Re: ATTBI AUP in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r2367407 en Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:19:35 EDT Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:19:35 EDT Re: Misleading title http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2400702 Authority : Be interesting to see what happens when we start plugging in our XBOX, ReplayTV, and other new net devices huh?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2400702 Mon, 04 Feb 2002 00:52:11 EDT Re: ATTBI AUP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2396763 finortis :
quote:
And if your printer is on your network it's built-in print server, you're supposed to connect to their DHCP server? and pay as if it's another computer? I don't think so.


It gets worse. Last I heard, there isn't a firewall that can be installed on a network printer...now anyone on ATTBI might be able to see your printer...and umm send print jobs to it :D Just imagine this...if some hacker figured it's a printer, they could, umm send that 500 page book to it. And along with having to purchase a seperate IP, you could be out of luck for paper and ink cartridges too. Just when you need it... I have seen people in computer labs at the very least who will do that. Their a net admins nightmere. Then there's the number of people that put Direct PC on a win9x box and never bother to secure it....

But other scenarios can arise too. If a person for instance installs VMware

»www.vmware.com

and they use bridging mode with their ethernet card (the only method that at least for awhile was supported under Windows 2000, and perhaps now XP, that'd I'd have to check), then each virtual machine needs an IP too. Should a person have to pay for seperate IPs that exist for each virtual machine one might run concurrently withing the same physical PC? There are other modes, but they had issues with win2k/recommended not to use/disabled by default unless one installed the system service manually. Having to pay an additional $20 for IPs with a single computer because of virtual machines, not physically different computers is adding insult to an injury they're already doing to the customer.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2396763 Sun, 03 Feb 2002 16:01:47 EDT Re: ATTBI AUP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2375819 belawrence :
said by pierce:
I guess if you want to use NAT legally, you should subscribe for as many computers as you have connected (gee, does the router count as another?) and pay the monthly per system fees
So, for every device on my home network that requires an IP address(computers, network printers, storage devices, video game systems, certain home MP3 players, etc.)I would need to pay an additional fee for? How greedy can AT&TBI get? I guess I have something else to add to my signature.
--
The DSL Advantage: static IP, higher upload speed, and being able to run my servers!
[text was edited by author 2002-02-01 04:33:16]
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2375819 Fri, 01 Feb 2002 04:29:05 EDT Re: ATTBI AUP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2367407 dbarc :
said by pierce:

OTOH, the way they want you to implement 'home networking', its almost impossible to use your new network for anything *BUT* internet, they suggest running a firewall program on each computer. that makes file and printer sharing within your home rather painful.

And if your printer is on your network it's built-in print server, you're supposed to connect to their DHCP server? and pay as if it's another computer? I don't think so.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2367407 Thu, 31 Jan 2002 08:53:32 EDT Re: Misleading title http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2365428 ssgblkhk : Anyone's or Companies entitlement to charge me for the number of computers that uses the ISP (whatever type of service) ends at the "door". I think it is outrageous that AT/T thinks they can charge me for networking equipment that I have purchased to include other computers. It seems to me to be on the border of illegal.
--
"Also I heard the voice of the Lord saying who shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, here am I, send me." ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2365428 Wed, 30 Jan 2002 23:28:35 EDT Re: Misleading title http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2364697 Authority :
said by joakimsen:
And anyways I would love to see them try to have the feds bust you or sue you:
"ATT Broadband v NAT Users"


I wouldn't. Stranger things have happened.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2364697 Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:17:45 EDT Re: Misleading title http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2363658 joako : "unauthorized receipt of the Service constitutes theft of service, which is a violation of federal law"

I think this is taken from a cable tv AUP? NAT is not "theft of service". And anyways I would love to see them try to have the feds bust you or sue you:
"ATT Broadband v NAT Users"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2363658 Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:42:41 EDT Re: Misleading title http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2359589 Authority : Any provider will ask for NAT to be removed for trouble shooting; that's not the same as banning it. Thought that MAY be next...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2359589 Wed, 30 Jan 2002 12:13:06 EDT Re: Misleading title http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2357503 djrobx : Wow, this is a significant change from the AUP I had as a MediaOne customer. MediaOne offered no support, but nicely linked their customers to a newsgroup where they could discuss home networking.

I'm glad I dropped AT&T as my ISP.

-- Rob]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2357503 Wed, 30 Jan 2002 03:43:09 EDT Re: ATTBI AUP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2357486 pierce2 : actually, their AUP forbids hooking up more than one computer without paying for it.... See »www.attbi.com/general-info/bb_terms.html for instance, clause 6(g)....


(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.


OTOH, the way they want you to implement 'home networking', its almost impossible to use your new network for anything *BUT* internet, they suggest running a firewall program on each computer. that makes file and printer sharing within your home rather painful.

so, I guess if you want to use NAT legally, you should subscribe for as many computers as you have connected (gee, does the router count as another?) and pay the monthly per system fees...
[text was edited by author 2002-01-30 03:46:32]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2357486 Wed, 30 Jan 2002 03:35:17 EDT Re: Misleading title http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2357265 justin : true - well - they ask customers to disable it.. they don't like it.. so I changed the headline..]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2357265 Wed, 30 Jan 2002 02:16:40 EDT Misleading title http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2357172 Authority : AT&T isn't OFFERING or supporting NAT but they haven't said "no nat" which this headline implies.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2357172 Wed, 30 Jan 2002 01:56:21 EDT