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.
They forced Bell to open their networks to CLECs. This isn't all that different.
Most users have no idea how the tech works and interacts together. So the solution to huge support costs is to dumb things down. Even helping a user troubleshoot on the phone is an ardous task. Now I don't mean the average slashdotter who knows more than the support people. But the average user who only knows who to click the icons on the screen.
As far as servers, bandwith is expensive. You're always free to purchase the business package which lets you run servers. It's always the small minority who are the bandwith hogs and want it all for less than the cost of providing the service.
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.
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...
Dear xxxxxxxxx;
We have information indicating that you or omeone 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.
Use of your account for this purpose violates your subscription agreement and our Acceptable Use Policy in a number of ways, including Paragraph 5(d) of the agreement, which states that subscribers are prohibited from reselling or redistributing the service, or any portion thereof, whether for a fee or otherwise. This activity also violates a number of federal and state laws, including 47 U.S.C. 553, which allows for civil remedies of up to $50,000.
You should be aware that this is a very serious problem that goes beyond the theft of our services. Individuals utilizing the Road runner system in this manner to carry out criminal activity, would be able to do so in an anonymous manner. In such circumstances, when law enforcement attempted to trace such activity, the trail would end with your account.
It is not our desire at this time to sue you, and we assume it is not your desire to allow unknown users to anonymously plan criminal acts through your account. However, your wireless broadcast of the Road Runner service must cease and desist.
If we do not receive written assurances from you within three (3) business days of this letter that your account will not be utilized in this manner, or if the unauthorized use continues, we will suspend your account and we may pursue our legal remedies. Your written confirmation should be sent to:
Gregory Powell
Abuse and Security
Time Warner Cable of New York City
41-61 Kissena Boulevard
Flushing, New York 11355
Internet.security@twcable.com
Please contact Internet Security directly at either (718) 670-6621 or internet.security@twcable.com if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Gregory Powell
Abuse & Security, Supervisor
High Speed Online Services
Time Warner Cable of NYC
Of course! Because the cable company wants you to get an IP address for each machine connected to the 'net and PAY for that extra connection. [Diety] forbid that we should want to conserve IP addresses by using NAT, which also adds a thin layer of security over direct portscans. Nope, they want their extra $10/IP/mo.
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.
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?
--Keeping the flame wars alive, one post at a time
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/47usc553. htm
47 U.S.C
553. Unauthorized Reception of Cable Service
(a) Unauthorized interception or receipt or assistance in intercepting or receiving service; "assist in intercepting or receiving" defined
(1) No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law.
(2) For the purpose of this section, the term "assist in intercepting or receiving" shall include the manufacture or distribution of equipment intended by the manufacturer or distributor (as the case may be) for unauthorized reception of any communications service offered over a cable system in violation of subparagraph (1).
While I was looking through the ATTbi policies on verboten stuff, apparenly web servers _aren't_ expressly forbidden. As if they expect a LOT of things will work on port 80 and short of stateful inspection, they're not going to be able to enforce it...
Naturally, I can't find it now because i'm looking for it, but I discovered it while reporting script kiddie attacks to my home webserver.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
It's called IP Tunneling.
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?
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.
- tristan
Power to the people!!! cept that the powell in charge of the fcc need not worry about things like freedoms. the man in charge of the FCC is an ass and these complaints will fall on deaf ears because of it.
The line tech brought the modem, tested the signal strength, proved what a good 'ol boy he was and left. Had the modem hooked up to my machine and online in 10 seconds after he left.
When the techs came out and "installed" my line, they recommended the Linksys model cause they saw the 5 computers sitting by the modem (sadly, still only have the main one and the notebook online - kids take a lot of time!). I showed them my Linux router. They installed the alternate dial-in numbers and setup Outlook for me, explaining that it was what they were required to do to cover their assess. I told them I understood and not to worry about it. (Didn't have the heart to tell them I was gonna reformat that weekend anyway!)
If you want to host a server, just pay setup + $3.95 a month to have it professionally hosted, christ, oc48 vs 15k shouldn't take any thought. Yes, I have a server based off my home dsl, but it's kiddie crap, a simple mail server and a web server. If my ISP, verizon, decided to charge, or restrict, I'd switch in an instant.
