ATTBI is going to start charging for extra IPs..

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: PSYWVic
Strange... I was one of the first @Home subscribers inside the city of Portland and, AFAIK you always had to pay extra to use additional IPs unless you used a router.
The REAL news here is that ATTBI is going to be cracking down more and more on router use. Believe it or not, they consider it "theft of service" (says so right in their TOS). :|

:Q

I don't think they can tell when someone is using a router.. It's all the same to them.. data in, data out.. It's after it comes in that the router decides where it goes. (?)

Apparently there are ways to tell, I thought it was impossible too until recently.

I'd like to know how, though. They might just be blowing smoke.

Viper GTS

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt You're encouraging someone to do something on a network that considers that something illegal. nik

that's true, but it's really irrelevant what the company thinks should be illegal. haven't seen a court ruling on this yet though.

I can. I'm thinking of a guy just offhand who spent 15 months in jail for wiring several of his neighbors houses with it as well.

nik

wiring several of his neighbor's houses with what? his own connection? or did they each have their own connection?

 

[aphex]

Haha, i have an idiot friend that pays for multiple IP's AND uses a router... She says it wont work without the extra ones 😀

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

GoPunk, he was using his own connection to give his neighbors cable TV. Makes me wonder how bad the reception was. 😀

ViperGTS, the only way I know how to tell is to either 1) manually look up MAC addresses (we had a tool when we were back on @Home to look up MAC's for NICs to find make/model, but it would also show if it was a NIC or "other device") or 2) running some old tools that we don't have anymore. Apparently there are ways, but I don't have the ability to do so anymore.

nik

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: PSYWVic
Strange... I was one of the first @Home subscribers inside the city of Portland and, AFAIK you always had to pay extra to use additional IPs unless you used a router. The REAL news here is that ATTBI is going to be cracking down more and more on router use. Believe it or not, they consider it "theft of service" (says so right in their TOS). :|

Even though they're selling them and saying that they're allowed? I think I might go back and re-read the TOS for clarity if I were you... that seems awefully strange. I'm gonna ask somebody around here, though. Post the snippet if you find it...

nik

From ATTBI TOS, section 6(g), where ATTBI illegally attempts to apply cable TV regs to an internet service:
(g) Theft of Service. Customer shall not connect the Service or any AT&T Broadband Equipment to more computers, either on or outside of the Premises, than are reflected in Customer's account with AT&T Broadband. Customer acknowledges that any unauthorized receipt of the Service constitutes theft of service, which is a violation of federal law and can result in both civil and criminal penalties. In addition, if the violations are willful and for commercial advantage or private financial gain, the penalties may be increased.

Ok, yes, it doesn't specifically outlaw router use, but WTH is a router for but to split an internet connection between multiple computers?
And yes, I read your thread where you talk about ATTBI selling routers (and idiot techs and idiot customers). I thought it was funny, too, cause I called ATTBI tech support a few weeks ago about how their DHCP server is often very slow to renew my IP lease, sometimes causing a 2-3 minute outage every hour. The tech asked if I used a router and I honestly answered that I did. He began tongue-lashing me about how using a router is not allowed on the ATTBI network, how I was thieving service, etc. He even told me that my router somehow (mysteriously) allowed me to use multiple external IPs. When I told him just exactly what BS that was and how little I appreciated his lies and threats (I said all this politely and without profanity, btw), he hung up on me.

 

[Thegonagle]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
I'm thinking of a guy just offhand who spent 15 months in jail for wiring several of his neighbors houses with it as well.

nik

As he well should. You could hardly get more blatant than that. I'm not leeching off others, nor am I reselling or giving away my cable service.

Me, I'm paying money to have one wire in my home (nobody else's). Along with the broadband, they happen to be feeding me their cheapest sub-basic cable service over that wire. Yay, I have TBS, CNN, WGN, C-SPAN 1, and a s-load of public access and home shopping channels, and great reception on the broadcast channels without even having to move the antenna. They're feeding it to me and I'm going to eat it up.

They told me I could have it. I'm not smoking crack and I'm not lying.

 

[CrazyDe1]

ATTBI really pisses me off but thats another story all together...
Anyways, if i have a computer sharing a connection through a hub, and right now we have 1 computer connected to the cable modem, and 3 computers connected to the hub, are we going to have to purchase new IPs for our internet to work?

