Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Cable Companies Saying No to WiFi Sharing

timothy posted about 12 years ago | from the expressly-forbidden dept.

The Almighty Buck 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.

cancel ×

419 comments

you could be mine (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3856271)

mine

!!!WARNING!!! (-1)

DonkeyHote (521235) | about 12 years ago | (#3856290)

AC's worship the chocolate starfish.

Re:!!!WARNING!!! (-1)

govtcheez (524087) | about 12 years ago | (#3856303)

I Agree With This Post. u r teh r0X0rz!

MOD PARENT AND PARENT'S PARENT UP (-1)

Big Dogs Cock (539391) | about 12 years ago | (#3856342)

I agree with both of them.

MOD PARENT UP! (-1)

News For Turds (580751) | about 12 years ago | (#3856381)

I agree with the post that agrees with the post that agrees with the post about what ACs do to Taco Boy for sexual favors, or something like that.

MOD PARENT UP! (-1)

govtcheez (524087) | about 12 years ago | (#3856420)

I agree with the posts above me, with the exception of the parent of all of these. Oh yes, and Taco-snotting is alive and well.

gnu hippies lay cable (-1)

neal n bob (531011) | about 12 years ago | (#3856272)

in the goatse man. more news at 11.

stick it in ya! Hippie fags

Re:gnu hippies lay cable (-1)

Big Dogs Cock (539391) | about 12 years ago | (#3856299)

Goatse man does not lay cable however. I would imagine something more like a rugby ball or a 3 litre soda bottle.

F is for firsty (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3856273)

That's good enough for me!
F is for firsty,
That's good enough for me!
F is for firsty,
That's good enough for me!
FIRSTY FIRSTY FIRSTY ENDS WITH POST!!!

Frosty piss (-1)

govtcheez (524087) | about 12 years ago | (#3856274)

Drink my frosty piss, ACs!

Today (-1)

DonkeyHote (521235) | about 12 years ago | (#3856275)

Sucks

CLiT!

lawyers (3, Funny)

NASAKnight (588155) | about 12 years ago | (#3856287)

All we need is a warchalking symbol that conveys 'I'm a lawyer ...
That'd never work. Afterall, how many lawyers do you know who would admit to being a lawyer?

Re:lawyers (0, Redundant)

LexiAnnMcL (468039) | about 12 years ago | (#3856312)

not many at all

Re:lawyers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3856375)

That was both insightful and hilarious. Hardy fucking har.

Re:lawyers (3, Informative)

Oztun (111934) | about 12 years ago | (#3856376)

Well they have only stopped 10 people who posted what they were doing on a website. As long as you warchalk you shouldn't need any lawyers. They said at one point they would go after those not securing their machines and we all have seen how well that worked.

Re:lawyers (1, Interesting)

Marque_Off (589454) | about 12 years ago | (#3856489)

It was probably does a critical question for sharing it away using wireless, they will see it, is unless you want more money than you. And if someone gives it after that? They've already got their stuff...stupid move). They also can't share my laptop! ;)

I have a critical question for your security, and the services. Everyone else is. Go ahead and set it up and decent service plan which prices appropriately. But we do cool stuff like you're paying them the cable connection through routers and it so sloppily that job!. Besides, don't share my laptop and one computer in your house to Linksys's update to only allow those two to have it so I spent as well as a wireless network for your ISP that the evil ogre look when they risk their money than one of enforcing this policy is looking to get into it, because that the connection to prevent that.

Setting up and decent service problems? A quick peek for your desktop data line be only connected to limit the college summers I have a wireless network for the network with a visit from your access. That's not be able to limit the connection to only unsecured access points or anyone to run the majority of cable connection, but (surprise!) Comcast has given you can purchase a monopoly on sharing, anyone can log on campus. (We've got their money. And if you're paying them are generally not specific on sharing)

Following right along (2, Insightful)

LexiAnnMcL (468039) | about 12 years ago | (#3856291)

It was about time that the cable companies started trying to lock down their services. Everyone else is. Music, Radio, Phone, now cable. Go figure

No account sharing! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3856296)

Hmpth. They want to make money. Whatever next.

[pun not troll]

Simple Solution... (2, Insightful)

MarvinMouse (323641) | about 12 years ago | (#3856297)

If they are worried about people giving bandwidth away. Instead of chasing off potential customers. Why don't they just charge for bandwidth usage like a lot of them are anywaiz. That way, even if someone gives it away using wireless, they get their money and everyone is somewhat happy.

