Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
Many cable companies seem to think that trying to restrict their users from wireless solutions is a good idea, but AT&T seems to have the right approach.
i p.asp
http://www.attbroadband.com/homenetworking
redirects to
http://www.computers4sure.com/linksys/store/att_z
If you drop in your zip code you will see that AT&T not only doesn't deny you wireless but in fact offers a one-stop-shopping for wireless products from Linksys.
So, while this specific article is about sharing your wifi with people that don't live in your apartment/home/discarded fridge box, I have to wonder if AT&T will even care about such sharing. They're pushing wifi as a solution, so they have to expect this sort of thing to happen...
In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
The basic problem here is that some people feel the need to "bring it to the masses" - for whatever reason. I see a couple of solutions:
1. Turn off the service on these thieves.
2. Acknowledge the fact that this is happening and place a cap of some sort on their monthly transfers or bandwidth.
3. Acknowledge the fact that this is happening and charge them for usage accordingly.
4. Acknowledge this is happening and set up a public information infrastructure, where the cost would be shared by businesses, providers AND taxpayers. This is akin to setting up public streetlamps, wastebaskets, water fountains, etc. The public has shown an interest in this type of thing, so it's alternately good business and good public policy - something you don't see too much of.
PERSONALLY - I prefer the fourth option.....
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.
Mine says I "may not connect more than 5 computers at a single location" and that I can't "resell the Service or any portion thereof," but it doesn't say anything about giving it away for free (assuming fewer than 5 computers at a time are connected).
Telocity is great. I have nothing bad to say about them.
Cable companies don't have the resources to go hunt down casual sharers ("casual" being defined as up to at least 17 college students in a house - I set up an IP Masq server for a bunch of friends, and that's the # of users there - TW never cared, and never went after ANY of the 329820442234 apartments using it.
In fact, despite the contract saying it was verboten, TW employees would hang out on the Linux support forums and sometimes even give unofficial IP Masq advice. (This was the Ithaca, NY area)
The difference in this situation is - The users that got "the letter" advertised on the nycwireless site that they were running an open AP, saying, "Hey everyone, feel free to use my cable modem."
If it's for yourself and your friends, they don't care. If you're providing unmonitored open access to strangers, that's a different story.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
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.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
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.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Do you think you should be able to bring some friends to share your plate to an all you can eat restaurant? Or that you should be able to take home as much leftovers that you can carry?
OK all you free market weenies you weren't even born when Ma Bell made you pay for every phone extention in your own house. They metered the voltage on the line and if they detected a drop the operator broke into your call and told you you were breaking the law and needed to pay for the extra extensions.
Is that the hill you want to die on?
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.
Cable Subscriber: What the fuck is their complaint?
Cable Exec: Well...see...we did some math and figured that we could sell cable internet services for $n per month and make a profit doing so. Our original calculations were based on assumptions about average customer usage. To make a long story short: we fucked up. It turns out there are people using WAY more bandwidth than we ever bargained for...and we find our profits unsatisfactory. So, we are rectifying our prior mistake. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere...
Your mention of securing machines brings up a very good point relative to this. You can expect that, as wireless products get easier to work with (right now the stats on ease of use with Wi-Fi are appalling), they will be showing up in more homes. How many of these folks will have clue one about how to set these networks up to prevent roaming access? How many will really care?
In the end the providers will try to prvent this excess usage from happening, but they can hardly take on all of the people who simply forget to lock down their networks. They'll take on those who advertise, but then with the growing volume of wireless networks, will people really need to be advertising? You'll just go to wherever you want, whip out your roaming software, and be on-line. If anything your problems getting connected will likely be tied more to interference than lack of open networks.
Overall I'd expect that there will be a slight increase in overall network usage because of this extra roaming and this will end up causing a slight increase in prices and a balance will be achieved. The providers will go after egregious abusers and the rest of us will happily roam without them ever noticing.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Most traffic patterns are very bursty, somewhat less so, if you aggregate foerign "freebee" Wifi traffic with your own (and that's generally the problem, because the traffic models break). There are times when I'd want to suck data flat out for a short period of time (downloading the latest GNU/Linux distro, for example), and I'll be damned if I have to suck that data through a bandwidth-capping straw. I like my 768kb/s downstream DSL speed for that, thankyouverymuch.