That said, cable (and fone) companies are cheap bastards who piss away money on stuff like sending trucks out to scan for waps, but what do you expect from an arrogant monopoly.
Which is why I can get a dsl line in canada 1.5/768 w/3 static ips for $40 canadian and pay $60 a month for Verizon dsl down here.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
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
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.
"nat5an's struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Bill Gates."
John
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
Yeah. . . and if you want to do adminstration from a campsite. . . but really, Slashdot shouldn't be giving press to such blatant homophobes . . .
OH! BSA not BSA!
It's funny because BSA was actually what I first thought of when I saw the story.
I couldn't tell if you were experimenting with poor-man's cryogenics or looking for the orange sherbet.
That internet access was simply unrestricted. I mean, I don't care if I have to pay twice as much for my cable modem and broadband internet access -- just don't restrict my usage!!!
I wish at work, where we have a very fat pipe I could SSH over port 22! Instead of having to run sshd off a port which can be access through our LAN firewall.
I know that at work they're paying me, whereas at home I'm paying Rogers... But why the heck can't I just use what I'm paying for the way it's designed to work... It's ludicrous that I'm not allowed to run any servers from my home PC, or that I can't utilize more than a certian amount of bandwidth -- or that I can't uncap my cable modem (which *I* purchased!). The early days of broadband where one could get away with nearly anything are long gone -- these days i'm lucky that they haven't determined that I'm running sshd off that odd port and cancelled my service!
dmarien
...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.
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.
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.
Heh.
They are doing the right things. Just for the wrong reasons.
Downloading your soul and silently uploading DRM upgrades in its place takes a lot of bandwidth. And a lot of this remote 0wning^H^H^H^H^H^Hassistance stuff in the OS could be considered servers, which many broadband providers ban. It'd suck to have your plans for world domination delayed for five years because the users' 56k modems don't pull it fast enough.
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.
I'm just curious how they detected his wireless usage. It seems like he could install a router with NAT between the cable modem and the wireless node, then call up and say "problem solved."
i reless.asp
Here's another question: Was he using encryption? If he's not, I can understand the company's point of view. (Note: I said understand, I didn't say I agree with it.) If he were to say 'its encrypted...', that should solve it.
Hmmm sounds like a call to pre-emptively sue the cable/dsl companies for express permission to use wireless. When I signed on with @Home (and then ATT Broadband), they were advertising how to use multiple computers on the same connection. I even found a howto on how to do it. Here's the address: http://www.computers4sure.com/linksys/store/att_w
Note: AT&T's site linked me to this. When you go to this site before going to AT&T's site, you see the AT&T logo on the screen. Strange, eh? hehe.
"Derp de derp."
My cable modem supplier keeps changing the rules on running servers, but what it boils down to is that they don't want you eating "too much" bandwidth.
So you can run web servers, email servers, news servers, whatever, that are private to a group of friends and they won't mind at all, even in a week when their Ts&Cs say it's forbidden.
Run a publicly advertised server with free stolen porno videos, though, and you might expect them to notice and close you down.
VPN similarly seems to be "allowed" some weeks and not others, but they've never actually blocked it, and I've always been able to use it when I want to. Running an entire network off the cable modem is "not supported" - but of course everybody does it, and they even provide a self-help newsgroup for people to tell each other how to set it up. One imagines however that they'd get upset if you ran a multi-person company behind one cable modem on a domestic tariff and saturated your 512K for eight hours a day.
What it amounts to is that if their network falls over because of a few prats play silly buggers they'll deal with them, otherwise if you're sensible they don't in practice mind what you get up to.
Seems reasonable to me.
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....
things will work much better freedom-wise when the consumer starts buying bandwidth by the byte.
Sure, it's more complex.. but it also reflects the actual limited resource being used.
> I wonder if DSL has different rules?
I suspect it does. Actually, DSL has the normal rules;
it's cable modem service that has different rules.
There are good reasons for this, and it comes down
to design. The cable network was _designed_ to
deliver lots of the SAME content to every subscriber.
