Rural High Speed Internet

[MossRoad]

... terms that preclude using the card in a wireless router feeding a LAN, which bans using it for a home network. ...

How are they going to know? Do they require some propietary software for the browser like some of the dial up companies do?

 

[SnowRidge]

How are they going to know? Do they require some propietary software for the browser like some of the dial up companies do?

I don't know if they can tell for certain or not. They might be able to using one of the ICMP protocols, but I'm not sure. They could certainly infer it by the number of simultaneous TCP/IP connections a customer had ongoing.

 

[Mickey_Fx]

... As for the OP, does your town have cable? If so how far out of town do you live? If enough people on your road want cable maybe you can convince the cable company to run the line. I have Roadrunner now and am logged on 24/7 without having to worry about how much I download. I really don't want to give up cable if I move

This is an awful big country and I belive you'll find things different depending upon where you live, no set rule based on comunity size or distance to town.

As I mentioned in previous post, no DSL or cable. Where am I located, about 1-1.5 mi from the largest outlet mall in the state and next to I5. 3-4 mi from city hall. Last time I spoke with one of the phone Co repairmen he said don't hold your breath for any phone service upgrade. Oh, currently phone service doesn't handle dial-up any faster than 24kb.

Son is about 50 miles away and he is further away from town than we are, services by same phone Co. He has fiber optic phone service and has DSL. His neighborhood is not as old as ours but nowhere near a new development or is housing any more dense.

All we can do is hope.

 

[MikePA]

How are they going to know? Do they require some propietary software for the browser like some of the dial up companies do?

You do not have to use ATT software. I use the 3G software I downloaded from the Sierra Wireless website.

I imagine it'd be easy to look at the MAC addresses connected via the card at one time. Although, I've never been a fan of a shared Internet connection tied to a PC.

BTW, I'm not an ATT Mobility apologist nor their defender, just correcting factually incorrect statements.

 

[jimg]

I quoted the terms applicable to Dataconnect. The only other item that might apply is what amounts to a Fair Use Policy. There's NOTHING there that mentions additional data charges which is what jimg keeps mentioning.

I've used this service for YEARS, downloaded service packs and other software, and I've never been FAPped nor been charge for data transmissions that exceeded unlimited. Personal experience isn't enough for some people.

RobS - Good luck in your search.

Did you exceed their cap? If not then theres no reason why you would get pinged.

 

[MikePA]

Did you exceed their cap? If not then theres no reason why you would get pinged.

I didn't say they had a cap. I said there was language in the Ts and Cs that sounded like a Fair Use Policy.

But we are digressing from the only point you made which was they charge after an 'unlimited' bytes transfer limit was reached. That is incorrect.

 

[MossRoad]

If the router is running NAT they would only see one IP address no matter how many devices were behind the router.

 

[jimg]

I didn't say they had a cap. I said there was language in the Ts and Cs that sounded like a Fair Use Policy.

But we are digressing from the only point you made which was they charge after an 'unlimited' bytes transfer limit was reached. That is incorrect.

So far you havent produced a contract. Until you have all the hand waving in the world isnt going to suffice.

Just for the record I did make more than one point. Sorry you missed the others.

 

[SnowRidge]

If the router is running NAT they would only see one IP address no matter how many devices were behind the router.

That is true, but browsers put out a lot of information in the HTTP header, usually including the operating system. If someone saw ongoing connections with multiple browsers reporting machine configurations that weren't identical, it would be a virtual certainty that more than one machine was involved. I say virtual, since it is possible to fake that information and make one machine look like many and vice versa.

It is also possible in some cases to trick the browser into revealing its LAN address. One of the security web sites had a demo of it. I forget exactly how they did it, java, javascript, or ActiveX, but it was scary what they could tell you about your system.

I think the bottom line is simply this. If an Internet provider wants to make a concerted (automated) effort to discover whether or not you have multiple machines connected to their network, they are going to be able to do so, with a reasonable degree of accuracy. If they are looking for excuses to boot high usage people (who are in violation of the terms of service) off of an oversold network, they will be able discover who they are and boot them. There may be a little collateral damage, and they may miss a few, but I doubt they would care overly much.

 

[MikePA]

So far you havent produced a contract.

I'm not ATT. If you don't believe me, show me a bill for an unlimited DataConnect service where you were charged for data.

Sorry you missed the others.

Thanks, but I'm not sorry I missed them.