Slashdot Mirror

This isn't new, and this isn't NXDOMAIN hijacking. Windstream, a US DSL provider, was already caught red-handed doing this. Not only this but they also refuse to answer very specific questions asked (see http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r24059591-DPILayer7NXDOMAIN-Privacy-questions-re-Windstream-DSL) and provide a paper-thin excuse as to why it's happening (see http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r24074065-Our-Response-to-Redirect-Service-Concerns).

Affected users are not using the ISP's DNS servers, this is not NXDOMAIN hijacking. This is layer 7 inspection, the sheer fact the URL was transformed, being carefully re-written, from the URI passed to 'www.google.com' discredits what Windsteam has said entirely.

When a user performs a search using the Firefox search bar against Google HTTP/1.1 is used with an HTTP method of GET against Google. The following URI is constructed:

q=[search critera]
ie=[encoding]
oe=[encoding]
aq=
rls=[browser]

So, when I search against Google I pass ?q= for my search term.

When this is redirected to searchredirect.windstream.net the URI is transformed, with the ?q= parameter being extracted. Windstream's site uses this URI structure:

search=[search criteria]
src=[interger value, likely points to an RDBMS based on HTTP_REFERER]

Windstream is not disclosing the truth. For this behavior to occur you would have to be using an MITM proxy or DPI; either way they are inspecting layer 7 traffic, extracting the ?q= URI string passed to Google, and either transparently or via HTTP 302 redirecting customers to searchredirect.windstream.net

They got caught, red handed, and have been fabricated mis-truths from the start.

How HTTP/1.1 GET against /search?q=my_search_term becomes /search.php?search=my_search_term without some form of Layer 7 is impossible. This CANNOT be NXDOMAIN.

Clearly they're not disclosing the full details or hiding behind careful sentence structure and semantics. This appears that there is now an industry initiative and a company behind this search harvesting and privacy invasive technology which is being sold to ISPs. Expect more to come, this isn't isolated to over-seas, it's already happening right here in the US.

-SirMeowmix_I

This isn't new, and this isn't NXDOMAIN hijacking. Windstream, a US DSL provider, was already caught red-handed doing this. Not only this but they also refuse to answer very specific questions asked (see http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r24059591-DPILayer7NXDOMAIN-Privacy-questions-re-Windstream-DSL) and provide a paper-thin excuse as to why it's happening (see http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r24074065-Our-Response-to-Redirect-Service-Concerns).

Affected users are not using the ISP's DNS servers, this is not NXDOMAIN hijacking. This is layer 7 inspection, the sheer fact the URL was transformed, being carefully re-written, from the URI passed to 'www.google.com' discredits what Windsteam has said entirely.

When a user performs a search using the Firefox search bar against Google HTTP/1.1 is used with an HTTP method of GET against Google. The following URI is constructed:

q=[search critera]
ie=[encoding]
oe=[encoding]
aq=
rls=[browser]

So, when I search against Google I pass ?q= for my search term.

When this is redirected to searchredirect.windstream.net the URI is transformed, with the ?q= parameter being extracted. Windstream's site uses this URI structure:

search=[search criteria]
src=[interger value, likely points to an RDBMS based on HTTP_REFERER]

Windstream is not disclosing the truth. For this behavior to occur you would have to be using an MITM proxy or DPI; either way they are inspecting layer 7 traffic, extracting the ?q= URI string passed to Google, and either transparently or via HTTP 302 redirecting customers to searchredirect.windstream.net

They got caught, red handed, and have been fabricated mis-truths from the start.

How HTTP/1.1 GET against /search?q=my_search_term becomes /search.php?search=my_search_term without some form of Layer 7 is impossible. This CANNOT be NXDOMAIN.

Clearly they're not disclosing the full details or hiding behind careful sentence structure and semantics. This appears that there is now an industry initiative and a company behind this search harvesting and privacy invasive technology which is being sold to ISPs. Expect more to come, this isn't isolated to over-seas, it's already happening right here in the US.

-SirMeowmix_I

He is hypocritical...

