MSNBC.com Cable Firms Crackdown on Wi-Fi

LoneStar · 07-10-2002

This was posted to the MSNBC.com website on the 9th, but I haven't found a reference to it on Netstumbler.com yet. It's another article about how Internet Service Providers are targeting people that setup free wireless networks.

MSNBC.com: Cable firms cracking down on Wi-Fi

Sh00t3r · 07-10-2002

Good article

One of my buddies works for an ISP here in michigan, SBC - Ameritech. He works in net security and he said they plan on searching out local ap's in neighborhoods just to analyze how bad the situation is. It's all off the clock so there is no association with his company. But can you guess on what prog he might be using? That's right NS.

So there is still the issue of "how" the ISP's are going to find these so called violators. Would simply turning off your broadcast requests be enough? Or do you have to worry about them actually doing passive monitoring, channel sniffing/surfin and site surveys to pinpoint signals? Seems like a ton of overhead to me but then again, the way wireless is going I can see more neighborhood networks setup with the threat of sharing bandwidth.

lincomatic · 07-10-2002

if they just use NS then turning broadcast off will defeat it. but if they run kismet instead they will see you anyway.

Thorn · 07-10-2002

In the Time Warner case, they didn't even have to actually do a physical, RF search. They simply went to the NewYorkWireless website, downloaded the names of those people allowing access and checked it against their customer database. Whenever they had a match, they sent a letter.

mentat · 07-10-2002

Quote:

Originally posted by Sh00t3r
Good article

One of my buddies works for an ISP here in michigan, SBC - Ameritech. He works in net security and he said they plan on searching out local ap's in neighborhoods just to analyze how bad the situation is. It's all off the clock so there is no association with his company. But can you guess on what prog he might be using? That's right NS.

So there is still the issue of "how" the ISP's are going to find these so called violators. Would simply turning off your broadcast requests be enough? Or do you have to worry about them actually doing passive monitoring, channel sniffing/surfin and site surveys to pinpoint signals? Seems like a ton of overhead to me but then again, the way wireless is going I can see more neighborhood networks setup with the threat of sharing bandwidth.

Besides the point that people can legitimatly set up their wireless networks for their own use. Just because someone is running wireless and has a cable modem doesn't mean they're intentionally letting all their neighbors leach off their connection. If the company was to try and press such a requirement, saying if you had cable modem you couldn't have wireless, I think that would be absolutely groundless with their Ts & Cs (at least with my cable modem company).

Thorn · 07-10-2002

Quote:

Originally posted by mentat

Besides the point that people can legitimatly set up their wireless networks for their own use. Just because someone is running wireless and has a cable modem doesn't mean they're intentionally letting all their neighbors leach off their connection. If the company was to try and press such a requirement, saying if you had cable modem you couldn't have wireless, I think that would be absolutely groundless with their Ts & Cs (at least with my cable modem company).

Local cable company here clearly does NOT let you set up any device other than their cabel modem and one PC connected to the modem. TOS doesn't let you hook up any networking devices on the customer's side, and the modem looks for the MAC of that PC's NIC. The head tech for them is an old buddy, we used to work together years ago. He has said that realistically they (the techs) know that anyone with half a brain can do it, but the company bosses consider any network as a commercial account.

So there is one case that they won't even let you legitimately set up your own wireless.

The Others · 07-11-2002

That's not too bad though, you could easily just put two NIC's in the one computer allowed to connect to the cable modem. That way, no extra hardware would be physically connected, although a route would exist.

Although really, it's all pretty academic. You'd have to be pretty lame to fear the ISP's wishes and only connect one PC even if you wanted more.

Thorn · 07-11-2002

Quote:

Originally posted by The Others
That's not too bad though, you could easily just put two NIC's in the one computer allowed to connect to the cable modem. That way, no extra hardware would be physically connected, although a route would exist.

Although really, it's all pretty academic. You'd have to be pretty lame to fear the ISP's wishes and only connect one PC even if you wanted more.

Technically, there are a couple of ways around it. Yours is one way. Another: Many low end "cable routers" such as the Linksys BEFSR series will "clone" the PC's MAC, just as a work around for those modems.

But the bigger question is honesty and character. If you signed a contract, that says you won't, then you gave your word. IMHO, you're not worth much as a human being if you don't keep your word.

