Ed Foster's Gripelog || Comcast and VPN Revisited

» All 33 InfoWorld Newsletters Technology & Business Daily

INFOWORLD GRIPE LINE BY ED FOSTER

Bookmark this page

Comcast and VPN Revisited

By Ed Foster, Section Gripes
Posted on Fri May 02, 2003 at 02:51:50 PM PDT

The weblog format is ideal for handling the type of gripe where we need feedback from many readers. And we happen to have need for just that in order to determine how Comcast is or is not applying its VPN ban to newly acquired AT&T cable modem customers.
On a number of occasions in the past, I’ve reported on the fact that the terms of service for Comcast’s cable modem broadband service specifically bans the use of Virtual Private Networks. Customers who wanted to access their company’s VPN from home were told by Comcast that they would have to subscribe to a more expensive service.

Ever since it was announced that Comcast was acquiring AT&T’s cable business, the question has lingered whether the VPN ban would apply to those customers as well. Over the last few months, I’ve heard from a number of readers whose local AT&T cable outlet has been taken over by Comcast, so I ought to know the answer. But I don’t.

The reader reports so far are a real mixed bag. Several said that, sure enough, their VPN has indeed stopped working, but that Comcast is telling them that it’s just a bug. Others former AT&T customers say they can still use VPN, but they’ve been told this is a temporary accommodation until Comcast completes the migration.

That we have these varied reports isn’t really surprising. Even with the old Comcast, whether or not customers were actually prevented from using VPN has seemed to vary from cable outlet to cable outlet. Which is why the real question is not what Comcast says it’s going to do, but what it actually does. So let’s see how many readers we can get to report on their experience in this regard. New and old Comcast customers: can you use VPN without paying an extra fee? Post a comment or write me at ed@gripe2ed.com

< Gripelog 0.9 | Son of UCITA >

Comcast and VPN Revisited | 58 comments (58 topical) | Post A Comment

Comcast & VPN[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#1)
by Anonymous User on Sat May 03, 2003 at 05:14:17 PM PDT

As a broadband user in Boulder Colorado, I've been affected by the Comcast/ATT buyout. Currently, my VPN is still functioning (Info-Express "VS Client"). However, the final "transition" to the Comcast system apparently is not scheduled to occur until June 30. I have been unable to get any definitive information concerning VPN usage whatsoever. However, since the merger, I have found that the quality of service has gone down. Their email POP has been down so frequently, that I've been forced to maintain an internet accessible POP account with another ISP. Also, they apparently do not have the means (or desire) to measure the packet flow coming through their routers. There have been three occasions where the internet service has been down entirely. You call, and are immediately told that it's a hardware problem, and a service call will be scheduled. Apparently, the only way they are aware of an area "out of service" condition is by the number of complaints hitting customer service. I don't think it would be two unreasonable to be monitoring the packet volume at strategic locations with an automated process to compare it to normal metrics for a given day/time. If there is a substancial decrease in volume, an engineer can be "pinged" to check the status.

[ Reply to This ]

Charter has the IDENTICAL restriction.[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#2)
by Anonymous User on Sun May 04, 2003 at 08:10:30 PM PDT

I used Charter cable in Burbank, CA and they had the identical issue. They wanted me to pay $59.95 a month for "commercial" service and sign a commercial contract. I still have a copy of the lengthy contract they wanted me to sign in my desk at work. Kevin

[ Reply to This ]

COX Cable also prohibits VPN[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous User on Mon May 05, 2003 at 10:38:28 AM PDT

Ed's article got me curious, so I checked my carrier, COX cable. Although we have used VPN in the past (and haven't tried it recently) according to the COX faq page "VPN's are not allowed" via their residential service (please, sign up for their more expensive business service). The FAQ references the Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) that included as part of the Subscriber Agreement (SA) signed during hookup. The closest VPN reference I can find in their AUP (last updated 4/28/03) is a prohibition against Commercial use (including IP Address translation - is that what my home networking wireless router uses?). Of course, their SA stipulates that COX can change the terms of the SA/AUP at any time just by posting said changes on the internet - not much of an "agreement" in my book, since nothing in force at the time of my "signing" the agreement is binding, except that they can change the rules whenever they want. Now I'll have to go home and see if VPN still works...

