dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
8
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to glassweaver

Member

to glassweaver

Re: Are there still data caps?

said by glassweaver:

And BF69 is right. I figured that this wasn't inline with their policies, but additional users aren't going to wear out the copper/fiber/nodes any faster and won't create additional costs on Charters end. They're still making a very good profit. If anything, I'm cutting into the DSL companies profits now by not signing up with them.

A)Doesn't matter if it's hurts them financially or not. It's against the TOS that you AGREED to. If Charter didn't hold up THEIR end of the TOS you'd be damned sure to call them on it, but customers think they can just ignore it on their end.

B) It IS hurting them financially because if you are providing service to 5 other houses that's 5 customers lost to Charter.

In terms of protecting everyone, the router that's doing DHCP has logging enabled, so any network traffic can be traced back to the connecting computer. With hulu, youtube, and free alternatives to things like MS Office, I don't think there's any good reasons to be doing anything illegal now day's anyway.

Look the police may be able to trace the kiddie pr0n downloads to the proper computer EVENTUALLY, in the meantime the account holder is the one who is going to be arrested and have his name in the paper as a pervert. The fact he will be vindicated later won't matter. No one will remember that part.
glassweaver
join:2012-09-20

2 edits

glassweaver

Member

BF69, I feel that you might have some negativity for what I and my neighbors are privately choosing to do, but there really doesn't need to be any.

I'm talking about a small number of people using a service in a manner that is no different than a single home with mom/dad/3-4 children. I really don't think 2 homes with 3 people total between them, or possibly 3-4 homes with 5-6 people between them is any different than one married couple with 3-4 kids. So why should the larger family effectively get a lower cost per person?

Whether it's against TOS or not, the service is still being paid for & it's not creating anymore network congestion than a medium to large size family. Why should that family, or possibly families if you have more than one living under one roof (ahem, college students getting roommates?) pay less per person if they're still within the AUP on their bandwidth, as implied by the cap that apparently exists?

On a side note, I don't even look at legal porn, and I don't think my neighbors are exactly the 'free candy van' type either. I didn't even think about that kind of illegal content when I helped them turn on logging. Again though, the router logs, which would point to the damning evidence on the offending computer - not mine, and not the neighbor with the actual connection. If someone does something illegal on a college network, the college's IT administrator doesn't go to jail, nor does charter, but they can furnish logs that can help police. We've effectively setup this same system through logging. I hope I've put your worries to rest.

Edit: Cellphone use is not different. 3G/4G have both been used for a better and less expensive quality of service for those who do not have any other options besides satellite. In fact 4G home broadband is starting to popup quite rapidly in the rural areas around where I live. When you have customers using their laptop connect card as their home internet access, the line that differentiates disappears.

Edit: If you're unhappy with a limited data *shared* plan, switch to a carrier that's still offering unlimited data *unshared.* We have a free market, so you at least have a decent number of options for your cellular carrier, unlike most of us with our HSI provider.

cork1958
Cork
Premium Member
join:2000-02-26

cork1958

Premium Member

The problem with that is Charter does not charge on a per person basis and you all are effectively stealing and I hope like heck you all get caught!

The mentality you display here is half of what the problem with the world is!!

I'm sure you and your neighbors are not the only ones who have ever thought of this and I hope Charter has busted on some of those people too.

You do know that your IP address gets logged here and that there are Charter techs who hang out here?

Good luck!!
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to glassweaver

Member

to glassweaver
said by glassweaver:

BF69, I feel that you might have some negativity for what I and my neighbors are privately choosing to do, but there really doesn't need to be any.

You're violating the TOS. As I said if Charter violated the TOS you wouldn't hesitate to call them out on that. Why is ok for you to break the agreement and not Charter?

I'm talking about a small number of people using a service in a manner that is no different than a single home with mom/dad/3-4 children. I really don't think 2 homes with 3 people total between them, or possibly 3-4 homes with 5-6 people between them is any different than one married couple with 3-4 kids. So why should the larger family effectively get a lower cost per person?

Yes and if everyone took that "well it's only 2 homes" attitude Charter would have half the number of customers. You go ahead and keep justifying it however you like, but the truth is the truth.

Whether it's against TOS or not, the service is still being paid for & it's not creating anymore network congestion than a medium to large size family. Why should that family, or possibly families if you have more than one living under one roof (ahem, college students getting roommates?) pay less per person if they're still within the AUP on their bandwidth, as implied by the cap that apparently exists?