And around here, for those you don't honor their word, the cable company has been very aggressive about having Theft of Service charges prosecuted. From what I saw last week in the news, it has happened in at least one other place. (Ohio maybe? That was opening bandwith on modems.)

There are plenty of ISPs which will provide such services if you are willing to pay for them.

The Others · 07-11-2002

The whole honour idea is a good one, but not really something that has caught on in the UK. Despite popular beliefs us Brits would much rather see ourselves do well then a big company.

In the eyes of our friends and colleuges as well we would look l337 for breaking the ISP rules, not dishonourable for going against a chaining contract.

The law thing would worry us more, but you'd have to be pretty dense to get caught. Also, for us in the UK, we're lucky enough to have pretty lazy enforcers of such things and nothing would ever happen.

You know it's illegal to add things like socket doublers and extension cables to a BT phone line without their permission? The thing is though, everybody does, I myself must have about 200 meters of extra cable in my house alone.

Thorn · 07-11-2002

Your BT example shows one of the bad things about monopolies and/or govt PTA . It used to be that way in the US, then the decided that the phone company should dictate what inside your house, and the law was changed.

Still applies to cable companies though, or more properly, they are still putting those types of things in TOS.

It BT private or PTA type govt bureau?

mentat · 07-11-2002

I just have a hardware firewall box between my computer and the Internet because I don't trust Windows firewalls. I don't think that's dishonorable. I'm sure they be happy to sell me a package with a firewall for $20 more a month, that's dumb though. I wish there were real alternatives to the cable (and phone) companies monopolies. They just nixed forcing the cable companies to allow other ISPs to use their line, which would have offered a real choice of what Ts & Cs you want to sign.

The Others · 07-11-2002

BT was once a government run company, but then Thatcher came in and sold it. It's been losing money since.

yeah, monopolies suck. OFTEL, our phone regulator says BT should be lowering the price of broadband. Both so their customers can have it cheaper and to make it easier for other companies to use the lines to provide a service.

It hasn't happened yet though. Surprised? Not really.

qbus · 07-13-2002

Quote:

Originally posted by Thorn

Technically, there are a couple of ways around it. Yours is one way. Another: Many low end "cable routers" such as the Linksys BEFSR series will "clone" the PC's MAC, just as a work around for those modems.

But the bigger question is honesty and character. If you signed a contract, that says you won't, then you gave your word. IMHO, you're not worth much as a human being if you don't keep your word.

And around here, for those you don't honor their word, the cable company has been very aggressive about having Theft of Service charges prosecuted. From what I saw last week in the news, it has happened in at least one other place. (Ohio maybe? That was opening bandwith on modems.)

There are plenty of ISPs which will provide such services if you are willing to pay for them.

GAG ME WITH A SPOON... it is one thing to resell you internet access to your neighbor it is different if you were to make a hot spot for people to do some surfing for free. if you buy the water from the city you can let the people use your hose for free if you want...

sykojester · 07-14-2002

qbus, that's correct.

think of it like this though. the water company charges you for how much water you use. the cable companies generally charge a flat rate whether you use it or not. that and when you signed up you aggreed to their terms of service which say you cant share it anywho

Thorn · 07-14-2002

Quote:

Originally posted by qbus

GAG ME WITH A SPOON... it is one thing to resell you internet access to your neighbor it is different if you were to make a hot spot for people to do some surfing for free. if you buy the water from the city you can let the people use your hose for free if you want...

qbus,
I have no problem with people sharing connections if they want, I just think that if you signed a contract that says "No sharing" that you should abide by it.

And AFAIK, you can share your water. But you have to pay resulting the water bill. Which is exactly analogous to what I said before: "There are plenty of ISPs which will provide such services if you are willing to pay for them. "

07-10-2002	#1 (permalink)
LoneStar Registered Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 38	MSNBC.com Cable Firms Crackdown on Wi-Fi This was posted to the MSNBC.com website on the 9th, but I haven't found a reference to it on Netstumbler.com yet. It's another article about how Internet Service Providers are targeting people that setup free wireless networks. MSNBC.com: Cable firms cracking down on Wi-Fi

07-10-2002	#3 (permalink)
lincomatic Squaaawk! WiFi! WiFi! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Tinsel Town Posts: 1,682	if they just use NS then turning broadcast off will defeat it. but if they run kismet instead they will see you anyway. __________________ ~lincomatic

07-10-2002	#4 (permalink)
Thorn Did you do the math? Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Villa Straylight Posts: 10,096	In the Time Warner case, they didn't even have to actually do a physical, RF search. They simply went to the NewYorkWireless website, downloaded the names of those people allowing access and checked it against their customer database. Whenever they had a match, they sent a letter. __________________ Thorn "I'm The Doctor. I'm a Time Lord. I am from the planet Gallifrey in the constellation Kasterborous. I'm 903 years old and I am the man who is going to save your lives and all 6 billion people on the planet below... You got a problem with that?"

