Cable Firms Limit Users' Freedoms

Passacaglia writes "An article in the Washington Post reports that a coalition of companies, including Dell, Microsoft, IBM, Sun, and even the BSA, have filed a report with the FCC complaining about how cable providers are placing restrictions on how subscribers use broadband access. This is in the wake of the recent FCC ruling that cable providers need not open their networks to competition from outside ISPs. The restrictions include limits on VPNs, servers, and many things that would make broadband really worth having." Meanwhile, TWC sent nastygrams to people it suspects are using unsecured wireless networks, skimming the info from the public database of wireless access points.

Comments

Film at Eleven...

[Jason Earl]

Imagine that, the Hardware folks want the bandwidth folks to lower restrictions on bandwidth usage so that new computer hardware (and software) becomes more desirable. It strikes me as pretty funny that Microsoft (king of the PC monopoly) wants to force the cable companies to open up their networks, and yet they have fought tooth and nail against measures that would make the PC software business more open to competition.

Why not multiple computers,etc...

[Sabalon]

I can see the server issue somewhat - what if they get /.ed. Then again, with bandwidth caps, that becomes somewhat of a non-issue.

The same thing goes for the Broadband routers. It reminds me of the 80's when the cable companies insisted you pay for every TV hooked up - no splitters unless they were authorized. This was fixed and it was decided that the cables companies rights ended at the wall to your house.

So why not the same thing for broadband connections? Why am I not allowed to have my desktop and notebook on at the same time? My modem limits the amount of bandwidth I can pull, so that can't be it. (Actually, they are probably worried that instead of bursting at 500K I'd be able to use a sustained 500K, which I can do with one machine :)

Same thing with the Wireless really - just means it's not tied to where a wire runs. I guess their worry there is that my neighboor might get free service off me with a wireless card (can't even get a signal in the neighboors yard!)

If you want to sell me 500K/128K service, then do so and fuck off. Don't tell me I can't run a server on that 128K, so I can web in and check callerID logs. Don't tell me what machines and OS's I can use to pull down the 500K. Don't put a transparent proxy between me and the web. Don't block incoming port 80 requests. Just give me the pipe and accept your checks.

Re:Why not multiple computers,etc...

[cmowire]

Simple.

They are selling you 500K/128K with the implicit assumption that you are using a traditional home-user access pattern (i.e. occasional bursts when you hit a good porn site, lotsa intermittent email and ICQ traffic, etc.)

My biggest problem is that I could see why they don't want to allow full-scale hosting. Makes sense, because it distorts their network load equations. The big advantage of an always-on broadband connection is that you can run little servers for you and maybe one or two other people. Like you said, to check your CallerID logs. Or turn on/off the lights with X10. Or run your own mail server. So what the proper AUP is that you outlaw spam sending, heavy sustained traffic in over x GB/day, commercial hosting, and other things that could destabalize the network.

But because I like to SSH and VNC in to my machines and would like to eventually host mail on my machines instead of my ISP, I gnaw my fingernails off every time that it looks like Covad is in trouble because once CLECs dissapear, I won't be able to even SSH and VNC into my home machines.

Re:Why not multiple computers,etc...

[Kwil]

They are selling you 500K/128K with the implicit assumption that you are using a traditional home-user access pattern (i.e. occasional bursts when you hit a good porn site, lotsa intermittent email and ICQ traffic, etc.)

And I'm purchasing with the explicit assumption that what they promise (500K/128K) is what they give. Go figure.

After all, were I to try and sell something like a printer and promise a "lifetime supply of color ink", you can bet there'd be a stink if when the printer ran out I come back and say, "Sorry, we sell that with the implicit assumption that you'll only use the black ink.."

I believe that could easily be construed as fraudulent advertising, if not as direct fraud.

same old thing...

[mike77]

It's the same thing we've always seen. A company states that it will give the us something we want for a reasonable price. Lo and behold, when the time actually comes to do it, they screw the customer over. The question is why? The answer is that it has become an acceptable buisness practice to operate in this way, maximizing your profits and screwing the customer, who you have conviently signed to a long term contract.

