IP: from one of the first cablemodem customers re: CableLabs trying stop NAT and "unpaid" multiple IP addresses

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:51:41 -0500
> From: Eric Glover <eric () ericglover com>
> To:  <dave () farber net>
>
> As one of the first cablemodem customers, and an avid Internet user, who 
> owns multiple machines, I would like to point out a few major problems 
> facing home computer users, and explain why systems that eliminate NAT (or 
> similar devices) run the risk of destroying the Internet. In addition the 
> assumption of lost revenue is false, and in fact forbiding such devices 
> may actualy HURT the industry! There is a much easier solution, that costs 
> much less and does not require as much technology.
>
> I recently moved to NJ, and acquired cablemodem service from Comcast 
> @home. I have asked them repeatedly if they mind if I use a hardware 
> firewall or similar device, and have been told repeatedly it is fine. In 
> fact their policy (written agreement) specifically states I am permitted 
> to have my own home LAN, however they will not support it.
>
> Everyone who can read knows the dangers of DOS attacks, and the harms 
> caused by fast-spreading Internet scanning words such as Nimda. These 
> attacks are often made possible through the usurping of power from home 
> cablemodem users -- often not computer skilled, running Windows 
> 98/ME/NT/2000. However, the recent scares of compromise by active scanning 
> software (Nimda, or 13 year old Canadian boys running crackware found on 
> the Internet) have encouraged people to buy NAT boxes -- not because they 
> wish to "steal" Internet connections, but because they want to PROTECT 
> their machine.  NAT not only allows machines to "hide" but also isolates 
> one network from another. Although some may believe this to be evil 
> because millions of people have "secret" "unauthorized" private networks 
> that can't be differentiated, this allows poorly educated (Internet wise) 
> users to portect their home machines from the dozens (or hundreds by now) 
> of Windows specific exploits spread via scanning.  Anyone who has set up a 
> firewall (hardware or software) can tell you their machine gets scanned 
> often!  My NAT box regularly reports scans from all over the Internet -- 
> often from fellow cable modem users who didn't have the foresight to spend 
> $60 for a NAT box, or the 5 minutes to download FREE firewall software.
>
> Now the other issue is the method by which computers connect -- there was 
> a recent uprorar when AOL-TimeWarner's Internet divsion reported they were 
> not yet equipped to support Windows XP. The uproar subsided when it became 
> evident that cablemodems use STANDARD network connections, and as a result 
> ANY OS could be hooked up, but Timewarner just couldn't help home users 
> with Windows XP specific problems.  As an avid Linux user, I am thankful 
> that my cablemodem has an ethernet output -- allowing me to use ANY 
> standard computer -- Laptop, Desktop, etc. Unfortunately to control the 
> access, it becomes likely that a non-standard device or proprietary 
> software (CAT?) may be mandated -- preventing users from using anything 
> but the cablemodem company approved OS -- which would likey limit all 
> users to Windows 95 (a 7 year outdated operating system).  In addition it 
> would place a more difficult burdeon on the cable company to support this 
> proprietary software, and would significantly restrict and reduce what 
> home users could due, devaluing the service -- hurting competiton against 
> dial-up or other providers.
>
> Now what about the stated problem of "stealing IPs" -- first in the entire 
> article no hard numbers of people stealing IPs have been provided -- sure 
> it is theoretically possible for a home user to "share" his cable 
> connection with his neighbors via wireless, but in practice it is not so 
> simple. First, in the urban areas there is heavy 2.4 Ghz interference, and 
> as a result the practical range of 802.11b is very limited, in most cases 
> a single house can barely be covered. Second, even though a NAT box costs 
> only $60 (on sale) a decent wireless/NAT combo is still not cheap.  Third, 
> IF the government (FBI) made it a crime (by enforcing laws) against 
> cracking into other people's computers or spamming, then the owner of the 
> cablemodem would have a legal responsibility for those who they shared the 
> resources with -- a risk many people would not take.  The other important 
> fact left out is the fact that of the "millions" (no proof of this) of 
> people who "steal" IPs, how many would simply just use one computer if the 
> cable company tried to enforce the policies (which FYI only a few 
> companies actually forbid use of NAT, I *have* read the contracts, from 
> two different companies and no such mention was present). In fact if 
> Comcast told me NO, I would have likely gone with DSL, or found some other 
> way.  In addition, even if they said no NAT -- there is nothing wrong with 
> running a private LAN on your own house -- maybe a network printer, a 
> laptop for work and a desktop for the Internet.  By REQUIRING people to 
> have CAT (spyware in my book) may render home-legitimite LANs inoperable, 
> or at least compromise their security.
