 g0nepostalI Am The One Her Mom Warned Her About
join:2001-03-23
Concord, CA
 ·magicjack.com
 ·Astound Broadband
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Why bother? I went over to ATTBI's page where they show the Linksys gear that they are selling to their customers to use for their home networks. It is interesting how NONE of it supports NAT.
While there is nothing legally wrong with what they are doing, I think it is sickening how they cleverly phrase the text on the page: "Order your Home Networking Service of Multiple Computer Access by clicking on the link above. This service is necessary to expand your high-speed cable Internet."
Never mind that instead of buying a mere hub, wireless access point, or a switch (and then playing the extra five bucks a month for each client PC's IP), Joe Q. Public can save himself some money each month by purchasing and using a NAT-capable router instead of paying for the additional IPs. To me this is a classic example of how a company won't mention all the options to take advantage of users without the knowledge of or the inclination to research all possible options.
This is just plain corporate greed at work. Don't tell me about how I am causing ATTBI losses by using NAT to connect all my home PCs. Last time I checked, I am paying for a pipe rated at 1.5Mbps down, 128Kbps up. There is nothing wrong with my using all the bandwidth I have available by sharing it among the PCs in my network.
How is my making full use of my pipe causing ATTBI a loss? I am sure that even with the four PCs downloading data all at once, I am not even approaching my pipe's full capacity - unless of course I am DLing something like an ISO image or am watching streaming video on all 4 machines, something that doesn't happen very often.
This is nothing more than ATTBI attempting to steer their non-technically inclined users to buy equipment being sold by Computers4Sure on behalf of Linksys, with ATTBI then steering those same users into leasing more IP addresses - of course, for more money - that they wouldn't need if they simply had more information.
That's just wrong.
g0nepostal
[text was edited by author 2002-01-30 04:15:04] |
|
| I'm just curious....
I would think that we have some ground since we're not doing anything illegal. We're buying our own software/hardware and sharing the 1.5mb connection they provide for us. We're not stealing or getting more bandwith then what we paid for. So how is NAT wrong?
It wouldn't shocked me to see some cases arise from something like this if they go after NAT users (like comcast is doing).
It's kinda like saying..here's a piece of land that's 1.5 aches, but you can only put 1 house on it, even though we're paying/paid for that 1 ache. What would be the point?
It's not like AT&T makes adding additional computers easy.
Any comments? |
|
pierce2
join:1999-09-22
Santa Cruz, CA | re: zoning, not at all unusual. I have 2.5acres here, zoned R20 with a deed restriction that says only one house per 'lot', and no subdivision. I knew this when I bought the place, so I can't really complain.
re: ATTBI, the 'deed restriction' in effect here is clause 6(g) of »www.attbi.com/general-info/bb_terms.html
(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.
|
|
| Yeah, bad example I guess.
I could use many more examples that would work..but i would think you'd get the jist of what I was saying. It's a bunch of crock. Greedy bastards |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
 ·Verizon Wireless..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
| reply to g0nepostal
quote:
This is just plain corporate greed at work. Don't tell me about how I am causing ATTBI losses by using NAT to connect all my home PCs. Last time I checked, I am paying for a pipe rated at 1500Mbps down, 128Kbps up. There is nothing wrong with my using all the bandwidth I have available by sharing it among the PCs in my network.
While I generally agree with your feelings on the subject, I don't know if saying "I'm paying for a 1500x128 circuit so by gosh I should be able to max it out!" is really appropriate. That's the sort of thinking that will lead to even slower speed caps and metered access. Economical broadband relies on reasonably responsible use from customers who subscribe to the service.
In other words, I don't see why Jack and Jill should be paying extra to check their AOL e-mail on their own computers, while Joey Blow next door gets to sit connected directly to Morpheus all day downloading the latest hollywood flicks for the basic price. NAT also offers firewalling protection. I think routers are an "unfair" target. Price gouging for connected devices was outlawed for televisions and telephones, it should be the same for computers. Want extra IPs? Fine charge for that. But as long as I'm using my connection responsibly, I don't see why they should prevent me from doing so with the service I'm paying them for. |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon Wireless..
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T U-Verse
·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
| reply to pierce2
quote:
re: zoning, not at all unusual. I have 2.5acres here, zoned R20 with a deed restriction that says only one house per 'lot', and no subdivision. I knew this when I bought the place, so I can't really complain.
re: ATTBI, the 'deed restriction' in effect here is clause 6(g) of »www.attbi.com/general-info/bb_terms.html[?]
And now you're touching on another HUGE peeve of mine. When I signed up with MediaOne Road Runner, I agreed to specific speeds and specific terms. As time progressed, MediaOne was bought by AT&T which put us under a new AUP - @home's. Now we're getting converted over to yet another agreement.