07-11-2002	#7 (permalink)
The Others PeaceDriver Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Dos Palabras, Mandoras Posts: 2,920	That's not too bad though, you could easily just put two NIC's in the one computer allowed to connect to the cable modem. That way, no extra hardware would be physically connected, although a route would exist. Although really, it's all pretty academic. You'd have to be pretty lame to fear the ISP's wishes and only connect one PC even if you wanted more. __________________ all good ends all ?u=273

07-11-2002	#9 (permalink)
The Others PeaceDriver Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Dos Palabras, Mandoras Posts: 2,920	The whole honour idea is a good one, but not really something that has caught on in the UK. Despite popular beliefs us Brits would much rather see ourselves do well then a big company. In the eyes of our friends and colleuges as well we would look l337 for breaking the ISP rules, not dishonourable for going against a chaining contract. The law thing would worry us more, but you'd have to be pretty dense to get caught. Also, for us in the UK, we're lucky enough to have pretty lazy enforcers of such things and nothing would ever happen. You know it's illegal to add things like socket doublers and extension cables to a BT phone line without their permission? The thing is though, everybody does, I myself must have about 200 meters of extra cable in my house alone. __________________ all good ends all ?u=273

07-10-2002	#2 (permalink)
Sh00t3r Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Michigan Posts: 199	Good article One of my buddies works for an ISP here in michigan, SBC - Ameritech. He works in net security and he said they plan on searching out local ap's in neighborhoods just to analyze how bad the situation is. It's all off the clock so there is no association with his company. But can you guess on what prog he might be using? That's right NS. So there is still the issue of "how" the ISP's are going to find these so called violators. Would simply turning off your broadcast requests be enough? Or do you have to worry about them actually doing passive monitoring, channel sniffing/surfin and site surveys to pinpoint signals? Seems like a ton of overhead to me but then again, the way wireless is going I can see more neighborhood networks setup with the threat of sharing bandwidth.

07-11-2002	#10 (permalink)
Thorn Did you do the math? Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Villa Straylight Posts: 10,096	Your BT example shows one of the bad things about monopolies and/or govt PTA . It used to be that way in the US, then the decided that the phone company should dictate what inside your house, and the law was changed. Still applies to cable companies though, or more properly, they are still putting those types of things in TOS. It BT private or PTA type govt bureau? __________________ Thorn "I'm The Doctor. I'm a Time Lord. I am from the planet Gallifrey in the constellation Kasterborous. I'm 903 years old and I am the man who is going to save your lives and all 6 billion people on the planet below... You got a problem with that?"

07-11-2002	#11 (permalink)
mentat Registered Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: CT Posts: 476	I just have a hardware firewall box between my computer and the Internet because I don't trust Windows firewalls. I don't think that's dishonorable. I'm sure they be happy to sell me a package with a firewall for $20 more a month, that's dumb though. I wish there were real alternatives to the cable (and phone) companies monopolies. They just nixed forcing the cable companies to allow other ISPs to use their line, which would have offered a real choice of what Ts & Cs you want to sign.

07-11-2002	#12 (permalink)
The Others PeaceDriver Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Dos Palabras, Mandoras Posts: 2,920	BT was once a government run company, but then Thatcher came in and sold it. It's been losing money since. yeah, monopolies suck. OFTEL, our phone regulator says BT should be lowering the price of broadband. Both so their customers can have it cheaper and to make it easier for other companies to use the lines to provide a service. It hasn't happened yet though. Surprised? Not really. __________________ all good ends all ?u=273

07-14-2002	#14 (permalink)
sykojester Net Lurker - phjear Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Posts: 371	qbus, that's correct. think of it like this though. the water company charges you for how much water you use. the cable companies generally charge a flat rate whether you use it or not. that and when you signed up you aggreed to their terms of service which say you cant share it anywho

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode