandwidth costs nothing, because you already bought it. Heat is sold in physical units of something. Bandwidth is sold in potential maximum information transfer over time. They are very different.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the agreement say? (Score:5, Interesting)
Mine [directvdsl.com] says I "may not connect more than 5 computers at a single location" and that I can't "resell the Service or any portion thereof," but it doesn't say anything about giving it away for free (assuming fewer than 5 computers at a time are connected).
Telocity is great. I have nothing bad to say about them.
Re:What's the agreement say? (Score:3, Informative)
You obviously don't use their NNTP server
Seriously, they are one of the better DSL providers -- they allow non-commercial servers, and provide static IP. However, they recently halved upload bandwidth (at least in BellSouth territory) from 256 kb/s to 128 kb/s.
Re:What's the agreement say? (Score:2)
This is exactly why the TOS agreements are getting more restrictive. People are constantly complaining about how they spell out every little situation in a TOS and make it as restrictive as possible, but that is because if they don't, people will take advantage of the company and exploit it. I think it is a completely fair assumption that if you have a cable modem in your home, it is for use in your home and not for the entire neighborhood. Anyone with half a brain can figure out that is what they are marketing the cable modems for. If people continue to flaunt the fact they are using a cable modem meant for a single household to give access to anyone and everyone they can, then it will have to be placed in the TOS that sharing is not allowed. And this will restrict people who have legitimate reasons for sharing and aren't abusing it. Why are companies making more restrictive TOS agreements? Because if they don't, people will continue to abuse their services with the excuse of "it didn't say I couldn't do it in the TOS". These people are no better than the people that say "It didn't say I couldn't use my hair dryer in the bathtub."
They can't control (Score:3, Interesting)
Whatever they say they'll do, they can't have any control. If they say you cannot share your connection how will they be sure that you are not sharing? Even using an regular eth connection with your neighbor, what can do?
Once the data arrived your computer you can pass it anywhere you want, you can send it through your eth connection our wifi, or whatever, you can even throw it back to the internet. The point is that They can't do anything, simply because then can't know what you are doing with all the data arriving in your computer.
What amazes me the most is that the Cable Companies seems to don't know this. Why don't they know it? What is happening? Do they only recruit lawyers? Don't they have technical consulting there? Don't they have a employer with a QI 90+ to tell them that it probably won't work and the best is to consult somebody who knows what s/he's doing?
This shows the quality of the service we are buying, we, nothing more then geeks, know more about their bussiness then themselves.
Shame...
Read the article ffs... (Score:3, Informative)
Only people who advertised their wide-open APs on nycwireless got "the letter" - And TW said they're not actively hunting down 802.11 users - These particular users, in TWs own words, "Waved a banner in front of us" saying they were breaking their TOS.
TW found out because they effectively TOLD TW they were breaking the rules.
Cable Company's (Score:2, Interesting)
Epilogue - He sold his share in the cable company a couple years ago, for 90 million dollars. And this was a "small" cable co. in West-Virginia.
Easy... or not? (Score:3, Interesting)
If it is, WIFI or not, the customer is wrong.
One more annoying aspect is the fact that more and more law enforcement agency ask ISP to keep log of connection informations. This lead me to think that WiFi enthusiast sharing their connection, acting as local ISP, need something like the WGAP.
What's this ? The Wandering Guest Access Protocol is an idea I work on in my (few) spare times since a few month, permiting for a user sharing bandwith to deny responsability about some part of the traffic emanating from his network, notably by using an authentication of the Wandering Guest using its network. But there are so many legal and technical challenges I doubt I can publish any lifetime soon a satisfying presentation. Anybody wanting free WIFI networks being acceptables to the establishment must think about legal aspects. Else, the post 20010911 effect will provide the perfect excuse for the telcos to remove competition.
Re:Easy... or not? (Score:2)
Litmus test (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Litmus test (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Litmus test (Score:2)
Bad analogy (Score:5, Interesting)
"Thanks for your money, gentlemen! Here's you go, one plate each. Yes, we know that the plates are the size of a saucer even though our commercials say they're the size of a manhole cover. Now please, overlook that and go help yourself to anything. Oh, except, the sundae bar you heard is in places like this is off-limits to you. And you can't have the fried chicken wings, and you can forget about those bacon bits that you see in the salad bar, those are off limits to you, too. And if you gentlemen want to discuss business over your meal, you have to pay us more money."
