Comcast Gunning for NAT Users 979
phillymjs writes: "A co-worker of mine resigned today. His new job at Comcast: Hunting down 'abusers' of the service. More specifically, anyone using NAT to connect more than one computer to their cable modem to get Internet access- whether or not you're running servers or violating any other Acceptable Use Policies. Comcast has an entire department dedicated to eradicating NAT users from their network. We knew this was coming since this Slashdot article from two months ago, but did anyone think they'd already be harassing people that are using nothing more than the bandwidth for which they are paying? It makes me very happy that my DSL kit arrived yesterday, and I'll be cancelling my Comcast cable modem early next week." Earthlink and Comcast have both been advertising lately their single-household, multi-computer services (and additional fees) -- probably amusing to many thousands of broadband-router owners, at least until the cable companies really crack down.
Slashdot Got Trolled (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a story, let's not treat it as one. It'll be a story when somebody has copies of a letter explaining that their service was cut off, due to the use of NAT. In the meantime, I can tell you that the firewall on my comcast connection has received no new exploratory packets originating at comcast servers.
Silly (Score:4, Insightful)
And, windows 98/ME does this automatically if you have a windows LAN with one computer connected to the internet, doesnt it?
Huh?
Re:methods (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm curious how the packets might look form say 4 virtual machines running on the same host hardware.
Re:Contains realism - please mod down (Score:2, Insightful)
Dear timothy (Score:1, Insightful)
Once again slashdolt is the shining star disinformation and ignorance. You should all be buggered.
More complicated (Score:3, Insightful)
As a side note, hooking up a cable/dsl router doesn't really qualify as l33tness in my book.
Re:I wish... (Score:2, Insightful)
What I think the residential market should be is a range: You pay $X/month for AT LEAST nKB bandwidth with NO guarantee you'll EVER get more but YOU MAY. Then they CAP the line at n*2KB or something like that.
The problem is: they want to over sell their available bandwidth. They BANK on residential users using LESS than their alotted bandwidth. That way, they can sell you and me the same bandwidth, knowing we're not likely to BOTH be eating up our share 24/7.
Re:Crack down? (Score:3, Insightful)
I usually have about 6-7 different websites loaded at once, some have banner ad's that change, some don't.
2. Port forwarding to computers using different operating systems
I am allowed to have my own internal network, that is not illegal and because I add a machine that uses their service that port forwards for whatever reason; It's my port, I'll do with it as I please. So long as I don't abuse their service in any manner according to their "Abuse Legislation".
3. SMTP headers containing references to domain names used only by the LAN
See response to 2.
I really don't know how comcast plans to do it. I'm not a customer and wont ever become one but I'd really love to hear from comcast how they plan to do this because it would be revolutionary in hacking and spying on internal networks. Does anyone work for comcast?
Re:methods (Score:4, Insightful)
That would be a distinctly stupid thing to do. So, anyone who has a laptop computer and an 802.11b access point that NATs is automatically some kind of AUP-violating scofflaw? I guess those millions of Apple AirPorts already deployed don't matter to them?
Last I looked, Windows comes with "Internet Connection Sharing" and a control panel to turn it on with one button click. Linux requires daunting knowledge of IP networking and the iptables tools.
This whoel subject is completely stupid. What if I have roommates who all use one computer via serial terminals? NCD terminals? That isn't NAT because I only have one host, but dozens of people can use those services via getty or X11. So WTF is the difference?
Re:How they can tell (Score:3, Insightful)
It has a table in memory, it knows that port 63210 is connected to 192.168.1.20:571 , so when it sees packets coming into 63210, it sends them to 192.168.1.20:571. It has to have this table, because it needs to know what to do if another packet comes from 192.168.1.20:571, they have to be re-written in the same way.
How should ISP's charge? (Score:5, Insightful)
If there are no limits, what stops you from getting yourself a cable/DSL access and then wiring up your whole neighbourhood through you? Hand them out instructions on how to create a hotmail-type email, and off you go. For those that say "sure, but then you are lowering the experience of each one", they should actually look at average usage, and you would see that up to around 50 users or so, you are unlikely to step on each others toes except under exceptional circumstances (not more than 4 or 5 are likely to be on at the same time, and of them, they are statistically going to have more unused b/w during their usage than used).
