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.
Wasn't the BSA the ones cracking down on the huge warez a few years back on IRC? This seems odd... the cable companies are doing it to stop the mass amounts of warez (and pr0n/mp3) from being transferred, that would indirectly help a lot of those companies (ie. less pirating of Windows)...
It just seems weird that now all of a sudden they're more interested in keeping people online with unlimited bandwidth...
Ok, first off, it says in my Service Agreement with AT&T that the purpose of disallowing us to run servers is to prevent us from using too much bandwidth that OTHER customers use. Mind you, in a cable connection, we all eat off the same plate. Not like DSL...
Now, I had a long talk through several emails (trying to pick a fight) with AT&T support over the server issue. The thing is, we're not allowed to allow INCOMING connections to our servers. Reason we can't run a game server: bandwidth. Reason we can't run an ftp server: bandwidth. Now, there are almost certainly other legal liability issues they're trying to avoid, such as MPAA coming after them because one of their customers wants to run an FTP server that's full of movies, or RIAA going after the mp3's on my box (most are legal, believe it or not, but some aren't).
Furthermore, I have a router setup. AT&T doesn't object, in fact they ENCOURAGE users to set up home networks. So, I told him I've got 4 boxes plugged in, one's a Windows client and the rest are Linux (the Windows client belongs to the upstairs lady that has to call me whenever she turns it on to ask how). He explained that I can run a local LAN server, so long as I didn't let in things like VPN traffic, and stuff. They're also concerned about mail servers (read: SPAM).
I see AT&T's side, and I support them. BUT, I think they should set something up where you get a certain amount of traffic covered in your plan, and the extra you pay for. Or something like that. Let them work out the details, and then I'll either agree or go somehwere else. I DO think that I should be able to run an FTP server AND a MAIL server that allows incoming connections. I want a static IP address that I can register a domain and run my own mail server. I don't want to depend on my ISP's mail server ANYMORE. I don't want to use Hotmail anymore either. I want my own mail server, private, and secure.
They DO need to allow us that. Problem is, there's plenty who will abuse it. Where's the happy middle?
Acusing someone of criminal activity without just cause is, itself a felony.
I don't see how Time Warner have done that, at least in the case of the nastygram. They are saying that connecting an unsecured wireless AP to their network makes it possible for people to use the service to perform criminal acts. They haven't accused the user of any criminal activity.
Skipping over, for a moment, what those acts might be and which ones are really criminal... this seems like a reasonable enough position to take. If you or Time Warner knowingly provide the means for someone else to perform a criminal act, you can be held partly responsible for that act. This may well be a risk that you as an individual are prepared to take, but Time Warner who service millions of accounts are in a very different position. There is a huge potential liability here, and they are trying to guard against that. This isn't so unreasonable, especially if it is part of the contract you signed with them (i.e. their Terms of Service).
Does this mean I am happy that Time Warner are doing this? No.
Should we have enough competition in the broadband market that you can find a better supplier than Time Warner? Yes.
Are Time Warner committing a felony, or even doing something that is shady? I don't think so. Of course, IANAL.
Sailing over the event horizon
The telcos and cablemodem companies have never really liked to provide freewheeling internet access. The cable companies in particular have a "broadcast" mentality where someone pays to provide "content" and the unwashed massses pay to view the "content". Unfortunately for them, all the cool stuff requires two-way communications. A very unfortunate side effect of providing communication back from the "viewers" using TCP/IP is that the "viewers" can now do content themselves.
DSL and cablemodem people have an ugly history of AUPs that prevent running "servers". They have a history of blocking port 80 (and other ports) inbound to their clients.
There's two real problems inherent in this mess:
So what does this predict for the future? A couple of things: first, MPAA and RIAA and whatever the TV and radio trade associations are will continue to try to legislate things, since they no longer have the mental or moral wherewithal to make any new art. Expect DMCA enforcement to continue to get worse. Expect legislatures to enact UCITA-like laws, or even stuff like Senator Holling's TBPDTPADTAPA abortion.
You can also expect a technical thrust: replacing TCP/IP with some base protocol(s) that make a very strict distinction between "server" and "client". This might come from Microsoft and not from the MPAA/RIAA/legislative thrust. "Palladium" just might be part of this. The protocol might even be proprietary very costly to obtain the spec if one even exists. But it will cost tons of money to run a "server" for that protocol, one way or the other. Either the software will be pricey or a network hookup that accepts special "server" packets will be pricey.
Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
You're always free to purchase the business package which lets you run servers.
The business package the cable company in my area offers is the same as the residential package with 5 more e-mail addresses and 4x the price. There's still a dynamic IP, a proxy, a port 80 block, and the support is still clueless.
I think we need to come up with another word other then "server", because "Server" has this big expensive price tag associated with it. Why can't I run a finger daemon, or sshd, or sendmail and imapd? That's an insignificant amount of bandwidth. What's the point of a dedicated internet connection if you disallow all the advantages? How is that "unlimited" internet? If you only want to surf the web, you might as well have dialup. If bandwidth is expensive, then companies should put a price on it. You get the amount you pay for, and you can do whatever you want with it.