Microsoft does it, Sprint PCS does it, and now the cable companies are doing it. The buisness's sole purpose is to make money for their stockholders (profit). They do it any way they can, and well the current model hasn't shown that it won't work yet. Maybe it's time to start some serious boycotting of individual companies?

I hate Road Runner

[OmniVector]

Why? Because they decided to cap our bandwidth from 500kb/s down and 100kb/s up to 250kb/s down and 50kb/s. They had no reason to do this other than the fact that they didn't feel like upgrading and expanding their network to accomidate for the increased number of users and large bandwidth consumption.
I remember when all those tech articles were boasting that the rate of broadband users joining the bandwagon was going to go up and up and yet it's peaked at a standstill, in fact, my service as I just said has accually gotten WORSE. I'm sure a large portion of it has to do with the @home cable company going under, and giving control back to the cable companies who now want to jack the prices and screw the users ridding on the wave of the future.
This situation probably won't improve for awhile because companies like the RIAA and MPAA want to keep home users's bandwidth lower to control the "mass epidemic" of spreading illegal media. By now we could have had the whole country wired in T1 if some private organiations would get off their ass, lay the wire, and force the prices to drop by saturating the market. So expect congress to be lobbied to the stone age until Microsoft's DRM gets through the cracks.
Then I can GUARANTEE that the RIAA and MPAA will even back up the companies who want to push for better broadband, so they can liscense more music/movies to users at more absurd prices than ever.

Re:I hate Road Runner

[alen]

And where will that fictitious organization get the money to lay all these T1's? The costs of laying the last mile under the city streets is the most expensive. Then there is the access costs that have to be paid to the backbone providers. Keep on dreaming.

DSL vs Cable

[conan_albrecht]

It seems every article comparing DSL to cable focuses on the speed or technology. The primary reason I have DSL is because I have more choice in providers. The cable access is offered only by one large company in my area (read ATT) and I simply don't trust them to meet my needs as a geek.

Contrast that to the DSL front, where I have the choice of many companies. I get a static IP, good speed, Linux supported, etc. because that's what I looked for when I subscribed.

More reviews should look at choice vs. monopolies when comparing DSL and Cable.

Re:DSL vs Cable

[mla_anderson]

At the risk of sounding like a company rep...I use DirectTV DSL (used to be Telocity). They have two packages:

1. The standard package is a 1.5M/128K line and 1 static IP.
2. The enhanced package is the same line but they provide the equivalent of a Linksys router for an extra $10/month.

Even with the standard package you are allowed to add your own router/firewall and put on as many computers as you want.

Their rules are basically:

• The system is to be used for business purposes only occaisionally.
• Don't do anything illegal

I run a VPN tunnel to work so I can get to home from work, a web server so my folks can see pictures of their grandkids, a mail server so I don't have to use DirectTV DSL's crappy email service, a db server, and a vpn server so my dad can get into my home network. The point is, all of this activity is allowed I don't have to hide it from my provider.

I can get cheaper DSL, I pay $10-$15 more than other people do for DHCP, PPPOE or PPTP connections, but I get a static IP address and an awesome TOS.

Here here, I totally agree

[JoeShmoe]

I myself have always been arguing with my ISP over this very thing. My standpoint is this, if an ISP claims that their service is compatibile with Windows 98 or 2000 or whatever, what gives them the right to then deny you the ability to use a feature of that operating system?

Windows 98 included Personal Web Server. If you install Office you get Frontpage Server Extensions. 2000 server has VPN services. These are all part and parcel with the operating system. How then can my ISP say that even those Windows may let you share data on certain ports and protocols, we forbid it?

Obviously the clause was designed to prevent someone from running a business website on a consumer connection. But they don't write the rules to target abuse. The terms don't say "you may not run a server that consumes excessive bandwidth" or "you may not turn your connnection into a gateway to dozens of users". No, they write it as "no servers, period" and "no sharing this connection, period".

There are ISPs that don't do this. SpeakEasy comes to mind. When I was a SpeakEasy customer I ran web/ftp/vpn/shoutcast/dcc until my connection was absolutely saturated. I never heard word one from them about it. They even make a point to say they encourage you to runs servers (no porn sites, please!).