Yeah, it can carry 50+ channels, but it takes the
same 50+ channels to everybody. Need to add another
thousand users? No problem: just tee off the line
that's already there. As cable TV grew, they've
been teeing the lines for years.
As a result, the lines can handle pretty substantial
bandwidth to an individual node, but the _total_
amount of bandwidth on a given subnet has some pretty
stiff limits on it. In particular, the total amount
of available bandwidth, that has to be split between
all nodes, is not necessarily greater than what one
node is capable of receiving (unless they place some
artificial cap on the latter).
This is backwards from almost every other network.
If you have, say, a T1 line, your provider (typically)
won't whine much if you use its maximum capacity,
because the T1 line itself is the chokepoint. At
the other end is a router that's probably on your
ISP's core LAN (for small ISPs) or core WAN segment
for your area. The bandwidth there is somewhat more
plentiful (though not unlimited by any means). DSL
is probably in this category, as are dialup, satelite
service, and so on -- most forms of internet access.
if you have dialup, your provider doesn't mind if you
max out your phone line every minute that you're
connected. In fact, if they had to pick, they'd
rather that you use that phone line at max capacity
until you're finished getting everything downloaded
that you want and then disconnect, rather than
downloading at half speed for twice as long. Because
that way they can get by with fewer dial-in lines.
Cable modem service is different, because you do
not have a dedicated pipeline from you straight to
the company's core network. Instead, you share
the pipeline with numerous other nodes. Bandwidth
you use directly affects your neighbor's ability
to get data to and from your ISP's network.
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).
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
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?
"Microsoft is behind the fight for broadband freedom?"
My assumption is that they're fighting to make sure everybody and their mother runs MSN's net service. My gf's mother bought a computer with XP on it. I'm a little light on details, but the computer was trying to VPN to MSN via AT&T's cable modem. There were problems with that so they asked me to remove it, which I was happy to do.
I'm pretty sure the nature of MS's complaint is that they can't expand into cable as an ISP.
"Derp de derp."
Yeah, it stinks that cable ISPs are [legally] gaining [monopoly] control and the ability to squelch their competition.
OTOH, this may also slow down the migration of commercial software to the network-based service model. Anything that keeps broadband prices high and single-sourced will be a disincentive for this migration.
I doubt this possible benefit outweighs the liabilities, though...and Microsoft already has an alternative - if they can't force people to use net-based application servers for their software, they can own their desktop machines with Palladium.
Interesting, but maybe not, because they present you with the TOS before you sign.
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
The DSL providers give a lot more latitude and flexibility, and offer more servers, because they are regulated in a way that ensures more, rather than less competition. Wherever there's a natural bottleneck - and the last mile is definitely a natural bottleneck, for any given technology - only regulation ensures that a competitive market develops.
Just remember the following...
Try to think as if you're an ISP:
- Users doing anything on their computer that requires bandwidth costs you money.
- Users running servers costs you money.
- Users running servers that serve MP3s or movies costs you LOTs of money (lots of bandwidth), and could open you up to legal issues.
- Users who telecommute should be able to "afford" to buy a business package for home. After all, if they lead such a wonderful life as to be able to work from home, then they SHOULD pay extra to us!
- Users who run servers or share internet connections bother tech support.
Solution? Deny all servers.
If possible, deny anything that users may do other than web surfing and email. No telecommuting here!
Infact, if it's possible to bill users without providing ANY service, that's the way to go!
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
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.
I wholeheartedly agree that people should be able to run 'low-bandwith' daemons--provided they stay low bandwith. The problem is that 95% of your cable company's customers haven't heard of sshd, 4.9% have, and .1% actually want to run an sshd server. Sorry, you're not in the target market.
... somewhat SOL.
Let's explore this further. I should be able to run a low-bandwith web server and serve small personal pages. However, the reality of the other 99% of the customers is this: Code Red/Nimda. Idiots who didn't even know they had a webserver running got wormed and turned a low-bandwith web server into a massive pipeleech that made my Internet connection horrendously slow for about two months and logged tens of thousands of 404's to apache running off my cable. You mention you want to run sendmail. You gonna leave that an open relay? No, I'm sure... but a majority of everybody else who would run an MTA (either accidentally (it came with my WinInternetSharingProgram32 Lite!)) or purposefully isn't smart enough to lock it down, and this further compends the spam problem. Same with people who run NNTP servers and screw up news for everyone else.