"Excuse me, sir, what do you mean, 'Then what did I come here and pay good money for?' You can always sit at your table, sip a glass of water, have a slice of bread, and look at all the nice ads that are on the placemats. We worked very hard to sell that ad space so you customers wouldn't have to look a plain, blank placemats!"
"Oh, and please don't stay too long. Even though we say we never close, we sort of frown on people who keep the tables tied up for too long."
~Philly
Wrong (Score:2)
Ideally cable providers should be throtteling bandwidth and providing bandwidth service levels. If they sell you 1.5Mbps for $50 a month, you should be able to download at 1.5Mbps all year long, every second of the day. But then you shouldn't be able to ever burst 6Mbps. However, this isn't the case with most providers. Comcast provides me with what they term a peak of 1.5Mbps, but in actual fact I often get much, much more than that. Depending on the time of day and day of week, I can max at 6Mbps. If they're not having a bandwidth crunch in my area, that might be fine, but if they're hurting and still not capping the bandwidth, whose fault is that? Certainly theirs. I don't know if bandwidth throtteling is such a technically challenging issue, but it seems that enforcing download caps in MB/month rather than bits/second is taking the easy way out.
Basic structure of the Internet (Score:2, Interesting)
Unlike cable television access theft, where it is the duplication of data that is being sold, bandwidth is a limited commodity and you cannot use the exact same bits that are being used by whomever you gave them to. It is more analogous to allowing a guest of your home to use your telephone. As that guest is taking up the entire "bandwidth" of your phone for their conversation, you cannot use that same phone line yourself. I don not believe that phone companies could legally establish the practice of fining or disconnecting your service should someone other than yourself use your phone.
There is no law that states that it is mandatory to be a Fortune 500 company in order to resell or give away bandwidth you have purchased. This behavior is a very good example on how the Internet is being altered and stunted by the corporate machine who now views the net as their property. They now feel that not only do they have rights to your data, what you can or cannot send or download, but also in the manner of how you allow data to eventually be placed on your wire.
Pay to add another telephone too? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is that the hill you want to die on?
Re:Pay to add another telephone too? (Score:2)
Re:Pay to add another telephone too? (Score:3, Interesting)
After the breakup of Ma Bell, it became legal to add your own jacks without having a monthly charge for each individual jack I added jacks and eliminated a major trip hazzard. For repair costs and service liabilities, this is where the Telco Interface came into the picture. Anything broken on their side of the interface is their responsibility and anything past it (in the home) is now the consumer's responsibility. Most older homes got the lightning arrestor replaced with a telephone interface box to define the sepration of consumer and telco property. They used to fix or replace broken phones for free because they owned them. Nowdays most phone companies guarantee the ringing power is adaquate for up to a total connected ringer load of REN 3 or less. This us usualy no longer a problem as most new phones have electronic ringers with a REN of 0.2 instead of 1.0 the old phones had. If you have too much ringer load, the voltage may become too low to properly ring your phones. If you call the phone company now with a complaint that your phones do not ring properly, they will usualy ask you to add up all the REN numbers of all the connected devices (modems, cordless phones, answering machines, faxes, etc. and make sure the total ringer load is less than 3 before sending a service technician. My dad when doing some construction (1960's) dropped a 2X6 on a phone and smashed it. It was replaced for free.
job opportunity? (Score:2, Funny)
"Can you share it now?" "No" "Good"
Get paid to wardrive! Nifty. And hey, I've got experience!
Re:job opportunity? (Score:2)
The omni alerts you that there's an open node nearby, then you flip on the directional, and rotate it around until you find the signal. That way you can be sure to not miss anything, like if you were just driving around with a rotating directional
Note: I don't know how big these nodes are, having never played with wifi (I'm poor, still living in a cat5 world) so you may be able to rotate the directional fast enough as your driving to not miss anything.
Consequences (Score:2)
Re:Consequences (Score:2)
This must be a new definition of "unlimited" that I'm not familiar with. We're talking about cable ISPs here, whose terms of service forbid things like servers, VPNs, NAT... cripes, technically you're in violation of Comcast's AUP ("You may not use the Service for commercial purposes.") if you check your work e-mail via Outlook Web Access from your "residential" connection.
That's pretty damned limited service, in my book. Whee, all this bandwidth and I'm only allowed to send and receive e-mail and look at ad-filled web pages owned by my ISP! This is NOT what they depict in their commercials, BTW, and they need to be smacked down by the FTC for it, IMHO.
