Cable Companies Saying No to WiFi Sharing 419
blastedtokyo writes: "According to this story from CNet, Time Warner Cable is going after people who share their wireless connections via NYC Wireless or other public share networks. All we need is a warchalking symbol that conveys 'I'm a lawyer who doesn't have time to figure out how to set up a WEP link.'" This might remind you of a story posted the other day about other ways cable ISPs are trying to lock down their networks.
Re:lawyers (Score:3, Informative)
EFF is Searching for ISPs with Good AUPs (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What's the agreement say? (Score:3, Informative)
You obviously don't use their NNTP server
Seriously, they are one of the better DSL providers -- they allow non-commercial servers, and provide static IP. However, they recently halved upload bandwidth (at least in BellSouth territory) from 256 kb/s to 128 kb/s.
Read the article ffs... (Score:3, Informative)
Only people who advertised their wide-open APs on nycwireless got "the letter" - And TW said they're not actively hunting down 802.11 users - These particular users, in TWs own words, "Waved a banner in front of us" saying they were breaking their TOS.
TW found out because they effectively TOLD TW they were breaking the rules.
Bandwith vs. Soda Pop (Score:2, Informative)
Uh, no. Your analogy doesn't work. Disclaimer - I work for a very large company that makes soda. I won't say which one since I don't speak for them officially. I work in IT, not sales, but after 14 years with this company I have a *some* idea of how the business works.
Actually we don't care if you drink the entire bottle or not. A case of soda costs x to make and sells for y. All we care about is keeping x as low as possible and y as high as we can get away with, just like any other production / distribution business. You'd be surprised how hard we work to cut the cost of producing a case by a penny. It adds up in a hurry.
The closest analogy you could make to unlimited bandwidth and the Carbonated Soft Drink business is fountain sales in restaurants. Fountain CSD (outside of convenience stores) is generally sold for a flat price and all you can drink. And we still don't care. You could drink until you bust in some stupid "beat the system" game and it still doesn't change the fact that the fast food place selling you the soda payed more for the cup than they did to us for the amount of soda it takes to fill that cup several times. Mickey D's or BK or KFC are still making money.
Anyway, the analogy is getting stretched a bit, but what the hell. It's only bandwidth.
Re:Average user (Score:3, Informative)
The difference here is that heating costs in terms of energy and you are paying a fixed amount per kWh or per m^3 of natural gas. This means that the extra heating nessary to heat the old lady's place will increase your bill. On the other hand, WiFi'ing your broadband and giving the old lady access does not increase your bill.
Bandwidth costs money. More bandwidth costs more money. I think that for higher than average users, bandwidth should be paid per quantity used. In this way, it becomes easy to draw the line as to the 'cost' of sharing because no matter how you look at it, bandwidth costs money and more bandwidth costs more money.
Although I think that TWC is actually being reasonable in this instance (and saying TWC is being reasonable about anything is a first for me), I have to take exception to your analogy.
Heat, whether delivered by gas, electricity, or oil, is derived from a physical quantity that can be measured. You can save money by turning your thermostat down. You don't pay for the gas, electricity, or oil that you don't use. Once the infrastructure is in place to deliver this stuff to your home, you only pay for what you consume, and your supplier's responsibility is to supply enough to the neighborhood so noone does without. If you consume an extra few KWh this month, your supplier hasto find a place to get it and deliver it to you.
Bandwidth is quite different in that there is no physical quantity changing hands. In fact, the infrastructure itself is the product. And maybe you're buying time also, since slower connections do everything faster connections do, and you're paying extra for the speed. If you don't use bandwidth, someone still pays for the fact that you could have used it.(Whether or not you actually pay a metered rate for bandwidth is not an issue; at some point, someone (probably your ISP) is paying for the whole pipe.) And, if you use a 100K extra bandwidth this month than last month, your supplier doesn't have to buy two more 56k modems to make up for it. All the supplier has to do is make sure he can meet the peak bandwidth demand with a reasonable amount of latency.
So, bandwidth costs money, and more bandwidth costs money, sort of. If you (being a consumer, business, or ISP) have a T1 utilized at 100% capacity, and you absolutely need an extra 1% in bandwidth, you'll have to buy another line and pay for it. But if your line is only utilized 50%, and you need an extra 10%, that extra bandwidth costs nothing, because you already bought it. Heat is sold in physical units of something. Bandwidth is sold in potential maximum information transfer over time. They are very different.
Not a problem with Covad DSL (Score:3, Informative)
When I ordered Covad DSL ($50/month for 384/128kbps), the salesperson was very clear that sharing one's line to sell wireless access to one's neighbors was perfectly OK with them and something that they regarded as a competitive advantage of their service.
DSL has less media sharing and is easier to upgrade on an individual basis. This may be why DSL providers in my experience generally seem to be ambivalently neutral to definitely positive about wireless access sharing, while cable modem providers have generally been quite concerned and proactive about any kind of bandwidth hogging scenarios (not just wireless sharing).