OT- Comcast Subscriber Agreement

Greg Kettmann greg at kettmann.com
Mon Jun 16 10:55:16 EDT 2003


Interestingly Comcast actually wrote back.  They said:  

"Thank you for writing to Comcast.

I apologize for any inconvenience that you may be experiencing. For now the information that we have available is that you will be able to use a router on our network. More information will be released as the transition draws closer. 

Thank you again for contacting Comcast.

Elizabeth L
Comcast Online Customer Support Center"

I kind of liked the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" method, which someone 
mentioned so kind of wish I'd just kept quiet, but I'm sure they're very 
aware of all the routers out there.  I would assume that their all a 
dead givaway based on their MAC addresses.  

Just thought I'd close the loop on this.  Thanks for all the feedback, GGK

Greg Kettmann wrote:

> Sorry if this is somewhat off topic.  Perhaps it's not since it 
> involves Linux and NAT.   I have many friends using "Broadband 
> Routers" that I've set up.  As I imagine we all know these allow one 
> machine to act like a proxy for a group of other machines.  (Yes, I 
> know it's technically not a proxy and that it uses NAT.  I'm speaking 
> in concepts.  Hey, for that matter it's not really a Router.)  
>
> With the Comcast acquisition of ATTBI there is a "Transition Wizard". 
>  They say it must be applied by the end of the month.  Using that 
> requires signing a new Subscriber Agreement.  Section 6, subsection g 
> of this states:
> Theft of Service.  You will not connect the Service or any Comcast 
> Equipment to more computers, either on or outside of the Premises, 
> than are reflected in your account with us.  You acknowledge that any 
> unauthorized receipt of the Service constitutes theft of service, 
> which is a violation of federal law and can result in both civil and 
> criminal penalties. In addition, if the violations are willful and for 
> commercial advantage or private financial gain, the penalties may be 
> increased.
>
> Now, technically no one is connecting any additional machines to the 
> "Service" just to the machine which is making Internet requests on 
> their behalf.  Also, and I know the laws are really flakey in this 
> area, but wouldn't intercepting, decoding and reading my traffic be a 
> breach of my privacy as well as a violation of the reverse engineering 
> laws?
>
> One of my friends is a bit concerned so I wrote a note to Comcast, 
> requesting a clarification of the passage, particularly as it applies 
> to "Broadband Routers".  I included questions on privacy and packet 
> disassembly and tried to keep it very polite.  I suspect that this is 
> pretty much business as usual but wanted to hear about the issues from 
> the experts.  
>
>  I appreciate any feedback or suggestions.  Thanks, GGK


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/private/gnhlug-discuss/attachments/20030616/4fc55d14/attachment.html


More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list