Cable Companies Saying No to WiFi Sharing

blastedtokyo writes: "According to this story from CNet, Time Warner Cable is going after people who share their wireless connections via NYC Wireless or other public share networks. All we need is a warchalking symbol that conveys 'I'm a lawyer who doesn't have time to figure out how to set up a WEP link.'" This might remind you of a story posted the other day about other ways cable ISPs are trying to lock down their networks.

Comments

I agree with them

[FluidicSpace]

I own a small ISP, so I fully agree that it's within ISPs rights to limit the connection to only those who purchase it for consumer grade services. If you're a business or reseller customer, you can purchase a T1 or higher cost/bandwidth circuit and do whatever you want with it. If a ~$50/month residential user ends up giving his access to the whole neighboorhood, there won't be any money to run the services. We all know free Internet doesn't work. So suck it up and pay for your own service so you can have reliable and decent service from your providers.

Re:I agree with them

[Quixadhal]

As the owner of an ISP, you should know that you should not and cannot know or care WHAT your customers do with the bandwidth you sell them. If you can't control the amount of bandwidth they use via limits on incoming and outgoing packets, then you are in the wrong line of work. If you're selling them 2Mbps with the assumption that they'll only use 256Kbps, then you need a higher-level throttle too (or you need to raise your rates).

Sorry, I don't buy your argument. You aren't selling me a license, you're selling me a service to route N packets from my access point to the outside world. You have no right to ask where they go once they're inside my LAN.

It's all because of a poorly conceived contract.

[fmaxwell]

This kind of stupidity, along with the crackdown on "bandwidth hogs", is all due to the shortsightedness of those creating the subscriber contracts and AUPs. If the ISPs would simply provide clear policy on bandwidth usage and set something that both their customers and they could live with, this kind of witch hunt would be unnecessary. We have cable modem providers banning servers regardless of whether they are public or private (for the subscriber's use only). They are banning 802.11 because they think it might cause a bandwidth problem. They block ports for applications ranging from web servers to P2P networks.

If there is a usage limit, spell it out. If you want more money for more usage, publish a price schedule. But quit targeting early adopters who are just using their connections in new and innovative ways.

Re:Why do they care?

[FreeUser]

We're paying them for our connection. Why do they care what we do with it after that?

Because their efforts to pigeonhole human beings into predictable consumers who do only what they anticipate, and nothing creative, is failing, and with it quite possibly their flawed business models.

These are the same people who misguidedly think that bandwidth is something that can be "stolen" (never mind the dictionary definition of the word) and would probably accuse you of "stealing" temperature if you went to a shopping mall to enjoy the warm air (in winter) or air conditioning (in summer) without buying anything.

The fact that you can't steal temperature, any more than you can steal bandwidth, doesn't seem to bother the purveyors of such newspeak in the least, and such nuances as the fact that you might be guilty of loitering (in the shopping mall example), or of violating the terms of your service contract (with your ISP), but not stealing, seems to be completely lost on such people.

One can only hope the FBI, who in many such instances have become judge, jury, and executioner (or at least "fine levyer" in the form of stolen, or seized, equipment) eventually catches on to this and starts putting their resources into fighting real crimes, rather than one-sidedly settling contract disputes extra-judicially.

In the meantime, expect "theft" to become an even more abused word than "terrorism," if it hasn't already.

Re:Why do they care?

[Gleef]

NetJunkie writes:

Because they base their pricing on "average use". You giving away your connection is not "average use"

So? The whole point of an average is that some people use more and some less. If three machines are using my connection, then I am using more than "average use", but that in and of itself doesn't give them the right to retaliate.

and you against your contract.

Not necessarily, that depends on the contract. My contract explicitly allows me three connections. If I'm within that limit, they should not care; if I go over it, I expect them to complain.

Other people with other providers have other contracts. Some of them might have contracts that say basically, "here's a connection, do whatever you want with it".

The issue is whether or not the usage is within the terms of the contract, not whether or not it's "average use"; and you don't know the terms of the contracts in question. If your service contract specifies that you must not exceed "average use" then I would tell you your contract is fundamentally flawed and you should look for another provider (or renegotiate, if possible).

Want to give away your connection? Go buy a T-1 with no usage clause like that. What? It costs a lot more? Sure does.

T-1 lines generally come with usage clauses too, and whether or not they restrict sharing or reselling connections or bandwidth depends on your ISP. Also, there are many more (and cheaper) options than a T1 for internet access now, many of which have laxer usage policies than your typical consumer-grade Cable Modem or DSL contract.

Re:Average user

[Jucius Maximus]

"what's the difference between sharing with my two roomates, all of which are bandwidth hogs, or my elderly neighbor who wants to check her email, and cruise around on the net? most people aren't anything like me"

Your roommates names and yours as well are on the lease for the room. You live there and the broadband is a utility that you all use. The old lady is not on the lease and your paying for a utility does not give her the right to use it. That's where you draw the line.

Now someone will respond and say "what if you built a heating duct from your room to the old lady's room and gave her permission to enjoy heating at your expense?"

The difference here is that heating costs in terms of energy and you are paying a fixed amount per kWh or per m^3 of natural gas. This means that the extra heating nessary to heat the old lady's place will increase your bill. On the other hand, WiFi'ing your broadband and giving the old lady access does not increase your bill.

Bandwidth costs money. More bandwidth costs more money. I think that for higher than average users, bandwidth should be paid per quantity used. In this way, it becomes easy to draw the line as to the 'cost' of sharing because no matter how you look at it, bandwidth costs money and more bandwidth costs more money.