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: PSYWVic

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: PSYWVic Strange... I was one of the first @Home subscribers inside the city of Portland and, AFAIK you always had to pay extra to use additional IPs unless you used a router. The REAL news here is that ATTBI is going to be cracking down more and more on router use. Believe it or not, they consider it "theft of service" (says so right in their TOS). :|

Even though they're selling them and saying that they're allowed? I think I might go back and re-read the TOS for clarity if I were you... that seems awefully strange. I'm gonna ask somebody around here, though. Post the snippet if you find it... nik

From ATTBI TOS, section 6(g), where ATTBI illegally attempts to apply cable TV regs to an internet service: (g) Theft of Service. Customer shall not connect the Service or any AT&T Broadband Equipment to more computers, either on or outside of the Premises, than are reflected in Customer's account with AT&T Broadband. Customer acknowledges that any unauthorized receipt of the Service constitutes theft of service, which is a violation of federal law and can result in both civil and criminal penalties. In addition, if the violations are willful and for commercial advantage or private financial gain, the penalties may be increased. Ok, yes, it doesn't specifically outlaw router use, but WTH is a router for but to split an internet connection between multiple computers? And yes, I read your thread where you talk about ATTBI selling routers (and idiot techs and idiot customers). I thought it was funny, too, cause I called ATTBI tech support a few weeks ago about how their DHCP server is often very slow to renew my IP lease, sometimes causing a 2-3 minute outage every hour. The tech asked if I used a router and I honestly answered that I did. He began tongue-lashing me about how using a router is not allowed on the ATTBI network, how I was thieving service, etc. He even told me that my router somehow (mysteriously) allowed me to use multiple external IPs. When I told him just exactly what BS that was and how little I appreciated his lies and threats (I said all this politely and without profanity, btw), he hung up on me.

Surprisingly enough, it's a term of service that you sign, therefore agreeing with. 🙂 But, in all reality, AT&T probably wouldn't be putting something like that in if it was illegal? Hell, all you'd have to do is hire a half-wit lawyer and you've got yourself millions from suing the company. Trust me, there's some sort of loophole that allows that to fit in place. It doesn't make sense to me, but I'm going to toss it around here and see what my higher-ups say.

nik

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: Garfang

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: Garfang Yeah, screw them. Get a router. Don't forget to try a TV on the line to see if you get $12 basic cable for free. (I they can't turn off the TV signal, that's their own problem, IMO.) Mwa ha ha ha ha!

I hope somebody nails your ass, fscknut. nik

I?m a fscknut? OK, but you?re a know nothing know-it-all, kid. This is funny, because I've got RoadRunner-Time Warner. They spliced the cable and hooked the damn TV up for me and told me that getting free basic cable was no problem. You see, RoadRunner and Time Warner just accept the fact that they can't separate the TV signal from the broadband signal, and don't get down on the fact that people are going to do what they're going to do. Good policy, if you ask me, and a good example for AT&T BI to follow. In another thread, you were just complaining about the execs thinking with their pocketbooks instead of their heads. But what are they doing here? Thinking with their pocketbooks. They?re alienating their customers who do what they?re going to do in their homes with a wire that they pay money every month to have in their homes. If they don?t want to give away cable TV, they need to turn off the cable TV! Yes, they should turn off the cable TV. Ah, but that would require extensive, and expensive, system-wide equipment upgrades. Oh, I know! Let?s prosecute! Certainly, keeping a bunch of auditors and legal types busy and pissing off paying customers one by one must be cheaper than upgrading infrastructure! </SARCASM>

You're encouraging someone to do something on a network that considers that something illegal. Wait, even better... RR <STRONG>GIVES</STRONG> you that cable TV along with your internet service (apparently). Since RR is a subsidiary of AT&T, I highly doubt that you're anything but a crack smoking liar. But that's up to you. AT&T says that you get what you pay for. If you pay for an internet connection, you don't get cable TV. Period.

nik

First, let me be clear that I pay for both my cable internet and my digital cable TV connection seperately and that I do consider it a real theft of service to not pay for cable TV. I think that's pretty obvious, it's not ambigious, like using a router on an internet connection with capped UL and DL speeds.
I just wanted to point out that RR is not a subsidiary of AT&T but of AOL-TW (hence the use of the Warner Bros. cartoon name) and that I have heard that they offer a bundled internet/cable TV service.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Garfang

