I was searching around the net and I found this
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/01/24/1957236.shtml
It seems that Comcast and Earthlink are cracking down on NAT users! I hate to say it to ya but my thought is that other ISP's are going to start doing this too.
But I don't think ISP's should do this! Tell me what you think of this whole thing.
Beware of NAT and your ISP! I'm serious!
You won't like what I have to say about this. Taking bandwidth without paying for it is stealing, plain and simple. Routers, 2 NIC cards in a "server" computer and the like is simply a way to take what is not yours for the taking. People like me who have multiple computers hooked up the "legitimate" way are also being shortchanged. Read the editorial here at Speedguide about uncapping cable modems. This is the same issue in a different form.
The common argument is that you don't always get the bandwidth you are promised from these cable companies, so therefore you take it. Well people that use these types of "workarounds" are the cause of their own problem. When a neighborhood node (hereto refered to as an NN) with 750 computers assigned for internet access, designed to handle say 1000 computers worth of bandwidth, has even 1/3rd of it's users doing one of these "workarounds" you are suddenly on a completley full node. The provider sees it as only 3/4 full with plenty of room for more computers and therefore assigns more people to that NN without any upgrading or bandwidth increase. In there eyes it has room for more users, when in fact it needs to be upgraded. The catch 22 ensues because those of you not paying for your extra access are depriving money from the cable company which could be used to upgrade that particular NN.
This is not meant to point fingers at those of you doing these things. I do not mean to offend anyone by calling them a theif. I am simply stating my opinion on the article and how I feel about what it entails. I have answered posts regarding people having problems using both routers and 2 NIC cards in one computer when my knowledge could help that particular person. Not because I agree with what they are doing, but because I feel I owe it to Speedguide and it's members for all the help I have received in the past from them.
In conclusion, I think it is a good thing for everyone in the long run. It will increase available bandwidth and when that bandwidth gets a little tight the cable companies will have the funds they need to upgrade the equipment where neccesary. That $7 a month you pay for an additional IP is not a whole lot of money, less than a quarter a day (23 cents to be exact) but to an ISP with say 250,000 customers using multiple IP's that $7 per IP turns into $1,750,000 a month, plenty of money to upgrade equipment. I too get frustrated with cable companies and their less than adaquete(sp?) tech support. Flame on but I will continue to stand by my opinion, I will not falter.
The common argument is that you don't always get the bandwidth you are promised from these cable companies, so therefore you take it. Well people that use these types of "workarounds" are the cause of their own problem. When a neighborhood node (hereto refered to as an NN) with 750 computers assigned for internet access, designed to handle say 1000 computers worth of bandwidth, has even 1/3rd of it's users doing one of these "workarounds" you are suddenly on a completley full node. The provider sees it as only 3/4 full with plenty of room for more computers and therefore assigns more people to that NN without any upgrading or bandwidth increase. In there eyes it has room for more users, when in fact it needs to be upgraded. The catch 22 ensues because those of you not paying for your extra access are depriving money from the cable company which could be used to upgrade that particular NN.
This is not meant to point fingers at those of you doing these things. I do not mean to offend anyone by calling them a theif. I am simply stating my opinion on the article and how I feel about what it entails. I have answered posts regarding people having problems using both routers and 2 NIC cards in one computer when my knowledge could help that particular person. Not because I agree with what they are doing, but because I feel I owe it to Speedguide and it's members for all the help I have received in the past from them.
In conclusion, I think it is a good thing for everyone in the long run. It will increase available bandwidth and when that bandwidth gets a little tight the cable companies will have the funds they need to upgrade the equipment where neccesary. That $7 a month you pay for an additional IP is not a whole lot of money, less than a quarter a day (23 cents to be exact) but to an ISP with say 250,000 customers using multiple IP's that $7 per IP turns into $1,750,000 a month, plenty of money to upgrade equipment. I too get frustrated with cable companies and their less than adaquete(sp?) tech support. Flame on but I will continue to stand by my opinion, I will not falter.
What are you talking about? By networking your computers through a NAT server or a router, your are not getting ANY additional bandwidth, you are just allowing your other computers to take advantage of your allotted bandwidth. Just because you have three computers behind a NAT server or router doesn't mean you're gonna get triple what you get with one computer. In fact, you WON'T get anymore than you normally would.
My point is this: you pay for broadband (whatever the medium) for a certain capped speed. Taking full advantage of that cap is NOT a crime. Now, when you go around the cable company's back to get MORE speed than the cap, THEN and only then are you committing a crime, and that's called uncapping.
My point is this: you pay for broadband (whatever the medium) for a certain capped speed. Taking full advantage of that cap is NOT a crime. Now, when you go around the cable company's back to get MORE speed than the cap, THEN and only then are you committing a crime, and that's called uncapping.
Well if you read the article it states
but did anyone think they'd already be harassing people that are using nothing more than the bandwidth for which they are paying?
simply saying one modem one pc or a 1,000 pc's you still use the same bandwidth. Now if you always utilizing the FULL bandwidth than yes it can be troublesome for a specific node. Now Earthlink and Comcast maybe doing this so they can up there multiple IP sales, I donno if they offer it but it's really lame to be bothered with such a common thing now a days with internet connection sharing. Like my cable provider they offer multiple IP's for one modem at a fare cost and it's still only using the bandwidth of one cable modem .. no difference
As far as uncapping, it has only been done with the old LAN city modems and as far as I know none of the DOCSIS modem have been hacked for uncapping .. or at least it wasn't as public like the LAN city modem were.
but did anyone think they'd already be harassing people that are using nothing more than the bandwidth for which they are paying?
simply saying one modem one pc or a 1,000 pc's you still use the same bandwidth. Now if you always utilizing the FULL bandwidth than yes it can be troublesome for a specific node. Now Earthlink and Comcast maybe doing this so they can up there multiple IP sales, I donno if they offer it but it's really lame to be bothered with such a common thing now a days with internet connection sharing. Like my cable provider they offer multiple IP's for one modem at a fare cost and it's still only using the bandwidth of one cable modem .. no difference
As far as uncapping, it has only been done with the old LAN city modems and as far as I know none of the DOCSIS modem have been hacked for uncapping .. or at least it wasn't as public like the LAN city modem were.