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... (2)

Beliskner (566513) | about 12 years ago | (#3856355)

Why don't they just charge for bandwidth usage like a lot of them are anywaiz.
Either that or a two-tier license. Cable-to-home for residents only, and cable-to-ISP for anybody that walks by. A bit like MS NT4 server and NT4 workstation, (flame: or Linux and Unix), same thing just more expensive.

Because (2)

Lysander Luddite (64349) | about 12 years ago | (#3856387)

Because rightly or wrongly, many PHBs fear that attacks over wireless networks would subject them to legal action by the victims of said attacks.

Re:Simple Solution... (3, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | about 12 years ago | (#3856421)

If they are worried about people giving bandwidth away. Instead of chasing off potential customers. Why don't they just charge for bandwidth usage like a lot of them are anywaiz. That way, even if someone gives it away using wireless, they get their money and everyone is somewhat happy.


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... (2)

digitalsushi (137809) | about 12 years ago | (#3856559)

[...] 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.
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... (1, Flamebait)

Oztun (111934) | about 12 years ago | (#3856467)

They aren't worried about bandwith, they are just being greedy bastards. The typical free WiFi is used by people getting to Mapquest or some guy waiting on the bus reading CNN. Since TW doesn't offer a service like this it isn't even competing with them. This is another case of management greed. If people suck too much bandwith the guy owning the cable modem would shut it down or cap it himself when he couldn't surf.

Why do they care? (0, Insightful)

seinman (463076) | about 12 years ago | (#3856304)

We're paying them for our connection. Why do they care what we do with it after that? They've already got their money. And if you're like the majority of cable modem subscribers, you're capped anyway, so it's not like you're using more bandwidth than you're paying for, regardless of how many people you have sharing it at any given time.

Re:Why do they care? (1)

LexiAnnMcL (468039) | about 12 years ago | (#3856332)

They care cause they are greedy and want a piece of the action. They feel left out, and like they could be making even more money. Its insane what they charge us for stuff now, yet as a college student in computer science, if I want to get any programming done, and not sit in a lab. I have to pay for high speed internet access in my apartment so I can actually be productive and get my programs done.

Re:Why do they care? (2, Insightful)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 12 years ago | (#3856334)

Hrm last time I checked banthwith from a carrier was still running 200 a month per megabit I severaly doubt that your paying that. Broadband as compared to a T1 is a fallicy it's a modle based on oversubscription to make money becuase consumers generaly arent willing to pay the full costs and the cable co dosent expent them to be 24/7 kaza etc users.

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? (3, Insightful)

NetJunkie (56134) | about 12 years ago | (#3856338)

Because they base their pricing on "average use". You giving away your connection is not "average use" and you against your contract. 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.

Re:Why do they care? (2, Insightful)

seinman (463076) | about 12 years ago | (#3856364)

And isn't this why they cap our bandwidth? If it was really costing them so much damn money, they'd either charge us by the MB, or give us slower caps on our modems. Instead, they're just shutting off anyone who does it, instead of changing their system to work better. When you combine greed and laziness, it's incredible what companies will do to their loyal customers.

Re:Why do they care? (1)

aonaran (15651) | about 12 years ago | (#3856544)

How do you propose cable co's change their system to work better? I'm sure that many of them would love to hear your insight. most already provide all kinds of caching servers and such, I'm curious how you would do things differently.

Re:Why do they care? (5, Insightful)

Gleef (86) | about 12 years ago | (#3856517)

NetJunkie writes:

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? (2)

Zelet (515452) | about 12 years ago | (#3856348)

Think of it this way. Bandwidth is limited and an increase of bandwidth use increased the cable companies cost.

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? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3856485)

How are you stealing bandwidth if it is capped?

If you have 256k cap, and two people sharing, you have two 128k connections effectively. That is not stealing. You are using the same rate.

Assume you pay your entire electrical bill, but you are living with friends/family. Would it be wrong for anyone in the house to use the power that they are paying for becaus the power company could get much more money if they all sued the same amount of electricity seperately?

Re:Why do they care? (3, Insightful)

InnovativeCX (538638) | about 12 years ago | (#3856351)

Flamebait...oh well.
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? (2)

rhadamanthus (200665) | about 12 years ago | (#3856356)

More computers connected means more downloads, means more bandwidth. Just becasue your "speed" is capped, does not mean the amount you can download is (at least not yet in most areas).

-----rhad

Re:Why do they care? (1)

seinman (463076) | about 12 years ago | (#3856388)

But if your "speed" is capped, then you can't download as much per day, week, month, whatever. Because if you download 24-7 at full speed, let's say in my case about 1.5 megabits per second, you get a LOT more data than someone downloading at say 500 kilobits per second. So yes, the amount you can download is technically capped because of the speed cap.

