EFF Lists Wi-Fi-Friendly ISPs

trifster writes "It appears that *some* ISPs encourage Wi-Fi hotspots from users connections. Cnet News.com has the article here." The list itself is on the EFF's site. Most of the ISPs with policies against wireless NATing seem to turn a blind eye to it most of the time anyhow, though.

Comments

Encouragement

[lennart78]

My provider offers DSL modems with wireless interface. They won't be bothered too much about it.

As long as nobody is spamming or cracking through it of course...

What we need...

[zerosignal]

...is a site where people have/want broadband access and a wireless card can register to find other people in their area to share access with (by post/zip code).

A reason for big mobile-phone companies to sue ?

[TrackerChamp]

It is indeed good news that some ISPs apparently accept reality (since they can't detect NAT on their nodes anyhow).

However - especially here in Europe - many big Telecom companies have paid a huge amount of money (several US-billon $) to the governments to get a UMTS license because they thought it to be the only way of getting mobile Internet access.

Now, when these ISPs actually do not prevent their customers from using their node as a WLAN access point for everybody, these ISPs could quickly become a target of the major telecom companies' law departments. For them, it is much easier to sue ISPs than single "abusers".

And I think, regarding the momentary state of the economy and the possible mis-investment in the UMTS market, this is more than likely to happen.

What do the others think?

A chance for ISPs to differentiate

[aegilops]

As the differentiators between ISPs boil down to access speed, reliability, price and location, assuming you have a reasonable enough ISP for a reasonable price, there's little to encourage you to move to the competition.

Promoting 802.11b hotspots and general connection sharing skews the usage up beyond statistical averages for a single user, but it DOES get more customers - in terms of new connections, or swings from competitors, as well as building community rapport. After all, no one likes being EULA-ed out of getting the best value for money.

I'd be interested in comments from those that have set up a communal wireless area where the connection is priced per byte, rather than a flat rate, where EULAs prevent this sort of thing from maxing out the line.

Aegilops

This should not be allowed..

[tanveer1979]

"Should we allow it? Why not?" Goldinstein said Tuesday.

Certainly not. It is becoming fashinable to link everything about sharing as legitimate. To some extent it is alright, but when people want to interperet freedom as free beer thats when the things go wrong

Moreover if Wi-Fi access is shared, going by the inherent nature of 802.11m you dont really have control over the person who give it to sharing it with other. So you may have exponential growth! This is what the article also warns about.

In reality it is difficult to keep control, so its better to let wireless access inside same home, allowing it would open up a hornets net, and unless the security issued with WiFi are resolved, its better no to open the can

I think that Speakeasy's CEO sums it up best

[blues5150]

quoted from the article... "Speakeasy's CEO has gone on the record in support of broadband sharing via wireless, basically saying 'you pay us for the bits you use and are welcome to do whatever you like with them."

Generally not an issue

[AriesGeek]

In general, it's not that big of a deal.... A friend of mine works at an ISP, and he claims that only a small percentage of people are truly doing this, at least that they can find out. Most people who have wireless in their homes are doing it so they can sit out back by the pool with their laptop while they look at pr0n.

Just my dos centavos.

Re:A reason for big mobile-phone companies to sue

[GigsVT]

I think it is possible to detect NAT by looking at sequence numbers on the packets going out.

That is probably more advanced than most ISPs can handle (or want to handle) though.

Re:A reason for big mobile-phone companies to sue

[lfourrier]

the main problem in Europe is not the ISP, it is the legislation mandating conservation of connection informations. I will not share my wifi access because I'm liable for what anonymous guy do on the net using my access.

ISP' who don't allow WiFi cheat customers

[dh003i]

For ANY broadband connection, your paying for unlimited 24/7 time at a pretty high bandwidth (100-200KB/s). They sell you unlimited access, and that's what they should expect you to do.

All four of these options on how to use one's unlimited access are essentially the same, and users should have the right to do any of them:

1. Stay online 24/7. This may be done by avid file-sharers and/or downloaders. Some Linux people might want to download the latest ISO for every different distro.

2. Though not using the connection 24/7 one's self, allowing other's in one's house-hold to use it when one isn't. If different people work different shifts, this is essentially 24/7 usage.

3. Allow any of your neighbors to come in your home at any time and use your internet connection. Again, essentially the same as 24/7.