Unfortunately, during the dot-com boom pricing and billing of ISP service went nuts (along with the rest of the industry), and we still have to recover from this idea that b/w should be somehow GIVEN by the ISP at no charge to EVERYONE. Sure, I love universal service as everyone else, but the big question that we should all be asking ourselves: "for internet service, WHO should pay?" Please note, that links, routers, equipment, staff, electricity, etc... are NOT free.
If an ISP has unlimited access which it is calculating on the basis of an average SINGLE user with a SINGLE machine, and it states it clearly in its contract that you are paying for a single-user/single-machine, then anyone putting more than that on their link is in breach of their contract. They have calculated their prices based on their assumption. Of course you may think -and might even be right- that their prices are too high, but does that morally allow you to be in breach of contract? In the same way, we all feel that MS-whatever licenses are way too high, but are we morally allowed therefore to install each program on 10 machines (certainly not legally).
John.
Re:Slashdot Got Trolled (Score:2, Insightful)
And while we're at it, we'll just sit idly while the government installs Carnivore-like systems at our ISP's. After all, it doesn't matter until they show up at your doorstep to arrest you, right?
Re:And how do they propose to do this? (Score:3, Insightful)
How, pray tell, do they propose to determine whether a user has NAT?
Well, probably nothing is a perfectly reliable diagnostic.
But, [not an expert, here] I had thought that one symptom of NAT was a plethora of high numbered ports being used.
But this practice really irks me.
As far as I'm concerned, just let the user pay for [bandwith + 1/latency]*connect_time.
If clients don't want to subscribe to your extra services, then don't try to browbeat them into it by saying that home-brewed services are "not allowed".
The first network service provider with a business model specifically designed to cater to the commoditization of the network will eventually make mincemeat of those providers that rely on heavy-handed tactics to force their customers into needless higher cost products.
It's like having to buy rust-proofing as part of your new car or an extended warranty on a piece of solid-state electronics - a complete rip-off.
"...for which they are paying" (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the thing. $49.95 or whatever it is you pay really doesn't cover the cost of all that bandwidth if EVERYONE uses it. It's called oversubscribtion and the $19.95 dial-up ISPs are alive because of it. The ISP (in this case Comcast) can't offer that service at that price if everyone uses it. Even T1 services are oversubscribed to some extent. But with a T1 you ARE paying for the bandwidth you're getting. Your DSL service is no better, if lots of customers start using all downstream bandwidth all the time, the ISP would have to discontinue the service at that price.
Re:Slashdot Got Trolled (Score:2, Insightful)
And Comcast doesn't have to send packets to your firewall to find out if you're likely to be running a NAT. You're sending packets to them ALL THE TIME.
Re:Slashdot Got Trolled (Score:4, Insightful)
This is from their FAQ: Seems pretty tolerant of self-installed networks if you ask me, and they will do the work for you if you don't know how to do it yourself. It is also worth pointing out that they probably don't support Linux. And correct me if I'm wrong but does Windows even have the ability to turn one machine into a firewall the way you might do with ipfilter or ipchains on Linux?
Re:Let the free market decide (Score:2, Insightful)
Where I live, the only option for high speed access is cable (DSL isn't here yet), which cripples the "free market" illusion even more.
Downward spiral... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How they can tell (Score:2, Insightful)
>It might have a web page on port 80, or something else open that identifies it as being a router.
My Linksys has a tiny little webserver in it for configuration, but it's only accessable from an Internal Networking address and not from the outside World.
>Another consideration: How does the NAT box know where to send incoming replies? Isn't there something added to the IP header to indicate the internal source IP of the packet? I would think there would have to be. Could they scan packets for these identifying signatures?
If I think I understand you right, it will already know what to do with initiated TCP connections, and you can do a bit of Port Mapping from the little configuration web page if you are running some form of a server. I Personally use the DMZ feature which says Send everything to a certian computer less there is some port mapping thing already, and then I have this computer Firewalled for what I don't want to get to it (Cable Company portscans).
>It's certainly more secure (and less problematic, from what I understand) than ZoneAlarm or BlackIce. How is the ISP going to know the difference?
(Shameless Propping) There are alot of things more Secure then ZoneAlarm and BlackIce
Re:The basic nature of NAT makes this impossible (Score:2, Insightful)
HTTP and FTP do this just to name a few.