[ Reply to This ]

That policy changed[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#24)
by Anonymous User on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 03:07:45 PM PDT

http://www.cox.com/omaha/CoxHighSpeedInternet/vpn.asp

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#48)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:17:12 PM PDT

出会い系出会い系サイト出会い喫茶出会い掲示板ナンパ出会いカフェ人妻出会い無 009;系サイト優良出会い系攻略完全無料。アダルトビデオアダルト動画アダルトアニメアダルト画像アダル 488;サイト無料DVDアダルト風俗サンプル無料風俗優良アダルトサイト比較海 806;。人妻画像人妻パラダイス知合い人妻援護会人妻コレクション風 439;告白。熟女画像東京熟女掲示板動画熟女ビデオおまんこオナニー。エロ画像エロフラッシュアニメ 456;ロ動画エロゲームエロ漫画無料エロサイト。エッチ画像エッチ動画エッチ小説写真エッチ 450;ニメエッチ0930。セックスアナルセックス画像セックス動画セックスフレンドスワッピング SEX写真セックスボランティセ 483;クス体位東京セックス仕方 SEX。おっぱい画像おっぱい村長おっぱい楽園掲示板お 387;ぱい命おっぱいゲーム。巨乳動画巨乳画像アイドル巨乳 522;示板風俗。セフレ募集セフレ掲示板セフレ画像掲示板セフレの作り方出会い無料素人セフレ。童貞狩りエロ漫画童貞狩り童貞喪失童貞オークション素人童貞逆援。不倫パートナー不倫出会い人妻不倫不倫を楽しみたい方にはお薦め 154;妻画像など満載出会いサイトを楽しむならココ無料出会いで一緒に遊ぼう出会いはLOVEｱｹﾞｲﾝで決まり

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

VPN's and Comcast Cable[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous User on Tue May 06, 2003 at 05:30:20 AM PDT

I use Comcast Cable in Connecticut as my home ISP. I connect to the corporate network via Checkpoint's VPN about once week and it works like a charm. Signed up for "residential service", the terms and conditions at that time had a ban on VPN usage in them, as well as a ban IP Address translation. I guess they don't like my home firewall and router either. I will have to take a look at what they say now.

[ Reply to This ]

yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#57)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:18:05 PM PDT

VPN on Comcast OK in Pittsburgh so far[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#5)
by sswartzl on Tue May 06, 2003 at 06:40:21 PM PDT

I'm in Pittsburgh, and I'm one of those folks that is being migrated to the Comcast network from AT&T. The official switch will not occur until the end of June, but to this point nothing has changed. Service has been good, upload and download speeds are capped the same as AT&T did (1.5Mbit down, 128Kbit up), and I've seen no outages. VPN works fine. When Comcast took over, I reviewed their terms of service, and I did not see any explicit reference to VPN. The only thing relevant was a statement that the service was for "personal and non-commercial use," which is of course rather vague. I don't think that ought to be used to block VPN, for two reasons: 1) VPN is a general-purpose capability. If I needed it to connect to the University of Pittsburgh for classwork (I don't, but it's a reasonable scenario), that would not be a commercial use, and there would be no justification for blocking it. 2) Even use of VPN to connect to work is arguably not commercial. I drive my car to get to work every day, but that's not considered commercial use, even though the only purpose is to get me to my place of employment. I certainly don't have to have commercial auto insurance. I see VPN as a similar type of use. I'm using it to connect to a place of business, but not to conduct business. Anyway, that's the word of the moment. We'll see what happens at the end of June. The only bad thing to happen so far with Comcast, so I've heard, is that rates for cable internet service are being raised for those who do not subscribe to Comcast cable TV. I'm not sure of how legal that is (it seems to smack of "bundling", like the stuff that got MS in trouble), but I'm not a lawyer, so who knows?

[ Reply to This ]

Comcast "Bundling" Cable TV w/ Broadband[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#9)
by pacAir on Thu May 08, 2003 at 11:12:08 AM PDT

This issue annoys me the most about Comcast's take-over of the ATT Broadband internet service. Why am I being penalized for NOT taking cable television? The data service was sold to me originally without any hooks to the cable TV side of the business and should remain that way IMHO. This is almost like saying that you cannot get a a DSL or ISDN line from the phone company without also paying for additional phone service that you probably don't already require. They seem to be treating this as a "reverse rebate", where CURRENT customers who DO have cable television service get a break on their data connection while data customers can only get the same break if they subscribe to a television service they probably don't need (I prefer satellite myself). The net result is the SAME money to Camcast regardless of which way you decide to handle it (except, of course, canceling your broadband data service altogether and replacing it with DSL). I resent the fact that I am being forced to pay more because I have made a choice NOT to subscribe to additional services. This is not only unfair and of potentially questionable legality (I question it anyway, I am NOT a lawyer), it is simply NOT good for customer relations and support. This is NOT a good introduction to your new customer base, Comcast!

