how-to block ads
|
pierce2
join:1999-09-22
Santa Cruz, CA
| Re: ATTBI AUP 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] | |
|  | dbarc
join:2000-01-22
Fort Wayne, IN
| Re: ATTBI AUP 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. | |
| | finortis
join:2001-11-30
| Re: ATTBI AUP 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  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. | |
| 
belawrence
It's All About The Games
join:2000-08-06
Santee, CA
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Cox HSI
| 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] | |
| | | |
|
·
·