FTP clients will embed their IP in the PORT command.
Stupid HTTP clients (IE) will give up their
IP in cookies or in HTTP headers.
Both of these can make it out of a NAT.
Re:Contains realism - please mod down (Score:2, Insightful)
The constitution needs an amendment like "monopolies shall be considered a branch of the U.S. congress" with all the associated restrictions. The board of directors would be chosen by public election as soon as the company is declared a monopoly. After that, all the articles of the constitution would apply (ie. freedom of speech, unlawful search and siezure, etc.)
Now that would be an incentive for a company not to become a monopoly.
Re:Ruining the day for the customers. (Score:2, Insightful)
At least that is how I understand it. Then again things like DCMA, et al seem to be able to make EVERYONE worried that they will be sued no matter their common-carrier status or not.
Hmmm what about a dual boot? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can we go back to selling bandwidth? (Score:2, Insightful)
I was on @home back when they first brought it to my area, they gave me a static, and there was no download/upload cap, and I recieved a static ip (i could have up to 3). They then started charging $2/mo or something for the statics, and later it's ALL dhcp. Then came caps, slower connections, horrible support, etc.
And so I switched to DSL. I'm paying for Buisiness DSL from pacbell (1.5/384 5IP) and it's a bit expensive (i got a deal at about $65-70), but i know what I'm getting. There's no "we switched you to a proxy" or "linux? no you have to use our windows software..." etc. And while they will yell at you for doing stupid things, there isn't a buch of suits sitting around in a room schemeing on ways to slow down the rate at which i download mp3s (i don't think), and thats rather comforting.
If someone puts you on a shitty network, takes away all the perks, and makes it so you can't even protect yourself from their insecure, poorly contsructed network (by installing a firewall), then the best way to deal with it is to switch.
Even non-technical friends who have @home-type connections are getting fed up and ordering DSL.
Re:Multiple Users on a Single Computer are Next! (Score:2, Insightful)
Cox.net hitting me in Baton Rouge, a rant. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the new XP feature, didn't you know that's why they put those fake user accounts in? Obviously if you and another person can share Word, you have two coppies and must pay subscriptions accordingly.
These greedy cable folks are going to be surprised when all of their customers drop their service. I know a faster browsing experience of an ever more comercial suck web is not worth $50/month to me.
Cox is forcing DHCP. I've had a fixed IP from at home for three years. For a short time I had DSL, but that died when I moved. Last week I got a cardboard toolbox with a letter and a CD in it. It warned me that I had to apply the software soon, using the authorization code printed in the letter, or lose service. The CD, needless to say, contained M$ and Mac binaries. Their web site had instructions that said, esentially DHCP, with forced swapping every 4 hours. It also says that they are going to discontinue the old equipment soon and a friend tells me the date is feb 15th.
WTF? They advertise "always on" IP. That means that they must have a 1:1 IP to cable box ratio, right? The only reason they are going this way is to twart people who want to actually use their connection for more than web mail, viewing the great corporate advert, and have their boxes broken by haxors.
So what do you think I'm going to do? That's right, I'm bailing. At home was just the first of these companies to go under. "Normal" people are neither going to trade their TVs for their computers nor pay $100/month for "entertainment". The rest of us expect more for $50/month than giant casino adds. No, I don't have cable TV, just the box. When it's over, Cox will be paying to maintian a line to my house that gives them zero revenue. If all I can do with the cable is surf, I'll reduce my monthly blead by $30/month and find a nice little dialup to do the same thing. Like normal people then, my wife will quit visiting sites that push huge adverts, and those places will lose out too. Poof, goodbye greedheads, I hope you all lose your shirts.
Re:Adelphia (Score:2, Insightful)
What I found funny was their port blocking. My friend who lives 15 minutes away has port 80 wide open, but 25 incoming (not outgoing) is blocked. On the other hand, my port 80 is blocked, and all others (with the exception of netbios) are shut off to the public.
I can understand why you'd want to block port 25, due to spammers, but wouldn't it make more sense to block it *outgoing*?
Comcast blocking MAC addresses (Score:2, Insightful)
I tested with one of my laptops and it worked fine, but not the LinkSys. I banged a valid Intel MAC address into the LinkSys (MAC alias setting) and it got a lease.
A call to tech support (well, several) confirmed that they are blocking some MAC addresses.