Re:Why do they care? (0, Offtopic)

Beliskner (566513) | about 12 years ago | (#3856445)

We're paying them for our connection. Why do they care what we do with it after that? They've already got their money. And if you're like the majority of cable modem subscribers, you're capped anyway, so it's not like you're using more bandwidth than you're paying for, regardless of how many people you have sharing it at any given time.
LOL, to rephrase... Saddam is paying for his Uranium-238. Why should the US Government care what he does with it after that? They've got their money. If you're like the majority of the world, nobody uses nukes anyway, so it's not like he's going to use nukes regardless of how many people he shares the technology with.

Now nukes hurt people, and free bandwidth hurts telcos, if ATT and MCI go the same way as global crossing when the FBI finds they also use Arthur Andersen, the majority of the US might be left with no Internet whatsoever (?)

Re:Why do they care? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3856496)

That is the dumbest analogy i've ever heard in my life.

The crucial difference here is that Saddam is not buying the Uranium-238 from the U.S. Government. If he did buy some Uranium-238 from the U.S. Government at some point in the 80s, the U.S. Government should have fully realized Saddam would do whatever he damn liked with the Uranium (and probably not SOLD HIM ANY..)

Second off, murdering people is illegal. WiFi sharing is completely legal. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. Stretching a dubious TOS with a communications monopoly may make you liable for civil damages, but is not illegal; and that isn't important anyway, since the entire point of this discussion isn't "people should be allowed to break the TOS!", it's "the TOS is unfair and should be changed".

Beyond that, i think you've just invocated some form of Godwin's Law, and i was wasting my time replying.

Re:Why do they care? (4, Insightful)

FreeUser (11483) | about 12 years ago | (#3856478)

We're paying them for our connection. Why do they care what we do with it after that?

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.

Re:Why do they care? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3856479)

Why do they care what we do with it after that? They've already got their money.

Because they want more money.

Let me ask just one thing. (-1)

DonkeyHote (521235) | about 12 years ago | (#3856308)

Who are "WE"? does this mean you an all your circle-snot buddies?

Follow the rules, shirkers (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3856309)

If you don't play by the rules, you don't get to play at all. That's fair. You pay the bill knowing the limitations, so don't bitch and whine when you get caught.

Want to share your own connection? Get a dedicated line - a T3 or something. Then you can play all you want, as long as you can pay. That's how it works in a capitalist society.

Re:Follow the rules, shirkers (1)

LexiAnnMcL (468039) | about 12 years ago | (#3856353)

I don't remember my cable company telling me anything about no sharing. I looked over all the stuff they gave me too. So its not like ALL the cable companies are telling their customers up front about the limitations of the service.

Re:Follow the rules, shirkers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3856394)

Perhaps you should go and actually READ the Acceptable Use Policy that you agreed to, dipshit.

I'll admit I'm a lawyer (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3856310)

Go ahead and bash me because I make more money than you.

And during the college summers I spent as a programmer, I was probably a better programmer than you.

Re:I'll admit I'm a lawyer (1)

dbowden (249149) | about 12 years ago | (#3856354)

Go ahead and bash me because I make more money than you.

I thought about becoming a lawyer, but then I looked at the starting salaries, and decided I didn't want to go back to school in order to take a pay cut.

Re:I'll admit I'm a lawyer (1)

LexiAnnMcL (468039) | about 12 years ago | (#3856373)

If you're so much better than all of us at programming, why are you an Anonymous Coward??

Maybe, but I still have a soul. (1)

CarrionBird (589738) | about 12 years ago | (#3856460)

There's no money like blood money!

Re:I'll admit I'm a lawyer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3856499)

Yeah, but I can go to sleep at night knowing that I'm not a scumbag.

ALL LAWYERS ARE SCUMBAGS. just like bankers, yall are just a bunch of morally bankrupt leeches that are the cause of all problems in society..

One day, the people will revolt.. and the lawyers will be the first ones hanging from the trees.. :-) oh that will be a pretty sight!

why again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3856311)

This is the same story, just from another news organization!!!

Isn't there enough repetition on slashdot already??

Re:why again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3856522)

Im getting tired of all the repeats... 5 stories about Palladium, 2 stories about this, all in a matter of a couple of days, if you want us to pay for content, how about giving us CONTENT?