Because it's against the TOS. Let me ask you this is ok to share you cable TV connection? Nope. So how is this different?
glassweaver
join:2012-09-20

1 edit

glassweaver

Member

Because Cable TV is an unlimited buffet. There are no data caps or bandwidth limits. I already explained this with french fries. I don't know how to make it anymore simple. Why is this so hard to understand? You don't even need to understand computers to understand this.

Edit: I meant to explain this with french fries but apparently didn't. Anyway, cable TV is like an all-you-can-eat french fry order. Sharing with friends is wrong, because that's unlimited for one person. Throttled and capped internet is like a small, medium, or large french fry, depending on your package. How many restaurants do you know that will charged you twice for you and your friends sharing a large fry instead of each getting a small or medium fry?

Personally, I think that if Charter cared that much, one of their techs wouldn't have given me pointers in here.

All of this bickering did get me to read the AUP I was never in my 2 years as a customer given. Yes, it's against policy, but not law. If you've ever jaywalked, that makes you more BA than me & my neighbors. Anyway, I digress.

Charters AUP says they reserve the right to upgrade your service if they find that you're sharing your connection, SO how does this sound to everyone:

I'll stick with my original plan to come back as a new customer in a couple weeks, or....

I'll subscribe to DSL or go halfsies on 20 meg business class HSI if Charters techs show up at my/my neighbors house with pitchforks before then.

Is everyone happy now? Have I restored balance to the world?

msmisfit
join:2004-09-13
Atlanta, GA
ARRIS SB6121
Netgear WNDR3800

msmisfit

Member

said by glassweaver:

Is everyone happy now? Have I restored balance to the world?

Not really.....
speedxdesign
join:2010-02-25
Alexandria, MN

speedxdesign to glassweaver

Member

to glassweaver
It is theft of service. I hope they catch you.

ChtrEmployee to msmisfit

Anon

to msmisfit
Agreed. Not really happy. When you steal from Charter you take bread off my family's table. Can I have the keys to your office? I'm a little short on supplies.
glassweaver
join:2012-09-20

glassweaver to speedxdesign

Member

to speedxdesign
Looks like you where right msmisit. Could a moderator just delete or at least lock this thread?

My original question was answered by cork quite some posts back, and it's pretty irrelevant anyway now that I'll going to sign up for my own service again in a few weeks.

Just for the record though, not even Charter defines sharing as theft. They define it as a violation of the acceptable use policy. Sharing a finite capped amount of data is MISUSING the network, not stealing from it. That's fine if they want to ban friends from sharing a large french fry instead of buying 2 mediums, but choosing to disregard the ban and share the large anyway is not illegal.

If a small fraction of users sharing wifi (let alone one for only a couple weeks) is really that big of a deal, charter should just move to a model where they charge per user, you have a single log on you can use to get past a landing page, and that log on can't be used for more than one active session, because obviously large families should be vilified data hogging heathens.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to glassweaver

Member

to glassweaver
said by glassweaver:

Because Cable TV is an unlimited buffet. There are no data caps or bandwidth limits. I already explained this with french fries. I don't know how to make it anymore simple. Why is this so hard to understand? You don't even need to understand computers to understand this.

How in the world does that even make sense? It's not ok to share cable TV because it's unlimited but it's ok to share cable internet because it is? If you can't share CHARTER cable tv then it's LOGICAL to assume you can't share CHARTER internet.

Personally, I think that if Charter cared that much, one of their techs wouldn't have given me pointers in here.

Was it tech that came out to your house? You know most of those don't actually work for Charter they are subcontracted. So why would they care. And many aren't all that bright.

All of this bickering did get me to read the AUP I was never in my 2 years as a customer given. Yes, it's against policy, but not law. If you've ever jaywalked, that makes you more BA than me & my neighbors. Anyway, I digress.

Oh so if its not illegal then it ok? Ok so if Charter says you have a 250 GB cap then they shut you off at 150 GB then it's cool because the TOS means nothing it's just optional because it's not illegal. I suspect you expect Charter to follow the TOS to the letter. Why should YOU get to ignore it?

Charters AUP says they reserve the right to upgrade your service if they find that you're sharing your connection:

Yeah because upgrading means moving you from 30 Mbps at $50 a month to 100 Mbps at $110 a month. Two 30 Mbps connections are actually cheaper. So yeah Charter would much rather have you upgrade to 100 Mbps and share that with your neighbor than have each of you get a 30 Mbps connection each. $10 more for them, 1 less modem to give out and one less bill they have to send out every month.

Is everyone happy now? Have I restored balance to the world?

Not really because you still say what you are wanting to do isn't wrong. I'd actually have more respect for you if you just admitted it was wrong and you just didn't give a shit than for you to try to keep justifying it with BS logic.