But the majority of the big ones, the AT&T Broadband and the SBC Pacific Bell want you to pay for broadband prices just to use low bandwidth protocols like e-mail and web browsing. After all, they content, you don't need all taht bandwidth we said we would give you. The only people who need to use their full quota of data is pirates, right? No one has any legitmate reason to upload a significant amount of information.

So, good for the tech companies. They have finally caught on that people aren't going to keep buying new computers and bigger hard drives and CD burners and all the trappings of a multimedia lifestyle if they get double taxed by having to pay for content. I consider my $50 broadband fee a global content tax and whether people consciously admit it or not, that's really what broadband is all about.

Given a choice between siding with the content providers and the infrastructure providers, I choose to side against the content industry because the only thing they stand to lose is potential (read: imaginary) profit. The people who actually make and sell tangible products will go out of business if they are subject to the whims of the content industry.

- JoeShmoe

.

nothing in here about bandwidth caps

[mblase]

...the companies say that in the subscriber agreements of major cable Internet providers, there are prohibitions on the use of private corporate networks that allow employees to work from home; restrictions on adding hardware such as servers and game boxes to the networks; and clauses that reserve the right to restrict access to certain bandwidth-intensive sites, such as those for online gambling.

... the High Tech Broadband Coalition, also wants the FCC to ensure that cable companies don't unilaterally prohibit any type of Internet use. A separate filing by Amazon.com takes the same view.

The cable industry supports the FCC's deregulatory effort and has been moving toward a system of tiered pricing for services that require faster connection speeds, such as access to corporate networks and graphics-intensive gambling.

To summarize: The corporate group wants cable internet providers to move away from restricting how customers use their bandwidth, and instead only restrict how much. To summarize of the summary: Big Brother bad, bandwidth caps good.

And this is all quite good and reasonable. Why should my internet provider be concerned with whether or not I'm operating a server on my modem? Or playing games? Or visiting gambling or *cough* porn sites all night long? Or working from home all day? It shouldn't matter what I'm doing with my bandwidth, and it's unfair to restrict what I do with it in the contract.

But it's entirely reasonable and acceptable to charge me more if I use a high volume of bandwidth. My web hosting provider charges me a different amount per month if I exceed a certain amount of traffic; my cable internet provider can and should do the same.

This deserves our support, Slashdotters. Read carefully.

Re:nothing in here about bandwidth caps

[tshak]

Or playing games?

This is what boggles me. When I was younger I was on 16 player Quake servers all the time. This easily uses as much bandwidth as my current VPN usage. So why is VPN, a very practical and legitimate usage of a home internet connection, banned while gaming for hours on end during peak time accepted? It seems like these policies are being created by your friendly technology MBA "expert".

Server != High Bandwidth

[fmaxwell]

As far as servers, bandwith is expensive.

I have a web server. It serves a text-only page that has info about my fan speeds, CPU temperature, etc. I access it a few times per day, each time downloading about 5K of data across my cable modem. I have an FTP server. I only access it about twice a week and then I don't move anything big. Usually just a .zip file or two. It's password-protected and I'm the only user. Neither one of these servers causes excessive bandwidth usage, yet both are banned under the newly amended TOS/AUP at my cable modem provider.

If the ISP is concerned about my usage of bandwidth, then they should publish bandwidth limits and/or tiered pricing to reflect usage rather than banning things that often have nothing to do with the "problem."

Of course, the real problem is that they want to force computer hobbyists, to whom the connection is most useful, to pay big bucks for a "business service." That's why they keep putting up red herrings like "servers" rather than just limiting bandwidth or charging for tiered service.

Re:you know what really bothers me?

[erohw amrak]

But of course, the cable providers don't support this and send out their cease and desist letters if you do it!

The "cease and desist" letter above was to a person sharing his cable access with anonymous users via amplified wireless antennas; this is certainly NOT the same as using a router to provide access to three machines in the same house.

There is no way that the terms-of-service allow this sort of practice, nor should they. This introduces a number of security risks onto the network, with no accountability. It costs money in bandwidth and lowers the quality of service for many paying customers on the same end of the cable line. Indeed, the person was breaking the TOS, and should have been cut off immediately rather than warned.