Hmm...the very reason you are charged for an additional computer is that you will be using up more bandwidth. You can not seriously try to tell me that 2 computers accesing the internet through an ISP's network uses the same amount of bandwidth as one computer accesing it. It is 2 computers accesing information, therefore twice as much data passing through and therfore increasing bandwidth usage (more traffic). Try putting 2 people through the same doorway, it will be more crowded than if only one tried to pass through it. That is what "I'm talking about".
Basically you are trying to tell me that when I am assigned 1500 kbps down and 128 kbps up it is set aside for me and NEVER used by other people on that same node. If that was the case I would never see slow downs in downloads or higher ping times while gaming in peak hours, I would be getting those 4:30 AM download times 24 hours a day and that is simply not the case, we all see that everyday.
Basically you are trying to tell me that when I am assigned 1500 kbps down and 128 kbps up it is set aside for me and NEVER used by other people on that same node. If that was the case I would never see slow downs in downloads or higher ping times while gaming in peak hours, I would be getting those 4:30 AM download times 24 hours a day and that is simply not the case, we all see that everyday.
But why should I pay EXTRA for something I've already bought in the first place? Example:
I have 1500/384 ADSL with a local provider. I have two computers networked via router behind this connection. I will NEVER go above this 1500/384 cap, regardless of how many computers I have behind this router. I purchased this above package, and therefore I can use it to its full potential. It's not like I'm "cheating" the provider out of its money; I'm simply using what I bought.
The only reason providers like Comcast are trying to deal with this is because they realize that they've oversold their service. When people use more than one computer behind a router, you're right, they are using more bandwidth at a certain time, but it is purchased bandwidth.
I have 1500/384 ADSL with a local provider. I have two computers networked via router behind this connection. I will NEVER go above this 1500/384 cap, regardless of how many computers I have behind this router. I purchased this above package, and therefore I can use it to its full potential. It's not like I'm "cheating" the provider out of its money; I'm simply using what I bought.
The only reason providers like Comcast are trying to deal with this is because they realize that they've oversold their service. When people use more than one computer behind a router, you're right, they are using more bandwidth at a certain time, but it is purchased bandwidth.
hmmm
Here's another question to ponder, if I am paying x amount of money for x amount of bandwidth. say 640/256 DSL, and I never connect at more than 516/219 why should I have to pay my complete internet bill each month, shouldn't I get a "Pro-rated" statement?
I mean really, They charge you a premium amount for the speed they provide you, but I have NEVER heard of anyone that has actually received the amount they are paying for. It is just accepted and you pay your bill and are happy with it.
I think this is just another way to screw the consumer.
I mean really, They charge you a premium amount for the speed they provide you, but I have NEVER heard of anyone that has actually received the amount they are paying for. It is just accepted and you pay your bill and are happy with it.
I think this is just another way to screw the consumer.
How soon those who gave nothing forget those who gave all..
-
A_COMMUNIST
- Regular Member
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2000 12:00 am
- Location: Rhode Island, USA
I still don't get how you are using more bandwidth with a NAT. When I'm on my computer in my room and someone else is on the computer in the livingroom I often get slowdowns because the other personis taking all my allotted bandwidth at that point in time. We all get a fixed Pipe. There is no way that you can force more bandwith through the cable modem. Maybe what vesuvious is saying is that the data flow will be more constant because 2 people are sending and receiving data.
But, I really think Vesuvious' argument is flawed. Having a NAT does not impact the NN. It's just that we may use our allotted bandwidth more often which is what we pay for.
Vesuvious. I really hate to do this to you. But I have officially nullified your argument. you are now voided in the system. You will have to go back to the drawing board just like Wild E. Coyote. Genius by trade.
But, I really think Vesuvious' argument is flawed. Having a NAT does not impact the NN. It's just that we may use our allotted bandwidth more often which is what we pay for.
Vesuvious. I really hate to do this to you. But I have officially nullified your argument. you are now voided in the system. You will have to go back to the drawing board just like Wild E. Coyote. Genius by trade.
Your Friend and Communist Ally. AC+
No, your modem controls the bandwith, not how many PC's are connected to it.Originally posted by Vesuvius
Hmm...the very reason you are charged for an additional computer is that you will be using up more bandwidth.
Yes ... with one modemYou can not seriously try to tell me that 2 computers accesing the internet through an ISP's network uses the same amount of bandwidth as one computer accesing it. [/B]
Again ... one modem, same bandwithIt is 2 computers accesing information, therefore twice as much data passing through and therfore increasing bandwidth usage (more traffic). Try putting 2 people through the same doorway, it will be more crowded than if only one tried to pass through it. That is what "I'm talking about". [/B]
Basically you are trying to tell me that when I am assigned 1500 kbps down and 128 kbps up it is set aside for me and NEVER used by other people on that same node. If that was the case I would never see slow downs in downloads or higher ping times while gaming in peak hours, I would be getting those 4:30 AM download times 24 hours a day and that is simply not the case, we all see that everyday. [/B]
no bandwith is set aside for ANYONE, thats were capacity problems set in from outside the nodes ... ALL ISP's run into capacity problems, period! it's just some area's are worse than others depending on traffic usage. All ISP's bank on not ALL user's being on at the same time. Think of it this way. You have a ISP and sell bandwith to AOL, you setup T1's / DS3's etc... for dial up traffic. Well are you going to allow one DSO (one channel on a T1 out of 24 channels) to sit there idle until Bob smith comes home from work, eats dinner, puts his kids to bed and then dials up to check his email and browse the web for one hour?... nope. You want those DSO being used as much as possiable for the $$. Cable provider kinda do the same thing, bank on not ALL ppl being online at the same time.
Plus other there's factors not only with bandwith from your provider but in "general" over the internet .. ppl don't always understand your connection is only as fast as the other end can feed you as well. So if your gaming on a server thats packed and has limited bandwith your not going to have great ping time. If your on a server at 4:30 in the morning with hardley anyone one ... your gonna rock.
hmmmm
Here's another question. My friend has one computer behind a Netgear RT311 single port DSL Gateway Router / NAT / Firewall. Are you saying that since he has a NAT/Firewall and they can't see how many computers are behind it, that they will try to charge him more $ or disconnect his service due to an "assumed" failure to follow 'TOS'?