Check out the following article:

http://news.cnet.com/Google-balances-privacy,-reach/2100-1032_3-5787483.html?tag=nl

Reaction from Google? CNET is barred one year from google.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Google-Angry-at-CNET-66164

Nope, DSL, they were already talks of 45 Mbps DSL in 2003:

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Japan-Softbank-to-accelerate-speed-wars-with-45Mbps-DSL-35994

The telephone never seems to die, perhaps because it's so simple (a twisted pair wire). I honestly can't remember ever losing telephone service.

You're obviously not from Nebraska

As a frustrated AT&T subscriber in NYC (I suppose that's a bit redundant) I would like to shock the government with some tests of America's fastest 3G network in midtown Manhattan during the day but this website with all that fancy javascript and registration stuff doesn't seem too friendly for this.

Currently I use dslreports but I'm not sure if AT&T somehow throttles or bursts or shapes data that appears to be speed tests nor do I know if the random data this site blasts out gets compressed through AT&T. The only speed test for my phone I know is reliable is by tethering through WMWifiRouter and downloading a Debian iso. Not very convenient and I'm just mesmerized that the likes of PCWorld actually claims that in NYC their testing of AT&T averaged >1500Kbps / >700kbps down/up when yesterday I got 16kbps and 32kbps with ridiculous latencies on the street in the 50s and 40s both around 1pm and then 6pm. I guess they're testing on Mondays at 2am.

Any other mobile friendly sites for testing would be appreciated along with any other at&t rants.

They are giving away free ppv to bad it's overload this likely kills there remote dvr.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r23913693-Free-on-demand-today

+1

Besides, reading the logs can be good for a laugh.

The Verizon DVR problem is really a failure of the manufacturer not a problem with the spec, and it is entirely software. The problem is pretty well documented on various forums, Motorola seems to have no interest in fixing it. See

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21921761-HD-FIOSMotorola-Box-vs-Samsung-HDMI-not-Working

for a lot of links.

I've seen sites with these vulnerabilities, and they can cruise right through Firefox if written correctly. Why Firefox was crashing instead of loading Acrobat is either you may have a plugin that blocks malicious strings, (Like Adblock Plus - Which I highly recommend) Firefox already patched a hole that the malware was trying to exploit or they were exploiting an IE hole to start Acrobat and Firefox didn't like the way it was called. Also Consider that Firefox crashed, which can also lead to a possible code injection attack if it can be exploited in a specific manner.

Ultimately, The real Culprit here is the PDF File. Adobe in in general is the attack of choice anymore. Most likely it was a malicious Flash Ad delivered from a Third party service, which then called for a malicious PDF, which the browser will happily open up using Acrobat's plugin.

If you really want to fix this, block the AD's (either with The Firefox plugin AdBlock Plus or with IE8's Inprivate Filtering and either get the latest Acrobat (which finally has some security in it) or replace it with Foxit Reader

Finally. Always Update IE Even if you exclusively use Firefox and never ever use IE. There is a lot of improvements that were made in security in IE8, and I have seen Flash apps that in Firefox will start IE to attempt to exploit unpatched IE holes. If you can't (Because Ye Be A Pirate Matey!! ARRR!! or because your company won't let you.) Then turn IE6 security to high for all security zones and use Firefox exclusively.

People don't like being forced to pay $15+ /m each rent for the cable box and the cable co have worked hard to make cable card a joke and to make it not work 100%. Some said here that comcast Garden State "Effective January 1, 2010, Digital Classic Channels and Digital Additional Outlet Service will no longer be available for subscription to subscribers with a Cable Card"

so use more then 1 tv with cable card and or Digital Classic (where NFL network, MLB network and lots of others is will need a comcast cable starting about $5-$6+ (sd) up to $20+ for a HD DVR per tv.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r23478294-Bad-News-for-Cable-Card-Users-in-South-Jersey

Hate crimes are meh but that doesn't mean the fact that an attack motivated purely by the color of one's skin or choice of religion shouldn't be taken in account when it comes to sentencing.

