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.

11 of 394 comments (clear)

  1. AT&T offers wireless options - will they restr by cetan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    http://www.attbroadband.com/homenetworking
    redirects to
    http://www.computers4sure.com/linksys/store/att_zi p.asp

    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!
  2. So it's right to steal resources? Some Solutions.. by RobertAG · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.....

  3. It's all because of a poorly conceived contract. by fmaxwell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. What's the agreement say? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  5. Re:I agree with them by warpSpeed · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    I own a small ISP too, and my clients pay by the sip. They get a "cheap" T1 access, but they have to limit the usage of it, or pay more. It is that simple.

    The idea of crazy fast bandwidth for a cheap low monthly rate is good, but ripe for abuse.

    Bandwidth costs money, plain and simple. To account for consumption you need to charge by the byte, that way a fair price is paid by all, and there are no free loaders.

    Ultimately it is the only fair way of paying for bandwidth consumption.

  6. Depends on what it's used for. by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?
  7. Re:Why do they care? by Gleef · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  8. Re:I agree with them by oyenstikker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Great. Just make it known thats what the policy is.

    Don't adversite Always On, Always Fast, Unlimited Internet and then provide Usually On, Only Fast from 1am to 8am and 5pm to 7pm, Limted No mta/sshd/ftpd/vncserver Internet. (Yes, I'm talking to you RoadRunner.)

    --
    The masses are the crack whores of religion.
  9. Litmus test by Gorimek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  10. Re:I'm paying. It's MY connection and I'M PAYING. by killmenow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

  11. Bad analogy by phillymjs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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