Here are the facts. I have RR Cable service in Syracuse, NY with one IP address. If I connect a Linksys, netgear, etc. router with a hub behind it to run multiple computers on a LAN, is that considered theft of service??? They will sell me additional IP addresses at $10 per month per address. However, they limit residential accounts to 5 IP addresses. My concern is why should I have to pay additional money for IP addresses which aren't even static if I am willing to take the responsibility of setting up and maintaining a router which will use less of their resources(i.e. IP addresses)??
Also, what are the policies of other cable systems throughout the country?.
I'd be interested in hearing the thought of the court of public opinion.
Thanks for your input.
The Cyberwizard
Is using a router connected to RR Theft of Service?
-
AlphaIVT
I live in Southern California and I'm about to buy my router. It should not be a theft of service in my opinion. The policies there are bout the same here. If they do complain to you, tell them that only one computer is using the net at a time. They don't have to believe you but who cares, the router becomes the ONLY thing connected to their service. I won't let them tell me i can't use a router.
-
valentinedwv
- Member
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 1999 12:00 am
- Location: santa barbara, ca
If you are reselling the service, then they would probably go after you. Otherwise, they are charging for extra outlets which is a bit arguable.
If you do not want them to know you are even using a router, get on that uses the MAC address of an internal computer. This way they think it's an ethernet card in a computer, and not a router.
If you do not want them to know you are even using a router, get on that uses the MAC address of an internal computer. This way they think it's an ethernet card in a computer, and not a router.
I think not. Here's why:
1) If you buy the additional IP addresses, are you getting any additional bandwidth? If not, then you're paying for an IP address that RR doesn't own. NO ONE can "own" IP addresses. They belong to IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) and are given out based on need. RR is in effect, reselling or leasing something they DO NOT own. Difficult to argue property rights to something you don't own and which could never be owned by you or your company.
2) If you use a second, third or fifteenth device behind your router, you are still getting the same amount of bandwidth you were with one device. No more, no less.
3) If you are using private addressing for your inside network, neither RR nor anyone else has any authority over how you deploy those addresses.
4) You already open multiple sessions with your system when you access a web page. There is no significant additional overhead (frankly, none to speak of period) on the devices on their side of the network. The routing is the same, the cpu usage based on routing is the same, and the port usage is the same as if you simply opened multiple browsers on one machine.
It comes down to whether you are getting additional bandwidth for the extra money. If not, then they are selling/leasing you something they don't even own and NOT increasing your service access to boot.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
------------------
"Yeah Baby, YEAH!!!"
[This message has been edited by Bouncer (edited 07-20-2000).]
1) If you buy the additional IP addresses, are you getting any additional bandwidth? If not, then you're paying for an IP address that RR doesn't own. NO ONE can "own" IP addresses. They belong to IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) and are given out based on need. RR is in effect, reselling or leasing something they DO NOT own. Difficult to argue property rights to something you don't own and which could never be owned by you or your company.
2) If you use a second, third or fifteenth device behind your router, you are still getting the same amount of bandwidth you were with one device. No more, no less.
3) If you are using private addressing for your inside network, neither RR nor anyone else has any authority over how you deploy those addresses.
4) You already open multiple sessions with your system when you access a web page. There is no significant additional overhead (frankly, none to speak of period) on the devices on their side of the network. The routing is the same, the cpu usage based on routing is the same, and the port usage is the same as if you simply opened multiple browsers on one machine.
It comes down to whether you are getting additional bandwidth for the extra money. If not, then they are selling/leasing you something they don't even own and NOT increasing your service access to boot.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
------------------
"Yeah Baby, YEAH!!!"
[This message has been edited by Bouncer (edited 07-20-2000).]
-
cyberwizard
bouncer:
So, would it be fair to say that if I only have one IP address, that I can only have one "simultaneous connection" at a time? I mean this in the strictest definition since each packet would go through only one IP address on the WAN side versus being distributed over multiple IP addresses if I had multiple addresses. The reason I pose this question is that RR on their website states the following:
"Can I use Road Runner with a home-based LAN?
Road Runner can operate with an existing small, home-based, peer-to-peer LAN by plugging the modem into a hub, and then plugging each computer to that hub. However, please be aware that the monthly subscription rate of $39.95 per month (Residential customers) covers only one PC. This means that while you can attach the modem to a LAN, only one PC can use it at a time.
If you require simultaneous connections for each PC on your peer-to-peer LAN, you may obtain additional connections (concurrent sessions) for $10.00 / month per computer (Residential customers). Installation of the software on each additional PC is available at $15 / computer at the original time of install of Road Runner. Residential accounts are limited to a maximum of 5 concurrent sessions."
What I am trying to do is comply with their rules as they have stated them and achieve my own objectives--have multiple computers operating on a LAN connected through one IP address.
So, would it be fair to say that if I only have one IP address, that I can only have one "simultaneous connection" at a time? I mean this in the strictest definition since each packet would go through only one IP address on the WAN side versus being distributed over multiple IP addresses if I had multiple addresses. The reason I pose this question is that RR on their website states the following:
"Can I use Road Runner with a home-based LAN?
Road Runner can operate with an existing small, home-based, peer-to-peer LAN by plugging the modem into a hub, and then plugging each computer to that hub. However, please be aware that the monthly subscription rate of $39.95 per month (Residential customers) covers only one PC. This means that while you can attach the modem to a LAN, only one PC can use it at a time.
If you require simultaneous connections for each PC on your peer-to-peer LAN, you may obtain additional connections (concurrent sessions) for $10.00 / month per computer (Residential customers). Installation of the software on each additional PC is available at $15 / computer at the original time of install of Road Runner. Residential accounts are limited to a maximum of 5 concurrent sessions."
What I am trying to do is comply with their rules as they have stated them and achieve my own objectives--have multiple computers operating on a LAN connected through one IP address.
This is their argument:
"Can I use Road Runner with a home-based LAN?
Road Runner can operate with an existing small, home-based, peer-to-peer LAN by plugging the modem into a hub, and then plugging each computer to that hub. However, please be aware that the monthly subscription rate of $39.95 per month (Residential customers) covers only one PC. This means that while you can attach the modem to a LAN, only one PC can use it at a time."
This is my argument: Okeydokey.
Since this is a CSMA/CD environment (Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection), only one device can transmit on the LAN at any given time. Thus, since only one PC can transmit at a time, only one PC can access the modem at a time. Even if I have fifty PC's behind a router, the fact is the LAN side is CSMA/CD environment, and only one device can speak to any other device, including the modem, at any given time. I'm still within their definition of one PC talking to the modem at a time.
More to the point, with a router, all devices speak to the LAN side of the router, and the WAN port (which is categorized as a transceiver) is speaking to the modem. Again, a singular physical and logical connection to the modem is being made.
As long as I don't assign multiple IPs assigned to Roadrunner (without permission) and use a router to limit access, they'd be hard pressed to make a case, since I'm clearly in compliance with only one device communicating to the modem. That device, is a router, which can be reasonably defined as a computer, since it has storage (NVRAM), a CPU, operating software, and interfaces for input/output.
They then want money for a service that cannot possibly exist. To Quote:
"If you require simultaneous connections for each PC on your peer-to-peer LAN, you may obtain additional connections (concurrent sessions) for $10.00 / month per computer (Residential customers). Installation of the software on each additional PC is available at $15 / computer at the original time of install of Road Runner. Residential accounts are limited to a maximum of 5 concurrent sessions."
Simultaneous or Concurrent LAN sessions simply aren't possible according to the LAN specifications. Period. It's not whether the modem will support this, the LAN itself will not. This is the very nature at the most basic physical level of an ethernet LAN.
Carrier Sense: Each device attempts to detect if the line is in use.
Multiple Access; If the line is not in use, the LAN card begins transmitting, on a first come first serve basis. Only one device may speak at a a time.
Collision Detection: Should two devices start transmitting simultaneously, the voltage level on the line will be increased beyond a detetction threshold and a backoff will be issued. ALL devices will cease transmitting for a random period of time, and begin the carrier sense process again.
That's how CSMA/CD works, and that's why it's simply not possible for "simultaneous" or "concurrent" communications to take place to the modem. It just will not happen.
They'd be hard pressed to plead ignorance of the ethernet specifications in court since they are a multibillion dollar ISP.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
------------------
"Yeah Baby, YEAH!!!"
[This message has been edited by Bouncer (edited 07-21-2000).]
"Can I use Road Runner with a home-based LAN?
Road Runner can operate with an existing small, home-based, peer-to-peer LAN by plugging the modem into a hub, and then plugging each computer to that hub. However, please be aware that the monthly subscription rate of $39.95 per month (Residential customers) covers only one PC. This means that while you can attach the modem to a LAN, only one PC can use it at a time."
This is my argument: Okeydokey.
Since this is a CSMA/CD environment (Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection), only one device can transmit on the LAN at any given time. Thus, since only one PC can transmit at a time, only one PC can access the modem at a time. Even if I have fifty PC's behind a router, the fact is the LAN side is CSMA/CD environment, and only one device can speak to any other device, including the modem, at any given time. I'm still within their definition of one PC talking to the modem at a time.
More to the point, with a router, all devices speak to the LAN side of the router, and the WAN port (which is categorized as a transceiver) is speaking to the modem. Again, a singular physical and logical connection to the modem is being made.
As long as I don't assign multiple IPs assigned to Roadrunner (without permission) and use a router to limit access, they'd be hard pressed to make a case, since I'm clearly in compliance with only one device communicating to the modem. That device, is a router, which can be reasonably defined as a computer, since it has storage (NVRAM), a CPU, operating software, and interfaces for input/output.
They then want money for a service that cannot possibly exist. To Quote:
"If you require simultaneous connections for each PC on your peer-to-peer LAN, you may obtain additional connections (concurrent sessions) for $10.00 / month per computer (Residential customers). Installation of the software on each additional PC is available at $15 / computer at the original time of install of Road Runner. Residential accounts are limited to a maximum of 5 concurrent sessions."
Simultaneous or Concurrent LAN sessions simply aren't possible according to the LAN specifications. Period. It's not whether the modem will support this, the LAN itself will not. This is the very nature at the most basic physical level of an ethernet LAN.
Carrier Sense: Each device attempts to detect if the line is in use.
Multiple Access; If the line is not in use, the LAN card begins transmitting, on a first come first serve basis. Only one device may speak at a a time.
Collision Detection: Should two devices start transmitting simultaneously, the voltage level on the line will be increased beyond a detetction threshold and a backoff will be issued. ALL devices will cease transmitting for a random period of time, and begin the carrier sense process again.
That's how CSMA/CD works, and that's why it's simply not possible for "simultaneous" or "concurrent" communications to take place to the modem. It just will not happen.
They'd be hard pressed to plead ignorance of the ethernet specifications in court since they are a multibillion dollar ISP.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
------------------
"Yeah Baby, YEAH!!!"
[This message has been edited by Bouncer (edited 07-21-2000).]
-
invalid_address
with roadrunner, if you were to connect a router, the only thing they would notice on their end is a change in mac address. i don't know if it's a 'theft' of service, as they do offer multiple ip addresses. but talking to my local wan coordinator here in southern california, he says that he personally would rather have people run routers, instead of all the calls they get on people having trouble with running the 2 ip address scheme. but he's my friend, and i don't know if this applies to other companies. i also spoke to the rep for my isp @ a retail and asked her what she knew about routers and legality. she said that as a company, they would rather have the customer pay for the additional ip, but the number of calls they receive on problems with it, makes it somewhat unprofitable, because they have to have someone there to answer the phones.
-
GuyCable99
Right on Bouncer. This is not theft of service. If you want 2 IP's you pay em. That is all they are saying. You do not have to have 2 IP's to run 2 or more PC's that SHARE the same IP over their connect. Like he said, niether case is simultanious connections, so their quote is wrong to begin with. To me it is being a bad steward of my hard earned money to give them $$ for a 2nd IP when it is not required - in effect THEY are the thiefs in that case !
------------------
------------------