3 ms·

If anyone needed evidence of this, they could look up how some ISP's (Like AT&T) chose to react to the TVPA act: https://www.techspot.com/news/93754-isps-conti

by RajT88 3y ago

If anyone needed evidence of this, they could look up how some ISP's (Like AT&T) chose to react to the TVPA act: https://www.techspot.com/news/93754-isps-continue-charge-unfair-rental-fees-potentially-breaking.html https://www.techspot.com/news/93754-isps-continue-charge-unf... AT&T made it compulsory to use their gateways by installing certs for Auth on their hardware and just saying they do not offer for sale the same hardware and third party hardware could not (would not?) Be issued those certs. I tried my luck buying a gateway off ebay and trying to get out of the rental fee. Their position was that this was "theft" as they did not sell these devices. Granted, I had to file an FCC complaint to even get that response. The exec I spoke with basically threatened me with legal action if I did not drop it. Shady. They deserve to be replaced by muni or Federal internet indeed.

martinald 3y ago
While I don't agree with the shady practice of charging hidden rental fees, I can really understand why they want to provide their own CPEs. That way they can control them a lot better via remote management and ensure they work well with the (very much shared) network. Do people expect to be able to use their own ONTs on FTTH? Clearly not because it would cause a load of issues if you had one bad terminal on it taking the entire GPON segment down. So I don't really understand why providing your own cable modem is any different.
- crote 3y ago
  > Do people expect to be able to use their own ONTs on FTTH? Yes? Someone could also take down a GPON segment by shining a laser pointer into it, so that's not really a good argument for banning it. The ONT is often just an off-the-shelf box, and there is no technical reason why it has to be ISP-provided - especially when they then try to charge a fee for it. If some enthusiast wants to just stick an SPF module into their homelab Cisco router, why try to ban it? There are a few countries where the ISP is legally required to allow third-party ONTs on their network, and that's not really causing any issues in practice. Those laws were originally introduced to deal with really crappy ISP-provided modem+router combos which lacked basic features, but they still work just fine in the FTTH era.

by RajT88 3y ago

martinald 3y ago

While I don't agree with the shady practice of charging hidden rental fees, I can really understand why they want to provide their own CPEs. That way they can control them a lot better via remote management and ensure they work well with the (very much shared) network. Do people expect to be able to use their own ONTs on FTTH? Clearly not because it would cause a load of issues if you had one bad terminal on it taking the entire GPON segment down. So I don't really understand why providing your own cable modem is any different.

crote 3y ago
> Do people expect to be able to use their own ONTs on FTTH? Yes? Someone could also take down a GPON segment by shining a laser pointer into it, so that's not really a good argument for banning it. The ONT is often just an off-the-shelf box, and there is no technical reason why it has to be ISP-provided - especially when they then try to charge a fee for it. If some enthusiast wants to just stick an SPF module into their homelab Cisco router, why try to ban it? There are a few countries where the ISP is legally required to allow third-party ONTs on their network, and that's not really causing any issues in practice. Those laws were originally introduced to deal with really crappy ISP-provided modem+router combos which lacked basic features, but they still work just fine in the FTTH era.