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt I'm thinking of a guy just offhand who spent 15 months in jail for wiring several of his neighbors houses with it as well. nik

As he well should. You could hardly get more blatant than that. I'm not leeching off others, nor am I reselling or giving away my cable service. Me, I'm paying money to have one wire in my home (nobody else's). Along with the broadband, they happen to be feeding me their cheapest sub-basic cable service over that wire. Yay, I have TBS, CNN, WGN, C-SPAN 1, and a s-load of public access and home shopping channels, and great reception on the broadcast channels without even having to move the antenna. They're feeding it to me and I'm going to eat it up. They told me I could have it. I'm not smoking crack and I'm not lying.

Oh shut the fsck up already! :| Goddamn... you have different service. I don't support it, so it's very possible for me not to know every goddamn detail about your service. The service that we're talking about is ATTBI - NOT FUSKING ROADRUNNER. It's illegal with ATTBI to attempt cable TV usage if you're not already paying for it. SHUT THE HELL UP already. It does make me curious why AT&T would allow one of it's subsidiaries to allow something like that when they don't allow it. Hense my doubting you. Chances are that you're just another one of those system-abusing assholes that hike the rates for everyone else. But, it's also quite possible for you to be getting free cable TV along with your cable internet. However, I couldn't give a shiznit because you're continually pushing bullsh!t on other networks that blatantly and outright tell you that it's illegal.

nik

 

[hoihtah]

as far as mac is concerned.... if you give them your router's mac number, i don't see how they'd know if you are splitting the network.

for example, i can have a rig with two ethernet cards. two different mac IDs.
i can use one for ATTBI cable modem.
and then use the other ethernet card to create my own home network.

i set sharing of internet to the home network... which gets fed by cable modem.

(this whole thing is basically what switches do)

unless they can see what other hardwares are installed in my machine, they can't see that i'm sharing.

but i'm definately not about to tell them or allow them to see what's in my machine.
that's really none of their business... and my privacy.

and the part where this whole TOS falls apart is when i want to install a firewall rig.
most switches come with built-in firewire.
if that's what i want to do... protect my pc, how are they going to tell me not to use it?

firewall machine in general is a computer that filters access.
so would that be considered sharing?

too many loose terms here.

i can definately tell you that no one is going to jail for this.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: PSYWVic

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: Garfang

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: Garfang Yeah, screw them. Get a router. Don't forget to try a TV on the line to see if you get $12 basic cable for free. (I they can't turn off the TV signal, that's their own problem, IMO.) Mwa ha ha ha ha!

I hope somebody nails your ass, fscknut. nik

I?m a fscknut? OK, but you?re a know nothing know-it-all, kid. This is funny, because I've got RoadRunner-Time Warner. They spliced the cable and hooked the damn TV up for me and told me that getting free basic cable was no problem. You see, RoadRunner and Time Warner just accept the fact that they can't separate the TV signal from the broadband signal, and don't get down on the fact that people are going to do what they're going to do. Good policy, if you ask me, and a good example for AT&T BI to follow. In another thread, you were just complaining about the execs thinking with their pocketbooks instead of their heads. But what are they doing here? Thinking with their pocketbooks. They?re alienating their customers who do what they?re going to do in their homes with a wire that they pay money every month to have in their homes. If they don?t want to give away cable TV, they need to turn off the cable TV! Yes, they should turn off the cable TV. Ah, but that would require extensive, and expensive, system-wide equipment upgrades. Oh, I know! Let?s prosecute! Certainly, keeping a bunch of auditors and legal types busy and pissing off paying customers one by one must be cheaper than upgrading infrastructure! </SARCASM>

You're encouraging someone to do something on a network that considers that something illegal. Wait, even better... RR GIVES you that cable TV along with your internet service (apparently). Since RR is a subsidiary of AT&T, I highly doubt that you're anything but a crack smoking liar. But that's up to you. AT&T says that you get what you pay for. If you pay for an internet connection, you don't get cable TV. Period. nik

First, let me be clear that I pay for both my cable internet and my digital cable TV connection seperately and that I do consider it a real theft of service to not pay for cable TV. I think that's pretty obvious, it's not ambigious, like using a router on an internet connection with capped UL and DL speeds. I just wanted to point out that RR is not a subsidiary of AT&T but of AOL-TW (hence the use of the Warner Bros. cartoon name) and that I have heard that they offer a bundled internet/cable TV service.

