Could ISP's Seriously Charge for Multiple Computers?

[Rhi]

Comcast is considering disallowing routers without a per PC connect fee. AT&T seems to already have gone this route.

http://www.computers4sure.com/linksys/store/att_startup.asp

Is this the future? If I have a router will they know? Wouldn't it cost them more to find out if I had a router than the benefits of charging me 4.99 a month extra?? GRRRR

-Rhi

 

[Dazmite]

I had @home till they dropped cable service, now I have cox as an ISP. It was hard to get a router to setup at first, as now they register the mac address of the pc. Once the address was cloned to the router it has worked fine. But, there is an inherent slowdown in the service, I figured it was due to all the people switching over to the new service. They do have you install software for the setup process, I am unsure if the ware is really needed, meaning do they search for it to see if its installed or can it be deleted? I will try it one day, but I haven't the time right now. They can charge for each PC, since more than one PCs using the connection. But I feel that if your paying for X amount of bandwidth, you should be able to connect as many as you wish. Your the one that will experience the slow down. Which at this moment I have 2 connected for Internet a 3rd just for Seti, which actually never uses the internet. Well you get my meaning.


Daz

 

[Jonathan93]

I don't think they can tell.. My comment towards them... Give me my IP address, and I'll do with it as I wish.... That and I don't think feel they have ANY grounds on charging you more. I mean, you are only using 1 IP address, and they can still rate limit you based using the cable modem (Or they could rate limit you with their routers).

If you are going to pay the fee, I'd look to see how much it costs for extra IP address. I think you may be better off purchasing additional IP addresses for your computers than going that route.

 

[CubicZirconia]

Although I too think it's stupid, companies often try to do it. As Dazmite said, as long as you clone the MAC address they won't know the difference. Also, I think getting a router is a better option then getting 2 different IP's. It seems to work better, at least for me.

 

[calpha]

I was one of the first in my area to get DSL at my old address from Bellsouth. I asked the Tech who installed if they permitted multiple computers, and he said no. He also said if they catch you that they'd discontinue your service. I never researched it to see if it was in teh agreement, and did it any way. IF they watched my packets they would've been able to tell, but they never did. I had it for two years w/o incident shared to multiple PCs.

 

[blstriker]

I thought that NAT was invisible to the ISP's but some of the networking guru's in here say that they can tell that you're using a NAT. If this were true, why would the ISP's be spending money to develop CAT (a version of NAT that they can monitor)? I dunno either way.

 

[Twitty]

Here's how I understand the whole thing... At this point, the only way the cable/dsl company can reliably tell if you have more then one computer hooked up is if they ask you, and you tell them. That being said, most of the cable companies have switched from MAC address authentication and/or Compuer Name & Workgroup to Automatic authentication. Which means that you can plug any pc into the cable modem and it will automaticly authenticate you on thier network. I'm not sure that this is all good though. If they have a way to read the MAC address of the PC that is plugged into the CM, then they have a way to prove if you have more then 1 PC using that connection. I don't think they care if you still only have 1 PC connected at a time. They will want to bill you for 2 anyway. Now, if you have a router and that always remains connected - then you should be able to plug as many PC's into the router as it will allow and all of them will simply share the IP address assigned to the router. I don't think there is anyway for them to tell if you have a router or a PC hooked up at the other end. At least not yet...

Just my understanding... Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong

 

[bozo1]

AT&T never said they were disallowing routers. They simply said that they wouldn't support it if you have problems. Worse case scenario - you gotta take it out of the picture if you have problems and have to call for support. Most all ISP's do this as well. You can't expect them to try and support whatever hardware someone has added on.
There is a difference in 'disallowing' and 'not supporting'.

 

[spidey07]

jeez. Of course the providers can tell if you run more than one machine behind a router. This has been discussed ad nausium (sp). And what boils my blood is that you somehow think you should be able to run as many computers as you wish and suck up all the bandwidth. That is like saying "I've got a phone line for $30/mo I should be able to call anywhere and not get charged, including 900 numbers". Keep dreaming, you are paying for one computer and one IP address, that IP address and the ability to communicate on the Internet is NOT YOURS!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are merely leasing that address/ability to communicate. Perfect analogy is a phone number - that number is NOT YOURS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It belongs to the phone company just as the IP address belongs to the provider. At the same time being that you are on THEIR NETWORK, the provider has every right to tell you what you can and cannot do.