>
> Okay so what can the cable company do -- assuming they really care about 
> people "stealing IPs".
>
> #1: If they do not want people connecting more than one machine to the 
> Internet -- they should say so!  Their contracts should be clear, and they 
> should explicitly tell each user -- make them sign a separate sheet -- 
> they are not permittied to do that.   -- I predict the scare tactic would 
> help stop people. How easy is it to steal cable?  Why is it that if for $5 
> you can split a line and run it to your neighbors house that not everyone 
> does it?  Well the fact that it is illegal and enforced with possible jail 
> time is a strong disincentive.  Making a user sign a contract saying they 
> won't "steal IPs" will psychologically put stealing cable and stealing IPs 
> in the same boat!
>
> #2: The can charge by the bandwitdh -- not per bit, but per average use. 
> So if they promise upto 1.5 Mbits/second, they can assume some average 
> use, say maximum use for 1 hour/day (or whatever is reasonable) and if the 
> total usage goes over they pay "business rates" (or whatever).  This will 
> discourage people from sharing machines. Instead of charing $5/month per 
> IP, they charge $5/month per IP and data-usage block!  99% of the 
> legitimate users see no diference, but people who share in an abusive way 
> (I don't mean hook up a laptop for 30 seconds to download a security 
> patch) will get charged more than if they were clean about it!
>
> #3: Offer NAT boxes as a service?  WHAT, encourage the enemy?  Well right 
> now many people are afraid of the evil 13 year old crackers, or the Nimda 
> virus -- how much would a home user pay to have peiece of mind?  If the 
> cable company charged $5/month to rent (and support) a ONE PORT (or maybe 
> two port with access controls) NAT box, then a home user has piece of mind 
> and the cable company has a piece of mind knowing they control the use -- 
> although they can't stop a user from buying their own NAT box and chaining 
> it, there is less incentive to do so -- it also increases the user's 
> costs, and they don't get support.
>
> #4: Cable companies should be more aggresive about lobying the government 
> for enforcement of existing laws relating to network abuses -- I am not 
> saying arrest people for saying bad things about someone, but rather if a 
> computer is spamming, or DOSing, DO somehting about it. This will 
> discourage stealing of IP addresses, because if a user opens their 
> network, they may fear the FBI will come a knocking, and THEY are 
> responsible!  Currently the FBI refuses to investiage any crimes of low 
> (less than tens or hundreds of millions of dollars lost), and most cable 
> modem companies are non-responsive to requests to kill network connections 
> of violators.
>
> To support #4: I modified my computer to log all requests from NIMDA 
> infected machines (and I don't mean ALL unkown requests, I mean 
> specifically NIMDA) -- of course 80+% of them were from other Comcast 
> @home users.  When I asked them what I could or should do with the list - 
> I got the distinct impression that they did not care and would take no 
> action -- they did however give me an e-mail address I could use.  So 
> before the cable modem companies begin to spy on home users to ensure they 
> are not "stealing" IP addresses, they should get their own act together 
> and consider the almost free solutions -- policy changes!
>
> CYA,
> Eric
>
> P.S. If you have any questions regarding this, please e-mail me at: 
> cable () corporateincompetence com


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