I see the Arguement that more computers in me house means more bandwidth. So in reality you are saying this:
If I have two computers behind a nat and each computer connects at say 519/239 x 2 computers I am getting 1038 / 478?
Yea right I believe that, NOT.
I see the Arguement that more computers in me house means more bandwidth. So in reality you are saying this:
If I have two computers behind a nat and each computer connects at say 519/239 x 2 computers I am getting 1038 / 478?
Yea right I believe that, NOT.
How soon those who gave nothing forget those who gave all..
The bottom line here...
We pay for a certain amount of bandwidth and we pay for it 24/7.
We can't use more than we're capped at no matter how many PC's we have behind a router/NAT.
If my ISP took any action to stop my use of a router and extra PC's, I'd write a batch file to surf all day and night when I wasn't using my puter, just to prove a point. I'd have it download files and delete them, and download them again too.
Anyone who thinks using 100,000 PC's or more through the same modem uses more bandwidth than what I pay for needs an exam.
The fact is I pay for 1.5Mbits down/128 up 24/7 and I intend to get my moneys worth too.
A contract is a contract.
We pay for a certain amount of bandwidth and we pay for it 24/7.
We can't use more than we're capped at no matter how many PC's we have behind a router/NAT.
If my ISP took any action to stop my use of a router and extra PC's, I'd write a batch file to surf all day and night when I wasn't using my puter, just to prove a point. I'd have it download files and delete them, and download them again too.
Anyone who thinks using 100,000 PC's or more through the same modem uses more bandwidth than what I pay for needs an exam.
The fact is I pay for 1.5Mbits down/128 up 24/7 and I intend to get my moneys worth too.
A contract is a contract.
-
terrancelam
- Posts: 5465
- Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: Toronto, Canada Computers Built and Fixed personally: 720
Here is the simple truth
these two specific companies are trying to make a Mountain out of an ant hill. As someone above stated earlier, you are alloted a certain amount of bandwidth usage 1500/128 or something along those lines (I get 950/128 with my dsl.) However, just because I decided to hook my sister up to my connection doesn't mean I'm steal someone else bandwidth, it means I'm using my connection to it's fullest potential.
It's like saying:
"Dear Customer,
We've found out that you've tweaked and optimized your computer for maxium efficiency for bandwidth. Please stop this now, as it is killing our inefficient networks that need upgrading and we are cheap bastards who don't want to upgrade because it is expensive and we can't charge you more for it.
Signed,
Faceless Corporate Employee
X."
Come on, be serious for just one second here: The only way for a person to get more then what they are paying for them to get 110% out of their connection, which is not possible with the current systems (Docsis and DSLAM). You might maximize and come close to your limit, but that is not your problem, but more so that of the cable company.
As I'm sure some of you are confused, this specific issue seems to apply only to cable users, as Bell Canada advertises it's easy use with Multiple users. This is utter and complete bull shyte. CALL them on it. It's no secret that @home left a very expensive bill for the cable companies to cover, but what they are doing is illegal under most TOS that most cable companies have previous agreed to(ALWAYS read your TOS, I'm sure it does not state "Single User ONLY" Or something along those lines), I'm sure just about every lawyer will back you up on this one.
It's like saying:
"Dear Customer,
We've found out that you've tweaked and optimized your computer for maxium efficiency for bandwidth. Please stop this now, as it is killing our inefficient networks that need upgrading and we are cheap bastards who don't want to upgrade because it is expensive and we can't charge you more for it.
Signed,
Faceless Corporate Employee
X."
Come on, be serious for just one second here: The only way for a person to get more then what they are paying for them to get 110% out of their connection, which is not possible with the current systems (Docsis and DSLAM). You might maximize and come close to your limit, but that is not your problem, but more so that of the cable company.
As I'm sure some of you are confused, this specific issue seems to apply only to cable users, as Bell Canada advertises it's easy use with Multiple users. This is utter and complete bull shyte. CALL them on it. It's no secret that @home left a very expensive bill for the cable companies to cover, but what they are doing is illegal under most TOS that most cable companies have previous agreed to(ALWAYS read your TOS, I'm sure it does not state "Single User ONLY" Or something along those lines), I'm sure just about every lawyer will back you up on this one.
Intel Core 2 Duo Q8300 2.55Ghz (1333mhz)
Asus P5N-D
OCZ Platinum 8gb (2x2gb) PC8000 1000mhz 5-5-5-18
EVGA 460GTX 1gb PCIE 2.0
Western Digital Black 640gb x 2 Raid 0
Coolermaster 1000W Modular PSU
Antec NSK4480B
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
----------------------------------------------------------
HP TC5700 (Thin Client) 1ghz, 512mb 80gb 1x1000mb NIC 1x100mb NIC running PFSense 1.22
Linksys WRT-150 running DD-WRT V.24 (Access Point)
"SG Techies rule!" - Sig Buddies with Amro
Asus P5N-D
OCZ Platinum 8gb (2x2gb) PC8000 1000mhz 5-5-5-18
EVGA 460GTX 1gb PCIE 2.0
Western Digital Black 640gb x 2 Raid 0
Coolermaster 1000W Modular PSU
Antec NSK4480B
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
----------------------------------------------------------
HP TC5700 (Thin Client) 1ghz, 512mb 80gb 1x1000mb NIC 1x100mb NIC running PFSense 1.22
Linksys WRT-150 running DD-WRT V.24 (Access Point)
"SG Techies rule!" - Sig Buddies with Amro
Sounds like a few Comcast employees testing the public waters to me. For one thing, I don't see where it says that using a router is against the AUP. It never was when I was on @home.
I ain't stealing anything. To even say that is beyond ludicrous. Their AUP -- http://www.comcast.net/TermsofService/aup.asp -- does not say anything, that I read, about using routers. Am I missing something here? I know it's 4:30am here, so maybe I'm not awake yet. I just don't see it at all.
And that Slashdot 'article' is nothing more than third-party heresay, as most of their spin is.