My complaint is if they won't let us run some sort of hardware firewall (like) device, are they going to nuke/filter/pursue all the script kiddies and infected IIS servers that are scanning my LinkSys 10, 15, 20+ times a night??
But notice their wording (Score:2, Insightful)
Still, in my (admittedly quick) perusal of their service agreement I saw only wording indicating that you could not use a single connection to provide Internet access to multiple people. If you own all of the computers and only you use them, then this may be a loophole to get you off the hook, should they sue. (Though, of course, they'd still cut off service.)
Re:Contains realism - please mod down (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, I just want to point out that the usage of contract law (licenses) to prohibit certain activities relies on negotiability. Being unable to negotiate software licenses, etc. is quite shaky, legally. At least, as soon as we stop being braindead, we will probably see some rulings related to exactly what can be licensed for and against, a lot like our warranty and sale regulations.
When do I own the packet? (Score:5, Insightful)
When do I own a packet?
After I request it?
When the media it travels down is owned by me?
When it hits my computer and the TCP/IP stack does something with it?
When I sign my service agreement?
I guess comcast thinks they always own the packet.
For about the last year i've been sharing my network with my neighbors, we all own our houses, and have given each other "right of way" to run cat5 stapled to the fence into each others houses. What started out as a simple 1 wire connection has grown to over 24 pairs of copper (i.e. 6 lines)
Each neighbor prepays 6 months in advanced, 10 dollars a month. With this money i've managed to get the bandwidth up to 1.5down and 512up. Their kids can download on napster all day long and it still wont lag my gaming connection. Not only do I share an internet connection with them, but my fileserver as well. We have a central repository for music, a phpnuke based site for updates on the network status.
Our equipment is pretty nice too, everyone has intel pro100 management cards. Our main nat server used to be a linkcyst router, but it has evolved into a k62-300 running bbiagent. (nifty little firewall on disk, bbiagent.net)
So the question of when do I own the packet comes up again.
We don't have a classC subnet, we're all using nat on the 192.168.x.x range. I thought that range was set aside as a non routable "private" network. Private as in mine, err I should say our co-op. It doesn't belong nor resemble our providers network in any way shape or form. We maintain it, upgrade it, support it, ect.
It's really a pity that all these ISP exec's get paid so much money. That 10million a year spent for 1 CEO could buy a cheaper CEO for about 250k, and enough techs to upgrade the existing infrastructure.
Take for example, the DSL I use now. It runs on POTS telephone service, which has not seen any signifigant change since Alexander Bell said "hello" 100 years ago. Basically whenever you make a phone call, the line between you and the person on the other end is a complete circuit. The best analogy I can make is this would be like taking a trip from LA to Chicago, with all the freeways empty except for your car during the duration of your trip. It's a complete waste of resources.
Now imagine if this infrastructure was upgraded to packet switched networks. Bandwidth would become cheaper because circuits could be multiplexed, allowing many cars on the road at the same time.
With comcast, I would guess that %90 of their bandwidth on the wire is being sucked away by their old infrastructure (analogue video) You can see what a waste this is because you can only fit maybe 40 or so channels on the analogue wave, on the other hand, they have this newfangled digital cable, which uses just 1 or 2 channels of the original analogue, but because it is a packet based network, its better utilization of the bandwidth and they can fit 100-200 channels where they used to only be able to fit one.
On top of that, there is IPV6
This is really turning into a long rant.
I just don't see comcasts justification for eradicating NAT from their network.. If they want to control what kind of network I have at home, they can run the cable, and buy my hardware. Hunting down people that just want to share an internet connection is bullshit (pardon my french) and is just another way of deflecting from the REAL problem which is people are starting to wake up to the fact that what they have percieved for years as good internet service is not the truth. I think it's about time people stopped accepting what the providers try and shleff off as good service and start demanding that they upgrade their networks to handle the load, instead of taking it out on the customers that underwrite thier service.
Re:methods (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I think that eventually, flat-rate ISP pricing is going to go away, no matter how much people protest. We're addicted like crack-whores now.
Are they selling bandwidth, IP addresses or what? (Score:5, Insightful)
There weren't any NAT boxes available, so we did it the old fashioned way - we used a 486 put together from spare parts running Linux with IP Masquerading installed. ("IP Masquerading" is what NAT was called back then.) All of our computers were hooked up to this box - and MediaOne only saw one computer on their network. Our setup worked well and we didn't feel like we were stealing - in fact we believed were helping relieve the growing shortage of IP addresses.