Cable modems should be priced like burstable T1's used to be. You get a peak bandwidth, which you can use for x number of bytes per month, and you get a typical rate, which is sufficient for the rest of the time. Software enforces the limits, and you can do whatever you want with the bandwidth you pay for. There shouldn't be some nebulous definition of "unresonable use". You should just not be allowed to do what you're not allowed to do. That way you couldn't have "bandwith hogs" in the first place. It sucks that I have to pay $99 a month for 1.5Mb SDSL just because I need the speed sometimes (8 hours, 1 day a week) but I can't use my connection for what I need it for if I have a cable modem.
This is precisely what CO-OPs are for. In general, businesses are never going to provide a good deal over time, unless there is TRUE competion for products and services.
How many of you use the services of banks, even though credit unions almost always offer lower service charges, lower loan rates, and higher interest.
It is possible to setup your own ISP, see sugarloaf.net. These guys have broadband in the boonies, for LESS than you are probably paying.....
--- I would prefer a prehensile tail....
I wonder if truth-in-advertising laws could be used against home broadband providers who advertise an "Internet connection" when in reality they are just providing a crippled, limited web-surfing connection with most "Internet" services disabled.
If the first question you ask before hooking up with broadband is:
"Do you have any service restrictions", then how long do you think this crap is going to last? Sure, there will be a lame cable provider who caters to mom&pop audiences, but if the majority of serious users become very selective, surely there is a big enough impact to make this a selling point. Even in limited competition that would have an effect.
I think the problem really lies in the fact that very few users have enough of a clue to be demanding even when they do have choices.
Top x questions (in no order):
- Do you restrict the use of LAN's NATed behind a router?
- Do you run any proxies (transparent or not)
- Do you restrict any traffic by port, address, or protocol type?
- Do you allow IPSec?
- What are your plans for IPv6?
- Do I have at least one non-NATed address?
- How much for extra IP or netblock?
- Do you have a bandwidth cap on volume or peak use?
- Do you allow the use of public facing servers?
- Do you allow the use of P2P?
- Can I see your Acceptable Use policy and Terms & Conditions?
- Can I see your Privacy Policy?
- Do you have a security policy?
- Do you monitor or collect customer traffic or traffic patterns?
- Do you demand a subpoena prior to law enforcement access?
- What is your policy on SPAM?
- What is your policy on sharing of personally identifiable information?
- What is your policy on sharing of aggregate use data?
Make 'em sweat. Most sales people will happily go through this list, very politely. If not, you already have a problem.
Don't know if you noticed, but broadband adoption is in the crapper and many people have reverted to dial-up. Who needs whom more?
Bing. Everyone used to look at me crazy when I told them that I was on a modem and would not EVER sign up for the cable modem that was available. DSL became available to me a couple months ago and I signed up right away.
The only need that I had was the right to run my own servers. I could have done something like that on the cable modem, but it would do me no good. I wanted my own domain to host my own web page and host my own e-mail. I someone would have sold me a 56K full-time modem with static IP account for a reasonable price I would have jumped all over it.
Seriously, for me it wasn't about the bandwidth at all, it was about the right to be a real node on the internet.
DirectTV DSL gave me 1 static IP and the explicit statement that they don't care what servers I run on my own line. The only time the connection went down it was because of SWBell's incompetence. DirectTV has been really great so far.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
It wasn't enough to advertise 50x the speed of dialup, and give us 2.5x the speed?
Eventually they'll limit us to only outgoing connections on ports 80, 25, 110, and 21.
then just 80.
Everyone is born right-handed; only the greatest overcome it
problem is, it kinda looks like they did their homework.
The problem is you didn't follow all the links. To quote:
"The problem I have though, is that I was never running a node. Ever. Indeed, I do not own, nor have I ever owned, a single piece of wireless networking equipment.
No cards, no WAPs, no nothing. All I did was express interest in the project, and sign on to the maps as a *possible* *cloud* node. I have never attended a NYCWireless meeting. I havn't participated in the listservs in months."
To quote the letter:
"We have information indicating that you or someone using your Road Runner account has been transmitting the Road Runner service over a wireless network so that anyone with a wireless network card can tap into our service without authorization from us."
Further quoting:
"This activity also violates a number of federal and state laws..."
Sure sounds like accusation to me. But where is the "homework?" Where is the evidence and just cause for making the accusation?
satire, n: 1) witty language used to convey insults or scorn; 2) a form of humor lost on most slashdot moderators.
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.
This was still going on as late as 1995. When I moved back into my condo after repairs from the Northridge quake, TW cable insisted I pay a hookup fee for all three drops, because their records showed that I only had one TV connected. Of course, all three drops were there when I moved in 8 years earlier.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
I'd be fearful of signing a contract that says I'll pay extra for excessive bandwith when I'm not in control of that bandwith. If someone felt like being a jackass and decided to flood my webserver there isn't a thing I could do about it on my end. I could deny the hits from that address, but that doesn't prevent the fact that the requests coming in still count against my download bandwith. I would much, much rather ask for the provider to have a cap in place that throttles my bandwith so I am not financially responsible for OTHER PEOPLE making me go over.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
They don't explicitly define the word "servers" and if they did, it would be meaningless because the ToS has a unilateral change clause. A few services are expressly forbiden, ftp, http, mail and dns. The only reason I'm techincally able to offer an ftp server is that AOL's instant messenger uses port 21. Even COX is not so stupid as to block incoming port 21 yet.
It's about control of publishing. AIM is useless for publishing and so allowed. Pictures of my baby girl ride there until the FBI knock down my door and take my computers away for doing so against my service agreement and the will of RIAA / MPAA.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.