Most of the time my LAN is idle and rarely are both computers on the Net at the same time. And even if they are, I am NOT using any more bandwidth than what my ISP allows me anyway, so this argument has no basis and makes no sense.
I ain't stealing anything. To even say that is beyond ludicrous. Their AUP -- http://www.comcast.net/TermsofService/aup.asp -- does not say anything, that I read, about using routers. Am I missing something here? I know it's 4:30am here, so maybe I'm not awake yet. I just don't see it at all.
And that Slashdot 'article' is nothing more than third-party heresay, as most of their spin is.
Most of the time my LAN is idle and rarely are both computers on the Net at the same time. And even if they are, I am NOT using any more bandwidth than what my ISP allows me anyway, so this argument has no basis and makes no sense.
We Remember...
9|11
40 miles SW of Mt. St. Helens
9|11
40 miles SW of Mt. St. Helens
-
YeOldeStonecat
- SG VIP
- Posts: 51171
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
I agree with most here....Murman, Norm, etc.
Just because you have a router, proxy, or any other means of sharing a single WAN connection to whatever number of computers, does not mean you're stealing bandwidth.
If you sign up for a 1500/128 account, and say you have ideal dream-like conditions where you actually can obtain that performance, wether you have a single computer, or a hundred computers, you will not use more than that bandwidth. You CANNOT say, if I have one computer on my 1500/128 account, if I have two computers, I must be using 3000/256, if I have three computers, I'm using 4500/384...etc etc....that is not true. What is true, is that you are splitting your 1500/128 up between all your computers.
Any ISP that wants to come out and outlaw NAT routers, I just want to reach out and choke their little pencil necks...because I refuse to believe they can tell me in the eye that I cannot use a firewall to protect my computer. I personally hate software firewalls, and I love hardware NAT for firewall protection. I can't believe some ISP nosepicker will try to tell me I cannot protect my computer with a hardware NAT firewall.
Now in defense of the ISP's...since I used to work closely with some, I will state this: the difference between a business account, and a standard home account....and that offices, and anyone that expects more from the home networks, should get a business account. The reasoning behind this, is a business account will use more of the ISP's resources more often throughout the day. Business class accounts have better uptime also, and are the first up on the list when repairs are needed, during downtimes. A standard home account will probably only use it's bandwidth for perhaps a few hours, at nighttime. You can visualize this by imagining a meter, keeping track of the data throughput....put it on a bar graph. We all know, well, the ones with common sense anyways, will know that ISP's oversell their resources. They sell their accounts with an "Up to" bandwidth. Their resources cannot possibly support every customer they have maxing out each ones bandwidth all at the same time. The ISP's make a gamble, come up with a ratio of available bandwidth, to available resources....and that ratio differs from ISP to ISP, and that ration governs what performance clients will experience from ISP to ISP.
To sum up, ///gets another cup of coffee/// I'm against any ISP telling me that I cannot use a router. Simply because of the firewall protection it gives me. On the other hand, and it's not really pertinant to this thread, but I can agree with some ISP's where they want to charge more for business class accounts, even though the entry business class account is the same bandwidth sold, for twice the price. Not to mention the higher speed account at 3 times the prices (which I setup at our office, a 6000/384 account for 190/month)
There's my wordy 69 cents. I'm late for work now...
///steps off the soapbox///
Just because you have a router, proxy, or any other means of sharing a single WAN connection to whatever number of computers, does not mean you're stealing bandwidth.
If you sign up for a 1500/128 account, and say you have ideal dream-like conditions where you actually can obtain that performance, wether you have a single computer, or a hundred computers, you will not use more than that bandwidth. You CANNOT say, if I have one computer on my 1500/128 account, if I have two computers, I must be using 3000/256, if I have three computers, I'm using 4500/384...etc etc....that is not true. What is true, is that you are splitting your 1500/128 up between all your computers.
Any ISP that wants to come out and outlaw NAT routers, I just want to reach out and choke their little pencil necks...because I refuse to believe they can tell me in the eye that I cannot use a firewall to protect my computer. I personally hate software firewalls, and I love hardware NAT for firewall protection. I can't believe some ISP nosepicker will try to tell me I cannot protect my computer with a hardware NAT firewall.
Now in defense of the ISP's...since I used to work closely with some, I will state this: the difference between a business account, and a standard home account....and that offices, and anyone that expects more from the home networks, should get a business account. The reasoning behind this, is a business account will use more of the ISP's resources more often throughout the day. Business class accounts have better uptime also, and are the first up on the list when repairs are needed, during downtimes. A standard home account will probably only use it's bandwidth for perhaps a few hours, at nighttime. You can visualize this by imagining a meter, keeping track of the data throughput....put it on a bar graph. We all know, well, the ones with common sense anyways, will know that ISP's oversell their resources. They sell their accounts with an "Up to" bandwidth. Their resources cannot possibly support every customer they have maxing out each ones bandwidth all at the same time. The ISP's make a gamble, come up with a ratio of available bandwidth, to available resources....and that ratio differs from ISP to ISP, and that ration governs what performance clients will experience from ISP to ISP.
To sum up, ///gets another cup of coffee/// I'm against any ISP telling me that I cannot use a router. Simply because of the firewall protection it gives me. On the other hand, and it's not really pertinant to this thread, but I can agree with some ISP's where they want to charge more for business class accounts, even though the entry business class account is the same bandwidth sold, for twice the price. Not to mention the higher speed account at 3 times the prices (which I setup at our office, a 6000/384 account for 190/month)
There's my wordy 69 cents. I'm late for work now...
///steps off the soapbox///
MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
Guinness for Strength!!!
Guinness for Strength!!!
What StoneCat, Norm, et al, is correct about the shared bandwidth...you're only getting what your supposed to be getting through your modem...just by hooking up a router is not going to increase your overal bandwidth...
As far as routers and the aup, see my answer in this thread:
https://www.speedguide.net/forums/ ... post570726
As far as routers and the aup, see my answer in this thread:
https://www.speedguide.net/forums/ ... post570726
------
“The most beautiful thing we can experience in life is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: for his eyes are closed.” - Albert Einstein
“The most beautiful thing we can experience in life is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: for his eyes are closed.” - Albert Einstein
Exactly. And in that quote, nowhere does it say that using a router is against the AUP. It is speaking against running servers, running a CAT5 cable over to the neighbor's house, etc.Originally posted by Indy
What StoneCat, Norm, et al, is correct about the shared bandwidth...you're only getting what your supposed to be getting through your modem...just by hooking up a router is not going to increase your overal bandwidth...
