Optimum Online and You
For years the telephone companies of the world have pulled the wool over their customers eyes, forcing ridiculous charges upon them and blinding them from the truth. Hackers rose against this, pointing out these injustices and showing everyone exactly what was happening with the technologies they knew nothing about. Now, a new threat is present. Only this time it's not the telcos, it's the cable companies.
This article will focus on Optimum Online, a well known cable modem provider in the Connecticut/Long Island area, but I'm certain these tactics are in place all over the country. Optimum Online, like other cable providers, sells you a cable modem and NIC through The Wiz retail outlet, along with their service. Upon installation of their hardware, you register with them online, where you are then presented with their terms of service (mind you, you've already purchased the equipment). Once set up, you're ready to go, and like most people, you'll be amazed by the high speeds.
However, if you're like me, you had a few questions before you made your purchase. The first, in my case, was a simple one: "Is this equipment compatible with Linux?" The man at The Wiz assured me it was, although Optimum did not support that particular operating system. I looked at the NIC and noticed it was an ISA, which didn't sit well with me. I asked for a PCI, but he said that's the only one they had. Fair enough, I had his assurance it would work with Linux, so what was there to fear?
That was the first problem, but it certainly wasn't the last. The NIC did not work with Linux, and the only way it would was if you wrote your own driver, more or less. Unfortunately, I really didn't have that kind of time, especially when I was told it would work out of the box. Nonetheless, time went on and I eventually got a card that did work. Problem solved. I was now online and enjoying the incredible speed of my cable modem. Here was where the new problems began to creep in, as pointed out by this email I received from Optimum themselves:
First they "alert" me to the dangers of these file sharing services, and then, one sentence later, say they're an abuse of service. Wonderful, now by merely using KaZaA I was violating their terms of service. How you ask? Running any kind of server on Optimum's network and, as I said, other cable networks most likely, is strictly prohibited. So running KaZaA is a violation of my terms of service, and should I continue doing it, I may be punished. A part of me wonders if the RIAA or MPAA are standing in the shadows, but I won't go into a conspiracy theory.
There's a problem here. The terms of service basically give the cable company the right to declare anything a server! Next week ICQ might be forbidden, using DCC could be outlawed, and forget about running Telnet, SSH, or FTP on your computer. They claim servers pose a security threat, yet I don't understand why they won't let me take my own chances. There are people in this world who use the Internet for more than just email and web browsing after all.
Which brings me to my next point - websites. By now, it should be no surprise that many cable companies oppose running webservers on their networks. Out of curiosity, I found myself playing around with Apache one day, just to see what would happen if I set up a site. I made up some HTML files, threw them in /var/www/html, and went to my IP via my 192.168.x.x address.
There was my site, clear as day. Next, I opened port 80 on my layer-two switch and asked a friend to head to my IP using a web browser. He did, but could not see anything. Alright, they were filtering port 80. I edited httpd.conf so that both "Port:" and "Listen:" were set to 81, and asked him to connect again. This time, it worked.
This, however, did not last long. Today it does not matter which port I use, all incoming HTTP requests are filtered at the gateway. What does this mean? It means I can run a webserver on any port I like and then telnet to the server:port to see that it's there, but making any sort of HTTP (or HTTPS) request leads to a connection timeout. Great, now none of my friends can see my site.
My solution was really quite simple, although far from practical. I merely installed Virtual Network Computing (VNC) on one of my local machines and gave the IP/port to my friends. This allows them to connect to my internal machine through VNC, open a browser, and see my site as though they were on my LAN. Of course, it's sad I have to take such measures. All I want to do is use the Internet the way it's meant to be used. Why must their be so many restrictions? You pay for your alotted bandwidth, and as long as you don't uncap your modem, you should be allowed to do whatever you wish.
I'm certain there are people who disagree with what I've said. Many have told me the terms of service are what they are, and if I don't like it I should go elsewhere. I'm not really sure where I can go... DSL I suppose, but why should I have to go through the hassle?
There are a number of other things I could rant about, but I think what I've said is sufficient. We mustn't let these types of things continue. If we do, one day we'll find ourselves paying for every download, or getting booted because we had the nerve to run SSH. Unless we stand up against the ISPs, we may never have true, unfiltered Internet access.
Shouts to Dash Interrupt, Panther, Leland D. Peng, Sparky, and Jack Bauer.