If cable and DSL providers want to restrict the number of computers connected to a single modem, they need to be more clear about what they are selling. Are they selling IP addresses? If so, I only want one IP address, thank you. Are they selling bandwidth? Well, if they are, give me a monthly bandwidth cap because despite the fact we have nearly a dozen computers we didn't use anywhere near as much bandwidth as the kid next door with one computer who downloaded pr0n 24-hours a day.
And finally, if they are charging for just having the connection itself then don't complain about how many computers are connected. Does the phone company care how many phones are connected to a single line? You may argue that a single phone line will only let you have one call going at one time. Well, the same is true of cable and DSL services. Anyway you look at it, there is only one packet being transmitted through the DSL or cable modem at any given time. This is very different from stealing cable television where you can watch multiple channels at the same time on different TVs.
Given all of this, the only thing that the cable and DSL providers can do is limit the bandwidth on a connection. If they did that then "Bob" wouldn't be as willing to share his bandwidth with his neighbors because it would either mean additional fees or slower access for himself. He should have the right to "timeshare" his connection anyway he wants. Just like if I were let my neighbors watch my cable TV while I'm not home or if I deleted my copy of Quake and lent the CD to a friend.
Besides, even if something like CAT is implemented, clever Linux users will still be able to customize their own little firewall/router to bypass this and this "problem" will still exist.
Re:Slashdot Got Trolled (Score:2, Insightful)
The original poster wasn't saying it didn't matter till it happened till him. He was saying that it isn't an issue till it happens to someone. Learn to read, please.
Dinivin
Re:methods (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, I'll bite. How does the number of computers "screw" the ISP. They don't need any additional IP resources/addresses (assuming your home LAN is set up as a private network) and I can just as easily use the maximum bandwidth with one computer as I can with 10.
I can see charging per MB or GB transferred, but I can't agree that those running a home network behind a Linksys (or similar) cable modem hub/router are somehow screwing the ISP.
-S
The only real solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Trying to "fool" your ISP with clever stealth-NAT schemes is lots of fun and all, but it does nothing to change the status quo of companies thinking that they can dictate how their customers should use the Internet.
Yes, I realize that some of you have no alternative. If that is the case, it is of course up to you whether you want to drop back to dial-up service, or continue to get dicked around.
Re:How about SOCKS/ proxies? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How should ISP's charge? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why WAS there an internet boom in the first place?
It's because a whole lot of people saw a GREAT value in the amount of money it cost to buy a computer, hook up to the internet. What you got for that money was virtually FREE, convenient communication, (IM, email) with anyone anywhere in the world, free music, free software, etc.
Now, many of those formerly compelling reasons have evaporated:
IM - is a world of divided standards, so you can only talk to AOL users if you're an AOL user, MSN if your an MSN user, etc.
email - is a world where you need to sift through 20 spam messages to find your one message. Also the monoculture of email clients created a nightmare reality of viruses.
nntp - spam is certainly a problem, as is the bulk of news services no longer carrying binaries.
Search - pay per search, or commercially-supported search (ie - paid-for results placement).
Stock Trading - find me a stock worth investing in today. It was half a function of cheap trading, but also half a function of stocks where you could actually make money.
WEB - commercial consolidation funnels most people to portals. Nobody can afford to host anymore, so people's websites are either overrun with popups or they're very small, and hosted on very slow hardware, and anyone posting material of any worth has been shut down due to copyright concerns. Anything interesting or non-mainstream is either impossible to find now, or shut down. I recently went through my bookmarks.html list, of 500k, accumulated over the past 8 years or so - and a good 70% of the URLs were dead. Making me regret not saving the content to my local hard drive. (and I have saved a great deal anyway).
A Voice - running your own server used to be a great democratic equalizer. It's no longer affordable to the vast majority of people. For all but the most basic uses, you can't address the web at large anymore, because 56k is not enough, cable and DSL providers are "gunning" for any attempt at using the service for servers, and T1 is still prohibitively expensive.
Free Music - the age of napster is finished.
