Comcast users

[Singularity]

I was wondering if there were any Comcast customers here that could answer a question for me:

Is it against the service agreement for the basic, one dynamic IP high-speed Internet service to use NAT to share the connection between multiple computers?

[kestrel404]

http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp

section (x).

Looks like you can do it as long as you're not violating any other TOS by doing so.

[Singularity]

My thanks. But it looks like I won't be able to do it:

Quote:

(x) connect multiple computers behind the cable modem to set up a LAN (Local Area Network) that in any manner would result in a violation of the terms of this Policy or an applicable Service plan;

I only want to pay $29.99 a month, not $69.99 a month. I'd more than double the fee by wanting to add access for another computer. Then again, a second IP would be an additional $5 or so a month but that would mean both systems would be directly connection: a big no no for this tech head. *sigh*NAT is a good technology, why can't they just understand that...

And according to this:

Quote:

(ii) post, store, send, transmit, or disseminate any information or material which a reasonable person could deem to be objectionable, offensive, indecent, pornographic, harassing, threatening, embarrassing, distressing, vulgar, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or otherwise inappropriate, regardless of whether this material or its dissemination is unlawful;

Comcast users really need to wear kids' gloves when on the Internet.

Well, ain't just fuCONNECTION LOST

[Singularity]

Forgot to add a fun fact: at one point, Michigan had outlawed the use of NAT, making numerous companies and government installations in violation of a poorly written law.

[Sakurako Hino]

(ii) post, store, send, transmit, or disseminate any information or

material which a reasonable person could deem to be objectionable,

offensive, indecent, pornographic, harassing, threatening,

embarrassing, distressing, vulgar, hateful, racially or ethnically

offensive, or otherwise inappropriate, regardless of whether this

material or its dissemination is unlawful;

That's interesting, since probably half of Comcast's customers would be in violation of their contracts by even going to Something Awful (which I'd bet half of them do).

Combine that with general surfing and getting hit with porn pop-ups, Comcast has a virtual equivalent of shooting itself in it's foot. Embedded within it's contract.

Since getting porn pop-ups from getting an ad-bug would technically be "disseminating" pornographic, offensive and or indecent material. It's against your will, but there's no clause for that.

This has just given me a bad opinion of Comcast.

[Alex Craft]

They're not really saying you can't do it, they're just covering their asses in case someone tries to sue them because they are offended by the internet. I'd be willing to bet that any internet provider has a similar note somewhere in the fine print.

It's your standard 'Coffee is Hot' situation.

[kestrel404]

Exactly. Just about every ISP has an identical disclaimer. As long as you aren't very obviously violating your TOS, sucking up too much bandwidth, or getting into legal muck, they don't care.

[Sakurako Hino]

I know, but that is just a dangerous clause. If the right people got the right hairs up their butt, alot of people would be getting cut-off.

[Singularity]

Hino, you should read the user license for Windows sometime: you're practically giving away your first-born child for the privilege to use it. Hell, almost all end-user agreements are like that.

The real trick to meeting section ii is to not run a porn website or make porn or copyrighted files available through P2P connections. See, section i talks about what you can download and that does not include porn. Apparently, you can look at all of the t&a you want but you can't make it available to others.

My major concern is them getting a bee in their bonnet over the use of a Linksys router using NAT.