What do you do if you want another phone line? Pay for one
What do you do if you want more cable outlets? Pay for more
What do you do if you want more power into your house? Pay for more

This is not such a hard concept to understand...it is called business. The network gear and bandwidth to support this stuff is VERY expensive. The providers have to cover their costs some how, just as cable, phone and electric do.

PS - for now the ISP mostly doesn't care if you have a home router. If you're taking up 5 percent of their capacity and only paying 0.1% of their income, well now we'll just have to disconnect you or charge you more now won't we?

 

[Abzstrak]

<< jeez. Of course the providers can tell if you run more than one machine behind a router. This has been discussed ad nausium (sp). And what boils my blood is that you somehow think you should be able to run as many computers as you wish and suck up all the bandwidth. That is like saying "I've got a phone line for $30/mo I should be able to call anywhere and not get charged, including 900 numbers". Keep dreaming, you are paying for one computer and one IP address, that IP address and the ability to communicate on the Internet is NOT YOURS!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are merely leasing that address/ability to communicate. Perfect analogy is a phone number - that number is NOT YOURS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It belongs to the phone company just as the IP address belongs to the provider. At the same time being that you are on THEIR NETWORK, the provider has every right to tell you what you can and cannot do. >>



Couldn't have said it better myself... I mean can they charge for it? YES, its their service isn't it? who do U think makes the rules for that?

 

[bozo1]

That's one nice thing about DSL. In many areas, you can choose from numerous ISP's.

 

[Hard_Boiled]

I don't see what the big deal is, with my cable anyways I get 1.5 Mbps. If I hook 50 computers up to my router, they have to share that 1.5 Mbps. I'm not taking any more IP addresses than what I paid for, and I'm not using more bandwidth than what I'm allocated.

But I hardly use any bandwidth at all, AT&T likes me as a customer I'm sure.

 

[Geekbabe]

<< I had @home till they dropped cable service, now I have cox as an ISP. It was hard to get a router to setup at first, as now they register the mac address of the pc. Once the address was cloned to the router it has worked fine. But, there is an inherent slowdown in the service, I figured it was due to all the people switching over to the new service. They do have you install software for the setup process, I am unsure if the ware is really needed, meaning do they search for it to see if its installed or can it be deleted? I will try it one day, but I haven't the time right now. They can charge for each PC, since more than one PCs using the connection. But I feel that if your paying for X amount of bandwidth, you should be able to connect as many as you wish. Your the one that will experience the slow down. Which at this moment I have 2 connected for Internet a 3rd just for Seti, which actually never uses the internet. Well you get my meaning.


Daz >>




I have Mediaone and deep sixed the roadrunner medic software just as soon as the tech was out the door.I would think that they might decide to just look at the total bandwidth a household is consuming, set a cap and bill for overusage.
From what I've seen there are housholds with lans that use less bandwidth than one male college student

 

[ktwebb]

The way I see it is I am paying for my 1.5/256 aDSL account. That's what they advertise. That's the marketing. Not, 45 a month for an IP. That may be the end result, and if ISP's adopt this one IP approach, I won't cry. That's life. Broadband accounts are too expensive in the first place for the most part. Also merely an opinion. Time will tell on that front. I think the argument against allowing routers is flawed using "they own the IP" slant, but that's just my opinion.

 

[jfunk]

<< jeez. Of course the providers can tell if you run more than one machine behind a router. This has been discussed ad nausium (sp). And what boils my blood is that you somehow think you should be able to run as many computers as you wish and suck up all the bandwidth. That is like saying "I've got a phone line for $30/mo I should be able to call anywhere and not get charged, including 900 numbers". Keep dreaming, you are paying for one computer and one IP address, that IP address and the ability to communicate on the Internet is NOT YOURS!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are merely leasing that address/ability to communicate. Perfect analogy is a phone number - that number is NOT YOURS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It belongs to the phone company just as the IP address belongs to the provider. At the same time being that you are on THEIR NETWORK, the provider has every right to tell you what you can and cannot do.

What do you do if you want another phone line? Pay for one
What do you do if you want more cable outlets? Pay for more
What do you do if you want more power into your house? Pay for more

This is not such a hard concept to understand...it is called business. The network gear and bandwidth to support this stuff is VERY expensive. The providers have to cover their costs some how, just as cable, phone and electric do.

