Slashdot Mirror
Always-On Internet For Cheapskates?
chuck writes "I like my broadband Internet access because of its always-on nature, but my usage doesn't really justify paying $40-$50 each month for hundreds of kb/s when all I really do is read and write email sporadically, light web browsing and IM. Are there any options for cheapskates like me to pay less for lower bandwidth (modem speeds would be fine) but still have an always-on connection for cheaper than cable or DSL? I have a $5/mo ISP that I use when I'm out and about, and my 2.5G wireless phone can give me internet access on a shoestring (with free evenings and weekends) but neither of those has that always-on quality. Any ideas?"
Or atleast co-oping with some neighbors to save money.
Make sure everybody calls your cell and use your land line for internet. I did that for about two years before DSL was available in my area.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
Except that a 2nd phone line+dialup costs the same as broadband, so you might as well get the broadband.
But then you're sucking up the cost of the phone line PLUS the dial up account. That would cost at least as much as cheap DSL.
You could try a single ISDN(56k), though it might be more expensive than broadband anyway.
Or better yet, work out something where you split the cost/month, and piggyback with some security.
Be happy with what you have. I just moved to Lebanon, waited 6 months for a "high speed" connection. That's 30KB/s downloads and 12KB/s upload for a whopping $120USD/mo. I'd take your connection and prices anyday. Funny thing is, this is $200USD/mo. cheaper than the dialup since you pay/min. here. haha...
A computer is only as smart as the person sitting infront of it.
I dunno if it's illegal exactly ... ISPs aren't part of law enforcement (yet.) But I'm sure it's against the TOS of most providers.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
From having had numerous friends and family members bemoan that "I just don't use the Internet that much!" as justification for not getting DSL/cable, in 100% of the cases, they've all had worlds open up when they saw how painless things became once their access was so dramatically faster. (Waiting several seconds for a single page like Yahoo! to download gets tedious quickly.)
Their faster access meant more Internet usage (now they're paying bills online, banking, and shopping for instance), which in turn meant they "needed" the higher speed conenction.
Very quickly, they realize how much more than just faster speed, the faster speed meant.
Running 'Nix is like owning a Lightsaber. It's "a more elegant weapon for a more civilized time."
Speakeasy.net will allow you to sublet your DSL connection (not sure of any other providers that officially support this). You might look into just making back some of your cost by subleting out connections to a few neighbors over wireless. Offer a wireless connection and maybe a few other services and price according to how many subscribers you have (maybe divide the cost of the connection evenly?)
I have a friend who does this, and has had some pretty good luck. Biggest thing to watch out for if you do that is to have some sort of document outlining what exactly you offer (especially that you have no uptime garuntee, and what, if any, tech support you offer, and when).
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
(IANAL)
I would presume it is prosecutable under the same laws they would use against cable signal theft.
Under those laws they only need to show that you are wired up in such a way to enable "signal theft" and then it is up to you to prove that you were not "stealing" their signal.
Coding Blog
Take that fucking wire down before you blow out your gear, his gear, and start a fire in one or both houses. That is so fucking stupid I can't even begin to express myself. Check this out, bitch: never ever use ethernet on two systems that don't share a common ground. FUCK, did you ever think there was a REASON why electricians need to be LICENSED?
Offer to secure your neighbor's wireless network for him if he'll let you piggyback, since your bandwidth needs are minimal.
I dunno if it's illegal exactly ... ISPs aren't part of law enforcement (yet.) But I'm sure it's against the TOS of most providers.
That is a good question whether it would fall in the same catagory as theft of service. If we're talking cableTV, and you run a cable from your house to another it would be considered theft of service.
Key difference with WiFi is you are not actually running a physical wire, and WiFi is often offered directly from the ISP. Having one in it self isn't illegal like running a rogue wire. You can't see it, or photograph it. I have yet to see a case where someone gets taken to court over sharing beyond their property.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Why not get VOIP and get rid of your phone instead, you'll save enough money on phone bills to justify the broadband connection. Also host your own site if you have one, seems better to find a good use for the bandwidth you have, rther than to get rid if it altogether. M
I have to laugh my ass off at the moderation of this post: How in the world can the very first post in a topic be redundant??? Get a clue, moderator!
They also don't block any ports, so you could run an email server on your own machine if you like.
Does speakeasy give a static ip or lease them out via dhcp?
A *lot* of mail servers reject mail sent from dynamic hosts.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Well, that's irrelevant because he is taking issue with theft of service from the isp not one's neighbors.
But really, calm down, GP. The theft of a car, even if returned is significantly different from sharing an internet connection with one's neighbors. Yes they may both have the same binary legal status, but the world of ethics is not so simple. I don't think it's unethical to share with your neighbor, i think it's smart. Most people pay for more than what they need in broadband, really only needing the throughput for a few seconds when browsing pages, and the mentioned always-on convenience. Normal subscribers are subsidizing for those who may use the whole connection downloading stuff, etc. So why is it so wrong to share out the internet connection, reducing the cost to a more fair level?
because i say so, biatch.
I bought DSL for some friends as a present for a year for $25 per month from Sonic.net. From what my friends have told me they have been very happy with the service. If you look somewhere like DSLReports.com you might find that DSL in your area costs less than you think.
www.clarke.ca