I know things change, and I guess they have to be able to change the rules to address things they see as hurting their business model, but it seems to me that the customers that signed up should be grandfathered to be under the rules they signed up for. They expect us to hold up our end of the deal, why do they get to change their rules on a whim? |
|
g0nepostalI Am The One Her Mom Warned Her About
join:2001-03-23
Concord, CA Reviews:
·magicjack.com
·Astound Broadband
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to djrobx
Thank you for agreeing, but you forgot this part: "How is my making full use of my pipe causing ATTBI a loss? I am sure that even with the four PCs downloading data all at once, I am not even approaching my pipe's full capacity - unless of course I am DLing something like an ISO image or am watching streaming video on all 4 machines, something that doesn't happen very often."
Rarely do I ever approach the 1.5Mbps down that ATTBI provides. It only happens when I am downloading big files, since most of the traffic that does come down the pipe is AOL, Instant Messaging, chat, the Web, and the occassional streaming video.
I agree with you completely that no one should have to pay for those who abuse their service. What gets me is that ATTBI - and evidently Comcast too, which is important since in a year they will have merged - are doing all they can to squeeze as much money as they can out of their users, while sharply decreasing the quality of their services.
Now, with ATTBI trying to steer people towards gear that doesn't do NAT, it pisses me off even more because they are taking advantage of those people who either don't know about how to share their connection using NAT or who don't have the inclination to do the research to learn how.
Call it the AOL model: Make things appear as easy as possible without mentioning how with a little more work the users can save themselves some hard-earned money instead of sacrificing it to a corporation.
g0nepostal
[text was edited by author 2002-01-30 04:16:15] |
|
Azash1
join:2001-11-28
Lake Zurich, IL | reply to CyBeRiAN
Re: Why bother? It's a bit like buying a mid-sized car and being told that if you want to have more than the driver ride in it to the store, you have to pay extra for each additional person, despite the fact that you paid for a car with room for four, and the fact that the speed limit doesn't change. So even though you can't possibly get to the store any faster, and the fact that you have room for more people without doing anything to the car, the automaker would like more money. Doh!
Using a NAT device on most broadband connections is not stealing anything from anyone, so long as it's not being used to allow the next door neighbor to get free service too. I pay for a 'residential 768/128 ADSL single IP DHCP' connection right now. IMO it's none of the ISP's business how many PCs are actually connected to that pipe, since I'm limited to 1 IP used (not tying up extra IPs for them, so no justification for a charge there), and since I can't possibly use more than the 768/128 bandwidth I've been allocated. I'm the one taking the hit if I add other PCs to the network behind a NAT, in the form of lowered bandwidth-per-PC and sometimes increased latency (games).
If AT&T would like to add bandwidth for every PC that I hook up on my end, I'd be more willing to accept an additional charge (after all, that's about the only way I see this making sense- what else COULD you be paying for, other than underwriting the bottom line for oversold bandwidth?) |
|
|
|
 NetGeek6Who?? Me??Premium
join:2000-02-22
Mount Clemens, MI | reply to djrobx
said by djrobx:
I know things change, and I guess they have to be able to change the rules to address things they see as hurting their business model, but it seems to me that the customers that signed up should be grandfathered to be under the rules they signed up for. They expect us to hold up our end of the deal, why do they get to change their rules on a whim?
Then there's the other option. No companies want to pick up the services under the grandfathered agreement, so instead, you just lose service, because the old company pulled out, and the new company isn't offering that service. Then, 6 months down the road, the start, and you have to sign up as new under a new service agreement.
Would you like it the other way? What if the new company had BETTER service, and you were forced to remain under the old agreement with lower level of service.
Fact is, you are with a new company and with a new TOS and level of service.
--Netgeek
--
I'm not even suppose to BE here today!!! |
|
 onsitedeHot Hot Hot
join:2000-11-24
Simsbury, CT | reply to Azash1
Serouusly. If they want to charge for extra PC's to be hooked up. Then every extra PC that is hooked up should get the bandwitdth you are paying for. Say if you have two PC's on a home network and subscribe to 768/128 service each pc should get that amount of bandwidth. |
|
| reply to g0nepostal
Why pay for another IP address? Its not like they are going to use the extra $5/month to buy new numbers or upgrade their hardware... |
|
Anon | reply to pierce2
(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.
Hey no problem. I have one computer listed in their database. My router is a computer and it is the only thing connected to their service. Everything else is connected to my router. I can play the word games too. |
|
 Thee OneTheeone. What? Ain'T No More To It.
join:2000-09-27
Chicago, IL | reply to djrobx
said by djrobx:
While I generally agree with your feelings on the subject, I don't know if saying "I'm paying for a 1500x128 circuit so by gosh I should be able to max it out!" is really appropriate. That's the sort of thinking that will lead to even slower speed caps and metered access. Economical broadband relies on reasonably responsible use from customers who subscribe to the service.