That said, I can understand the feeling of having all options exhausted and all you have left is your fists (or a hammer or a bulldozer armored with concrete).

The truth is out there. See here, here, here, and here for starters. Keep in mind that's all from 2008 and the price trend has continued.

If you don't believe that a connection costs the same saturated as it does idle, consult any networking manual and try to come up with ANY mechanism that would make a busy circuit more costly.

My concern is that the software driving modems and routers is rarely updated, but they're standing between you and the wide, wild Internet. Sure they could check for new versions, but how do they prompt you for permission? (I think technically minded consumers would be a bit miffed if the manufacturer pushed patches behind your back)

That's exactly how it works - they don't prompt the client, and they do phone home. Here's an example of an AT&T DSL modem doing it. (Ignore the fact that most of the people in the thread are thinking that the reason the poster's miffed is because of the blinking light, rather than why the light is blinking.)

I noticed similar behavior in the modem's logs at http:/// (an-IP-address-associated-with-a-similar-device) /logs.htm , and proved that it was doing so unplugging the Ethernet cable from behind it (there's no way any traffic generated on my side was getting to the modem through an air gap!) before going away for a weekend. When I came back, the router had spontaneously started several sessions with the outside world for updates, and then shut them down a few moments later.

And yeah, I was also miffed.

His administration is actively fighting to hide many things still. Remove your rose-colored glasses. The only difference is that Obama wants to take your money and give it to the poor instead of giving it to the corporations like Bush did.

first, this isn't new. this is "news" from 1/09. second, this is an IMPROVEMENT that comcast made, imnsho. good story about it here:
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Slammed-For-NonExistent-Throttling-Changes-105380

The real issue here is that building infrastructure like this requires such a huge amount of capital that it's a natural monopoly. There's really no way for competitors to come in without a huge investment in laying their own lines that is very much at risk and only serves to lessen their own profit margins.

Yeah, there's absolutely no way a company would spend $28 billion dollars laying the next generation of infrastructure lines in an area already served by Comcast. Definitely not typing on that network as we speak, no sir, couldn't possibly exist because you have a theory that says that it won't happen. Oh, and my area also gets RCN and a couple dozen flavors of DSL.

Oh, and by the way, FIOS is fantastic. Super low pings, massive bandwidth, no hiccups.

See also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/technology/19fios.html
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/08/19/technology/19fios.2.ready.html
http://www.dslreports.com/gmaps/fios

I agree charging by the amount of bandwidth used may, just may, be better but for years broadband providers sold unlimited service. The contract I signed with Time Warner for my cable, now it's Comcast, did not have any sort of limits. Now it did say the speed would be up to, I think though I don't recall for sure, 1.5MB. There wasn't anything about traffic shaping, blocking, or redirecting though. If ISPs oversold capacity it's not the fault of the users, it's the ISPs own fault. When I go to an all-you-can-eat buffet I refuse to accept the restaurant from preventing me or anyone else from eating all we can.

A price-per-byte structure, if properly implemented, could result in reduced monthly payments for grandma and a higher portion for the guy with the strange habit of downloading "Linux ISOs" all the time.

The problem with this is that incumbent broadband providers try to prevent any competition that will offer more bandwidth. How many tymes has news articles been summarized and linked to on slashdot because some incumbent provider tried to stop competition whether cable, fiber, wireless, or any other broadband? An example was in northeastern Utah a few years back. A group of communities got together to build their own Broadband Utopia. Of course the incumbents did all they could to stop it and they were finally successful in having the state government pass a law barring local governments from selling access, instead they have to sell to other service providers. The 14 cities that make up the Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency built an infrastructure that will provide "100 megabits per second" to start with. That infrastructure can be used to deliver cable TV, net access, phone services, or whatever a person could think of. Because of it Comcast was "forced" to bundle "broadband, digital cable, and VoIP service for $90 a month in all of Utopia's footprint" and I doubt they are losing money. I say "forced" because they only had to do it if they wanted to continue to provide services in the area otherwise people would not have been willing to pay the higher costs.

perhaps content directly delivered by the ISP would fall under this category. But I don't see why that is -inherently- wrong.