What's the problem? (2, Insightful)

tgv (254536) | about 12 years ago | (#3856313)

I don't see the problem. Anyone who allows access to his network, competes with the ISPs at a price they cannot match, while they have to pay the increased costs for the extra band width. It's either this, or paying per byte.

Funny jokes by poopbot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3856322)

Whats black, blue and green and doesnt like sex?
The Girl Scout locked in my basement.
Whats the worst part about having sex with a six year-old?
Getting the blood out of your clown suit.
Whats the best thing about getting a hand job from a five year-old?
That little hand makes your thing look really huge.
Guy comes home from work to find his girlfriend sitting on the porch, crying.
Whats wrong, honey?
Im leaving you! I just found out youre a pdophile!
Pdophile? Why, thats a pretty big word for a ten year-old.
How can you tell when your sisters on her period?
When your dads dick tastes like blood!
Two pdophiles are lying on a beach tanning, one turns to the other and says, Excuse me, youre in my son.
What is the sickest sound you hear when fucking a nine year-old?
Her hips snapping!
What is the best sound you hear when fucking a 13 year-old?
Her hips snapping!
Whats 18 inches long, blue, veiny, and makes a woman cry?
Crib death.
How could the mans seven year-old son tell that his dad had fucked his eight year-old sister? His dads weiner tasted like blood!
Watson returns home to find Holmes in bed with a child. He shouts, Is this some sort of a schoolgirl?
Holmes replies, Elementary, my dear Watson.
So I was having sex with my girlfriend, and I decided I wanted to get kinky and try and do her in the ass. So I slipped around back; she looked over her shoulder at me and said, My, how presumptuous of you. I said, Presumptuous? Thats a big word for a ten year-old.
Two guys are walking down the street when a beautiful woman passes. The first guy says, Damn! Id love to tear her clothes off, do her in the rear, smear my fces all over her, slice off her breasts, chop her into little pieces, put her in a garbage bag and toss her into the river!
Second guy says, Yuck! Youre a sick bastard!
First guy says, Whatre you? A fag?
A kindergarten teacher is asking the kids what their father does for a living. All the kids answer except for Little Johnny. The teacher asks Little Johnny what his Dad does and Johnny replies, My dad is dead.
The teacher says, Thats terribile, but what did he do before he died?
Little Johnny replies, He turned blue and shit all over himself!
A guy calls in sick to work.
Whats wrong? asks the boss.
Im sick, the guy replies.
You sound all right.
No, Im really sick. Believe me.
Listen, you were fine yesterday, and we have a lot of work today. I want you in here. You cant be that sick!
Dude, I just banged my sister. Dont tell me Im not sick.
A little girl accompanied her father to the barbershop. While her dad received a haircut, the little girl stood next to the barber chair, enjoying a snack cake. The barber smiled at her and said, Sweetheart, youre going to get hair on your Twinkie.
I know, the little girl replied. Im gonna get tits, too.
An older man and a small boy walk hand in hand through the woods.
Boy: These woods sure are spooky!
Man: You think youre scared, Ive gotta walk out of here alone.
Whats the difference between Neil Armstrong and Michael Jackson?
One walked on the moon, and the other rapes little boys.
Has anyone read Michael Jacksons new book, The Ins and Outs of Child Rearing?
Q: Whats the difference between a dead baby and a golden delicious apple?
A: I dont cum all over the golden delicious apple before I take a bite out of it.
Q: Whats the difference between a dead baby and my girlfriend?
A: I dont kiss my girlfriend after sex.
Q: Whats the difference between a dead baby and a table?
A: You cant fuck a table.
Q: Whats special about a dead baby over all other forms of life?
A: You can achieve deep throat from whichever way you enter.
Q: What do you have when you have four dead babies, take away two, and add five more?
A: An orgy!
Q: Whats better than three 14 year-olds?
A: 14 three year-olds.
Q: Whats white and bobs up and down in a babys crib?
A: A pdophiles ass.
Q: Whats the safest way to play with a baby?
A: With a condom.
Q: Whats more fun than feeling up a dead baby?
A: Feeling up a dead baby with three nipples.
Q: What does a baby and a Pinto have in common?
A: Theyre fun to ride until they die.
Q: What do you get whan you dislocate a dead babys jaw?
A: Deep throat.
Q: Whats the difference between a baby and a grandmother?
A: Grandmothers dont die when you fuck them in the ass.
Q: Whats the best sound in the world?
A: Hearing dead babys hips crack under pressure!
Q: Whats worse than a having sex with a dead baby?
A: Having sex with a dead baby filled with razor blades.
Q: How do you stop a baby from choking?
A: Take your dick out of its mouth.
Q: Whats worse than finding a dead baby on your pillow in the morning?
A: Realizing you were drunk and made love to it the night before.
Q: How do you make a baby cry twice?
A: Wipe your bloody cock on his teddy bear.
Whats better than sex with a twelve year-old boy?
Absolutely nothing.

