Slashdot Mirror


VPN Clients Not Allowed On Residential Service

wayn3 writes "ComputerWorld reports here that two of the major cable companies have language in their terms of service that VPN clients are forbidden for "residential" class, forcing clients on their "business" offering which is at twice or more times the cost of residential service. Has any been bit by this, and do those companies consider SSH a VPN client? This would stop me from telecommuting since my company would not be able to afford the business service."

3 of 558 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Your company can't afford it? by thesolo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let me get this straight, the company pays you enough that you can in turn pay $X for the service but they "can't afford" to additionally pay $X themselves (to make up the difference to the $2X price of business-class)? BS. Either you are exaggerating or the company is lying to you--they just don't want to pay for it.

    I work for a large (3000+ people) company in the Philadelphia region. The company currently supports telecommuting with broadband through VPN. Currently, they pay $39.95 per month for connectivity, plus $30 per month for outsourced broadband routers/firewalls. (The latter part I think is stupid, but I digress.) So for each person telecommuting, they pay roughly $70 per month

    Now, increase that highspeed access from $39.95 to $95.00, and they would have to pay roughly $125 per month per person. If only 300 out of the 3000 people here telecommute, that's a cost of $37,500 a month, or $450,000 a year just for broadband users. At the previous price, it would be roughly $252,000 per year. Almost 200k more. That's a lot of money to just "find" in your budget. So what happens? Comcast loses money because my company suspends all high-speed telecommuting. So now instead of getting their extra 200k a year, they get nothing, and the people who benefited from telecommuting no longer can.

    You know, if Comcast wanted all these people/companies to shell out $50 more per month, the LEAST they could do is remove that 128kbps upstream cap they enforce for business accounts. Its really annoying to transfer large files to work or VPN to a server when you can't send out over 15K/sec, peak.

  2. Sue them under Robinson-Patman? by aozilla · · Score: 5, Interesting
    A seller charging competing buyers different prices for the same "commodity" or discriminating in the provision of "allowances" -- compensation for advertising and other services -- may be violating the Robinson-Patman Act. This kind of price discrimination may hurt competition by giving favored customers an edge in the market that has nothing to do with the superior efficiency of those customers. However, price discriminations generally are lawful, particularly if they reflect the different costs of dealing with different buyers or result from a seller?s attempts to meet a competitor?s prices or services.
    http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/discrim.htm
    --
    ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
  3. Re:What's wrong with this? by bobKali · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Ok, first off they're selling me the bandwidth, and as far as I can see I'm completely within my rights to use as much of it as I like - that's what I'm paying for after all. It's none of my business if their business model depends on the majority of their customers not using all the bandwidth they're paying for.
    Second, the network isn't going to give me any more bandwidth than I'm paying for, so it shouldn't matter what I'm doing with the bandwidth that I have.
    Now, as far as the extras that a business account provides:

    Tech support - don't need it, and they don't support Linux anyway.

    Static IP address - the residential service gives me that anyway - and even if it didn't, I would be somewhat inconvenienced, but it's not something I care about.

    Web hosting, email hosting, etc... - don't need it, don't want it.

    other value added services - don't need them, don't want them, wouldn't use them.

    So I have absolutely no use for the business service and I physically cannot use more bandwidth than their network will give me (which is what I'm paying for) so I don't see any reason for them to get all pissy about what kind of packets I'm sending over the bandwidth that I pay for.
    Besides, I use Cox and I seriously doubt that they have the technical knowhow to navigate themselves out of a wet paper bag, much less figure out what applications I'm running on my computer at home.