Free Software - I'm not talking about Free Software, I'm talking about that which the BSA is making extinct. Warez. Right or wrong, it was one major compelling reason people got onto the internet.
The only compelling things left I can see are:
email/im - despite the fact that they're not what they used to be, they're still very useful, but there's no need for broadband here.
Corporate Software websites - where you can usually get up to date drivers and updates. Most of the time, broadband isn't required.
Free Software - If you're a Linux-head - you still need broadband for downloading those isos.
Marketing - ah yes. If you're an advertiser, the internet is your friend, and a very compelling reason to get broadband, or even a T1. That is, until everyone who has signed up for the internet in the past 3 years finally realizes that there's nothing out there for them but advertising and crap, and drop the service.
Same with software. (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is, they want to be able to charge extra for multiple computers. Of COURSE there are technical ways to get around this, but those don't provide the cable company with extra revenue.
You say it doesn't cost the cable company any extra for you to host multiple computers on a single connection. This is true. Its also true that installing one copy of Windows onto more than one computer doesn't cost Microsoft more. But it deprives them of revenue they would have if you were legal. The cable company sees this the same way.
If its in the user agreement, and you signed on knowing this, you have nobody to blame but yourself. And cable companies are in a better position than Microsoft in this regard. Chances are, you probably signed an actual contract, not some EULA that you blindly clicked through without reading. You don't have to use them. Use a competitor. Vote with your wallet.
And now, you're going to tell me there ARE no other options. They're the only broadband provider in your area. Well, guess what. There are places that don't even have ONE broadband option. You at least HAVE a choice. Accept it, start an alternative service on your own, move somewhere there are more (or better) options, or keep cheating and hope you don't get away with it.
Personally, I don't get into this argument. The service I have allows me 16 static ip's and allows me to resell the bandwidth if I want. But I also pay for it, probably a lot more than you're paying. I could probably get away with far less, but I actually prefer the idea of having a service that I know is unrestricted. If you buy a service that comes with restrictions, you better make sure you can live with those restictions before you sign your name and start paying for it.
-Restil
Re:How should ISP's charge? (Score:5, Insightful)
The phone company lets us hook up multiple phones.
The eletric company lets us hook up multiple devices.
The water company lets us hook up multiple spigots.
What is my point? They have all figured out how to structure their billing while letting customers use the systems the way they want.
Pay for real service if you want it (Score:4, Insightful)
my DSL connection cost me somewhere in the ballpark
of $2400.00 per year. For that amount, I get
two phone lines, a fairly decent voicemail package
plus all the add-on services that Qwest sells
(caller-id and so forth), a 1.5/1.5 Mbit ADSL
connection, a
a Cisco 678, webspace, mail addresses, nntp access,
yadda yadda, from a clueful ISP that provides
connectivity and not bullshit.
People keep going on and on and on about how MSN
this and AOL/TW that and now Comcast the other thing.
In my WAY NOT humble opinion, when you go for the
cheap option, you're going to get treated like a
commodity consumer, NOT like a customer. If you
are unfortunate enough to live in an area which is
not well-served by competing broadband providers, well,
you have my sympathies. There are downsides to the
area where I live as well. But if you do have a choice,
and you've gone with the lowest priced option when
better though more expensive alternatives are available,
you should stop complaining, and take responsibility
for the consequences of your decisions.
Doesnt make much sense (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps they want to charge for each IP address you would need by NOT using NAT.
Is Comcast really that stupid? (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember the old days when @Home assigned one static IP per household, with no provision whatsoever for additional addresses. The tech. staff would say "There is a way to connect multiple computers, but we don't support it.", meaning "Set up Linux IP Masquerade -- we don't care, just don't ask us to fix it."
Of course the real problem with NAT is the 802.11b Wifi dilemma. In an apartement scenario, a single broadband subscriber can share with many neighbors, especially if they are light users (the kind the ISPs covet the most). I guess Comcast has figured this out and views it as a doomsday scenario.
The proper way to kill the anti-NAT practices is to see which ISP takes the lead and then boycott them into bankruptcy. After all, the service is not very useful without NAT, so walking away is not just the morally correct thing to do, it's almost a necessity anyway.
Re:methods (Score:3, Insightful)
The only way this is "screwing" the ISP - is that it's more "screwing with" because the service agreement specifically states (in most cases) "a single machine".
What's next. a limit on dual CPU machines?