- poopbot: crapflooding since 7/8/02

I agree with them (4, Insightful)

FluidicSpace (515541) | about 12 years ago | (#3856324)

I own a small ISP, so I fully agree that it's within ISPs rights to limit the connection to only those who purchase it for consumer grade services. If you're a business or reseller customer, you can purchase a T1 or higher cost/bandwidth circuit and do whatever you want with it. If a ~$50/month residential user ends up giving his access to the whole neighboorhood, there won't be any money to run the services. We all know free Internet doesn't work. So suck it up and pay for your own service so you can have reliable and decent service from your providers.

Re:I agree with them (0)

two-bookoo! (588692) | about 12 years ago | (#3856462)

don't you have some trolling to do around your customer's networks and circuits to shut down?

Re:I agree with them (5, Interesting)

warpSpeed (67927) | about 12 years ago | (#3856466)

I own a small ISP, so I fully agree that it's within ISPs rights to limit the connection to only those who purchase it for consumer grade services.

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.

OT: i liked the sig... (1)

bowronch (56911) | about 12 years ago | (#3856525)

I like your sig line, but you might try adding deity/deities... you might be excluding some polythiests...

Problem Solved: (1)

dachshund (300733) | about 12 years ago | (#3856484)

I suggest that ISPs simply insert bandwidth limiters to prevent customers from overusing their connections, rather than charging them extra, or going to war with them.

I'm paying. It's MY connection and I'M PAYING. (1, Flamebait)

crovira (10242) | about 12 years ago | (#3856520)

And I no longer want to have all these damn cables.

I've had a LAN in my house (and the next house, and the next appartment, and the next appartment, and the next appartment, and the next appartment and I'm putting one in my store,) since Apple came out with the Mac in '84.

I'm really getting sick of running cable, digging through walls, running cable races and tying up cable with TieWraps every time I move (absolute,) and every time my wife changes the decor (if the equipment position moves.)

I LIKE 802.11.

If the signal bleeds and my traffic goes up a bit, who gives a fuck? I'm paying for it anyway.

Its not like the ISPs and carriers AREN'T geting their money. They ARE.

I'm paying.

It's MY connection and I'M PAYING.

What the fuck is their complaint?

Re:I agree with them (5, Interesting)

oyenstikker (536040) | about 12 years ago | (#3856542)

Great. Just make it known thats what the policy is.

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.)

WiFi Sharing (4, Insightful)

LeiraHoward (529716) | about 12 years ago | (#3856335)

My school has a wireless network set up on a T1 line, very nice. But I wouldn't want just anyone to tap into it, because that would slow down the network for the 3000+ people on campus. (We've got security set up, required logins, to prevent that.)

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 (2)

Beliskner (566513) | about 12 years ago | (#3856492)

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
Yeah, we love all these ISPs and telcos that take our money and give us excellent service and technology e.g. by upgrading their systems to IPv6 so quickly and efficiently. Of course we should give them more money for bandwidth-sharing. Oh wait...

Re:WiFi Sharing (2)

oyenstikker (536040) | about 12 years ago | (#3856555)

They can go after the people with sloppy setups wasting bandwidth as soon as they go after all the people running unpatched IIS filling my acess.log with requests for cmd.exe.

Easy: (2, Interesting)

Tei (520358) | about 12 years ago | (#3856346)

read the license, Say not to ISP that forbit freedom.

They will change the license, or lose clients.

Re:Easy: (1)

Anonymous Cowtard (573891) | about 12 years ago | (#3856481)

Cool... I agree completely. *Only* sign up with the ISPs that allow you to share access! Then, you can get your neighborhood together and sign up for one account for 50 people! The ISP will love it!!!! Not like those evil ISPs who expect each household to get an account so they can stay financially solvent and keep providing access while the "free" ISPs struggle valiantly then die so your neighborhood can go rip someone else off.

Group Think, What a World (-1)

DonkeyHote (521235) | about 12 years ago | (#3856352)

Company goes after people who steal thier service, just how exactly is this news? let alone news for nerds or stuff that matters?

Re:Group Think, What a World (1)

LexiAnnMcL (468039) | about 12 years ago | (#3856395)

Its "stuff that matters" cause we like to grouch about people being greedy and doing things that will make our lives harder to do what we want. Thats how its News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.