Broadband customers as a whole are too irresponsible to run servers and should be prohibited from doing so. That's why this is prohibited in the Accetable Use Policy. It's a bitter reality.
I however, should be free of such restrictions as I'm smarter than most other broadband customers, but until I can prove that to my cable company and/or they see a market in letting intelligent people run servers, I'm
I run sshd, and ftpd for myself. Cox doesn't block it, but they do block SMB (139/tcp), HTTP, and telnet (23/tcp). They have the technical measures to block problematic ports, and I'm quite frankly glad they do that for the nimda reasons discussed above. I run apache off of port 8080 and cox doesn't seem to mind, else they'd send their AUP Gestapo after me
"Cable modems should be priced like burstable T1's used to be. "
Burstable T1's run today in my part of town (Phoenix metro) for a unnegotiatable local loop fee of $400/month, plus data fees of somewhere around $700 - $1200 depending on the provider. I know I'm misconstruing your statement, but as I understand it, Cox.net has an OC-12 coming in to what I assume is the entire Phoenix metro area (3 million people) A pricing structure that would allow for profitability and burstability up to T1 speeds and beyond and the ability to run servers would be only somewhat more cost-effective than an actual dedicated circuit with the added disadvantages of being far less reliable. Cox.net does offer a business rate plan, but it's not nearly as flexible as a T1 feed would be, probably for these reasons.
Moreover, people who want to run servers generally can afford colocation (which is far more cost-effective) and/or pay for their own line.
I'm in the same boat as you, I'm a poor geek who likes high bandwith and apache and php and MySQL and all that good stuff, but we're few and far between to even be considered a blip on MassiveCableCo's radar. Maybe, in time...
My $0.02
"[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
"Perhaps the only way to guarantee the freedom to use the network the way we want to is to own the network ourselves. "
This has been used historically both for municipal ownership of public utilities (electric mainly) and for co-operatives.
If you want ownership in the strictest sense a co-operative would be the way to go. See this report as a starter. This PDF article says some interesting stuff about telecomm and cable co-ops.
Find others in you service area who are interested. Organize public meetings. Incorporate. Show up for hearings. The next time the cable contract comes up for renewal, get your city council to consider a cooperative. "Raise less corn and more hell"
COX does not alow home servers of any kind for any price. They have a bunch of M$ fueled shit sitting someplace and they want to charge money for a few megs on it. My "business" plan gave me little more than a fixed IP and difficlut to use email address that had the "@" character in the middle of the user name! Port 80 and 25 are still blocked and the TOS still forbids all "servers".
The point of this is that COX thinks that they can become a monopoly publisher. If it was about bandwith they could rely on their upstream caps. If it was about security they would forbid the use of known insecure software like Outlook MSIE and Windows. It's about control and power. The current publishers will do everything they can to prevent the comming communications revolution. Can you imagine only 4 national "internet broadcasters", paying by the minute for long distance calls, and only five big music lables in the future? I can, it's called DRM and COX is part of it.
The Washington Post claims that Bush wants to avoid legislation on this. I'm pissed about that. With the FBI raiding people's houses to enforce bogus service agreements, the government could not be more involved than it is. Oh yeah, there's always Carnivore. The future is evil. Clinton built it in the 90s, no supprise from a man who loved China and bent backward to please Fidel Castro. Bush is milking it now. That's supprising from a party that used to stand for smaller government.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Static IPs for all, no restrictions at all except don't serve pr0n or Warez from your home server.
The whole company is run by computer enthusiasts. They even have their own game server. How cool is that?
They work with the Telcos for their last mile, so you are limited to what Verizon or SBC can do for you, respectively. I have 768/128, but if you're in SBC territory the base package gives you a little more downstream bandwidth. My speed tests have been running around 735Kbps which is close to the max. When I had DSL previously with Flashcom 384Kbps was all I could get.