Re:you know what really bothers me?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the issue here is that he's not just sharing it with the computers in his house, he's sharing it with everyone. The issue raised in the letter about someone using the connection to commit a crime is an extremely valid one -- there would be no way to find the actual perpetrator, because the trail would end with your account (and you). And it's a good bet that if this happened, the FBI would take your computers off your hands for you, not to mention take a hard look at you as the person who committed the crime.

If I was a hax0r, and looking to launch the next DDoS attack, I would definitely start by finding an unsecured wireless network. That would make me virtually untraceable.

Re:Text version of letter

[Anonymous Coward]

So... where does the legalese take a simple
proposition away from the realm of fact?

Theft of services...
nope, you paid for them.

But you're stealing extra bandwidth...
nope, they capped it. if you can't use what
you paid for, they owe you a refund.

Allows anonymous access...
Nope. Allows access in the name of the account
owner. He opened it to public access,
it's his responsibility for what's done with it.

Now that he's aware, if there is an investigation,
LET IT END AT HIM.

I'd really like to rant about the disgusting
behavior of such cable providers, and come up
with some great analogy with some other set of
greedy bastards. But all I can think of is...
they're acting like a bunch of cable providers,
wanting to get as much money as possible for doing
as little as they can.

The recent trend seems to be charge rental for the
hardware itself (and who's to say what's reasonable for that, besides them?), and then
speak of the actual data CONVEYANCE as something
they're giving you out of the goodness of their
hearts, for being such a good customer.

If you're letting others share in this gift they
give you, well, that's just mean, and they won't
give it to you anymore. But you can still pay them :)

MS Giveth And MS Taketh Away

[prisonercx]

I find it funny/scary/ridiculous that MS and content providers will stand behind the CBDTPA, whose claim is ostensibly to promote the adoption of high-bandwidth Internet connections (by limiting what users can do with their computers), and then turn around and accuse them of limiting the freedoms of users. I suppose it's just another case of self-serving interests.

And BTW, since when is it the BSA's job to complain about other companies limiting user freedom? Don't they have enough to do finding "licence infringments" that they don't need to dip their claw in this?

PrisonerCX

Re:Ownership and Control

[Anonymous Coward]

"Perhaps the only way to guarantee the freedom to use the network the way we want to is to own the network ourselves. "

This has been used historically both for municipal ownership of public utilities (electric mainly) and for co-operatives.

If you want ownership in the strictest sense a co-operative would be the way to go. See this report as a starter. This PDF article says some interesting stuff about telecomm and cable co-ops.

Find others in you service area who are interested. Organize public meetings. Incorporate. Show up for hearings. The next time the cable contract comes up for renewal, get your city council to consider a cooperative. "Raise less corn and more hell"

Re:Stop complaining start being picky.

[Lemmy Caution]

My DSL ISP would happily answer all these questions. They work in a market that is competitive, and it is Federal regulation which keeps them competitive, by forcing ILECS and CLECS to allow competing ISP's to use their facilities (for a fee.)

The cable providers have no regulation. And no competition. And are more than happy to answer "no and goodbye" to the 3 percent of the market that might ask these questions and then turn around and make money hand-over-fist to the 97 percent that doesn't ask these questions.

Re:DSL

[stealthyburrito]

For this reason, cable modem service, while being
cheaper than broadband, is also inferior.

Um, your post made sense until this broad (no pun intended) conclusion. I pay $35.00/month for cable access, and have always had around 1.0-1.5Mbit downstream speeds. ADSL access from the LEC costs $49.95 for 640Kbit downstream.

Don't assume that because DSL is better than cable in one area, it is true for the entire planet.

Re:But what CAN we do?

[JamesOfTheDesert]

Who cares if we can or not, we have to at least TRY! What would this country be like if our forefathers just rolled over and payed the tax?

Yeah! The US was founded by people who believed the goverment should control the marketplace, and step in to force companies to provide services in a manner most convenient to customers.

How about this: remove the government-sanctioned monopolies enjoyed by the cable companies, and let competition drive services.

Re:DSL

[ergo98]

For this reason, cable modem service, while being cheaper than broadband, is also inferior. For
myself, I'm sticking with my existing dialup
account until I can get true broadband, something
better than cable modem (such as DSL).