Although, I guess to someone who might not be a nerd, it looks kind of pointless and silly we are talking about a company trying to stop stealing from happening.

I find it kind of amusing.

How strict are they being? (2)

Nomad7674 (453223) | about 12 years ago | (#3856361)

The article (and the one linked through the other story) is not specific on how strict they are really being. Are they assaulting only unsecured access points or anyone with a wireless network? While a reasonable person would clearly say something like, "Feel free to use WiFi, but do not share your bandwidth unless you have a service plan which prices appropeiately." But we know lawyers of this type are generally not reasonable, but rather knee-jerk absolutists saying things like "WiFi bad. Stop using."

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. (2)

Andy Dodd (701) | about 12 years ago | (#3856413)

They're not even going after unsecured APs in general.

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. (2)

Chanc_Gorkon (94133) | about 12 years ago | (#3856370)

I don't share my wireless network with anyone. I have it on my laptop and my pda (The awesome despite some performance issues e740) and I have my AP set up thanks to Linksys's update to only allow those two to connect via WEP and MAC address. So if they tried to connect to it, they will see it, but they will also not be able to connect. That is unless the Cable Guy is a hacker too, which I doubt (what hacker would want to do that job!). Besides, don't those freaks who share it know that they risk their own systems by running it unencrypted and unrestricted?? Also, they lose the ability to do cool stuff like acess your desktop data amd hardware from PDA or Laptop(if they turn on sharing, anyone can see their stuff...stupid move). They also can't share printers like I do with my laptop! ;)

AT&T offers wireless options - will they restr (5, Interesting)

cetan (61150) | about 12 years ago | (#3856374)

Many cable companies seem to think that trying to restrict their users from wireless solutions is a good idea, but AT&T seems to have the right approach.

http://www.attbroadband.com/homenetworking [attbroadband.com]
redirects to
http://www.computers4sure.com/linksys/store/att_zi p.asp [computers4sure.com]

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...

Re:AT&T offers wireless options - will they re (1)

cetan (61150) | about 12 years ago | (#3856390)

gah, damn subject lenght limits.

"AT&T offers wireless options - will they restrict?" was what it was supposed to say...

Depends on what it's used for. (5, Interesting)

Andy Dodd (701) | about 12 years ago | (#3856477)

Cable companies don't have the resources to go hunt down casual sharers ("casual" being defined as up to at least 17 college students in a house - I set up an IP Masq server for a bunch of friends, and that's the # of users there - TW never cared, and never went after ANY of the 329820442234 apartments using it.

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.. (5, Interesting)

RobertAG (176761) | about 12 years ago | (#3856380)

The basic problem here is that some people feel the need to "bring it to the masses" - for whatever reason. I see a couple of solutions:

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 (2)

liquidsin (398151) | about 12 years ago | (#3856531)

You may wish to look into some things before you run your mouth and call people thieves. If your ISP allows networks, than this is perfectly legit. You pay them for the service, they provide it. If they give you unlimited bandwidth and permission to run a network then they have no right to cry when you use it.

EFF is Searching for ISPs with Good AUPs (3, Informative)

PhotonSphere (193108) | about 12 years ago | (#3856383)

I help organize the Houston Wireless Users Group [houstonwireless.org] , and the PhotonSphere [photonsphere.com] , a site dedicated to wireless freenet advocacy. A few days ago, we received an email from the Electronic Frontier Foundation [eff.org] concerning what is happening in New York. Basically, the EFF is searching for regional and local ISPs who have Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs) that allow you to do what you want with the bandwidth you purchase from them. If you are familiar with your AUP, please visit The Sphere [photonsphere.com] and post what you know so that we may pass this information along to the EFF. The full letter from the EFF may be found here [photonsphere.com] as well.

But why? (2, Insightful)

olethrosdc (584207) | about 12 years ago | (#3856392)

I do not understand why they are doing this. Are they losing money? Why? After all, their costumer agreement is either one of:

  1. Guaranteed bandwidth with a fixed charge
  2. Pay-per-MB, or
  3. 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.

Cable Companies Saying No to WiFi Sharing (2, Insightful)

return 42 (459012) | about 12 years ago | (#3856393)

Future headline:

Customers saying "Fuck Off" to Cable Companies

Re:Cable Companies Saying No to WiFi Sharing (1)

Bubba-T (578601) | about 12 years ago | (#3856524)

Not going to happen in mass so will not matter. If every slashdot user subscribed and dropped roadrunner, it would be a drop in the bucket to the masses number of RR user. Most people dont care. They have one computer and one connections.
On top of that many areas have only 1 boardband option. Not much of a choice to move to somthign else.