You don't see what's wrong? Try this, say only Company X provides broadband in your area, so you have no other choice for broadband, and you want to search the web. So you head over to Google and if you can connect it is slow because Google didn't pay your ISP. Or your ISP supports one political party and blocks traffic from all other parties? Do you still not see a problem?

Falcon

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Hey-NY-Times-Broadband-Coverage-Gaps-Are-Not-Hooey-100382

Unless you talking about expensive satellite.

SuperAntiSpyware and Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware (thanks to the folks in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/security,1 for suggesting these) also don't hog your system like Windows' services. Run, scan, and clean on-demand. :)

Don't forget Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool (W2K SP4 has it too) with mrt.exe command.

But they do. Check out the reviews of TekSavvy on DSLreports. Vastly superior service to Bell that can't exist without government defended peering agreements.

Disclaimer: I am not employed, contracted, or a family member of anyone connected to TekSavvy.

Somebody PLEASE make AdBlock Plus for Chrome and IE please!

IE8 has it built in with Inprivate filtering. You can also import lists to filter URL's similar to AdBlockPlus. Although it's not as conveniently automatic or as seamless, it works pretty well.

There's a good amount of info in this thread at DSLReports.
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22124619-IE8-InPrivate-filter-from-adblock-plus-list

technology that Microsoft perfected nearly three years ago

If there's a phrase that should trigger skepticism, that's it. ASLR isn't "perfect", and has been reported (and confirmed) exploited as recently as 7 months ago:

March 24, 2009 -

        quote:Internet Explorer 8 "critical" flaw in final version

        Microsoft confirmed that the vulnerability exists in the official release, said Terri Forslof, a researcher at TippingPoint, which sponsored the Pwn2Own contest that challenged competitors to find bugs in either web browsers or mobile devices

        "This is a single-click-and-you're-owned exploit," she told SCMagazineUS.com on Tuesday. "You click a link in an email or simply browse to a website, and your machine is compromised. This meets Microsoft's 'critical' bar [in its vulnerabilities and rating system]."

        The exploit apparently defies Microsoft's DEP (Data Execution Prevention) and ASLR (Address Space Layout Randomization) technologies -- two features added to IE8 to prevent memory corruption vulnerabilities.

        "Once the browser was compromised, we handed over the exploit to Microsoft immediately, on site," Forslof said. "They went back and reproduced it and called to verify that the vulnerability was present. We retested again on the released version of IE8 that went live on the following morning and verified that the vulnerability was in it as well."

This is probably another step in their battle against Booble!

Not talking about ISP's here. If AT&T is going through some growing pains, then they may need to temporarily limit network speeds per user, but when they implement the upgrades, which they do in fact have plans to do, then the caps can either be raised or removed completely. Otherwise, Apple's decision to cancel the exclusivity deal may become more a of a reality.

some comcast systems have HD cable card fees per card + rent + outlet fee.

much more talk hear with alot of anger.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/tvcomcast

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22921287-DTA-FCC-grants-DTA-waiver-to-ComcastPace

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22854926-DTA-Comcast-is-ALL-ANALOG-after-the-DTA

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22931752-Price-Downgrading-to-expanded-basic

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22653344-Comcast-Chicago-Suburbs-Going-All-Digitail-92909

some comcast systems have HD cable card fees per card + rent + outlet fee.

much more talk hear with alot of anger.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/tvcomcast

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22921287-DTA-FCC-grants-DTA-waiver-to-ComcastPace

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22854926-DTA-Comcast-is-ALL-ANALOG-after-the-DTA

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22931752-Price-Downgrading-to-expanded-basic

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22653344-Comcast-Chicago-Suburbs-Going-All-Digitail-92909

some comcast systems have HD cable card fees per card + rent + outlet fee.

much more talk hear with alot of anger.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/tvcomcast

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22921287-DTA-FCC-grants-DTA-waiver-to-ComcastPace

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22854926-DTA-Comcast-is-ALL-ANALOG-after-the-DTA

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22931752-Price-Downgrading-to-expanded-basic