RR is a subsidiary of AT&T. We're currently moving people over from official RR accounts to ATTBI accounts in about half a dozen states.

nik

 

[Thegonagle]

They told Jesus to shut the fsck up too, but he still started a revolution.

What's AT&T so afraid of?

OK, fine, I'm fscking done!

 

[hoihtah]

to settle the debate of ownership of RR...

this is what hoovers said.

This Road Runner wants to stay one step ahead of Wile E. Coyote in delivering high-speed cable-based Internet access. Road Runner delivers the Internet and multimedia programming to more than 1.9 million subscribers through networks belonging to parent Time Warner Cable and other affiliated cable TV operators. The company is using the same cables to introduce Line Runner Internet-based phone services. Originally a joint venture among affiliates of AOL Time Warner, MediaOne (later acquired by AT&T), Compaq, Microsoft, and the Newhouse publishing family, Road Runner is owned and operated by Time Warner Cable.

it's owned and operated by TWC.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Surprisingly enough, it's a term of service that you sign, therefore agreeing with. 🙂 But, in all reality, AT&T probably wouldn't be putting something like that in if it was illegal? Hell, all you'd have to do is hire a half-wit lawyer and you've got yourself millions from suing the company. Trust me, there's some sort of loophole that allows that to fit in place. It doesn't make sense to me, but I'm going to toss it around here and see what my higher-ups say.

nik

Telco laws supersede anything that the provider may have the customer sign. What that means is that if a company forces their customers to sign something that is against the law, the law wins, end of story. ATTBI sells a single dynamic IP service with capped speeds, therefore they are not allowed to control my internal network so long as I don't attempt to use multiple external IPs or exceed my capped limits. Of course, I can't attempt to resell the service, give it to my neighbor, or use it for commercial purposes, no problem there from me.
As for the "millions from suing the company," note the amazingly well-written no-class-action-lawsuit clause in the TOS. Very nice.
As for your "higher-ups," you might want to mention I am a long-time AT&T customer and that both inexpensive satellite TV service (DirectTV has some great promos right now) and DSL service (which doesn't care about routers) are readily available in my neighborhood. 😉

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Garfang
They told Jesus to shut the fsck up too, but he still started a revolution. What's AT&T so afraid of? OK, fine, I'm fscking done!

So that means that you won't be posting in my thread anymore? Woohoo! *puts on a party hat*

😀

 

[Thegonagle]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
So that means that you won't be posting in my thread anymore? Woohoo! *puts on a party hat*

😀

Your thread?

 

[hoihtah]

i love a good clean fight.

so what are you guys fighting about again?

 

[Thegonagle]

He he, I told a dude to see if he had a cable TV signal available on his broadband cable.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: PSYWVic

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt Surprisingly enough, it's a term of service that you sign, therefore agreeing with. 🙂 But, in all reality, AT&T probably wouldn't be putting something like that in if it was illegal? Hell, all you'd have to do is hire a half-wit lawyer and you've got yourself millions from suing the company. Trust me, there's some sort of loophole that allows that to fit in place. It doesn't make sense to me, but I'm going to toss it around here and see what my higher-ups say. nik

Telco laws supersede anything that the provider may have the customer sign. What that means is that if a company forces their customers to sign something that is against the law, the law wins, end of story. ATTBI sells a single dynamic IP service with capped speeds, therefore they are not allowed to control my internal network so long as I don't attempt to use multiple external IPs or exceed my capped limits. Of course, I can't attempt to resell the service, give it to my neighbor, or use it for commercial purposes, no problem there from me. As for the "millions from suing the company," note the amazingly well-written no-class-action-lawsuit clause in the TOS. Very nice. As for your "higher-ups," you might want to mention I am a long-time AT&T customer and that both inexpensive satellite TV service (DirectTV has some great promos right now) and DSL service (which doesn't care about routers) are readily available in my neighborhood. 😉

Yeah, don't you love that little clause? 😀 While it's true that they can't get you for connecting multiple computers through one IP, they can get you for using an IP that's not assigned to you. I used to have to work with people (back when AT&T was with @Home, you could get a static IP) who would "steal" the default gateway's IP and nobody in that IP block could get a connection 😛

nik

 

[Jzero]

But, in all reality, AT&T probably wouldn't be putting something like that in if it was illegal?