As far as routers and the aup, see my answer in this thread:
https://www.speedguide.net/forums/ ... post570726
Comcast High-Speed Internet Service network residential customers may not resell, share, or otherwise distribute the Services or any portion thereof to any third party...
and...
Users must ensure that their activity does not improperly restrict, inhibit, or degrade any other user's use of the Services, nor represent (in the sole judgment of Comcast High-Speed Internet Service) an unusually large burden on the network itself.
The use of a router does NOT violate the AUP.
We Remember...
9|11
40 miles SW of Mt. St. Helens
9|11
40 miles SW of Mt. St. Helens
Cable companies should encourage the use of routers on their networks. If everyone now who uses a router went and got another IP the whole network would grind to a halt and the cable company would not be able to bring in new customers, or they could an be total jerks and keep signing people up promissing blazing speeds. So they need to ask themselves, do we go out of our way to get and extra $8-10 a month or let them keep the routers and get more customers on the node since they won't be increasing bandwidth by using a NAT or router?
Well I have been "one-upped" here and I am big enough to admit it. I had the wrong idea of how the bandwidth usage is "metered". I was simply seeing 2 computers accessing data as being more traffic than one computer. Which certainly seems logical to me.
Yes. I agree that a good 85-90% of us don't receive the bandwidth we are promised. Yes by using 2 computers you may get closer to using that "alloted" bandwidth. Do I still think it is inherently wrong to have access by 2 computers while paying for access with one? Yes. The cable companies have a service called multiple IP soloutions (or something similar to that) which they charge for. Maybe you guys view it the same as copying a friends CD or using 2 copies of Windows for all of your computers when in reality you are supposed to buy one for each system.
I'm not trying to play moral police I am simply stating my opinion on the issue. Routers are being used to get access that you are supposed to be paying for. A lot of people use descrambler boxes to get cable channels they don't pay for. Do they get caught? Usually not. Those channels are sent to your cable box wether you pay for them or not. So using this logic since it is there it is mine for the taking right? I'm sure my cable provider has a different view on this one.
Yes they overcharge for their services. Yes they deliver less than what they promise when it comes to bandwidth. Yes even their tech support is pretty useless most of the time. But these are issues that need to be brought up with the companies theirselves. Will it make a difference? Usually not. Today's world of no more local ISP's, forcing us to go through huge national companies where one customer and a few of his friends leaving out of disgust has litterally a miniscule effect on the overall picture, makes this so.
Many of you took it personally saying I am telling you that you are stealing. I am not. I don't know your particular situation and won't jump to snap judgements about any of you when all I know of you is what you post here. I am simply stating that getting something for free that you are supposed to pay for seems like stealing to me. Maybe my logic is a bit flawwed, maybe my argument is weak but the basic principle can't be denied.
I can't deny the fact that it does make a certain amount of sense to look at it from the other side of the coin. The common argument seems to be "Why pay for an additional IP when the first one is still nowhere near the bandwidth I am promised". This argument too is very valid. Above I said "...getting something for free that you are supposed to be paying for..." both helps and hurts my own argument. Since the basic idea behind it is simple truth regardless of how you see it, at the same time, they are also giving us less than we pay for and essentially stealing from us (which is no big surprise to anyone
). Mother always told us "2 wrongs don't make a right".
Keep the posts coming I'm sure the Speedguide quote guy is going to have a field day with my posts and I personally love a debate where I'm on the losing end. I always learn more from those because if I am losing it's because of less knowledge than the other person and everything they say teaches me more. Please don't turn this into a fingr pointing contest so far it has remained relativley tame and informative I hope it stays that way. Demolish my argument, I invite it.
Yes. I agree that a good 85-90% of us don't receive the bandwidth we are promised. Yes by using 2 computers you may get closer to using that "alloted" bandwidth. Do I still think it is inherently wrong to have access by 2 computers while paying for access with one? Yes. The cable companies have a service called multiple IP soloutions (or something similar to that) which they charge for. Maybe you guys view it the same as copying a friends CD or using 2 copies of Windows for all of your computers when in reality you are supposed to buy one for each system.
I'm not trying to play moral police I am simply stating my opinion on the issue. Routers are being used to get access that you are supposed to be paying for. A lot of people use descrambler boxes to get cable channels they don't pay for. Do they get caught? Usually not. Those channels are sent to your cable box wether you pay for them or not. So using this logic since it is there it is mine for the taking right? I'm sure my cable provider has a different view on this one.
Yes they overcharge for their services. Yes they deliver less than what they promise when it comes to bandwidth. Yes even their tech support is pretty useless most of the time. But these are issues that need to be brought up with the companies theirselves. Will it make a difference? Usually not. Today's world of no more local ISP's, forcing us to go through huge national companies where one customer and a few of his friends leaving out of disgust has litterally a miniscule effect on the overall picture, makes this so.
Many of you took it personally saying I am telling you that you are stealing. I am not. I don't know your particular situation and won't jump to snap judgements about any of you when all I know of you is what you post here. I am simply stating that getting something for free that you are supposed to pay for seems like stealing to me. Maybe my logic is a bit flawwed, maybe my argument is weak but the basic principle can't be denied.
I can't deny the fact that it does make a certain amount of sense to look at it from the other side of the coin. The common argument seems to be "Why pay for an additional IP when the first one is still nowhere near the bandwidth I am promised". This argument too is very valid. Above I said "...getting something for free that you are supposed to be paying for..." both helps and hurts my own argument. Since the basic idea behind it is simple truth regardless of how you see it, at the same time, they are also giving us less than we pay for and essentially stealing from us (which is no big surprise to anyone
). Mother always told us "2 wrongs don't make a right".Keep the posts coming I'm sure the Speedguide quote guy is going to have a field day with my posts and I personally love a debate where I'm on the losing end. I always learn more from those because if I am losing it's because of less knowledge than the other person and everything they say teaches me more. Please don't turn this into a fingr pointing contest so far it has remained relativley tame and informative I hope it stays that way. Demolish my argument, I invite it.