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22653344-Comcast-Chicago-Suburbs-Going-All-Digitail-92909

some comcast systems have HD cable card fees per card + rent + outlet fee.

much more talk hear with alot of anger.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/tvcomcast

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22921287-DTA-FCC-grants-DTA-waiver-to-ComcastPace

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22854926-DTA-Comcast-is-ALL-ANALOG-after-the-DTA

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22931752-Price-Downgrading-to-expanded-basic

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22653344-Comcast-Chicago-Suburbs-Going-All-Digitail-92909

some comcast systems have HD cable card fees per card + rent + outlet fee.

much more talk hear with alot of anger.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/tvcomcast

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22921287-DTA-FCC-grants-DTA-waiver-to-ComcastPace

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22854926-DTA-Comcast-is-ALL-ANALOG-after-the-DTA

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22931752-Price-Downgrading-to-expanded-basic

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22653344-Comcast-Chicago-Suburbs-Going-All-Digitail-92909

There's no need to get snarky, mmmkay ?

"World of Ends" is one view of the network ceratainly, but if you look at wikipedia's article on the topic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#Definitions_of_network_neutrality you'll find three definitions of network neutrality and that two of the three have to do with QoS and traffic tiering. TFA doesn't provide any details as to what specifically the FCC is referring to.

The bandwidth issue is relevant because residential ISPs engage in oversubscription and rely on the fact that most connections are idle most of the time. I can't point you to solid industry wide numbers as to the ratio (as most companies don't reveal the information) but various places on the web put it from 10:1 to 50:1. Here is an example of an ISP in the SF Bay Area called Etheric http://www.dslreports.com/reviews/2384 that advertises overbooking ratio of 3.3:1 for their "Enterprise" service all the way to 20:1 for residential usage. They claim that that DSL competitors oversubscribe at up to 80:1.

Current residential ISP pricing is based on this model. If connections were priced no the assumption that you would actually use your 3mbps continuously all month, it would cost considerably more than $10 or $20 /mo.

When Comcast and British Telecom and others have engaged in throttling thus far it has been to curb the usage of users using high amounts of bandwidth. I haven't heard yet of Comcast prioritizing their own VoIP over Vonnage VoIP or similar.

Here is a relatively extensive article on commercial ISP realities http://jobs.tmcnet.com/topics/broadband-comm/articles/22237-dismal-reality-internet-management.htm. Prices have come down some since that was written so, in a colo, you can now get quality transfer for ~$5/Mbit per month (95 percentile) if you're buying multiple gigabits, but otherwise it's right on. (I have no connection to the author, just found the post via Google).

"all packets are equal" is a nice idea, but i certainly wouldn't want to pay for it. (Actually, i currently wouldn't mind paying for it since i neither torrent nor watch much video, but i wouldn't want to pay for it if i were a heavy consumer of media delivered through the internet.)

(apologies for the bad formatting. I still can't figure out what slashcode wants me to do to make a paragraph)

We need some fucking laws. In other countries, you can't commercially use the word "free" to refer to any transaction which money changes hands for any reason whatsoever. Let's enact those here too.

In the United States, on the other hand, we have some intercoursing laws. It appears Apple can't make significant upgrades to functionality available without realizing some income on the tax statement. That's part of why new major versions of iPod Touch firmware cost money, even though firmware upgrades are included in the price of an iPhone data plan.

Far from it. Comcast, the nation's largest (or second largest, depending on who's counting) ISP is rolling out IPv6 later this year, with a complete roll-out in 2010.
Comcast Plans Residential IPv6 In 2010

You will need some regulation to prevent companies from coming in and abusing the public right of way. Perhaps both legacy and newcomers will need to pay right of way fees to keep it under control.

Hey, I've never said that some regulation isn't required. You just have to be weary of regulatory capture that results in companies like AT&T abusing the right of way with the full force of the law backing them up. To me the ideal balance would be somewhere between "you must negotiate with each landowner over the placement of each utility pole" and "we can put whatever we want on your property and your only choice is to bend over and take it"

Ah, I linked to the wrong article, so you don't see the severity: OpenDNS redirects www.google.com to it's own servers to capture any Google search. It's not just about doing searches in the address bar.