I ditched Comcast and their limited services as soon as it was practicable, and now have DSL from an ISP whose TOS is pretty much, "No illegal stuff, and no pr0n web sites, please." I advise everyone who is able to, to cast off the chains of their cable ISP and get one where you give them your money and they give you their bandwidthwithout smothering you in stupid limitations. Only by voting with your wallet can you make these greedy companies see the light... and even then, it's a long shot.
~Philly
Servers are okl in Britain (Score:2)
This is from their AUP...
17. Servers
(i) You are solely responsible for the setup and security of all servers that you may run on your PC. You are also responsible for all traffic that may pass through your PC. Please note that your account may be subject to immediate suspension or disconnection without notice, if any security breaches do occur or any server causes any degradation in network performance. You should also note that running servers on your PC may cause your own connection to operate in a less than optimal manner.
(ii) Webservers: see Para 8, Websites (this referes to them terminating your connection if there is excessivly high traffic, or pornography)
(iii) Remote Access: All remote access ( FTP; SSH ; PC Anywhere etc) must be password protected & the address must not be publicly advertised.
(iv) Game: If the game in question has a password/IP access restriction option this must be used. Your IP address must not be publicly advertised on Gaming sites etc.
(vi) Other: You may run other servers but be aware that ntl reserve the right to restrict access to them should they cause network problems or should we receive complaints.
(vii) We may, at our discretion, run manual or automatic systems to determine your compliance with our User Policy (e.g. scanning for "open mail relays"). You are deemed to have granted permission for this limited intrusion onto your network or machine.
Please note that should we receive any complaints about any server that you may be running that your Internet access may be suspended without notice pending further investigation.
18. Use of Virtual Private Network (VPN)
As stated above, the ntl Internet and/or Interactive Services are for residential use only and we do not support the use of VPN. If we find you are using VPN via the ntl IP network we may instruct you to stop using it and you must comply with this request. This is in order to prevent problems to ntl (eg network performance) and other Internet users.
I run a webserver and ftp server and have had no trouble at all with them. It's a great service!
public utilities? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not like buying soap or corn flakes. This is like getting electric service and using it for whatever I damn well like. Their are bandwidth issues to be accounted for for sure, but that is it.
These are just a bunch of greedy bastards that want to charge me hundreds of dollars a month for services that have virtually no real operating costs and could be provided for with a minimum of techical knowledge
But apparently we are going back to the days when Ma Bell takes 30 years to implement touch tone service or call waiting or the next great thing and then pat themselves on the back (and charge us an arm and a leg) for a job well done. Jeez... I can't wait to be charged per email or per authorized web page I load into my next generation cell phone that costs me $300 and displays ads from the phone companies in the middle of my 911 call!
Just a few years ago these same companies were arguing that people shouldn't be able to hook up their own phones to the network because of the risks. Now we see that the risk was that people would take it upon themselves to revolutionize communications first with BBS and then with the inter connected internet and email, thus circumventing the big bells.
People easily forget that the phone company didn't want the internet and it was Congress and the Universities that forced it to open it's lines to data traffic. Let's not let them put in tolls at every corner. Keep the air free.
Re:public utilities? (Score:2)
Errr (Score:2)
Common Sense (Score:2)
As I'm sure everyone knows, bandwidth is not free. The cable companies price their product selling for typical household (or business, on different pay scales of course) use--of course variations in use do exist, but those who just use email balance out the power users (or the file sharers) etc.
If people want to share their connections with everyone and use that much more bandwidth, I'm sure the cable companies would be glad to charge you much more for your connection--maybe if we got some petitions going for per bandwidth charges we could get the cable providers to ok this! Anyone interested, I think this could work
Welcome to Capitalism in Action (Score:2)
Consumer broadband languished for years until both cable and twisted pair solutions were available. This means you can buy residential broadband from either your cable company or from your phone company. Or you could try Covad, Speakeasy, Wifi Metro, or other services.
As any good market, the top broadband player will make most of the money, the second player will make a reasonable return, the third player loses a little money and hopes someone pulls an Enron, and everyone else has a dream. The market isn't yet mature, and there are business uncertainties about marking the boundry of the market and dividing costs. This is how people get into arguments on owning the loop to the phone company's Central Office, or the home owner owning the right to move the drop cable to a cable overbuild, or the right to dump the ISP side of an internet connection and pay only for physical routing.