What a ridiculous conclusion. As I'm typing this a download is happening from Microsoft at a solid 245KB/second in the background (Cogeco here in Southern Ontario has a superb infrastructure), and this is pretty much the speed that I get 24/7 on my cable modem. I realize that not all cable users have as good of an area as me, however from what I've read most do.

Secondly, your technical analysis sounds like a sales pitch for DSL, and it has little grounding in reality. Let me let you in on a little secret: DSL providers do the exact same thing : They oversubscribe a given amount of bandwidth to make it cost effective (of course this happens at the CO rather than at the neighbourhood level, but the net effect is exactly the same): Got 500 1.5Mbps DSL users? Calculate the likely proportion that'll be online at any time (20%), multiple that by an acceptably low "satisfied" ratio (80%), and set the switch up with a 120Mbps connect to the net, because anything more would be financial suicide.

It should also be noted that this technical "cable versus DSL" argument has been played out a million times (always disproving the ridiculous "never shared" spiel about DSL), and people are usually reminded that a) cable is capable of an unbelievable frequency bandwidth, and technically the cable company could multiplex dozens of cable modem frequency per subnet if they felt like it, and b) even barring that, they can make a subnet as small as financially viable : Maybe they'll drop fiber to the corner and you'll be your own little subnet.

Re:Truth in advertising?

[phillymjs]

Interesting, but maybe not, because they present you with the TOS before you sign.

You can't make false claims in your commercials and then just revoke them in a disclaimer, EULA, or TOS, or whatever. The software industry, especially Microsoft, has gotten away with this for way too long and will eventually be smacked down. But companies that make tangible products that exist in the physical world can't really break this rule as easily. No amount of disclaimers would mean Coke commercials could claim drinking one can of their products will cure AIDS and whiten your teeth. Ford can't claim their cars get a million miles per gallon, and are capable of flying to the moon.

These cable companies are totally full of shit... their commercials bray far and wide, "Download music and movies and all sorts of cool stuff!" "Play internet games with a bunch of friends!"

Meanwhile, they keep crossing stuff off the list of things you're allowed to do with your connection. As far as some cable ISPs are concerned, you're violating their AUP if you so much as check your office e-mail with Outlook Web Access via a "residential" cable internet connection.

In one commerical that's recently gotten a fair amount of play where I live, Vanessa Williams is auditioning for a part in New York while sitting in L.A., via videoconferencing over her Comcast cable internet service. Isn't that considered "working at home"? Well I sure hope she's paying for Comcast's "business" class cable internet service! But... wait! The ad is clearly for "residential" service! What's going on?

As far as I'm concerned, the cable companies are advertising one service, but actually selling people an entirely different one. And that is why I dumped Comcast in January and got DSL through SpeakEasy. And now I've got static IPs, my own domain, and run my own mail and web servers, and everybody's happy. SpeakEasy knows how to do what Comcast refuses to do-- just take my money, give me a fat pipe in return, and fuck off otherwise unless I need something and call them.

The cable companies will eventually go too far and find themselves on the wrong end of a false-advertising lawsuit. If these companies that are banding together to complain to the FCC were smart, they'd also give a holler to the people in the FTC.

~Philly

Re:But what CAN we do?

[darkonc]

The founders of the US were VERY interested in having control of businesses. They were QUITE aware that a big business isn't much different than a government.. In fact, the tea that whas tossed at The Boston Tea Party belonged to, if I remember correctly, the East India Tea Company, who's monopoly on tea trade they especially despised.

Even the godfather of modern Capitalism -- Adam Smith was very aware that, in the market place, a large company is as bad as (if not worse than) the government. His ideal capitalistic world was a large number of SMALL (and I emphasize small with large letters) companies.

To see a small number of very large conglomerates controling not only the market -- but also the government, would have him (and most of the forefathers of the United States) spinning in his grave.

In the first century of America's existence, the people (via the government) kept a very tight reign on corporations -- not wanting to see the kind of corporate control of every day life that was part of what lead to the Revolution. The turning point was the US Civil war. During that time, the government(s) of the US was almost wholly occupied with fighting versions of itself. The corporate entities of the time took advantage of that distraction and weakness to firmly clamp their claws into the inner workings of the Government -- and thus, into everyday American life.