In other words, I don't see why Jack and Jill should be paying extra to check their AOL e-mail on their own computers, while Joey Blow next door gets to sit connected directly to Morpheus all day downloading the latest hollywood flicks for the basic price. NAT also offers firewalling protection. I think routers are an "unfair" target. Price gouging for connected devices was outlawed for televisions and telephones, it should be the same for computers. Want extra IPs? Fine charge for that. But as long as I'm using my connection responsibly, I don't see why they should prevent me from doing so with the service I'm paying them for.
I pay for the whole pipe, I can max out the whole pipe if I so choose. That's why I pay for it. That's why they cap it. They should not charge me based on me not using the whole thing 24/7, especially if it's capped. I'd see your point on an uncapped system. But not on one which has a cap. |
|
 El Coyote$The Trickster
join:2000-12-07
South Gate, CA | reply to Anon
said by ryanbytes:
Hey no problem. I have one computer listed in their database. My router is a computer and it is the only thing connected to their service. Everything else is connected to my router. I can play the word games too.
Works both ways. They are not responsible to you for anything past their routers. You are not responsible to them for anything past your router. All that they are selling is bandwidth. |
|
 RipRapBmw Power
join:2000-08-24
Berlin, CT
kudos:1 | reply to djrobx
said by djrobx:
quote:
re: I know things change, and I guess they have to be able to change the rules to address things they see as hurting their business model, but it seems to me that the customers that signed up should be grandfathered to be under the rules they signed up for. They expect us to hold up our end of the deal, why do they get to change their rules on a whim?
Thank you for bring up the issue of GRANDFATHERING! This is something that the big corps like to avoid like the plague. I signed up for UNLIMITED bandwidth when I signed my contract for BB access, originally with TCI Cable. I am now capped at 1500/128 under ATT, and who knows what will happen when CONcast takes over.
Grandfathering is becoming an extinct business practice. It is one of the best CRM tools out there, but very few companies are taking advantage of it. Pick up the latest issue of CRM magazine, and you will see what I mean.
I hope the BB companies will wake up and start treating their customers like they should.
KEMCO
--
If you Live to Learn,
You will Learn to Live. |
|
 huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to NetGeek6
I disagree with your analysis. Suppose my bank sells my mortgage. Would I be expected to accept it if the new lienholder wants to add a half-point to my rate? Or suppose I sign up with an online merchandiser under a privacy policy that says it will under no circumstances sell personal info I provide them. If the company goes belly-up and gets liquidated, is it entitled to sell my info? |
|
hufnagel
join:2001-03-24
Berkeley Heights, NJ | reply to El Coyote$
said by El Coyote:
Works both ways. They are not responsible to you for anything past their routers. You are not responsible to them for anything past your router. All that they are selling is bandwidth.
Hey... fine by me. Actually, this is better. So far I've had to clean up the messes left by Comcast, Telocity (now DirecTV) and Verizon for many of my customers. I personally think it's better when the responsibility of the provider ends at my (or my customer's) front door. We all know of the horror stories of what the so-called Techs from these guys have done to peoples machines. Hell, last time I talked to Comcast's tech people, they didn't even have an updated 'script' for Windows 2000!
Phone, cable, sewer, power and gas... for all of them the provider's responsibility ends at the front door. Once they step inside to work on something it costs you. Let broadband be the same way.
Just my 2cents. |
|
| reply to El Coyote$
quote:
Works both ways. They are not responsible to you for anything past their routers. You are not responsible to them for anything past your router. All that they are selling is bandwidth.
Actually, in the case of a phone or cable company, it is to the demarcation box outside the home. Don't think for a minute that if there is a problem with internal wiring, that the phone company wouldn't charge the customer for a tech visit to correct problems inside their home.... However if there is a thunderstorm and their wire gets knocked off a telephone poll...that it isn't the company who has to come out and repair the damage left behind on the public telephone poll....
But the person you responded to is right. Whatever goes on, on the customers end of the router is their business and their responsibility. It is none of AT&T's business how many computers are attached to the router...and yes technically a router is a computer with 2 NICs, some processing capability, etc... Windows NT and Linux allow one to do software routing...a box called a router is just a computer if you will that was designed to do that exclusively. A PC can be made to route with the right software...
Aside from a company that provides the physical infistructure (not the ISP if the ISP isn't also a provider of the physical pipe) being responsible for their wires up to the demarcation box that phone companies use to determine who's responsible for a voice phone outage, fine by me. I don't want every phone jokey out there messing with my PC I think you'll find a similar attitude among a large number of power users. I built my computer how I want it, and don't want just anyone messing around with it. I will control how I want it setup thank you very much...