PS - for now the ISP mostly doesn't care if you have a home router. If you're taking up 5 percent of their capacity and only paying 0.1% of their income, well now we'll just have to disconnect you or charge you more now won't we? >>




How exactly are you using more of their resources by having two PCs hooked up? Your analogy makes no sense. Having two computers hooked up is NOT like usinga second phone line, it's like having two PHONES hooked up to your ONE line. I pay for a certain amount of bandwidth, just like I pay to make unlimited local phone calls. They can't tell me how many different phones I can call from within my house, so why should they be able to tell me how many PCs I use my SET AMOUNT OF BANDWIDTH from?

I guess all I want is an explanation of how exactly having two PCs hooked up is using more resources...same # of IPs, same amount of bandwidth....wheres this extra usage?


j

 

[Nutz]

I agree with jfunk.

There is another thread already going on this.

IMO, if the bandwidth is capped then they have no say in how you use it. Its like a telephone or cable TV. Once its in your house they have NO control of how you use it. Whether you have 1 computer or 10, you still won't take up any more bandwidth (in theory). For me the point is simple. You have one phone line coming into your house. How many phones you have hooked up to that line is moot becase you're not going to exceed making more than one call at a time--exactly the service they want to provide. Where this applies to broadband is that they provided the line to the house. How many computers you have hooked up will not exceed the service they agreed to provide. Thats the important distinction people are not seeing. And yes you can communicate with more than one desintation at a time where you can't with a phone, but you can do that with only one computer too.

 

[bozo1]

The way cable companies look at it is simple:

They only have enough bandwidth for a certain percentage of their users to be online at any given time. Back in the modem days, ISP's had formulas to determine how many dial-up modems they would need for a given number of subscribers. The also had formulas to determine how much upstream bandwidth they needed for a given number of modems taking into account that most people just do short bursts (http pages) than actual streaming. ISP's today use similar formulas to determine how much upstream bandwidth they need for a given number of connections.

The more people online at once, the slower things get. This is why many cable modem subscribers are experience slower downloads than they did early on. Not only may your 'neighborhood' link be saturated, but your ISP's upstream bandwidth may be overtaxed.

Them not being able to control how many PC's they have on their network scares them. If a home has more than one PC, the chances are higher that either someone has one sitting there playing Morpheus all day or downloading warez, or in the least, that that home would probably be using more bandwidth than a one PC home. Multiple PC's, home LAN, etc., is a sign of a more experienced user meaning he'll probably use more bandwidth than a typical subscriber. This throws their formulas into the crapper and that scares them.

Agree with it or not, this is their concern and that is why many are starting to talk about instituting monthly bandwidth limits. You are using more of their resources so you should pay more than the average Joe who may check his email once a day and surf around for an hour after dinner.

 

[jfunk]

<< Them not being able to control how many PC's they have on their network scares them. If a home has more than one PC, the chances are higher that either someone has one sitting there playing Morpheus all day or downloading warez, or in the least, that that home would probably be using more bandwidth than a one PC home. Multiple PC's, home LAN, etc., is a sign of a more experienced user meaning he'll probably use more bandwidth than a typical subscriber. This throws their formulas into the crapper and that scares them.

Agree with it or not, this is their concern and that is why many are starting to talk about instituting monthly bandwidth limits. You are using more of their resources so you should pay more than the average Joe who may check his email once a day and surf around for an hour after dinner. >>



Hey I don't care if I gotta pay for the amount of bandwidth I use, my point is how I use the bandwidth is my business.

THe other thing is, how can they complain about how much bandwidth some users use vs others when they don't even guarantee you any certain amount? They only say "UP TO" X kb/s. If they are gonna start charging based on how much you use, I better damn well have that bandwidth reserved so I get my full thruput "potential" whenever the hell I want.

Also, if how often you are using it is their concern, shouldn't that go both ways and shouldn't we get a prorated refund every month for all the time they are down for maintenance?

I guess it just seems to me that the providers are on the better side of this varying usage thing more often than the user. There are a heck of a lot more users that just do lite surfing and email than do massive file transfers and stuff, and you don't see them in any hurry to lower the fees to those people.