I am not sure as to how Cable companies work, because I have DSL and I am assigned a Dynamic IP address. Being it is dynamic, and not static, I am not sure this really applies to me at all since the IP address of my computer can be either 192.168.0.2 (if assigned by my DSL Gatewat Router, or some other address if assinged by my ISP.
I am assuming this only applies if you are on cable and have a Static IP.
Anyway, here in SLC, Utah, Qwest has recommended to me that I use a Router/Firewall for security reasons, Go Figure!
I am assuming this only applies if you are on cable and have a Static IP.
Anyway, here in SLC, Utah, Qwest has recommended to me that I use a Router/Firewall for security reasons, Go Figure!
How soon those who gave nothing forget those who gave all..
Vesuvius you've done a great job of presenting your arguement in a respectable fashion. I would think that is why the flames haven't been forthcoming against you.
My ISP allows 3 IP addresses for the same price, so I could take 3 IP's instead of using a router with 1 IP (but that's my own contract, doesn't apply to everyone)
I think of it like this....
When I buy a bottle of milk from the grocer, he doesn't care how many people drink from the bottle, as long as the full bottle is paid for.
I don't care that I only got one full bottle, because that's what I paid for. Any less than a full bottle I would feel ripped off.
My concern is my 16 year old on drinking more than his share, way more
(Just a bit of humor)
We don't write the contracts, the ISP's do, all we do is sign them and pay the bill.
I'm allowed access 24/7 at an alotted bandwidth, and I could stay online for ALL those hours according to my agreement (although I don't/can't)
In Canada we fought the phone companies on this issue of extra extentions, and we fought the cable TV companies for extra extentions, and won on both counts.
They don't lose anything by us having more TV's, or phones, and neither do the ISP's for us having extra PC's accessing the same connection. Once the judges are informed as to how the technology works, they can see that.
The ISP's, phone companies and cable TV providers play on our ignorance for as long as they can, but in the end the customer will win/has won, because we are right.
My ISP allows 3 IP addresses for the same price, so I could take 3 IP's instead of using a router with 1 IP (but that's my own contract, doesn't apply to everyone)
I think of it like this....
When I buy a bottle of milk from the grocer, he doesn't care how many people drink from the bottle, as long as the full bottle is paid for.
I don't care that I only got one full bottle, because that's what I paid for. Any less than a full bottle I would feel ripped off.
My concern is my 16 year old on drinking more than his share, way more
(Just a bit of humor)We don't write the contracts, the ISP's do, all we do is sign them and pay the bill.
I'm allowed access 24/7 at an alotted bandwidth, and I could stay online for ALL those hours according to my agreement (although I don't/can't)
In Canada we fought the phone companies on this issue of extra extentions, and we fought the cable TV companies for extra extentions, and won on both counts.
They don't lose anything by us having more TV's, or phones, and neither do the ISP's for us having extra PC's accessing the same connection. Once the judges are informed as to how the technology works, they can see that.
The ISP's, phone companies and cable TV providers play on our ignorance for as long as they can, but in the end the customer will win/has won, because we are right.
Contracts?
I have never signed a contract.. There is a stated contract. But I have never signed anything.
How soon those who gave nothing forget those who gave all..
-
YeOldeStonecat
- SG VIP
- Posts: 51171
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
I don't believe the ISP's are against people sharing their account to their own home network. Therefore I don't believe it's stealing at all, if you have additional computers sharing a single account.
Home broadband routers brought the "router" term to the average user. But step back to 10,000 feet at take a look at the picture for a minute. Gateways and Routers have been around for a long long time. Earlier, people would take a dial up account, and share it to a network with a proxy server. Also you would get an ISDN, or some fractional T-1 like a 128k, or 256k, or 384k, or whatever size....and route that to a network...the ISP never billed you based on usage (except ISDN) or asked you how many computers you were hooking up. You pay for that bandwidth, you can do whatever you want with your bandwidth. If I share that bandwidth two more than one computer....it's not stealing, the bandwidth is already mine...I'm just splitting it up. I don't see the analogy of "like burning cd's and handing them out". Dial up, ISDN, broadband, T-1, T-3, OC-3, etc etc...bandwidth is bandwidth is bandwidth. Norms analogy of the jug of milk is right on the money. You pay for the bandwidth up to your house, what you do on the inside of your house is your business.
I can see where they don't want you to resell their bandwidth. I've seen plenty of small office buildings where someone has a DSL or cable line, they share it to the business in the office next door, kinda like reselling it themselves. Now ///that/// I believe is wrong.
Now there may be some ISP's out there, which specify in their EULA, that you cannot share the bandwidth, that you can run one and only one computer per account that you have. I have not come across any ISP's like these, if I did, I would be continuing on down the list in the yellow pages. But if I did sign that contract with them, and did split the bandwidth with the router, then Vesuvious would be correct. I don't know if @home is going that way, I cannot stand them, and pay no attention to them. Earthlink may be heading that way too, I've only dealt with them minimally since their recent big merger, and that was on a multiple dial up account for a network with a dial up LAN router. They didn't have any problems with me using that equipment.
Like I stated in my prior post, office networks that share a broadband account should absolutely have a business class account, not a standard home user account. I agree with the ISPs arguement there on justfying the extra montly rates, due to prolonged hours of increased usage vs the standard home account. And absolutely no objections to routers there, that's what they sell business class accounts for.
But my biggest concern is if indeed some ISP's will turn against routers. Just because you use a router does not mean you are splitting the bandwidth to other computers. I have plenty of setups where I have a single computer hung off a NAT router...I have the router in place simply as a NAT firewall. I prefer them, and I don't see how any ISP can try to tell a person they cannot do this type of setup.
Insisting on having a unique IP address for every computer on the network....just isn't feasible. There are only a certain amount of public IP addresses available.....in no way at all, with the current IP system, could an ISP dictate that every computer on every network have a unique IP address. Granted IPv6, with it's new 128 bit IP scheme, would make this possible...but that's not it's goal.