OpenDNS and Comcast may have different goals, but they both break Internet standards and behave poorly in order to meet them.

ESPN 360 blocks access to anyone visiting it's site from any ISP that didn't pay ESPN a subscription fee. I don't mind ESPN charging me for access to their content in fact I expect to pay for quality content but throwing up a page saying something to the effect of oops! looks like your current internet provider isn't one of our subscribers. You should switch to one of our "partners" below. isn't what I would call neutral. IMHO it's a direct attempt to turn the internet into just another cable provider. What do you think your internet connection will cost as more & more sites start charging the ISP a subscription fee?

Add Windstream to that list.

I was able to opt out of it, though...

Add Windstream to that list.

I was able to opt out of it, though...

Early on in my construction career we used to constantly see electricians using this method to run lines.

They tie a piece of plastic bag on the end of a piece of string and stand on the other end with a vaccum, the plastic bag acts like a parachute and pulls it all the way through the piping in a matter of seconds.

Anyways this is done all of America and I even saw something on 'This Old House' when they had to do it in old sewer line.

The one I liked is where they inserted this tube of epoxy like material; once they get the tube in there they insert the gel it expands the old sewer line and once finished the epoxy that has expanded to make the line even wider will harden to provide a perfectly sealed tube. So now you have a brand new sewer line inside of an old brick one that is perfectly sealed for another 60-100 years, I will take that story over pulling copper through sewer lines.

A quick search for 'laying fiber in sewer lines' in Google turns up dozens of better articles than this one paragraph wonder and pretty drawn pic. No video of this thing in action or field results? Sounds like snake oil to me and some wasted man hours trying to use this thing in real world situations.

This pic can never go wrong once you mention the sewer system and IT.
http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1306297~fde4d620918f10bdf0c9bc3069b26be1/New%20Fiber.jpg

US Patent 6584252 - Method and system for providing fiber optic cable to end users
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6584252/description.html

Here is a listing for contractors who do this stuff with all different types of toys in America.
http://www.magicyellow.com/category/Utility_Contractors/Cities.html

The British are the ones who apparently everyone has been watching for awhile.

Wheres the Journalisim around here, a pretty picture and one paragraph article is pretty weak. Speaking as a contractor who works with Civil Engineer I cannot see this little sub being very practical in the going through some of the obstacles in a sewer and them spending more time unclogging it. The first thing I do when surveying a job is to estimate the costs of it and decide what tools I will need to accomplish this task.

Hell some of the machies I have seen some contractors and Verizon service guys bring out are atleast 150+ pounds to do the job and have the strength to pull it.
  I liked the ones where the boring guys have a little rfid signal at the end of a drill and he stands in the street with this probe that detects the depth of the probe and can guide the operators drill bit in the right direction/depth. No digging up the streets and just have to make sure you don't run right into water pipes or electrical.

And you get a 5GB/mo monthly cap plus $0.10/megabyte after that. You heard right. Verizon marks up the price of bandwidth to hundreds of times its bulk cost (< $0.20 per gigabyte). AT&T is five times worse. Wireless is good for mobility, but 128k ISDN wins for latency. Try to beat a 46ms ping to a WoW server on any other connection where DSL and cable aren't available.

WiMax is probably the best option - if it's available.

Apparently proofreading has gone out of style with the Slashdot editors, since they let the summary get the pricing and details all wrong. The prices Comcast gives in TFA are for WiMAX + Comcast HSI, not just the WiMAX service. Furthermore they're the introductory prices, not the final prices. I'm just going to rip off the DSL Reports piece on this, since they get it right.

Comcast today gave their rebranded version of Clearwire Mobile WiMax service a new name: "Comcast High-Speed 2Go." According to a Comcast press release, the new service launches tomorrow in Portland. The "up to 4Mbps" service will launch everywhere Clearwire deploys Mobile WiMax -- a plan that should see nine cities live by the end fo this year. According to Comcast, the company is offering two different wireless data plans:

• Comcast High-Speed 2go Metro service costs $49.99 for twelve months ($72.95 thereafter) and comes with 12Mbps Comcast home broadband service and a Wi-Fi router. The service uses a Mobile WiMax data card that will obviously only work in areas where there's Comcast/Clearwire Mobile WiMax.

