Qumahlin
Never Enough Time
Premium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state
| reply to Rexter
Re: If it's my hardware........
said by Rexter  :
If it's my hardware, I'll do whatever the hell I want to it. It's asinine to have the bandwidth cap programed into the customers hardware. That's like a bank keeping the key to the vault in everyone's safety deposit box. The cable modem is a bridge, and with the exception of encryption, it should only function as a bridge. It would not be so hard to limit bandwidth per IP address at the node. This whole situation is just stupid.
No, Limiting bandwidth at the CMTS using QoS or other traffic flow methods wastes processor cycles/CMTS CPU power. The modems were meant to be this way it is part of the docsis specs.
In 1.1 and 2.0 systems the CMTS's are more "efficient" at handling pure QoS traffic control but it is still better off to limit the bandwidth at the modem.
--
Forum Posts:4004 |
|
Rexter
YeeHaw
join:2002-11-17
cloud 9
| I understand that it's in the specs. The point that I am making is that the specs are flawed. No other HSI service, that I know of, works this way. It is the responsibility of th ISP to maintain their network on their end, not on the customers end, not on the customers equipment. |
|
Qumahlin
Never Enough Time
Premium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state
| said by Rexter :
I understand that it's in the specs. The point that I am making is that the specs are flawed. No other HSI service, that I know of, works this way. It is the responsibility of th ISP to maintain their network on their end, not on the customers end, not on the customers equipment.
There were plenty fo DSL providers who used to set caps at the customers DSL/router instead of the DSLAM. The ISP is maintaining their network just because part of the control is placed in an area the customer is not supposed to be accessing anyway doesn't exactly make it flawed. Just different.
What is flawed is manufacturers not bothering to test that their modems were up to spec. Manufacturers with "leaks" giving out shelled firmware so that firmware coders know exactly what they have to work with, etc, etc.
The bottom line is that as is this really does not effect much. It is easy to catch the users who decide to uncap if the ISP wants too and the "etherboot" method of install Sigma is far to challenging to the average user who has no cable making/soldering knowledge
--
Forum Posts:4004 |
|
Rexter
YeeHaw
join:2002-11-17
cloud 9
| said by Qumahlin :
There were plenty fo DSL providers who used to set caps at the customers DSL/router instead of the DSLAM.
First off I'm not so sure that this is true. But even so the key word would be "used to." |
|
pit_viper
1 Shot, 1 Kill, No Remorse, I Decide
join:2002-07-24
Play_Hockey
| reply to Qumahlin
said by Qumahlin :
It is easy to catch the users who decide to uncap
Exactly.....People will enjoy the speeds for a day or too while the ISP is gathering the evidence for possible legal action 
--
"Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still retarded" |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | There are no grounds for legal action over cable modem hacking. |
|
xpkranger
RIP Georgia Theater
Premium
join:2000-10-27
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| said by JakCrow :
There are no grounds for legal action over cable modem hacking.
Isn't there something in the EULA or service agreement that a would say different?
--
When I die, I want to die like my grandmother, who died peacefully in her sleep. Not screaming like all the passengers in her car.-Author Unknown |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| An EULA is only a "contract" between parties. Worse they could do is terminate someone's service and -maybe- bill them something extra. Some cable companies have tried to get people charged with "theft of service" crimes, but since cable internet isn't regulated, theft of service laws don't apply. |
|
xpkranger
RIP Georgia Theater
Premium
join:2000-10-27
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
·Comcast
| Perhaps you're right, but I wouldn't want to be the one to test it out, at least not against the lawyers I work for. Besides, I've got 3000K already. (wish I had better upstream though - too bad I can't give back .5 for upstream) Even if it doesn't violate the letter of the agreement, I think that it does violate the spirit. Either way, I'm definitely not going to be the first one to cast a stone. (Graveyards in my closets and all...) Good luck!
--
When I die, I want to die like my grandmother, who died peacefully in her sleep. Not screaming like all the passengers in her car.-Author Unknown |
|
pit_viper
1 Shot, 1 Kill, No Remorse, I Decide
join:2002-07-24
Play_Hockey
| reply to JakCrow
said by JakCrow :
There are no grounds for legal action over cable modem hacking.
No but a company can take civil action....
--
"Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still retarded" |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to Qumahlin
said by Qumahlin :
The bottom line is that as is this really does not effect much. It is easy to catch the users who decide to uncap if the ISP wants too and the "etherboot" method of install Sigma is far to challenging to the average user who has no cable making/soldering knowledge
Oh i'm sure soon there'll be a flood of sites offering 'pre-modded surfboards' once this gets out.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to JakCrow
Perhaps not in California, but in PA, one could argue that Pa. C.S. sec 910 Manufacture, distribution, use or possession of devices for theft of telecommunications systems might. The statute states that:
"Any person commits an offense if... for commission of theft of a telecommunications service or to disrupt,transmit, decrypt, yadda yadday yadda.... or acquisition of any telecommunications service without the consent of the telecommunications service provider."