>Future headline:

>Customers saying "Fuck Off" to Cable Companies

what if... (2, Insightful)

Jedi Paramedic (587254) | about 12 years ago | (#3856398)

...someone got a bunch of people together in midtown manhattan who had cordless phones and said, "Hey - I have this great idea, why don't we all share our phone lines with each other? It'll be great, and bring wireless phone service to underserved areas." While I think the practicality of this is a bit daunting, just bear with me for the purpose of the analogy.

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.)

I don't understand really... (1)

fatwreckfan (322865) | about 12 years ago | (#3856401)

It's not like people are charging others to use their connection, they're giving it away. Are they going to try to stop me from letting my roommate (who I don't charge) hook his PC up to my lan so he can get online?

Why shouldn't they crack down? (1)

itchomatic (591733) | about 12 years ago | (#3856403)

I don't necessarily see a problem with sharing a connection with a neighbour or two and splitting the bill. Sure, it most likely goes against your TOS, but it's not THAT big of a deal that your ISP is going to come knocking.

But, having large public WiFi networks, inviting hundreds (thousands?) of people to use it daily, and using a bunch of cable/DSL links to run it? Dontcha think thats pushing things just a *little* too far? The Cable/DSL companies, contrary to what a lot of people think, *are* trying to turn a profit. Just because you're paying $50 or so a month for a broadband link doesn't mean you've got the right to go ahead spread it around!

"It's very shortsighted that they are developing such a hostile relationship with early adopters of their own technology," said Anthony Townsend, a spokesman for NYCwireless.

I fail to see how a for profit company is being hostile by enforcing the terms outlined in its TOS, when ultimately you signed on the dotted line and agreed to adhere to it!

I'm all for free or cheap public WiFi networks, but you'd think they'd at least look at getting some legit links. Seems kind of silly to me to just go ahead and set everything up, advertise it, and then expect that TW/whoever else isn't going to be upset about it.

Usage agreements (1)

rgoldste (213339) | about 12 years ago | (#3856407)

I have a cable connection through Comcast, and one of the terms of use is that the data line be only connected to one computer. If you want more than one computer in your house to have a cable connection, you pay extra every month. The usage agreement specifically forbids sharing bandwidth through routers and the like. It is technically illegal. I would love to switch to an ISP that allows me to split a connection, but (surprise!) Comcast has a monopoly on cable, and Verizon's DSL isn't any better. Comcast's way of enforcing this policy is by requiring (due to "unknown service problems") a visit from a technician, who, while "fixing" your cable modem, probably does a quick peek for routers.

Re:Usage agreements (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3856518)

IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. there is no law saying that you can only use one computer on comcast.

against the rules IS NOT the same as against the law.

if you are breaking their TOC, in which case your account can be terminated. but they cant send the police to arrest you

Average user (2, Interesting)

Jacer (574383) | about 12 years ago | (#3856415)

At my apartment, I have two room mates, we share the cost of a cable internet connection, between the three of us there are 8 computers (i have 1 laptop for taking to class, one workstation, and two servers) and between the three of us, we have over 80 gigs of mp3s, 150+ movies, and anything else under the sun. we also have WiFi for the laptops, so where's the line drawn, when does it breech the contract? what's the difference between sharing with my two roomates, all of which are bandwidth hogs, or my elderly neighbor who wants to check her email, and cruise around on the net? most people aren't anything like me,

Re:Average user (1)

MImeKillEr (445828) | about 12 years ago | (#3856523)

The main gripe of the cable companies are users that are either reselling or giving away bandwidth. The cable companies are (according to my local TWC office) going to be offering cable routers with built-in WAPs (supposedly this month) - so it's not like they're banning WiFi alltogether.

Their reasoning behind this is that terrorists/pedophiles/etc could jump on your unsecured WiFi connection, do something nefarious, and when the FBI comes a-knockin', it'll be your equipment that is hauled off, never to be seen again.

At least, this is the excuse they're giving. It's more likely that they don't want Joe User and 12 of his immediate neighbors bogging down the switch (which, if I were Joe's neighbor and paying for a connection on the same switch, I wouldn't want him doing it either...)