• Comcast High-Speed 2go Nationwide service costs $69.99 ($92.95 thereafter) and also comes with Comcast 12Mbps home broadband service and a home Wi-Fi router. The service uses a dual-mode data card that allows users to float between Clearwire's Mobile WiMax network and Sprint's 3G EVDO network.

You can of course compare this to standalone Clearwire pricing. Comcast tells us existing double and triple play customers will be able to add Mobile WiMax service on to their current bundles for $30 more a month. Comcast invested roughly a billion dollars into the Sprint and Clearwire joint venture -- and is buying bandwidth wholesale from the new operator.

Comcast's wireless service won't involve voice product initially, though the carrier suggests that may change. As for caps, Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas tells us that Comcast is "deferring to Clearwire's TOS on usage" while customers are connected to the Clearwire network. Clearwire's service comes with 200MB, 2GB and unlimited flavors, so we'll have to wait and see which "deferment" Comcast chooses. When connected to the Sprint EVDO network, customers are restricted to just 5 gigabytes of usage per month.

Once you factor out the first-year incentives, what Comcast is doing is reselling WiMAX for $30 a month on top of your current bill, and they are reselling WiMAX + Sprint's 3G service for $50 a month on top of your current bill.

The 3G service comes with the standard 5GB cap (making it slightly cheaper than regular plans since pro-rated it's $20, while stand-alone plans usually start at $30), while the WiMAX service is undefined. Clear has a $30 tier, but it's only 200MB. Presumably Comcast is getting a better deal here and reselling the $40 package that comes with a 2GB plan, but someone is going to have to find out the finer details on that since Comcast isn't spilling the beans on the matter.

Yes, in select areas. I see 20 states that have no FIOS at all and and lots of major cities lacking it.

FIOS map

I'll let others comment on the hardware and business plans but the problem with rural inherently is that cost of delivering bandwidth from a major city/internet POP to your rural location ala backhaul. Bandwidth is EXPENSIVE when purchased in a rural location unless you have the big $$$ to operate your own fiber backhaul or a wavelength of existing fiber from the POP to your location. It really depends on how rural the location is. You really need to consider the costs and oversell ratio if you're going to do this. Try asking here btw: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/wisp In rural areas the ILEC setup is usually the minimum unless the CO has been setup for DSL/higher bandwidth services meaning it's usually only TDM based. The ILEC has to share the resources with the federally required voice service. And if they haven't deployed broadband out of the CO already then it's not profitable for them. This eventually most likely with the ILEC telling you a very high bandwidth costs and even higher if there's fiber/equipment buildout costs needed. If you're in a rural but not-so-rural location and can do wireless backhaul for the bandwidth (microwave) then you can lessen your costs that way. This is all based on what I read online. Good luck btw.

My take on the bandwidth surcharge situation was that the insanely low caps and bandwidth surcharges were designed to fend off online video. Think about it: If your favorite shows were available online legally (let's leave less-than-100%-legal sources out of the equation for the purposes of this argument), why would you need to buy cable TV service? So Time Warner sets the bandwidth limit low and charges for overages. If subscribers don't use online video out of fear of going over their limit, cable wins. If people continue to use online video and go over their limit (thus paying overage fees), cable wins.

Network Neutrality could still come into the equation. Apparently, Joost is shopping itself to cable companies. One of the interested companies is Time Warner. If Time Warner buys Joost and reinstates their cap/overage plan (which they've already indicated they want to do), would Joost use count towards your bandwidth limit? Or would using Time Warner's own online video service be exempt from the same limits that YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, etc are subject too?