Just b/c it's in the ToS doesn't mean it holds water legally. I bet there is also something somewhere in the ToS that says that if one part of the ToS is voided, the other terms remain effective unless they are also specifically voided.
They could very well be blowing smoke and if they ever came after you, a shyster lawyer would quickly get their little "law" blown out of the water. I doubt you'd be able to sue for anything....what damages would you specify?

Anyway, I know companies are trying to crack down on routers, but it's impossible for them to tell. For one thing, how could they distinguish between a "router" that hooks two multiple connections and a router that only hooks one that someone just uses for the security of NAT?
It simply can't be done. Sure, they could probably tell you were using a router by MAC, but they would have no clue what is behind the router--that's the whole point of the router (in the "broadband router" sense of the word).

Finally, if it ever came down to it, a router is a computer. You can make a router with a 386, 2 NICs and a linux kernel on a floppy disk. Is that a router or a computer?
A router is a specialized computer. You can hook that one computer to your broadband line.
You can hook whatever the hell you want to your computer.

 

[hoihtah]

Originally posted by: Jzero

But, in all reality, AT&T probably wouldn't be putting something like that in if it was illegal?

Just b/c it's in the ToS doesn't mean it holds water legally. I bet there is also something somewhere in the ToS that says that if one part of the ToS is voided, the other terms remain effective unless they are also specifically voided.
They could very well be blowing smoke and if they ever came after you, a shyster lawyer would quickly get their little "law" blown out of the water. I doubt you'd be able to sue for anything....what damages would you specify?

Anyway, I know companies are trying to crack down on routers, but it's impossible for them to tell. For one thing, how could they distinguish between a "router" that hooks two multiple connections and a router that only hooks one that someone just uses for the security of NAT?
It simply can't be done. Sure, they could probably tell you were using a router by MAC, but they would have no clue what is behind the router--that's the whole point of the router (in the "broadband router" sense of the word).

Finally, if it ever came down to it, a router is a computer. You can make a router with a 386, 2 NICs and a linux kernel on a floppy disk. Is that a router or a computer?
A router is a specialized computer. You can hook that one computer to your broadband line.
You can hook whatever the hell you want to your computer.

i guess you said it clearer than i did above.

i'd really like to see how they are claiming that they can tell if user is splitting behind a router.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Garfang

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt So that means that you won't be posting in my thread anymore? Woohoo! *puts on a party hat* 😀

Your thread?

Yes. My thread 😛

nik

 

[Jzero]

i guess you said it clearer than i did above.

i'd really like to see how they are claiming that they can tell if user is splitting behind a router.

ROFL I didn't even get to your post yet 🙂

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Jzero

But, in all reality, AT&T probably wouldn't be putting something like that in if it was illegal?

Just b/c it's in the ToS doesn't mean it holds water legally. I bet there is also something somewhere in the ToS that says that if one part of the ToS is voided, the other terms remain effective unless they are also specifically voided. They could very well be blowing smoke and if they ever came after you, a shyster lawyer would quickly get their little "law" blown out of the water. I doubt you'd be able to sue for anything....what damages would you specify? Anyway, I know companies are trying to crack down on routers, but it's impossible for them to tell. For one thing, how could they distinguish between a "router" that hooks two multiple connections and a router that only hooks one that someone just uses for the security of NAT? It simply can't be done. Sure, they could probably tell you were using a router by MAC, but they would have no clue what is behind the router--that's the whole point of the router (in the "broadband router" sense of the word). Finally, if it ever came down to it, a router is a computer. You can make a router with a 386, 2 NICs and a linux kernel on a floppy disk. Is that a router or a computer? A router is a specialized computer. You can hook that one computer to your broadband line. You can hook whatever the hell you want to your computer.

Yeah, my g/f's dad is going to use one of those sh!tboxes with the Linux kernel on floppy for his router. 🙂

nik