4. Set up a WiFi network. Same as #3, but avoids security issues such as one's computer being stolen.

ISP's are selling you unlimited bandwidth, and they should expect you to use it. They advertise 24/7 then whine when people actually do use their connection 24/7. Waaah.

Re:Bad analogy

[Raetsel]

• "Electricity is metered. Broadband is not (yet)."

I must disagree. I will try to do so as respectfully as possible.

1. When I signed up for 768/128 ADSL, the agreement specifically stated "unmetered transfers." While I was specifically prohibited from reselling the service, I could (and did!) give away access. (I only noticed one other person use my wireless -- perhaps there were more, but I only actually "saw" one.)

2. Verizon (who was NOT my ISP) certainly didn't give a hoot about how much data crossed the physical line.

   Now, about that "metered" part...

3. The amount of data that can be pulled through a 768-Kbit DSL line is finite. If your ISP charges you what it will cost them to route that much data, you aren't likely to hear complaints if you fill your pipe. (Though JWZ did, and he was using Covad at the time.) Worst case in my situation -- 31-day month with 100% usage 24/7 -- works out to ~280 Gigabytes in a month. MAX. In a conversation with one of the Blarg techs, I learned it costs ~$110/month to route 1 Mbit/sec through a Tier-1 US backbone. That's not including physical circuit fees.

4. The electricity argument is valid beyond the metering issue as well -- circuits (and transformers) have limits. If you provide one 15-amp circuit there is no danger of someone running their whole house off it, or setting up an electric-arc smelting operation (well, one of any size, anyway...) A flat-rate charge based on (120v X 15A)/1000 X 744 (hours in a 31-day month) X $0.10 (cost per KW/hour) means $134 will completely cover unmetered use of that 15-amp circuit.

Unfortunately, I had to move. Where I live now is not DSL capable, otherwise I'd still be using Blarg. The cable modem provider doesn't care about NAT (or servers to a limited extent), but they don't want "free internet" out there "on their dime."

Rather interesting, really... it seems the DSL providers have a more enlightened view of this issue than the cable providers. It shows the difference in culture and levels of greed. Also, my cable provider charges $15/GB for every GB (or fraction) over 10 GB/month. If I wanted to move as much data over cable as I could have on my DSL, my monthly cable bill would be ~$4100!!

Perhaps prices need to rise somewhat for "free wireless" to be ignored by all ISPs, but unlimited internet access is most definitly feasible.

Re:A reason for big mobile-phone companies to sue

[dragonfly_blue]

There are a variety of techniques that make it possible to detect NAT usage, and it looks like certain ISPs (namely Comcast) even have entire departments dedicated to doing just that.

The nature of sharing...

[wowbagger]

Likening sharing of bandwidth to either sharing of cable TV or to sharing of electricity is inaccurate.

Consider sharing Cable TV. Once the wire hits my house, it is easy for me to share with my neighbor - I simply put a distribution amp in the line, and he now has signal. There is no additional drain on the cable TV's resources and no (technological) way the cable company can restrict this. As a result, my neighbor has no reason to buy cable, and I have just cost the cable company a customer. In the limit, the cable company has one customer who shares with the rest of the town, and the cable company goes broke.

Now, sharing electricity. The electric company charges by the kW/hr, and aside from a relatively small non-usage related service fee the more joules I use the more I pay. If I run a line over to my neighbor, the electric company WILL make more money since my bill goes up. Thus, from a purely profit driven standpoint they lose nothing by this.

Now, consider Internet connectivity. Few ISPs really charge you based on usage - I have a 384kbps DSL connection, but my ISP probably doesn't plan on me using 100% of that all the time. As such, if I give extra capacity to my neighbor, my neighbor loses any incentive to purchase a connection of his own, and the ISP loses money. Additionally, unlike cable TV, I am increasing the load on my ISP, so the arguement "But I'm not HURTING anybody" really doesn't wash - I am sucking down more bandwidth and loading their system down. But unlike the electric company, it is harder for the ISP to charge on a resources-used basis.

Now, some ISPs actually DO plan on you using 100% of your allotted bandwidth - this is usually the case for business-grade SLAs like those on T-1 type connections. In such a case, you are back to the idea of "You bought it, it's yours" - share all you want, we make money no matter what. In such cases, the ISP is not likely to care about sharing.

In the normal case, however, the ISP is very much going to care, and sharing will be forbidden.

Then, you have the weird cases where the ISP actively promotes wireless sharing because they sell that service too.