DSLExtreme rocks my world. No, I am not employed by them.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
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.
Look, you need to realise that different price points have little to do with "What's most expensive to provide" (beyond obviously covering costs).
It's much more to do with "how much do customers want it enough to pay for it." The stuff which makes broadband useful is obviously more desirable to technically competent customers such as ourselves than a 'faster version of dialup'.
So if I'm the owner of a cable company, I apply simple supply & demand and say "You want the good stuff? Sure you can have it, for a price"
Now I think there's a tier between the bog standard consumer and the business customer who has a net financial gain from their connection - call it the 'clueful consumer' offering. If I were running a cable company, I'd be offering it at a price a bit above the standard consumer offering, which would allow:
By some odd coincidence, that's what my cable provider is offering. Although only the extra bandwidth is part of the premium service rn - I get everything else. The AUP explicitly allows me to run servers:
Which is nice
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
1) Running a password-protected game server, accessible to only 5 people who knew the password
2) Running Windows NT Server
He shut down the game server (there went our Quake Clan..) but refused to change the OS. He never did get TWC to explain to him why he couldn't run the OS of his choice.
I'll tell you what gives. Windows NT Server gives people Code Red. And Nimda. And so on. Sure, maybe this guy was clueful and kept his NT Server patched. If so, it was lame that they cut him off.
But the thing is that not everyone running NT Server IS clueful. Remember how the Net was when Code Red was at its height? It's the lazy-person's way to control things if you just blanket forbid certain OSes from running on your network, but they are within their rights.
If you live in CA or AZ, you might want to check out DSLExtreme...both of your friends "offenses" would have been perfectly OK under the DSLExtreme TOS/AUP.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Comparing ATT NarrowBroadband and Earthlink DSL (which, so far, seems to have very good privacy and acceptable use policies.) there is only a $5.
ATT:$45 Speeds:1.5Mb/128k
Earthlink DSL:$50 Speeds: 384k/128k, 1.5Mb/384k burstable.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Perhaps there should be a down mod for 'unjustified namecalling', or maybe thats just flamebait.
When I did security for the Whitehouse the death threats were a major problem. There is a federal law that says that the secret service have to investigate each and every one.
So if you have someone com to your party and they make a phone call from your phone with a death threat against the President you are in a heck of a lot of deep doo-doo. Even if you do convince the secret service chaps that you are OK the experience is not likely to be plesant.
The same thing pretty much holds for supporting anonymous contact points. It is certainly a risk.
Given that the administration's re-election plan as revealed by Karl Rove is to exploit as much fear of terrorism as possible, having someone make a death threat or announcement of an Al-Qaeda attack via your open access port would be a decidely bad thing. That might not be enough to send you to jail according to the constitution, but only the second ammendment appears to be respected at this point.
So maybe it should not happen that way, but don't discount the probability that it could.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
NAT is a pain in the ass, at least the Linksys 'solutions' that I so often get called in to fix are.
(I hear other manufacturers do not blow quite as much)
I find it much easier just to pay the damn $3 a month, yeesh. Considering what Static IPs USED to be at. . . . $3 a month is darn cheap!
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
On the other hand, the cable situation is totally different, since the cable company has been granted a local monopoly, much like Ma Bell had before the telephone breakup. The cost of this monopoly is total FCC regulation. This isn't suprising, considering that cable technology is more recent than phones. Anyway, the cable companies started offering cable modem service (usually through @Home) back in the mid '90s. The problem was, @Home had a 7-year exclusive contract to be the ISP on each cable company, in exchange for spending the $billions to roll out the networks. There was no way the FCC could regulate internet access (on a regulated cable!) unless they invalidated the @Home contracts in court (not that they wanted to regulate anyway). Well, they didn't have to worry about it because the cable companies fscked up the marketing (they wanted to use internet access as an upsell for more cable TV subscriptions, when what people really wanted was the internet by itself), and @Home went under.