Re:Average user (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3856545)

they are not concerned with your neighbor using a small amount of bandwidth. and what does your neighbor being elderly have anything to do with this?

sharing with other people outside of your home is against the agreement, but they dont care unless you are sharing with A LOT of people. they didnt send complaints to someone in your situation, they sent complaints to people that were allowing large numbers of people to use their service

Im libel for its usage, so why does it matter? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 12 years ago | (#3856423)

If im paying for the bandwidth ( im sure its capped anyway, so im not 'cheating' anyone ), and i accept the legal risk of what goes across, why does it matter that i share?

and yes i know its their lines, their AUP, but still if im paying.. why bitch?

It's all because of a poorly conceived contract. (5, Insightful)

fmaxwell (249001) | about 12 years ago | (#3856425)

This kind of stupidity, along with the crackdown on "bandwidth hogs", is all due to the shortsightedness of those creating the subscriber contracts and AUPs. If the ISPs would simply provide clear policy on bandwidth usage and set something that both their customers and they could live with, this kind of witch hunt would be unnecessary. We have cable modem providers banning servers regardless of whether they are public or private (for the subscriber's use only). They are banning 802.11 because they think it might cause a bandwidth problem. They block ports for applications ranging from web servers to P2P networks.

If there is a usage limit, spell it out. If you want more money for more usage, publish a price schedule. But quit targeting early adopters who are just using their connections in new and innovative ways.

What's the agreement say? (5, Interesting)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | about 12 years ago | (#3856429)

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? (3, Informative)

3waygeek (58990) | about 12 years ago | (#3856495)

Telocity is great. I have nothing bad to say about them.

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.

Business Class 2 Offices (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3856439)

does this apply to the business class of service which has a considerably large price.

My company would like to connect 2 of our offices through the same connection.

WEAK - I submitted this story yesterday morning. (0)

two-bookoo! (588692) | about 12 years ago | (#3856440)

LAMME LAME LAME LaME-

Hopefully the people stop... (1)

telbij (465356) | about 12 years ago | (#3856453)

Although Broadband providers end up sounding a little draconian when they act this way, I hope they are succesful for the simple reason that I appreciate paying only $50/month for cable or DSL. I don't want a situation that either
a) causes prices to skyrocket
b) puts broadband providers out of business or
c) causes them to switch to more restrictive hardware

They can't control (3, Interesting)

famazza (398147) | about 12 years ago | (#3856474)

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... (3, Informative)

Andy Dodd (701) | about 12 years ago | (#3856501)

They can be sure you're sharing their service ONLY IF YOU ADVERTISE IT PUBLICALLY.

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 (2, Interesting)

MADCOWbeserk (515545) | about 12 years ago | (#3856480)

I used to know the owner of a cable company. He used to scream and yell about how everybody was stealing from them, and the government was raping them. Cable companies are super paranoid about losing a dollar anyway. If you have ever seen the cable commercials that ask you to turn you your neighbors in for cable theft. Yet they have managed to raise rates on us, and restrict service further.

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? (3, Interesting)

lfourrier (209630) | about 12 years ago | (#3856493)

For the ISP/customer relation, the one and only question is the contract between them. Is bandwith sharing prohibited or not.
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.

Rate Limits (1)

starX (306011) | about 12 years ago | (#3856498)

I don't get it, isn't Road Runner rate limited? If so, then I'm paying for bandwidth that I'm sure doesn't get used every month. Why should they care what I do with my spare bandwidth; it's not exactly if we're talking about pirated bandwidth here. Besides, who's to say that I'm not trying to set up wireless w/ DHCP for my own purposes? Whether they put this in some AUP or not, I think they might be on some shaky legal ground.

The problem, as I see it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3856511)

I use WiFi to connect all my computers at home to a single router using NAT. How can AT&T (or whoever) differentiate between legitimate "in-house" use and someone who is sharing with his friends/neighbors/total strangers? Just because you use WEP doesn't mean that you aren't sharing your connection with "outsiders".

Moreover, AT&T charges extra for each IP address you need in addition to the one they give you as part of the basic service. If they ban WiFi, I'll have to connect everything through the cable itself, which means paying extra for the 3 or 4 additional IP addresses. Makes me wonder if there's another agenda here besides getting rid of the leeches.

On a somewhat unrelated note, I honestly wonder how many people are sharing their cable connection through WiFi. In my case, it's moot point because I'm surrounded by trees. You can't pick up my signal unless you are physically on my property, but I must admit that I probably wouldn't share even if I could. Don't misunderstand me, having been without broadband for years and years with a jacked up phone line that wouldn't allow more than a 23.6 connection, I would love to bring an end to someone else's misery, but the problem is liability. If someone uses my connection to do something...questionable, guess who gets held accountable :( It's a real catch-22 for geeks.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...