Home broadband routers brought the "router" term to the average user. But step back to 10,000 feet at take a look at the picture for a minute. Gateways and Routers have been around for a long long time. Earlier, people would take a dial up account, and share it to a network with a proxy server. Also you would get an ISDN, or some fractional T-1 like a 128k, or 256k, or 384k, or whatever size....and route that to a network...the ISP never billed you based on usage (except ISDN) or asked you how many computers you were hooking up. You pay for that bandwidth, you can do whatever you want with your bandwidth. If I share that bandwidth two more than one computer....it's not stealing, the bandwidth is already mine...I'm just splitting it up. I don't see the analogy of "like burning cd's and handing them out". Dial up, ISDN, broadband, T-1, T-3, OC-3, etc etc...bandwidth is bandwidth is bandwidth. Norms analogy of the jug of milk is right on the money. You pay for the bandwidth up to your house, what you do on the inside of your house is your business.
I can see where they don't want you to resell their bandwidth. I've seen plenty of small office buildings where someone has a DSL or cable line, they share it to the business in the office next door, kinda like reselling it themselves. Now ///that/// I believe is wrong.
Now there may be some ISP's out there, which specify in their EULA, that you cannot share the bandwidth, that you can run one and only one computer per account that you have. I have not come across any ISP's like these, if I did, I would be continuing on down the list in the yellow pages. But if I did sign that contract with them, and did split the bandwidth with the router, then Vesuvious would be correct. I don't know if @home is going that way, I cannot stand them, and pay no attention to them. Earthlink may be heading that way too, I've only dealt with them minimally since their recent big merger, and that was on a multiple dial up account for a network with a dial up LAN router. They didn't have any problems with me using that equipment.
Like I stated in my prior post, office networks that share a broadband account should absolutely have a business class account, not a standard home user account. I agree with the ISPs arguement there on justfying the extra montly rates, due to prolonged hours of increased usage vs the standard home account. And absolutely no objections to routers there, that's what they sell business class accounts for.
But my biggest concern is if indeed some ISP's will turn against routers. Just because you use a router does not mean you are splitting the bandwidth to other computers. I have plenty of setups where I have a single computer hung off a NAT router...I have the router in place simply as a NAT firewall. I prefer them, and I don't see how any ISP can try to tell a person they cannot do this type of setup.
Insisting on having a unique IP address for every computer on the network....just isn't feasible. There are only a certain amount of public IP addresses available.....in no way at all, with the current IP system, could an ISP dictate that every computer on every network have a unique IP address. Granted IPv6, with it's new 128 bit IP scheme, would make this possible...but that's not it's goal.
MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
Guinness for Strength!!!
Guinness for Strength!!!
-
YeOldeStonecat
- SG VIP
- Posts: 51171
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
I happened to be reading the Comcast agreement today while taking a break, and came up with these thoughts to the other post:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by qball15j
I read the Comcast Terms of Service and guess what now that their running their own network they are putting more restrictions on residential services! That includes Sharing of Internet access over networks!!!!! Read this yourself http://www.comcast.net/TermsofService/aup.asp It's all in the Bandwidth, Data Storage and Other Limitations section.
Gezzzz, looks like i'm going to have to get the business service after all whenever it comes down this way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did not see a single thing that prohibited routers or home LANs.
Key sentence that most people are misinterpreting:
"Comcast High-Speed Internet Service network residential customers may not resell, share, or otherwise distribute the Services or any portion thereof to any third party without the written consent of Comcast High-Speed Internet Service"
Now in the above paragraph, focus on "to any third party". People are hitting the panic button when they read "may nor resell, share..."...but are not reading the rest of the sentence which only says "to any third party without the written consent".
You, as the customer, are not a third party, therefore you, the customer, are not breaking any rules by sharing the connection to your own LAN with a router or proxy software be it Windows ICS, or a Linux gateway, or SyGate, or whatever.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by qball15j
I read the Comcast Terms of Service and guess what now that their running their own network they are putting more restrictions on residential services! That includes Sharing of Internet access over networks!!!!! Read this yourself http://www.comcast.net/TermsofService/aup.asp It's all in the Bandwidth, Data Storage and Other Limitations section.
Gezzzz, looks like i'm going to have to get the business service after all whenever it comes down this way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did not see a single thing that prohibited routers or home LANs.
Key sentence that most people are misinterpreting:
"Comcast High-Speed Internet Service network residential customers may not resell, share, or otherwise distribute the Services or any portion thereof to any third party without the written consent of Comcast High-Speed Internet Service"
Now in the above paragraph, focus on "to any third party". People are hitting the panic button when they read "may nor resell, share..."...but are not reading the rest of the sentence which only says "to any third party without the written consent".
You, as the customer, are not a third party, therefore you, the customer, are not breaking any rules by sharing the connection to your own LAN with a router or proxy software be it Windows ICS, or a Linux gateway, or SyGate, or whatever.
MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
Guinness for Strength!!!
Guinness for Strength!!!
-
jeffles37
Vesuvius, you are a stand up guy for sorta saying you missed the metered point.
I think when you said
Until people start hacking into the boxes outside their house, I don't think that you can state they are stealing bandwidth.
I especially giggled at Norm's remark concerning his .bat file. Just think:
Comcast: Why is this guy downloading so many copies of Windows2000 SP1? And round the clock?!?!
If bandwidth is the problem, jack up the price $5 and give me an extra megabit/sec. I just don't wanna pay for another IP that sits docile whilest at work.....
I think when you said
you still missed something. I understand that they offer the extra IP as a service--especally to those who don't want to buy a $100 device and run cat5 through their house. I would buy that from them if I wanted my own IP on their network. I don't.Routers are being used to get access that you are supposed to be paying for,
Until people start hacking into the boxes outside their house, I don't think that you can state they are stealing bandwidth.
I especially giggled at Norm's remark concerning his .bat file. Just think:
Comcast: Why is this guy downloading so many copies of Windows2000 SP1? And round the clock?!?!
If bandwidth is the problem, jack up the price $5 and give me an extra megabit/sec. I just don't wanna pay for another IP that sits docile whilest at work.....
you're dangerous.Originally posted by Norm
The bottom line here...