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Bundling services[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#16)
by kamnet on Sun May 11, 2003 at 03:30:31 PM PDT

I got a feeling that the courts would rule in the favor of the companies. BellSouth rolled out DSL here (eastern KY) a year and a half ago. You pay nearly $65/mo for your DSL connection if you order it by itself with basic telephone service, but if you order their "Complete" phone package (which includes things I'm not interested in, like 3-way calling, caller ID, voicemail, call waiting) your DSL service is only $46/mo. Adelphia also offers a variety of bundled services where you get a discount on your cable modem. Their current offer bundles digital cable, digital HBO and their new long-distance telephone service for $90/mo. The cost of cable modem service is $59.95/mo by itself or $49.95/mo with basic cable service. They'll slash $10/mo off your bill if you provide your own cable modem, and purchase of additional cable modems in the same residence is just $39.95/mo.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#52)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:17:45 PM PDT

Comcast and VPNs[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#6)
by Anonymous User on Thu May 08, 2003 at 10:47:41 AM PDT

What I remember is; 1) @Home banned VPNs (and may have done something to explicitly block them); 2) when @Home died and Comcast introduced their own service, VPNs were permitted. However, in looking over their TOS (http://www.comcast.net/terms/index.jsp) I found the following at the end of section 5:

"...you agree not to use the Service ... as an end-point on a non-Comcast local area network or wide area network."

This would seem to me to forbid use of a VPN on Comcast since the VPN would make my PC an endpoint on my companies WAN, right?. That said, my company's VPN works fine on Comcast as it has from day one (3/1/02).

As a side comment, Ed has made much of how difficult TOS, EULA, and the like are for real people to comprehend. The Comcast TOS runs 20 pages printed. And they can revise any part of it at any time and don't have to tell me. At a practical level, it seems to me that makes it unenforceable. What I would like to see is Federal legistlation that limits all such agreements to 3 pages of 10 point serif font with 1" margins, or the equivelant number of words, and that any time it is revised, all customers have to be notified of the revisions and the changes have to be highlighted. Better yet, there should be some automated technology to manage all this - an application on your PC that logs all the agreements you agreed to and then tracks the subsequent changes. Oh - and the complete agreement has to fit within the 3 pages - it can't make reference to things in other documents.

[ Reply to This ]

Lawsuits necessitate a long CYA contract[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous User on Mon May 12, 2003 at 08:16:48 PM PDT

Companies are under considerable pressure from potential lawsuits. To protect themselves, they have to write up a thorough and complicated contract with their customers. If you legally limit the contract to 3 pages, you would need to pair it with legislation to protect the affected businesses from unreasonable lawsuits. It might be possible to legislate a standard contract, which could only be modified to the extent possible in 3 pages, but that only works if you're in a business that the government recognizes. In any case, this is probably the domain of state government, not federal.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Re: Lawsuits necessitate a long CYA contract[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#37)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 28, 2004 at 04:19:04 PM PDT

Wow, you sound like one of the people who wants to screw us over.

Why do we need to protect the companies from "unreasonable lawsuits"? If they were doing reasonable business they'd write reasonable agreements, hold to them, and no one would need to sue them. If they can't figure out how to behave reasonably (even if it's technically "legal") they should be regulated, end of story.

I don't think we need to limit agreement length, but agreements shouldn't be allowed to say "O, and this agreement is subject to change at any time." That is what should be illegal.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#54)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:17:52 PM PDT

yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#44)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:15:16 PM PDT

Comcast in Chicagoland[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#7)
by Fushigi on Thu May 08, 2003 at 10:56:55 AM PDT

I subscribed to Comcast cable + broadband a couple of months ago, taking advantage of their satellite dish trade-in offer. While Comcast was taking over the AT&T infrastructure, this was a new subscription and not a conversion. I specifically asked about VPN compatability, download caps, etc. and was basically told that Comcast doesn't care what you do with the line. VPN: fine. Download cap: nope. Connection sharing via router/ICS: fine. Want a static IP and to run your own servers? OK, upgrade your service.

Of course, they won't support routers and the like, but that's understandable.

I VPN to work several times a week over a wireless card into my SMC router to the cable modem. It works just fine. I can't say I've downloaded so much so far that I'd push a download cap so I can't speak to that.

My only gripes: 1) The service has gone down twice, each time for a few hours, since I started. 2) The price could be better; $39.95 is what I'd rather be paying. 3) On the cable TV side, the digital cable box is way way way behind the times when compared to DirecTV.