It's also how people argue about costs. One way of looking at wireless internet nodes and household private networks is that they all usurp service and place undue burden on the provider; an open network is theft. The other way is to view the service as providing a utility, like power, to a residence; an open node is like running an extension cord out to the front yard. The market will sort this out.
SBC nee Pacific Bell doesn't mind if you run a local network or open node, and has a long history of not worrying about extra phone extensions. Cable companies have a long history of worrying about cable descramblers, people using cable for two televisions in the house, and people using cable for public display. The terms and enforcements follow the corporate histories.
Who is correct? Let the dollars decide.
Chasm/Thaila
P.s.: Looking for a Silicon Valley SE to sell products to developers? Email me at jobhunt@truegift.com
This is why I use DSL (Score:2)
No, no no no and no. Not until the pricing scheme (Score:3, Insightful)
Until you pay rates on the Kilobyte, the providers have every right whatsoever, both legally and morally, to prevent you from sharing your connection.
Right now, most services in the US allow subscribers to buy an unlimited amount of transmission at a fixed rate. For example, you might pay $50 a month for a 768k downstream connection.
Compare this to the electric company, which charges you variable rates -- you use more electricity, you pay more cash. The electrical companies probably don't care if you run a line to your poor neighbor's shack -- other than the risk associated with you frying yourself and knocking out the power grid, the only thing they have to concern themselves with is collecting additional revenues for the added kWh.
ISPs are the exact opposite. They let you transfer as much data as you want, but they limit how quickly you can send and receive it. With unlimited transmission rates, they get the same amount of money from you if you transfer 1M or 10T in a single month. They make loads of money on the 1M, and stand to lose quite a bit on the 10T. ISP's assume you won't have 768K of traffic 24/7 for an entire billing cycle -- and this is how they make money.
Simple logic: if more people use your connection, more data is transferred. The ISP begins to lose lots of money. Eventually, even at the fixed bandwidth rate you're paying for, the ISP loses. If you're paying per K, M, or G, suddenly, the ISPs won't care HOW many people you share your connection with -- they'll receive money proportional to the amount of data you and your leeches transmit.
This isn't a big deal, and I'm surprised that it's taken the ISPs this long to jump on the issue.
Re: Cable Companies Saying No to WiFi Sharing (Score:3, Funny)
News at 11.
Maybe Cable Cos... (Score:3, Insightful)
In the past, some people have suggested that bandwidth be treated like a utility service. I think that's a great idea. Just like every residence is supposed to have water and electricity service and acceptable levels of reliability, a data connection should be treated the same way. This data connection can be for conventional telephone service, cable television, internet, and whatever permutations and combinations the future brings us. This way, an infrastructure can be established whereby each connection receives metered bandwidth, and the recipient can do as they please with it because they are paying for the bandwidth they use. The power and water companies don't care if you leave the faucet running all day or every light in your house on all day because you're paying them based on your consumption.
This will also have the effect of forcing the consumers to educate themselves to prevent abuse of their bandwidth. If you have a leaking faucet or toilet, it's in your best interest to fix it. If you have an unsecured WAP, then you'll end up paying for whatever bandwidth leaks out of it.
That sounds like a lot of education. How can that be accomplished? Part of it is available in most public schools. It's called "Home Economics". In addition to learning basic sewing, cooking, cleaning, and typing skills, students should also be presented basic information about home networking. The students can then bring this information home and educate their parents. The other part of the education solution lies with the equipment producers. They should provide more information with their products about setting up a secure home network. This is in addition to products already available like personal firewall software and "Idiot's guide to.." publications.
This could also help with adoption of IPv6. Just like every phone line gets a telephone number, every data line will get an IP address.
Not a problem with Covad DSL (Score:3, Informative)
When I ordered Covad DSL ($50/month for 384/128kbps), the salesperson was very clear that sharing one's line to sell wireless access to one's neighbors was perfectly OK with them and something that they regarded as a competitive advantage of their service.
DSL has less media sharing and is easier to upgrade on an individual basis. This may be why DSL providers in my experience generally seem to be ambivalently neutral to definitely positive about wireless access sharing, while cable modem providers have generally been quite concerned and proactive about any kind of bandwidth hogging scenarios (not just wireless sharing).
Re:Why do they care? (Score:2, Insightful)
If we had reality in pricing (or the tier 1's would lower there costs to tier 2 but as they are going under I doubt it)
Re:Why do they care? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why do they care? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why do they care? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they base their pricing on "average use". You giving away your connection is not "average use"
So? The whole point of an average is that some people use more and some less. If three machines are using my connection, then I am using more than "average use", but that in and of itself doesn't give them the right to retaliate.
and you against your contract.
