Comcast Gunning for NAT Users

phillymjs writes: "A co-worker of mine resigned today. His new job at Comcast: Hunting down 'abusers' of the service. More specifically, anyone using NAT to connect more than one computer to their cable modem to get Internet access- whether or not you're running servers or violating any other Acceptable Use Policies. Comcast has an entire department dedicated to eradicating NAT users from their network. We knew this was coming since this Slashdot article from two months ago, but did anyone think they'd already be harassing people that are using nothing more than the bandwidth for which they are paying? It makes me very happy that my DSL kit arrived yesterday, and I'll be cancelling my Comcast cable modem early next week." Earthlink and Comcast have both been advertising lately their single-household, multi-computer services (and additional fees) -- probably amusing to many thousands of broadband-router owners, at least until the cable companies really crack down.

Comments

Re:methods

[mewn]

One of french cable ISP using this method :

on their webpage that can only be accessed when you'r on their network ( a this webpage providing usefull information like your month quota ), there's a client script that send back your browser IP. That's it : if your ip is typical from a home subnet, you'r using NAT.

Verification of their Policy is in the Comcast FAQ

[dave_aiello]

I don't know how Comcast plans to hunt down residential users who implement NAT on their own. But, the Comcast On-Line FAQ contains their policy on the use of multiple computers, including pricing, and how they want to arrange the service.

You'll find more about my experience with Comcast broadband services on my company's web site, if you are interested.

Class action suit?

[NanoGator]

At what point do these ISPs stop being 'Internet Providers', and start becoming 'Web Page Providers'? As early as a year ago, an 'Internet Connection' meant that my computer could talk to any other computer that is also on an 'Internet Connection.' Nowadays, though, ISP's are playing games with blocking off what you can do with this connection. It seems like companies like ATTBI really only want to provide you the ability to do what Internet Explorer allows you to do. Anything beyond that and they try to nix it.

They don't want me doing P2P, they don't want me to play games, they don't want me to have more than one computer hooked up, and they don't want me going wireless. How much more can they block off before its no longer really an Internet Connection?

It seems to me that if they are going to behave this way, then they shouldn't be considered Internet Service Providers anymore. They're not! You can't call it an ISP if they're telling you you can't do the things that makes the Internet the Internet. I have two computers on the net at home. One I use just as an email terminal (very low bandwidth), and the other is where I go cruising the web and do IM etc. Until they tell me that I can only use so much bandwidth, they have no business telling me I can't use more than one computer. They advertise "unlimited bandwidth, 24-7", and then they play these silly games with me. It really makes me want to sue for false advertising.

Run some phone wire to your neighbor's house...

[Scratch-O-Matic]

I got pretty fired up when I read the introduction to this story. Before I got to the end, I had decided that I would switch to DSL if Comcast came-a-knocking, even though DSL is more expensive in my area.

However, I read the linked article and my Comcast agreement.

I doubt most people here have done either.

The effort is clearly aimed at people who are sharing their connections outside their homes. The article even has a diagram showing multiple homes. Take a look at this excerpt:

For example: Neighbor Bob buys cable modem service and a wireless home network. Neighbors Carol, Ted and Alice don't buy cable modem service, but they go out and buy antennas compatible with Neighbor Bob's wireless network. Everybody agrees to share Neighbor Bob's connection.

If you have a problem with trying to stop this type of activity, then you also probably think it would be OK to run phone line from your house to your neighbor's house, since you "pay for the bandwidth and can do whatever you wish with it." You would probably think it's OK to run Cat 5 or fiber all over your neighborhood too.

If Comcast tries to make me pay extra for having three networked computers, I'll be as angry as the next geek. But sheez, let's tone down the hype until that actually happens.

My company does technical support for Comcast

[bobdole369]

While I don't work on the phones (my job is to keep the client machines that tech support personnel use for logging calls running) I do end up listening to quite a few calls in that account. In fact I was listening to call today, where a gentleman was trying to get his Linksys four-port NAT-enabled router working with Comcast's service. Not only did the tech not mention anything about not supporting NAT, but the tech support agent helped him set up the router, made it work with one machine, waited while this gentleman went to his other machine, and helped him ensure that his tcp/ip settings were correct. He was using the 192.168 network locally.
Hmmm maybe we're just slow to get the news?

A few comments.

[omega9]

Everyone seems to be making some great points that have sparked a few questions:

• What if I only have one computer but decide to put it behind a NAT box? Will a service tech have to come by my house to verify this?
• What about the whole new wave of broadband capable consumer devices like component MP3\MPEG-4 players that can stream internet radio? Would I have to pay $N more for each device I purchase?
• You can't argue against installing a firewall for security reasons. And it's much easier to drop a specially made hardware component in then configure your OP system to do it. My grandmother could install a Linksys router, but will never be able to truely configure a firewall. This would seem like they are disallowing easy\basic ways of safeguarding yourself.
• I have six machines behind my NAT box. Each is configured to tripple-boot with Solaris, Windows or Linux so I can test different network environments and combinations. Thats a total of 18 static IPs assigned inside the LAN and potentially 18 different outgoing browser headers. I am a single guy in a one room appartment who actually downloads very little. I am also crazy and have vastly different browsing habbits durring different parts of the day. How do you suggest I be charged?
• If they really want to do this right they're going to have to packet sniff. That means they'll be able to tell when (and what) you're IMing, FTPing, browsing, and they'll know any clear-text passwords you happen to use. I do not trust Comcast with this information.

Ok, new list with some other points:

• Running a proxy to mask your traffic is fine, but only for applications that support a proxy.
• When I picked up my home install kit the guy stated NAT boxes were fine.
• I didn't sign up to have an "internet desk", I signed up to have an "internet house". As in, one day I will have that wireless webpad on my couch.
• If I'm being pulled into an "oversubscription" model, it's not my fault. I.E. - I'm being given a ton of bandwidth, but they don't expect me to use it, and when I do I don't think I should be punished.

I've been a Comcast customer for some time and have had relatively no problems with them to date. I am a little concened that since my IP changed on the 22nd (our area's cutover) I'm unable to ping it from work. Something to do tonight I guess.

Talking to tech support, 101

[Splat]

I repeat: this is RUMOUR. Why is it on Slashdot? This is not responsible journalism.

But, since everyone else seems to be hopping on the bandwagon taking this as fact I'll chime in anyways.

The solution is to play it smart and don't ever ever tell tech support you're using more then one computer. If they accuse you of using more then one, deny it. They're going to have fun proving that one.

Adelphia Powerlink flipped their freaking lid when the guy was trying to troubleshoot my connection by pinging it and I told him I'd gotten his ping.

"How do you know that? It's coming up as host unreachable here."
"Yeah I know I'm running a firewall on my machine."
"What?! You're not allowed to use a firewall on our network!"
"Uhm, why not? Oh maybe I should turn it off so all these people trying to DoS me can mess up your network a little more?"

So remember, when calling tech support:
1) You are using 1 computer.
2) You are using Windows.
3) Never mention the words: firewall, router, linux, server. They are verboten.

Always "follow" their absurd troubleshooting suggestions no matter how stupid they sound. Hey.. sometimes they do work, but otherwise just take what they tell you and translate the steps into your OS of choice. Or if you already tried it give them the answer they're looking for.