So, the issue facing the FCC is whether or not to regulate internet access over cable. As I said before, they don't want to regulate it. They want the cable companies to pretend there's competition, and "play nice". The problem is, they won't, and the FCC is going to have to step in. Their options aren't pretty:
It gets even more interesting when you consider that the satellite TV companies are starting to offer internet access. Note that, in theory, there is competition in the satellite space, so the FCC doesn't have to regulate. (It's not quite that simple, but that's another story.) So there are companies out there offering bundled TV and internet already, but in a (mostly) unregulated fashion. Of course, the FCC is fscked here too, because the only way they can avoid regulating satellite systems is if they can guarantee competition, and they only way they can do that is by regulating the frequency space!
My solution: if the owners of the medium (phone copper, cable coax, airwaves, etc) have been granted a local monopoly, then all services offered over that medium must be regulated. In other words, regulation based on medium, not service. I'm in favor of option #1.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Burstable T1's run today in my part of town (Phoenix metro) for a unnegotiatable local loop fee of $400/month, plus data fees of somewhere around $700 - $1200 depending on the provider. I know I'm misconstruing your statement, but as I understand it, Cox.net has an OC-12 coming in to what I assume is the entire Phoenix metro area (3 million people) A pricing structure that would allow for profitability and burstability up to T1 speeds and beyond and the ability to run servers would be only somewhat more cost-effective than an actual dedicated circuit
I'm not saying you have to offer T1 speeds, but the burstable T1 pricing structure. Joe web surfer doesn't need 786kbps. They should have 256kbps with bursts up to 1.5mbps. Also, the majority of the price of a burstable T1 is the SLA. If you get a line without a 24 hour service contract and guaranteed uptime you lower your price by 80%. You can get a FULL T1 in any metro area in the US for $699 a month. You just don't have a service level agreement. If a backhoe cuts your line on saturday morning, they're not even going to start working on fixing it until Monday at the earliest. Your $1500 burstable T1 will be repaired in 12 hours or less.
Furthemore, it is almost trivial to set up a system where savvy users can enable services that are disabled by default to protect the clueless. My ISP has one. It probably took one guy two days to set it up. This facility has to exist in order to spawn new uses for the internet, and create demand for the broadband service. These providers are digging their own grave by blocking access to everybody. The internet as it is right now is not worth $50 a month to most people, and unless creative programmers have access, there won't be new applications developed to make the $50 tab more worthwhile.
This was discussed on the nycwireless list so I'm not gonna go into it but basically the cable companies lobbied not to have internet service included in the definition of cable so they wouldn't be under same restrictions selling internet service as they are under cable. With cable they are subject to regulation which often has must serve provisions.
Also the $50,000 quoted in the letter is only for reselling the cable television service. The fine for non-commercial cable tv service sharing ranges from $100 to $1000. However they may go after the fees they could have charged your neighbor in a civil suit.
Thankfully in New York there are plenty of DSL providers, and some such as AceDSL and Bway.net explicitly encourage wireless sharing. Others will sell you a business line for $60/mo so there is no good reason to use a Cable modem.
But if you're living somewhere a bit less rural then there's already a phone company and a cable company in place and they already have the local franchise and right of way wrapped up and plenty of money to buy local politicians with, so your chances of getting approval from your local municipality to go into business in competition with them are probably pretty slim.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
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
Yeah. It sounded reasonable, except for the obvious heavy lawyer tone.
But, man, the letter sure looked fake. The guy says it is the actual letter; but the text and letter head graphics are too perfectly aligned (on crinkled paper, no less) to be a real scan.
So basically TW is admitting that their security is so poor that they let someone else exploit his account?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
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.
We, as the informed users, need to get the word out. The cable companies are doing a great job convincing the policy makers that there really is competion.
Question - are they blocking HTTP or are they blocking port 80?
If they're just blocking port 80 - run it on a different port. Same for FTP/SSH/Telnet/etc... I'm betting most of them just block by port and don't use anything sophisticated enough to block protocols regardless of what port they run on.
This is why I am glad to have DSL. I'm pissed is ADSL when it used to be symmetrical (damn @link) but it's better than cable and I can run what I want.
I don't have a solution, but I certainly admire the problem.
I think a higher level post had it right - it depends on where you live.
/29 for $75/month.
Where I live, there are no restrictions on bandwidth at all on cable. There are also, conversely, no GUARANTEES. Which meant that during the school year at 3pm throughput went to hell because all the kids got out of school and starting plugging away. And with only one T1 to Chicago (they've upgraded since) it pretty much killed the entire area.
But they still don't offer bandwidth guarantees, NOT EVEN TO BUSINESS CLASS. I've looked into it. It isn't worth $200/month for no guarantee on my bandwidth and 5 IPs.
I tried cable. For a week. It sucked. The DHCP server dropped at least once a day and was down for hours each time.
I've never had my (now) SBC DSL (768/128 up) with a
I'll keep my DSL and TWC can screw itself.
I don't have a solution, but I certainly admire the problem.
I have SSH and IMAPS ports open, so I can use both remotely. I sort of go by the original Terms Of Service from when I signed up. They said I may not run a server for the use of others. Well, I'm running servers for my own use. They have recently ammended the TOS to disallow ALL servers, but IMHO that's a bunch of crock concocted by managers who don't understand TCP/IP at all. After all, how can you do IRC without IDENT? What about the fact that strict DHCP requires that you respond to pings (acting like a server, here) by the DHCP server.
I also see that they fear that Joe 6-pack couldn't properly configure and run a server, and keep it safe. My remote access is only from a few IP ranges, and is tightened to that with firewall, tcp-wrappers, and every other way I can manage.
I understand the reason behind the TOS, and in my opinion am living by the spirit of the rules, no matter how much I might like to do a bit more.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The Cynical Hedgehog spake:
...And jerdenn argued:
They forced Bell to open their networks to CLECs. This isn't all that different
Actually, that statement is only partially correct. The FCC decision you are speaking of has been reversed in a recent court decision, and is expected to be brought more So, while the FCC did force the baby bells to "open" the networks to the CLECs, you'll be seeing them closed back up again soon.
-jerdenn
It also means that the organization running the proxy can filter based on URL. And, specifically, can filter out Code Red and its descendants completely. This is just a red herring caused by too many MSCEs in ISPs.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
I'm betting most of them just block by port and don't use anything sophisticated enough to block protocols regardless of what port they run on.
Well, Roadrunner appears to block *all* incoming connections as far as I can tell.
I'm out of town on business, and I can't even ping my gateway let alone ssh. Traceroute stops resolving at least 2 hops short of it.
It's possible I'm being a retard, so if you think so, let me know what to try.
I have a cable modem through 21st Century (RCN).
... in a word, they suck.
They use DHCP and non-static IPs, have server restrictions, BUT they have an excellent USENET news server. The cost is $10/month (the Condo Association got a deal on net access, included in the cable service) for the modem rental.
I also have Sprint Business DSL for $160/month, which gives me 6 usable static IPs, 7.8 Mbit download (I'm not too far from the DSLAM and I have good wire) and 847 kbit upload, no caps on how much data I can push through that, no limits on servers, VPNs or whatever. However, in contrast to RCN, Sprint's USENET servers require login and password accounts, are slow, don't carry all the newsgroups I want
I'd much rather pay $10/month than $160/month, but the FREEDOM I get with the business service to do whatever I want without hassle is worth it. Now I creatively route my USENE traffic through the RCN network (those Dr. Who episodes take up a chunk of bandwidth) and it doesn't affect my DSL speeds at all, through which everything else goes.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Must be a local policy.
I have RR in San Diego. Is that where you are?
right... here in Austin, most of the DSL ISP/resellers have gone out of business because SWBell charged an arm and a leg to them for their service. BUT interestingly, _not_ DirecTV. Which makes me think that SWBell is giving them a deal so they can together compete with Time Warner (satellite + phone + DSL vs. cable + cablemodem).
???
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
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.
Well, if they're using public right of ways and monopoly contracts granted by government, they can't really complain if the government demands something back for their setting them up in business, can they?
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
Lucky you. I used to think that was decent until I moved to New York and got cable here - 10Mbps for ~ $25 per month. :-)
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
And if they configured their routers and/or subscriber management system correctly it wouldn't be an issue.
"Correctly" in this case means to evenly divide the inbound bandwidth among all destination IP addresses with inbound traffic, and similarly with outbound traffic bandwidth from each IP address, both on a moment-by-moment (i.e. queue length) basis.
When the other users are using their bandwidth you only get your fair share.
When the other users AREN'T using their bandwidth, WHO CARES if you use it?
(You can even do it intelligently and drop TCP established-link packets preferentially, throttling TCP links while still allowing establishment of more and passage of non-TCP protocols, at least until there's so much non-established-TCP traffic for the address that it must also be throttled.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
True, but layering bad rule on top of bad rules seems a sure way to choke progress and service. Still, it's funny how many (i.e., all) company owners cry "laize faire!" while enjoying special protection from liability.
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
So are you agreeing with me, disagreeing, or were you actually trying to reply to the parent of my reply?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Good for your convenience. We're not all the same, and not all of us can stand small intervals of time. Some of us actually have attention spans.
Ouch! Touche! Good one Einstein.
I'm not talking economics, I'm talking philosphy, and being whismical at that. If you didn't pick that up, perhaps you should be the one going back to grade school.
Sure.
It's only their fault they've gone backrupt and haven't managed their service properly. It's only their fault their network was a piece of shite after they severly oversubscribed and undermanaged it.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense: They went bankrupt because they oversubscribed it. Oh, wait, simple logic says that that would be more cost effective and would actually make more money...bzzttttt...logic sensors exploding. Obviously they undercharged for the bandwidth and services that they provided, usually on the premise that once they got settled they could raise prices or create partnerships that would offset the losses. Again, if you think you have such a genius comprehension of the cost of bandwidth and connectivity, I'm sure there'll be lots of people who'll be happy to sign up for your always super fast, no limits $20/month system. Oh wait, that should be free.
Now, let me get this straight. You're saying that not only are they already losing money as it is, raising prices to keep in business, they are a bullshit cable company...now let's introduce true competition. Prices go down farther, they lose more money, and how do they stay in business then?
(I'm skipping the fantasy quote where you either put words in my mouth, or are errantly replying to a whole different post). Firstly, idealists such as yourself don't care about "real competition" : You want to see AT&T and TW be forced to hand over billions of dollars of infrastructure so that someone else can provide magical bandwidth for free. Barring that, your competitor will have to run cable to everyone's home, and I don't see that happening anytime soon. However, competition doesn't equal "same technology same method" : In my area right now I can get DSL, cable, high speed two way radio, satellite (including the uplink now), along with dial-up. Strangely, the prices all seem to fall in line, and none of them has a magical way of offering guaranteed round-the-clock DS1 speeds for $40/month.
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.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Just out of curiousity, what feder and state laws would you be violating?
Well, shit. You had to ask. I didn't include a link in my original post because I couldn't find it straight away. Now that you've made me search for it I find I can't find it! Damn!
I ran across it some time ago researching a predicament of my own. Now I've got to go searching again to find it.
I do clearly recall, though, that if you accuse someone of a felony offense without just cause you have committed a felony offense yourself.
If you really need to know I would suggest contacting a lawyer.
satire, n: 1) witty language used to convey insults or scorn; 2) a form of humor lost on most slashdot moderators.
So basically TW is admitting that their security is so poor that they let someone else exploit his account?
More likely they're referring to anyone living with the person receiving that email. After all, if you have broadband and live with someone else, that broadband access is usually shared, yes?
And as soon as big business (cable companies, etc) decide you're providing them with some actual competition over those unlicensed frequencies look for them to start buying politicians and FCC commissioners to take those frequencies away from you.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
While it is true that access providers oversell their services based on a formula that depends on normal usage habits, the problem is that that kind of service is not what they advertise. They advertise continuous connections and highspeeds, with no disclaimer that that does not mean highspeed continuous connection. They should either revise their advertising, or their terms of service to reflect what they are really selling.
As a side note, the justification for restricting usage by saying that providers oversell their services is really sort of off base. If enough people are 'overusing' the service that service degrades, that should indicate that the formula they use to calculate the amount by which they can oversell is in need of adjustment. If they do so and discover they can't oversell as much and are unable to break even on service costs and revenue, then they need to adjust their pricing in accordance with what they find.