The last time I even went to an OEM to have a computer built, it was at a store owned by computer engineers (one came out to help a friend with her business). Needless to say he got so sick of what Microsoft and Intel put these people through, they bailed, and he went back to Silicon Valley quite disgusted with the experience.
Since then I build my own PCs. I don't trust just any old OEM with my machine, and the last time I let a place do some of the work for me.... It was a year ago, I bought a 1 GHz Athlon Tbird. Because there was issue with mounting HSF's and CPU cores getting cracked (more so with the Tbird, then Intel's cores with many of these HSF units) I let them mount it on the mobo I was buying. (My Athlon 700 mobo was slot A, not socket A.)
I don't care whether that HSF was AMD approved or not...the freakin CPU ran at like 61 degrees C, which is way too hot. This despite my having a Addtronics 7896A server ATX case (yes, quite a bit larger then a full ATX) with 9 fans in it...well placed to keep the case cool, with some thermoanalysis that had been done when I mounted the K7M with Athlon 700 a year before. This 61 C CPU temp was despite a measured 28 degrees C case temp around there...
Going around to many of the shops to inquire about a better HSF, they don't have them. I ended up ordering the OCZ Gladiator and delta fan from
»www.ocztech.com
Anyway, one of these goofs told me
quote:
61 degrees C isn't too hot. AMD is making their CPUs so they can run at 90 C quite safely and without problem. I wish Intel would figure out how to do that
Umm, AMD never said that. What they did say, and it applied to the Palamino core, not the Thunderbird which I was sold was that they were researching the use of isotopically pure Si-28 and using a new material the organic packaging you see with an Athlon XP that could help dissipate heat away from the CPU core more effectively then ceramics. No where did AMD say that it would be OK to run Athlons at 90 C like this OEM claimed.
BTW, unbeknownst to him, though still in college, I'm in a dual major, one in computer science/engineering, the other in computer networking. I told one of my professors what this guy claimed. The professors responce
quote:
That OEM obvisously has no knowledge about the physics of silicon whatsoever. If you let a semiconductor device heat up to 90 C, I don't care who makes it, the Si will begin to lose some of it's electrons. If I was there, I would have had plenty to tell that ****wit.
|
|
| reply to g0nepostal
ATT will get a number of clueless users to sign up, but once they become knowledgable, they will be royally pissed off and never trust ATT again for anything. This is an excellent long term business plan! NOT! |
|
| reply to Thee One
The whole model for cable was/is based on 100% of bandwidth for a section and that only 10 - 50% of it being used at once.
Cable is nothing more than one wire with a bunch of splitters and taps that ATT or whoever they are are pumping TV, Telco, and now the Internet down.
They can not garantee and have never been able to really garantee a set bandwidth to any one point.
As anyone knows that uses cable as the ISP when you are online with just one PC and more people come home from work and turn the TV on get a Phone call and log on to browse the net in your community your connection slows down.
ATTBI is just trying to scare people into just one connection per home and build a database of homes with more than one connection so that they can play the blame game on having to many computers running in your home.
Ie I have 5 Systems on my IDSL (144k) one is a dialer with Winproxy 5 Lic. and one is a WEB server both run 24/7 on this line
But when I run my main system I just cut my 144K into 3rds and when someone logs in to the WEB server I can see it on my main system as I am browsing the net.
I have 4 other systems that I link up from time to time and run 5 Total on this connection at a time.
I know that I get slow responce because of each system.
On Cable your neigborhood is on your MAIN HUB/ROUTER and ATT is worried that the equipment will show its true quality and cost under a real world stress test.
Be ready for a Cable BLACK OUT, if/when everone gets smart and figures out how to use NAT or a PROXY and sets up computers for the family.
Also I agree with another POST I read in this discussion about the DEMARKATION point.
On my DSL I have a Demark where the phone company put my RJ45 to bring my ISDN signal in for the IDSL box he asked if I wanted another box some where else for the addition 45$ fee well since I am a inside cable installer I told him no I can go to my Demark (as I already have 4 times) and put in CAT 5 wire from there to where ever I want my Router/Bridge for my netork MDF. I have the tools and he was impressed to have had to BORROW my punch tool to make the connection to my 110 block!
At my door is the demark everything inside is mine as a previous post mentioned about utility companies. I have an apt but I also have a standing ORDER that ONLY under extreme emergecies may maintance open my door. I have changed the locks they have a key that reads NO DULICATION and I have a key also there must be a witness present at all times. My equipement is locked up in a ventaled cabnet anyway but I have made my point I think. |
|