[ Reply to This ]

yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#55)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:17:58 PM PDT

Comcast and VPN in the Great Northwest[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous User on Thu May 08, 2003 at 11:02:23 AM PDT

I'm in Seattle where AT&T recently got renamed to Comcast. I say "got renamed" because I don't think there have been any real changes yet to how the cable system works. I'm currently on Verizon's DSL (with very few sporadic problems over several years now), but the faster speed and lower cost of broadband via cable was appealing--except for the potential that VPN might not work in the future. I've called Comcast twice about this. The first response was "VPN is not a problem; we don't restrict that." Then I read their "Terms of Service" (which, as we all know by now, can change at any time without notification--and I don't want to have to read their web site every day to look for changes!). The Terms of Service say, in part that you are: "not to use the Service for operation as an Internet service provider, a server site for ftp, telnet, rlogin, e-mail hosting, `web hosting' or other similar applications, for any business enterprise, or as an end-point on a non-Comcast local area network or wide area network." But the whole point of VPN is that it makes you an end-point back to a LAN (in my case, the corporate LAN of my employer). So I called again, and was referred to a Tech Support manager. I told him about the specific language in their Terms of Service about not operating as an end-point of a LAN, and that my fear was that this would be interpreted as making VPN a "no-no." Of course they would NOT agree to put something in writing that says "this customer gets to run VPN without ever having to upgrade to a more expensive service." But the interesting thing is that this manager referred to an internal document that had VPN listed as "acceptable use" for the consumer customer service. Now I'm wondering if that internal document is an AT&T "leftover"--not Comcast policy. Luckily for me, DSL is fast enough, and has been very reliable.

[ Reply to This ]

Do you still have VPN?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#28)
by hbunny on Thu Sep 04, 2003 at 02:00:30 PM PDT

I'm in Seattle too and our VPN has not been working for a couple of weeks. Is yours out of commission too?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#47)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:15:41 PM PDT

yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#50)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:17:34 PM PDT

The Comcast website[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#10)
by Anonymous User on Thu May 08, 2003 at 11:32:54 AM PDT

I live in a western suburb of Chicago where Comcast is upgrading our cable for Internet access (after AT&T ignored us for years). Wanting to know more I went to the Comcast website where I ran into the following FAQ: Do you allow/support Virtual Private Networks (VPN)? Comcast allows customers to utilize VPN software in accordance with our Acceptable Use Policy and other terms of service; however, we do not provide technical support for them. To get support, please contact your software company's system administrator. To view our acceptable use policy, please visit http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp mike d

[ Reply to This ]

Comcast and VPN Revisited[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#11)
by JHEM on Thu May 08, 2003 at 11:58:50 AM PDT

While VPN is expressly forbidden under Comcast's TOS, my wife has been using it to tele-commute daily from her home office for the past year without any problems. This is with Comcast of Garden State in southern NJ. The only problem with them is the cost of service, which is approximately $60 per month broken down as $15 for basic cable service (required) and $45 for cable modem access. Compared to my DSL service from Verizon, I get better throughput for HALF the cost ($29.95).

[ Reply to This ]

Mapping Problem when using VPN over Comcast[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#38)
by denrus on Tue Sep 28, 2004 at 01:36:20 PM PDT

I have a mapping problem when using a VPN connection over Comcast Cable -residential. Establishing the VPN connection works fine. But you cannot map a drive to the server. If you watch a continous ping when the mapping is done, you'll see a 'request timed out" .If you use the same pc but on a different connection , ie Optimum online, mapping is not a problem. This Comcast connection is using dhcp from Comcast. PPTP works fine , however. Any ideas.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#53)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:17:49 PM PDT

Comcast and VPN[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#12)
by Anonymous User on Thu May 08, 2003 at 12:26:53 PM PDT

I'm in Petaluma, CA and right now I'm still using a VPN just fine. Of course, as others have pointed out, the transition doesn't officially start here until June 30th. I guess we'll really find out then.

[ Reply to This ]

yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#49)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:17:31 PM PDT

Language on "Policy" by Comcast[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous User on Thu May 08, 2003 at 01:53:08 PM PDT

Reviewing the "Terms of Service" and "Acceptable use" policy statements of Comcast as posted on http://www.comcast.net/ as of 30020408 what I see is basic boiler plate legalese which basically, if interpreted strictly, means that you may have the service but not "use" the service. Lawyers write these with the ability to deny anything undesirable to the policy holder in mind. Courts "usually" keep closer to common sense, although this is variable. By stating in the; 5. Acceptable Use Policy; Prohibited Uses of the Service b. Prohibited Uses of the Service: section it states that any business enterprise is prohibited. by definition Business is an attempt to profit from activity, and enterprise is action toward a goal. Strictly interpreted this would prohibit research and comparison shopping, or even shopping on the net, something that I am sure they do not wish to prohibit. So a VPN which is just a security protocol point to point, should not necessarily be prohibited as creating an end-point on a non-Comcast network. But VPNing to work is already implicitly prohibited as a business enterprise, and so is having a "network" attached. What with the SuperDMCP laws in play now in certain places, even having a VPN client or a Personal Firewall or NAT/router is illegal so Comcast itself is in trouble. But then by strict interpretation of the letter of the law in some states it is now illegal to own or use a garbage can or a shredder. With the legal intricacies these days you really can not do more than obey the commonly understood intent and hope that common sense can be found in case of trouble.

[