Not necessarily, that depends on the contract. My contract explicitly allows me three connections. If I'm within that limit, they should not care; if I go over it, I expect them to complain.
Other people with other providers have other contracts. Some of them might have contracts that say basically, "here's a connection, do whatever you want with it".
The issue is whether or not the usage is within the terms of the contract, not whether or not it's "average use"; and you don't know the terms of the contracts in question. If your service contract specifies that you must not exceed "average use" then I would tell you your contract is fundamentally flawed and you should look for another provider (or renegotiate, if possible).
Want to give away your connection? Go buy a T-1 with no usage clause like that. What? It costs a lot more? Sure does.
T-1 lines generally come with usage clauses too, and whether or not they restrict sharing or reselling connections or bandwidth depends on your ISP. Also, there are many more (and cheaper) options than a T1 for internet access now, many of which have laxer usage policies than your typical consumer-grade Cable Modem or DSL contract.
Re:Why do they care? (Score:2)
For example, assume you are on a fixed electrical plan (they have them in Omaha, I don't know if they have them elsewhere) and you start giving electricity to your neighbors for free. Would that be wrong? If so, why isn't stealing bandwidth just as bad?
Re:Why do they care? (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of it this way. Bandwidth is limited and an increase of bandwidth use increased the cable companies cost.
We both give them money and cost them money. Balancing those two and coming up with a profitable pricing schedule and service contract is their job, not ours.
For example, assume you are on a fixed electrical plan (they have them in Omaha, I don't know if they have them elsewhere) and you start giving electricity to your neighbors for free. Would that be wrong?
If I paid for an unlimited amount of sharable electricity, then no, it wouldn't be wrong. I would be very surprised to get such an agreement without paying at least the GNP of a small country for it, but if I had such an agreement, I would expect to be able to use it.
To bring the analogy a bit closer, if I had a contract with my electric company that said, for $100 per month, I could draw up to 500kWH of power and do what I like with it, then why shouldn't "what I like with it" include sharing it with my friends and neighbors.
If I could get a similar contract for $80/mo, but with a clause saying I couldn't share it, and I decide to save money by going with that contract, then I couldn't legally or morally share it.
[Disclaimer: Above numbers are for illustration only, and do not necessarily represent reasonable usage or pricing]
If so, why isn't stealing bandwidth just as bad?
This isn't stealing bandwidth, the people sharing the bandwidth are paying for it. In exchange for $X per month, they get Y bandwith and some other contract clauses. Provided they remain within their contract, nobody should care what they do.
In some of the cases where the Broadband ISP's are "cracking down" they are cracking down on actual contract violations, that's fine. In other cases the broadband ISP's are going "hey, we didn't think of that" and rather than eating their mistake, they are taking it out on legitimate paid customers who are operating within their terms of service. That is NOT fine.
Re:Why do they care? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, you're paying for your connection, but what about everyone else piggybacking off of it over WiFi? Sounds quite a bit like the one-apartment-stealing-cable-for-the-building situation to me. Sure, Time-Warner or whomever is paid $40 or so a month for the service, but what about the $1200 from the other 30 apartments that get it for free?
Re:Why do they care? (Score:2)
-----rhad
Re:Why do they care? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because their efforts to pigeonhole human beings into predictable consumers who do only what they anticipate, and nothing creative, is failing, and with it quite possibly their flawed business models.
These are the same people who misguidedly think that bandwidth is something that can be "stolen" (never mind the dictionary definition of the word) and would probably accuse you of "stealing" temperature if you went to a shopping mall to enjoy the warm air (in winter) or air conditioning (in summer) without buying anything.
The fact that you can't steal temperature, any more than you can steal bandwidth, doesn't seem to bother the purveyors of such newspeak in the least, and such nuances as the fact that you might be guilty of loitering (in the shopping mall example), or of violating the terms of your service contract (with your ISP), but not stealing, seems to be completely lost on such people.
One can only hope the FBI, who in many such instances have become judge, jury, and executioner (or at least "fine levyer" in the form of stolen, or seized, equipment) eventually catches on to this and starts putting their resources into fighting real crimes, rather than one-sidedly settling contract disputes extra-judicially.
In the meantime, expect "theft" to become an even more abused word than "terrorism," if it hasn't already.