BTW, I cannot say about other providers, but Time Warner better watch itself if it tried to pull any of this stuff. They actually advertise that you can use more than one computer even without additional hardware (by using both the ethernet port and USB port on the modem) and have a router that they are trying to sell to people for $150 to use more than two PCs. They're gonna have a lot of pissed off people if they go and try to change what they are actively using as a selling point of their service.


j

 

[CSFM]

I know they can't tell here in Australia if you have a router. I have one and have 5 PC's running on the network. And when friends come over with laptops or their desktops, they plug right in too. I am always scraping the limit of bandwidth usage, but we are paying for this banwidth and I have NEVER been told not to do this, and the cable installers never touched a computer when installing the service. I did the lot... because I didn't trust some half witted cable guy with any of my computers.

I spend $110 Australian Dollars a month woth this company on cable TV, phone and cable internet... they have been a bunch of bumbling fools when it has come to customer service (not the cable service... it kicks ass)... infact they are downright stupid. But I can handle their down falls because without this cable service I think I would go nuts!

 

<< If they are gonna start charging based on how much you use, I better damn well have that bandwidth reserved so I get my full thruput "potential" whenever the hell I want. >>



So you're volunteering to be the one to revamp the entire high-speed cable internet system? Cable modems share their bandwith with your neighboorhood (node) first, then with your entire cable company's subscriber base, then with the entire internet. If you'd like to somehow change the entire schematic of it, be my guest.

And DSL isn't that much better, either. Despite the fact that everyone talks about how DSL is dedicated, you're really only isolated from your node-mates. Once you get beyond the Telco's local switching station, your packets are competing with everyone else's. And, everyone's packets are equal on the internet.

Link to Salon's article on this...

 

[jkoXP]

they can tell if your using a router by your email.

if you have 1 IP and 2 pc's using that same IP via router, when you send out an email, it goes through their server, and the servers sees on the IP header a 192. whatever IP addy, thats how they tell your using NAT...... and they reject the email, but htey cant tell that your browsing the net with more then one pc

 

[jfunk]

<<
So you're volunteering to be the one to revamp the entire high-speed cable internet system? Cable modems share their bandwith with your neighboorhood (node) first, then with your entire cable company's subscriber base, then with the entire internet. If you'd like to somehow change the entire schematic of it, be my guest. >>



And what from my statement gave you that impression? I'm simply stating that if I'm gonna have to pay for a certain amount of bandwidth per month, I better have access to however much I want of it whenever I want. I never said their current infrastructure was capable of handling that.

Besides that, this has nothing to do with the subject here, which is how is using two computers via NAT using more of the ISPs resources than using one pc? What exactly is it that they are claiming to need to charge you for the second machine for? Charging for the extra IP is fine, but if I don't need an extra IP, I'm using the same amount of bandwidth and IPs from their pool of resources regardless of how many PCs I have hooked up.

j

 

[bozo1]

<< if I'm gonna have to pay for a certain amount of bandwidth per month, I better have access to however much I want of it whenever I want >>


You aren't paying for a certain amount of bandwidth. They have promised you nothing. You are paying for service that is advertised as being "Up to 1.5MBps". If you have a connection speed of over 0 they have lived up to their advertising.

 

[Rhi]

WHOA. Everyone just CALM down.

Bozo the electricity/cable/phone line analogy isn't a very good one. Cable companies do not charge for the service that extra cable lines carry...they charge for the INSTALLATION of said line. In fact I think there is legislation that prohibits them from charging more per month based on how many T.V.s you have. As others have said, this isn't like an additional phone line or using more electricity. The maximum available bandwidth supplied to you is controlled by your local I.S.P. Therefore it shouldn't matter how you use it.

I know there's a difference between "disallowing" and "servicing" routers and related equipment. I know ISP's couldn't and shouldn't be expected to service some peoples' half--witted attempts at a home network. My original intention with this post was to find out if a local ISP could "lock down" home networks. Is it technically possible? I amd like someone else...I thought NAT was transparent to anything external? Would the costs associated with implementing a way to prohibit home networks without permission be worth it? As I said before, they control how much bandwidth you use, so the suggestion of "extra charge for extra PC's" isn't one brought about by necessity...rather it is simply viewed as an increase in their revenue stream.

-Rhi

 

[spidey07]

<< ...I thought NAT was transparent to anything external? Would the costs associated with implementing a way to prohibit home networks without permission be worth it? >>


Nat is not transparent.

Costs associate with implementing a way to prohibit home network would probably be way to high to even consider.