Of course, the US$80 a month I pay (includes $15 for a dedicated pair 'cuase I'm too far from the DSLAM to ride on top of POTS) is nowhere near what it costs to deploy 3/4 of a T1 line, so using that bandwidth flat out is out of the question. The presumption is that, over the course of a month, use will average out, despite the bursty nature.
Now, compare that to a modem capped at, oh, 128 kb/s. Flat out that's 41-1/2 gigabytes over the course of a month. A recent check of the past 6-1/2 days traffic into my home LAN via the firewall showed 149 MB. This works out to 269 bytes per second, about 700 MB over the course of a month. I haven't downloaded any new distros lately, so lets add, oh, 1.5 Gig to that (multiple CDs, restarted downloads, etc.) That adds up to 2.2 GB/month or 6784 b/s, sustained. My use is probably on the heavy side.
The point is that 6.8 kb/s is a far cry from a 128 kb/s rate cap. So, such a rate cap would be (a) crippling for the occasional massive download, and (b) still too high if the traffic were anywhere near steady, as if it were shared. About the only thing the 128 kb/s rate cap does is even out use of a shared medium. Load balancing during peak use times would be better, and is generally used on DSL connections (because of the centralized nature of aggregation), but would require dynamic control of upstream traffic from distributed cable modems in a cable environment, with it's own overhead issues (though TCP could be rate-limited by delaying packet ACKs, the "interesting" traffic is not TCP).
The only solutions this leaves us with are either (a) pitifully crippling rate caps, (b) metered access, or (c) a certain amount of "free" traffic, followed by metered access to the rest. Option (d), "use all you want until we tell you its a problem", while currently common is crude and fraught with difficulty and misunderstanding.
Now, with a more intelligent network, and local traffic rate capping, shaping, and balancing, interesting possibilities abound: why not permit open access during off-peak times, when there is a light load? To some extent, this needs to be saved to average out heavy use later, but there's no rule that says this has to be 100%, as it is now. Off-peak discounts for bandwidth become possible. Maybe I know I won't be downloading a new distro this month, and my use will be below normal. Maybe next month, my neighbor's will be below normal. Maybe between us (and others), we can offer that excess for free. How much should be under our individual control, but one can see an opportunity to smooth out a neighborhood's overall traffic use by dumping occasional "excess" for free access -- without going to the trouble to secure a dedicated fat pipe, setting up a company to manage it, etc.
This does require technical improvements (local traffic shaping and load-balancing, with shared ISP/user control -- imagine an "ISP meter" like an electric meter, but not as draconian as current attempts at this sort of thing that completely lock out the user), as well as looking at a user's average traffic pattern as averaged over their use over time more than over the sumultaneous use by other users (so, you don't balance you're low use as much against your neighbor's high use, but rather your higher use in the past or the future). This creates the opportunity for "credits" for unused bandwidth to carry from month to month, with some fraction "lost" if not used (you can't carry them forever -- the ISP would have to carry the credit on it's books as earned but unpaid in your favour). Given a "use it or lose it" scenario, sharing of unused bandwidth should naturally happen.
You could've hired me.
If cable ISPs were all-you-can-eat restaurants:
"Thanks for your money, gentlemen! Here's you go, one plate each. Yes, we know that the plates are the size of a saucer even though our commercials say they're the size of a manhole cover. Now please, overlook that and go help yourself to anything. Oh, except, the sundae bar you heard is in places like this is off-limits to you. And you can't have the fried chicken wings, and you can forget about those bacon bits that you see in the salad bar, those are off limits to you, too. And if you gentlemen want to discuss business over your meal, you have to pay us more money."
"Excuse me, sir, what do you mean, 'Then what did I come here and pay good money for?' You can always sit at your table, sip a glass of water, have a slice of bread, and look at all the nice ads that are on the placemats. We worked very hard to sell that ad space so you customers wouldn't have to look a plain, blank placemats!"
"Oh, and please don't stay too long. Even though we say we never close, we sort of frown on people who keep the tables tied up for too long."
~Philly