The statute does specifically mention the modification of devices connected to a telecommunications network, and does not differentiate based on the ownership of the device. The statute also specifically states that the definition of a Telecommunications service is " any service provided by any radio,telephone,cable television, satellite,microwave, or wireless distribution system, including, but not limited to, any and all electronic, data,video, audio, Internet access, telephonic, microwave and radio communications, transmissions, signals and services.
First offense is a misdemeanor first degree, second offense is a felony.
How long do you think it is before Comcast goes after people for uncapping their modems. All they have to do is give the evidence to the local PD and shazamm, your name too, can be on the top of a criminal complaint.
Since I have no desire to be the test case, I will NOT be uncapping my modem. I don't have a legal plan that robust.
Besides, the "It's my hardware" argument is an illogical one, considering your cell phone is your hardware, you're not allowed to tinker with it, your cable box could be your hardware, you can't tinker with it to get free spice channel. Your CAR is your own hardware, but drive it on the road with no plates and no insurance, and expect to get a ticket....
Once again, just my 2 cents |
|
DadeMurphy
Rbettenc
Premium
join:2002-07-25
Danvers, MA
clubs: | Cable HSI is not considered telecommunications. |
|
Rexter
YeeHaw
join:2002-11-17
cloud 9 | reply to pit_viper
I agree, but they would have to prove damages. |
|
medici
join:2001-02-22
Shohola, PA
| reply to JakCrow
IANAL, and I don't think you are, either. A contract is a legally binding document. Once you've agreed to the terms of service and accepted the contract, you are liable for any breaches of those terms. Straightforward contract law. If the cable company wants to make an example of you, they can sue for theft of service, disruption of business, their costs to investigate and mitigate your unauthorized use, legal fees and punitive damages.
Also, AFAIK, there is no requirement of specific legislative protection in order to prosecute theft of service.
What I find is interesting is that ISP's seem to have plenty of money to spend on capping customer's bandwidth, detecting modem hackers, tracking bandwidth utilization and penalizing so-called bandwidth hogs. But when it comes to stuff like firewall protection, junk email filtering, virus protection, traffic shaping, and just good old customer education and support, that's too expensive (even though there are plenty of free or low-cost tools to address most of these categories). |
|
medici
join:2001-02-22
Shohola, PA | reply to DadeMurphy
It is in PA. And it might be subject to interpretation elsewhere if you use VoIP. |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to DadeMurphy
By PA law it is. The statute specifically states "Internet access" in the definition of telecommunications, as noted in the text of my previous post.
If the statute specifically states "internet access" , how then, is Comcast High speed INTERNET not telecommunications?
Just askin'' |
|
xpkranger
RIP Georgia Theater
Premium
join:2000-10-27
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to medici
Where is the the line though between civil and criminal? If I go and take the filters off the line that at eye level on the side of my house and allow HBO, Cinemax, et al in to my house they're sure going to try have me prosecuted for criminal theft of services. And if there's a lawyer in the bunch out there, where does the DMCA fall into all of this? I thought it might have something to say about it. Also, does the law vary from state to state or is it Federal because of the ICC?
--
When I die, I want to die like my grandmother, who died peacefully in her sleep. Not screaming like all the passengers in her car.-Author Unknown |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to medici
said by medici :
IANAL, and I don't think you are, either. A contract is a legally binding document. Once you've agreed to the terms of service and accepted the contract, you are liable for any breaches of those terms. Straightforward contract law.
Signing up with an ISP is not a contract agreement in the way two corporations sign a contract to do business with each other. I have yet to see the TOS of a cable ISP state that they will sue you or you could be arrested if you hack your modem. No, the worse they can do is cancel your service and maybe charge you some kind of cancellation fee, -if- it's in their TOS.
said by medici :
If the cable company wants to make an example of you, they can sue for theft of service, disruption of business, their costs to investigate and mitigate your unauthorized use, legal fees and punitive damages.
In a case like that, the TOS would most likely work against the ISP. The "theft of service" charge would be hard for the ISP to make stick, since the courts have previously said that it's difficult to quantify just how much "service" was stolen.
said by medici :
Also, AFAIK, there is no requirement of specific legislative protection in order to prosecute theft of service.
I do believe there is, especially with cable. Modem hacking is a simple TOS violation, nothing more.
said by medici :
What I find is interesting is that ISP's seem to have plenty of money to spend on capping customer's bandwidth, detecting modem hackers, tracking bandwidth utilization and penalizing so-called bandwidth hogs. But when it comes to stuff like firewall protection, junk email filtering, virus protection, traffic shaping, and just good old customer education and support, that's too expensive (even though there are plenty of free or low-cost tools to address most of these categories).
They certainly aren't spending that money on upgrading their networks if they feel the need to crack down on "bandwidth hogs". |
|
Rexter
YeeHaw
join:2002-11-17
cloud 9
| reply to medici
said by medici :
But when it comes to stuff like firewall protection, junk email filtering, virus protection, traffic shaping, and just good old customer education and support, that's too expensive (even though there are plenty of free or low-cost tools to address most of these categories).
I really don't want my ISP to do this stuff. This is something that I want full control of. You have to keep in mind that security comes at the expense of functionality. It would be nice to have it maybe as an option, but based on past events, they are more likely to just force it on everyone. |
|
