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

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?

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."

Re:I think that Speakeasy's CEO sums it up best

[GigsVT]

Yeah, it makes sense. I mean if you ran an extension cord out your door and put a sign out "free electricity", I doubt the power company would have a problem with it at all. They would even happily install a new transformer on the pole for you if you wanted a bigger one so you could use more power.

These ISPs that are tryign to be assholes obviously are operating on broken business plans. Overselling bandiwdth and then harassing your users into not using what you sold them isn't a valid business model.

For the acronym impaired

[Scoria]

In no particular order:

Wi-Fi - IEEE 802.11b compliant products

IEEE - Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

EFF - Electronic Frontier Foundation, an organization dedicated to preserving online rights

NAT - Network Address Translation, typically used to provide Internet address for a local area network while using only one external IP address

ISP - Internet Service Provider, an organization who provides access to the Internet

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.

Blind eyes...

[jmegq]

Most of the ISPs with policies against wireless NATing seem to turn a blind eye to it most of the time anyhow, though.

Timothy, that strikes me as a very irresponsible attitude in matters such as this. Didn't we say that about filesharing a year or two ago? Here at least is a case where we can vote with our patronage to companies that have good policies now, so they'll be around tomorrow when others have stopped turning a blind eye to it.