A while back I mentioned a friend's annoyance [ Hi Joe!] over Comcast's tagging him as a VPN user, and their attempting to extort an extra bundle of cash from him. You may recall the situation. Joe, being a learned networking individual who sets up VPNs for very large organizations for a living, told me that he uses more of the 'Net's resources when he is doing casual browsing than he does for business during those rare telecommutes.
Here is a story that addresses the same issue, and it looks like it was published at about the same time... hmmm...
It looks like Cox is pulling in one direction <north> and pushing in the other <south>. Read the other side of their attempt to create a tiered pricing structure in the link that follows this story.
================================================
Cable Net Users Feel Squeezed
by Chris Oakes
Aug. 18, 2000 PDT
Internet users are objecting to their cable ISP's attempts to limit how they use their connections.
Customers of cable Internet service ComcastAtHome are protesting a new clause in the service's subscriber agreement that forbids the use of virtual private networking (VPN) software.
The clause, which was inserted into the service agreement this week and is imposed upon existing customers, forbids the use of VPNs on the grounds that the application is business-oriented and shouldn't be used on residential accounts.
Unhappy customers say they're being strong-armed by a monopoly provider that's setting unreasonable rules about what they can do with their Internet connection.
"If I want cable Internet access for my home, I must use (Comcast) -- I have no choice," said Chuck Walker, a ComcastAtHome customer in Pitman, New Jersey. "And they are using this unfair advantage over me to be able to dictate whatever terms they like."
Many companies use virtual private networks to allow employees to connect to the company network through the Internet. Such dial-in access to corporate information is common among telecommuting workers.
Comcast, which will have more than 8 million customers by year's end, said virtual private networks should only be run on business accounts, and earlier this week updated their subscriber agreement to say so and then notified users.
A telecommuter himself, Walker said VPN technology is an accepted standard for securing information shuttled between the workplace and remote workers. It "does not impede upon, or impair, the Comcast network, or their services," Walker said. "There is no justifiable reason for forbidding this type of service."
If customers like Walker have a problem with the issue, they're in a minority, ComcastAtHome said.
"We estimate the issue of VPN affects less than one half of one percent of our customers, and considerably less than that have contacted us," said Suzanne McFadden, national marketing manager for Comcast Online Communications.
The restriction is not unique to ComcastAtHome. Other AtHome service providers, such as CoxAtHome, have included the same restriction on VPN use in user agreements.
The new clause tells customers the cable service is for non-commercial use only and therefore not meant for Web servers or business applications. A residential account cannot be used for "any business enterprise or as an end-point on a non-Comcast local area network ... or in conjunction with a VPN," the new clause reads.
Seeking to "match customers to the right product," Comcast offers commercial services that allow VPN usage beginning at $95 per month, McFadden said. By contrast, ComcastAtHome residential service costs $32.95 per month for Comcast cable TV customers, or $42.95 per month for non-customers.
Comcast customers complained of the change on online forums such as Slashdot, where participants exchanged advice on whether the restriction could be circumvented.
The company said the restriction is necessary to ensure network performance. Unlike phone line Net connections that provide fixed bandwidth, cable networks share the pipe between subscribers, so heavy usage from individuals can slow down the overall network. Comcast said users of VPN software are candidates for causing heavy business-type traffic.
"Basically, why we put this in place was that so no one was hosting a VPN or excessively using up bandwidth. We are not trying to stop our customers from doing something that would be a residential use of the product," said McFadden.
But some see a smokescreen in that rationale.
Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Media Education a consumer watchdog group critical of cable monopolies, says the behavior is typical of cable service providers.
"There's no question that cable giants like Comcast are using the excuse of network management to impose a business model where they control the content flow," Chester said. "The principle that Comcast is violating is that they have a responsibility to ensure that the broadband Internet under their management reflects the diversity and accessibility of the Internet that we have today. And that openness and that end-to-end architecture has to be respected."
The issue is the latest in which cable customers have had to deal with restrictions on Internet service that most customers are not used to dealing with. In April, San Diego-based CoxAtHome ordered its customers to stop using Internet music-download software Napster.
Though a controversy was brewing at the time over the way Napster enables unauthorized distribution of copyrighted music, Cox said the restriction was based on the fact that Napster was a server application, which users were forbidden to host on their computers by its subscriber agreement.
As a server, the application threatened to put inordinate bandwidth drain on local cable networks, Cox said. That issue also had universities forbidding Napster use at the same time.
But many commercial ISP customers aren't accustomed to having their service provider set software-specific rules about the use of their Internet connection.
The Comcast decision had DSL-proponents telling cable users to switch to digital subscriber line connections because they are not subject to such detailed usage rules.
Dan Noe, a Long Island DSL customer, said he sought out a DSL provider on the basis that it specifically allowed the use of server applications. "The only things which are specifically ruled out are adult content servers, because they generate (an) obscene amount of traffic," he said. "If you're paying over $50 a month for broadband, you should be able to use what you're paying for."
Dan Melmed, a spokesman for DSL provider DSL Networks said there is a server-based restriction in his company's subscriber agreement, but the service doesn't seek to prohibit specific content.
"Basically we don't really restrict any kind of activity on the DSL line," Melmed said. "You get one IP address and you can't run servers off of that." But "we won't restrict any content.... They're getting broadband for a reason."
The Center for Media Education's Chester said cable providers can only be kept in check if a system of open access allows multiple providers to deliver broadband over local cable systems.
"(Comcast is) simply trying to impose an 'I'm the principal gateway, I control the bit flow' (philosophy)," Chester said. "That's why we need to have an open access policy of non-discrimination that does not allow them to impose a policy-based routing model.... It's all about hoarding the bits here."
--------------end
And the other side is: A level of service that runs at slower speeds, and costs less. Now, that's progress, eh?
Message 14422728
There's more than one way to keep congestion down on the HFC while not losing money. The discount to the slower speed users will not cost them as much as having to upgrade their plant for non-business grade users who could tie up their coax to no end by simply passing junky music and streaming porn.
On the other hand, those who are assumed to be bandwidth hogs (who get tagged as VPN users at >$95/mo) will have to pony up big time in order to sustain higher throughputs.
It's not very subtle, is it? The combination of these two measures certainly looks to me like there is a serious attempt at tiering going on. |