Let's slow down, turbo lovers! (Score:2, Insightful)
It also appears that it's not that that they want to prohibit NAT, but, rather, that they don't understand how it could be used. The FAQ clearly implies that they believe that each computer will need an IP from them. So they are limiting it to three per household, and charging for it.
And for many people, who don't understand / care about firewalls, they may just go with that solution.
I think Comcast's only concern is conservation of their IP pool, not the computers themselves.
I bet if someone offered to work with them, they'd modify their FAQ's.
Re:Run some phone wire to your neighbor's house... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have a problem with trying to stop this type of activity, then you also probably think it would be OK to run phone line from your house to your neighbor's house, since you "pay for the bandwidth and can do whatever you wish with it."
Maybe I'm missing something, but what's wrong with sharing my phone line with my neighbors? Assuming my neighbor splits the phone bill, I get a smaller phone bill in exchange for the hassle of having to share the line. And working out the long distance calls would likely be a pain. Hmm, thinking about it, it sounds alot like what happened when I was sharing an apartment. What's the difference if the person I'm sharing with lives next door or in the next bedroom?
(There may be a law of some sort against it, but I don't see any sort of ethical problems with such a situation.)
Re:Cox.net hitting me in Baton Rouge, a rant. (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, they'll claim the 'system overloaded', while in reality it's a designed-in overload...
Re:How should ISP's charge? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you think you have a better solution to these problems, how about proposing them, and actually DO something about it. Complaining here on Slashdot [slashdot.org] is not a guarantee that things will change.
Social methods not technical methods (Score:3, Insightful)
Come to think of it, if 2) is properly done you don't even need 1).
It's the same principle used in law-enforcement:
Make people believe that if they break the law:
- It's very likely that they get caught
- If they do get caught the punishment is hard and certain
(As a side note i believe that the big difference in driving styles between mediterranean countries and northern europe countries with similar driving laws, is due to different perceptions of the answers to the "will i get caught?" and the "if i get caught will i get punished?" questions).PALM? (Score:3, Insightful)
In what way is that not a network?
Re:methods (Score:3, Insightful)
Broadband ISPs calculate a contention level - although they limit you to a certain bandwidth, say 512kbps and have, say 2000 customers, they probably don't have a 1 Gigabit backbone connection.
That is to say that if all 2000 customers were to initiate a download they wouldn't get the 512kbps they pay for.
If the ISP has an advertised contention ratio of 50:1 then this scenario means that the 2000 customers are connected to a 20Mbps backbone.
It means that only 1 in 50 customers are using their bandwidth quota at any one time.
Now, by employing NAT (via 802.11b for instance) and possibly selling it on (or just sharing the cost) customers are also raising the contention level and effectively raising the chance that other customers will not get their quota of 512kbps.
My personal opinion is that NAT itself is not the problem, sub-leasing your Internet connection in any way is.
ISPs cant be as dumb as the RIAA...can they??? (Score:2, Insightful)
What these ISPs need to realize is all they are doing is pissing off thier good (technical)customers. At last glance my provider (AT&T) was selling linksys routers at a discount and didn't restrict NAT. Good.
I would prefer to see a bandwidth abuse policy. After all, thats what the ISP is trying to conserve here. If you go over 200MB download a day on average for example...then it may be a reason to investigate. Maybe they are really trying to quash the neighborhood 802.11b service provider.
If they outlaw NAT, only outlaws will have NAT.
And we all know that not buying Nike sneakers (Score:3, Insightful)
Or worse, buying used sneeakers is also stealing.
The moment I'm under obligation to pay any other private entity money for a service I do not wish is the moment that I become a slave.
Just because someone expects their customers to behave in a particular way doesn't mean that they are obligated to, or it is wrong for them to behave differently.
Quote of the Day (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, in talking to Cindy tonight, I said, "I can't believe you guys are going after users with Linksys boxes!" She asked, "what do you mean 'going after'?" I said, "like, pulling the plug! I have one that does wireless so I can work on my laptop anywhere in the house, and now you guys want to chain me to my desk in my basement."
"Oh, I don't think that's what they meant. See, those little firewall boxes won't work with the new network because they're only static, and can't do DHCP at all, so you're box isn't going to work after we change over the network."
"I see. Well then, uh, thanks, I guess!"