If my ISP took any action to stop my use of a router and extra PC's, I'd write a batch file to surf all day and night when I wasn't using my puter, just to prove a point. I'd have it download files and delete them, and download them again too.
Crackin' skulls and breaking kneecaps.
-
YeOldeStonecat
- SG VIP
- Posts: 51171
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
Here's a thought about bandwidth sharing that I read:
The phone company used to charge you extra if you had more than 1 phone in your house on the same line. They can't do that anymore.
The cable company used to charge extra if you had more than 1 TV hooked to your line. They can't do that anymore.
Now ISPs want to charge if you have more than 1 computer on your line. I doubt this will last long.
And yes, I know, the previous examples to have limits.
The phone company used to charge you extra if you had more than 1 phone in your house on the same line. They can't do that anymore.
The cable company used to charge extra if you had more than 1 TV hooked to your line. They can't do that anymore.
Now ISPs want to charge if you have more than 1 computer on your line. I doubt this will last long.
And yes, I know, the previous examples to have limits.
The way I see it is that the ISP's give you the option to purchase additional ip's for someone who wants 2 or more pc's hooked up and doesn't know or care about networking other than buying a hub and being done with it. The ISP would only still have to support each pc in terms of the settings that they normally use if 1 ip was purchased.
Now they do not "support" home networking and I believe rightly so. They have enough trouble just trying to get the users up and running rather than having to know about routers and such.
So I believe that the ISP's push the purchase of multiple ip's basically for their convenience.
Now they do not "support" home networking and I believe rightly so. They have enough trouble just trying to get the users up and running rather than having to know about routers and such.
So I believe that the ISP's push the purchase of multiple ip's basically for their convenience.
breakthrough, see flaming does work....sometimes.
Talking with some friends about this same issue at work I think I may have swayed my opinion completley. The things Bret just said are somethings that were brought to my attention that I was unaware of until I had that talk. I was thinking of my bandwidth as on or off rather than something that is there at all times just like a phone line or cable television (as long as you keep your bills paid of course).
I will admit my opinion has also been GREATLY swayed by Comcast's total inability to cause my 2 I.P. addresses to work with 2 home computers *gasp a home network we've never dealt with one of those before*. There total insistance that it is a problem in MY network, regardless of the fact that it worked flawlessly for 3 years prior to switching over to them, is just another straw on the camel's back.
It seems now whether I like it or not my only option is to go with one of these soloutions if I want to get both computers online in my home once again. I have tried countless times over the last 4 days to get them to work it out, 6 phone calls and somewhere around 7-8 hours of my time, total (yes I logged every minute of it and kept notes on exactly what was done by both me and Comcast). My only concern is a direct quote i received from the last Comcast represenative that I talked to in this series of calls, yes this is a word for word quote and no I am not making this up:
Question asked by me
Comcast represenative "Alex" ) as running a splitter device on my existing cable service to run the coaxial cable to a second TV in my home.
How about those of you with a bit of legal savvy give me your thoughts on what this represenative said and how much of a leg they have to stand on? Is it even possible, or even legal for that matter for them to ping past my modem through a router setup to see that it is in fact a router setup? My major concern is legal issues here. I consider myself a law abiding citizen and don't want to go to prison (I'm 6'1'', 160 which would probably make me the "resident bitch" so I don't plan on going
).
I will admit my opinion has also been GREATLY swayed by Comcast's total inability to cause my 2 I.P. addresses to work with 2 home computers *gasp a home network we've never dealt with one of those before*. There total insistance that it is a problem in MY network, regardless of the fact that it worked flawlessly for 3 years prior to switching over to them, is just another straw on the camel's back.
It seems now whether I like it or not my only option is to go with one of these soloutions if I want to get both computers online in my home once again. I have tried countless times over the last 4 days to get them to work it out, 6 phone calls and somewhere around 7-8 hours of my time, total (yes I logged every minute of it and kept notes on exactly what was done by both me and Comcast). My only concern is a direct quote i received from the last Comcast represenative that I talked to in this series of calls, yes this is a word for word quote and no I am not making this up:
Question asked by me
His answer:Since you guys can't seem to get this working for me on your end, what is Comcast's stance on soloutions I can control like a broadband router or ICS to get multiple computer access?
Comcast represenative "Alex"
That is the actual question and answer direct from the horses mouth. The Flaw, other than the fact that at this time obtaining a second I.P. from them is about as useful as a space heater in the desert? Splicing cable is a term used to describe those that actually go to either the neighborhood relay box OR their neighbors house and literally splice (usually with a splitter, but some clowns actually use pocket knives and electrical tape) the wire to relay cable service to a home that otherwise has no cable service. Whereas using a router is the exact same principal (as I understand it now since a person or two explained to me here in this threadUsing a router or any other means to get multiple computer access without obtaining a second I.P. address from us (Comcast) carries the same penalties as "splicing" cable and is considered, theft of service.
) as running a splitter device on my existing cable service to run the coaxial cable to a second TV in my home. How about those of you with a bit of legal savvy give me your thoughts on what this represenative said and how much of a leg they have to stand on? Is it even possible, or even legal for that matter for them to ping past my modem through a router setup to see that it is in fact a router setup? My major concern is legal issues here. I consider myself a law abiding citizen and don't want to go to prison (I'm 6'1'', 160 which would probably make me the "resident bitch" so I don't plan on going
).I wouldn't worry about them pinging past your router. I don't think it's possible as most routers are in "stealth" mode meaning when someone pings your IP nothing gets returned. That's why when you call tech support they ask you if you have a firewall up if they can't see your IP. If you ever need to call them for a probelm you would need to take one computer out from behind the router or your firewall.
99.999% of the time I have only computer on line at a time.
Just copy the MAC from your NIC to your router.
If I thought using a router to protect myself was stealing, I would pay the extra fee.
I really cannot think of a time that I have used more then one computer at a time to be on line.
I never get any"extra bandwidth", mainly under!
Just copy the MAC from your NIC to your router.
If I thought using a router to protect myself was stealing, I would pay the extra fee.
I really cannot think of a time that I have used more then one computer at a time to be on line.
I never get any"extra bandwidth", mainly under!
Have Heart Will Fly!