Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
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
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
...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.
As far as servers, bandwith is expensive.
.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.
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
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.
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.
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill