IP: NYC Time Warner Cable sending nastygrams to free 802.11 points?

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: "rick tait" <rickt () rickt org>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:45:29 -0400
To: <declan () well com>, <farber () cis upenn edu>
Cc: <jpj () jpj net>, <press () nycwireless net>, "Alli Hobbs (Home)"
<alli () allihobbs com>
Subject: UPDATE: NYC Time Warner Cable sending nastygrams to free 802.11
points?

Declan:

Quick update re: Time Warner's nastygram.

I scanned in the letter and posted it up in various file formats at:

http://rickt.org/stuff/soho_wireless/twcnyc/

They gave me 3 days from receipt of the nastygram to give them written
confirmation that I would remove the wireless access point, which is of
course ridiculous - the USPS couldn't get a letter across NYC in three days,
and there's no way I'm paying for Fedex overnight out of my own pocket, so I
attempted to contact their Security & Abuse group. After leaving multiple
messages for Greg Powell (the manager who sent me the nastygram), and
multiple messages for the entire Security & Abuse group -- with no calls
back from them to me -- I am at this point, ready to just wait it out.

What's interesting though - is they appear to be messing with my regular
cable account. My internet access was shut off at 00:00 this morning, and I
was unable to order PPV movies via my remote. After calling their support
line (regular cable support, not Road Runner) they were unable to reactivate
my account for PPV, even though I am fully paid up. They could not explain
what the problem was, and suggested hardware problems with my cable box as
the culprit. Uh huh. So then I called the Road Runner people and they
couldn't see a problem either. Uh huh.

As it stands right now, the 3-day period is up, and I have yet to hear from
Time Warner in any capacity. My WAP continues as it has before, since I've
received no response from Time Warner to my questions. These questions are:

1. Does Time Warner have a problem with my extending my cable internet
service (that I pay them for) to my fire escape or to the cafe underneath my
apartment, for my own personal and private fair use? If I enable access
protection via password to my WiFi network so noone aside from myself can
access - do they have a problem with this? They have yet to answer this
question. If their answer is yes, then we have a SERIOUS problem that opens
up all sorts of questions regarding infringment of my fair use of my own
internet service. For TWCNYC to claim that I unfairly redistributing my
service to others or that they just "have a problem with it" even if its
locked down, is analgous to a long distance firm telling me I can't use a
cordless phone to call someone using their long distance service, and
instead I must use their standard, wired phone.

2. Why are TWCNYC concerned about the way in which I access their internet
service. To be specific: a reporter who it seems is championing my "cause"
called Road Runner, and it seems they are somewhat pissed at me for doing
"wacky" technical stuff. I utilise Wireless to Ethernet bridging on my Apple
Airport, and I also have my Airport give  out DHCP addresses to my local
switched LAN and to my laptop via WiFi. Allegedly, they are pissed at me for
deviating from "the norm". This is patently absurd. I use Ethernet to
Wireless bridging so I can have LOCAL connectivity speed between my wired
G4, roommate's wired iMac and my wireless iBook. If I didn't enable that,
any packets from wired G4 to wired iMac would have to go all the way to
TWCNYC's border router, and then all the way back. Why should I do that,
when I can faciliate local access via DHCP on MY side of the Airport? All
that TWCNYC sees is a single DHCP client on my side (I am paying for three
IP's by the way, so they can't accuse me of stiffing them on per-client
access fees) and NAT'd packets encapsulated inside the regular ones on the
way out.

The fact that TWCNYC and other firms can do all of this without the watchful
eye of any regulators is just appalling.

I won't comment on the "underground free wireless" ramifications of all of
this, for obvious reasons.

The bottom line: I understand completely why TWCNYC or any other ISP for
that matter might be pissed at someone allowing free and public access to a
WAP, using their own underlying backbone - especially to someone who isn't a
paying TWCNYC customer. BUT - if I am not going to be allowed to extend the
useful range of my own, fully-paid TWCNYC cable internet service to my own
fire escape or to a cafe downstairs EVEN if I password protect it - then
they surely are infringing my civil rights with respect to fair use of my
own cable internet service?

I'll be posting this on slashdot at some point today too.

Thanks,
RMT.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Declan McCullagh" <declan () well com>
To: <politech () politechbot com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 3:24 PM
Subject: FC: NYC Time Warner Cable sending nastygrams to free 802.11 points?


> ---
>
> From: "rick tait" <rickt () rickt org>
> To: <politech () politechbot com>
> Cc: <press () nycwireless net>, <info () nycwireless net>
> Subject: NYC Time Warner Cable sending nasty letters to subscribers who
use 802.11 and offer "free" access
> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:22:31 -0400
>
> Declan,
>
> I've not seen anything on Politech regarding this specific issue before,
but
> my roommate just called me and let me know that Time Warner Cable of NYC
has
> just sent me a snotty letter basically telling me to shut off my public
> access point immediately - PERIOD - as its not allowed according to the
> contract I signed to get their cable service.
>
> I don't have the letter in front of me, but if you're interested, I can
get
> it to you this evening.
>
> I plan on calling/writing to TWCNYC and asking them if they consider an
> access-protected 802.11 network is still an infringement of their
contract,
> meaning if I only allow MYSELF access, and no-one else. Is the fact that
its
> just "there" (admittedly unusable by anyone without the access key) an
> exception to the contract?
>
> Now I have to shield my apartment in lead because I can't "advertise" my
own
> private 802.11 network because the backend of the network is TWCNYC's?
>
> I don't like where this is going.
>
> RMT.



------ End of Forwarded Message

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/