There's some stellar examples of AT&T employees (formerly SBC, formerly Pacific Bell) at the dslreports.com site. The "SBC Direct" forum is for bypassing tech support and speaking directly to somebody who knows what they are doing.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/sbcdirect

Also, for Comcast, there's "comcastcares" on Twitter. There was a recent article written about this person recently.

http://twitter.com/comcastcares

http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/jan2009/ca20090113_373506.htm

Very nice! Both of these have saved me a lot of time, trying to fight my way through a large corporation, trying to reach a person who had both the knowledge and the power to fix the situations I found myself in.

Sounds like these guys are just being exploited by their own egos.

Says the person with a +5 Informative comment. Why did you post something that might be so informative to others? I bet it was your ego that made you post.

A few years ago I was made a MVM (Much Valued Member) over a DSLReports.com/BroadbandReports.com for my contributions to several of the forums I frequented. I'm approaching close to 9k posts there, a high majority of them in response to other peoples technical questions. I never have received any compensation for my time spend on the site other then a little tag that shows up next to my name and the occasional kudos someone might send. It did give me a big of a "warm fuzzy" when I learned that I became a MVM, and it is appreciated when someone says "Thanks, you helped me out" or "Thanks for the explanation".

I guess you can call it ego, but I'd say it's just people that want to help others and have the time to do so. If that help turns into a power trip though, then it become egotistical.

dslreports.com is a user community, though. Their revenue comes not from selling connectivity, but from ads from traffic to the site. Sure, it's about ego, and posters like you do help them generate revenue... but they never set out to sell a service.

Verizon, though? It's their JOB to give people communications connections that work. Part of that is support. People are, theoretically, paying for support when they pay for their connection... they're not paying a lower price for crappy support. And then some guy is volunteering to fill in the gap they've left. In essence, they're selling his free labor. That's where it becomes exploitation, and the reason they're able to exploit him is his ego.

(Says the one who was once well-known on the Everquest Tech Support forum, and who used to volunteer as a sysop on the MSN Gaming Zone a decade ago. Yeah, BTDT, I have an ego too. ;-)

Sounds like these guys are just being exploited by their own egos.

Says the person with a +5 Informative comment. Why did you post something that might be so informative to others? I bet it was your ego that made you post.

A few years ago I was made a MVM (Much Valued Member) over a DSLReports.com/BroadbandReports.com for my contributions to several of the forums I frequented. I'm approaching close to 9k posts there, a high majority of them in response to other peoples technical questions. I never have received any compensation for my time spend on the site other then a little tag that shows up next to my name and the occasional kudos someone might send. It did give me a big of a "warm fuzzy" when I learned that I became a MVM, and it is appreciated when someone says "Thanks, you helped me out" or "Thanks for the explanation".

I guess you can call it ego, but I'd say it's just people that want to help others and have the time to do so. If that help turns into a power trip though, then it become egotistical.

Umm, it's not exactly hard to find news on this.
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATTs-5GB-Wireless-Broadband-Mystery-Cap-92746
http://www.phonenews.com/verizon-wireless-limits-its-unlimited-broadband-access-data-plans-2840/
http://www.betanews.com/article/Sprint-says-5-GB-per-month-should-be-enough-for-most/1211916952

This is only a minor accomplishment! Time Warner is still metering customers in Beaumont, and AT&T is still metering customers in Beaumont and Reno.

Continue to take aggressive action by contacting your elected officials immediately.

Not me.

This is sorta old news, this was on the docket 9 months ago.

This probably won't affect 80% of all users, so it'll fly under the radar. If this was back in the 90's when it was mostly computers guys/gals on the net, this wouldn't squeak through. Now that Joe S. Pack pays out the nose for his shitty cell phone and net service in Canada, the incumbents don't care (there are no Cell packages available now that are all-you-can-eat...Internet is almost 'unlimited' right now, but will be usage based in 2 months). The CRTC is just a floor show to lock in Bell/Rogers desires.

What incentive does any company have to do what is 'right' here if the government won't back its own people? Well, the government doesn't care about people, it cares about money and power...neither of which any person has, only big corporations. See that? They feed each other, a perfect relationship, and we consumers get blood-let in the process.

I want my money back, I'm going home.