Skip to main content

Quick, to the neighbors!





Cable firms cracking down on Wi-Fi



Broadband providers are cracking down on popular Wi-Fi networks, threatening to cut service to customers who set up the inexpensive wireless systems and allow others to freely tap into their Internet access. Time Warner Cable of New York City has given 10 customers less than a week to stop using their accounts to provide a wireless local area network available to anyone within 300 feet. The letters are just an initial volley; Time Warner expects to send additional letters, while AT&T Broadband also is preparing similar letters for some of its customers.



The crackdown is reminiscent of the cable industry’s attempts to target cable thieves in the 1980s, and it reflects the soaring popularity of wireless Net access. After being introduced just a couple years ago, so-called Wi-Fi "hot spots" that tap into cable or digital subscriber lines (DSL) are now in at least 15 million homes and offices.
Oh, this is annoying for the simple fact that I can see both sides.



First, though, I don't think the comparison to early "cable thieves" is valid, as cable companies had to pay licensing fees to content providers (i.e., movie studios and the like) for showing their product. So, someone who tapped into the system for free was not paying for right to see a given show and/or movie.



I subscribe to AT&T Broadband (joined when it was still Comcast @ Home). I'd have to dig out my original agreement, but I don't think it mentions "bandwidth reselling." In any event, I have three computers that tie into that connection via a router that handles IP addressse. Thus, my single connection splits into three. When AT&T took over, they made it clear (to me, at least) that doing this wasn't a problem, that my internal network was my concern.



They also made clear that they were doing "load balancing" by throttling back the maximum connection speed I could expect. Whereas before I might see a theoretical maximum of 3MBps, they were cutting that back to 1.5MBps. It didn't matter how many people were on my side of the pipe, that's all I was getting.



So if I have 50 people working on that 1.5MBit pipe, the only people impact are those 50 people. I'm not adding to the drain on the AT&T system as a whole. And, as a customer, I'm paying for that 1.5MBit pipeline.



Now, my friend is getting ready to go WiFi within his house. And I'm thinking of adding that to my existing system (one access point, coming up). Will we both be breaking some law, rule, regulation? If AT&T (and others) makes it a policy that their customers can't use a local WiFi network, doesn't this boil down to an attempt to stifle a growing industry?



Fun, eh.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Have I mentioned I saw Monsters vs. Aliens?

It’s possible that Pixar is becoming a blight on the world of animation. Yes, they do some really great work ( The Incredibles , Ratatouille ), but they’ve also done some clunkers ( Cars , Wall-E ). Their greatest sin, though, is that they apparently radiate a variation of the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field, so that any other animated film – especially if done with CG – is automatically judged inferior. There is some justification to this, but you don’t see every live action film being compared to, say, the films of Ingmar Bergman (well, except by brooding people wearing dark glasses sitting in dim coffee shops smoking clove cigarettes discussing cinema, damn you ). In the traditional film world, it’s accepted that different artists turn out different products. In the animated world, everyone is supposed to match or surpass Pixar, or so it seems. Needless to say, that’s just a crock. Monsters vs Aliens is to your typical Pixar production as Spielberg is to Scorsese. And I h...
2 comments
Read more

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered....
Post a Comment
Read more

Dune Part 2 (2024)

I have come not to praise Dune but to bury it. I am in a distinct minority. So be it. To explain why, there will be some minor spoilers ahead; sorry. The short version is #NotMyDune. Summary: Picking up where Dune Part 1 left off, we find the young Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) hanging out with the Fremen. Plots to overthrow rival houses and empires ensue. Go here to see what I thought about Dune Part 1 (2021) . Overall, I found it to be technically brilliant, but lacking a human heart, an exercise in frenetic slow motion. D2 is more of the same, though with far more action. Acting-wise, everyone is doing a fine, more than adequate job. Absolutely no one or nothing stands out. The way the characters are written (adapted, actually), their back and forths and interactions, are all weak and unengaging. I generally hate when they speak. I've read the novel a ridiculous number of times, and these films are prompting me to read it again. I understand that trying to translate the n...
1 comment
Read more