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.
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.
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
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).
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
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
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.
...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.
So why can't I run a server without a "business" package, even though my upstream is capped? Wasn't the whole point of an upstream cap to *discourage* people from running servers while not banning it altogether?
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
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.
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.
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 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?
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
Create an IPTABLES rule like...
iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -s x.x.x.x/32 -dport 22 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -dport 22 -j reject-with tcp-reset
They can scan for you all they want. Just sub -s with your CIDR of choice where you want to come with, and anyone else trying to connect to port 22 gets connection reset, making it look like nothing is listening on the port.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.