WBS now want you to pay extra for using a router !!!

Roman4604 · Nov 3, 2005

WBS are now pushing their luck too far ...

A lot of people have been having problems authenticating on the iBurst network using devices other than a Windows PC (e.g. broadband router, linux box etc.), it looks like I've found out why ... from the (updated) FAQ on their site ....

How can I share my iBurst connection with others?

It is possible to use the desktop modem to provide a broadband link to a local network which may be a traditional wired LAN or a wireless LAN using an 802.11 access point.

With this configuration it will be possible to have multiple devices sharing a single iBurst connection. Due to the likely increased usage there will be a premium charged for this mode of operation over a typical single user account.

I'm speechless !!!!!

Ravilj · Nov 3, 2005

Ok, say what? This must be another hoax, are WBS honestly that stupid? I think I am going to fall off my chair now. I am speachless to, where is the logic in all of this?! I really want to meet the person who wrote that FAQ cause they need to be fired.

HAHAHA it gets better there are two answers to the same question:

http://www.iburst.co.za/faq.php#a5

How can I share my iBurst connection with others?

It is possible to use the desktop modem to provide a broadband link to a local network which may be a traditional wired LAN or a wireless LAN using an 802.11 access point.

With this configuration it will be possible to have multiple devices sharing a single iBurst connection. Due to the likely increased usage it is suggested that subscribers use one of the higher end packages ( e.g. 6 GB or 9 GB) or buy additional bandwidth as required.

and

http://www.iburst.co.za/faq.php#a23

How can I share my iBurst connection with others?

It is possible to use the desktop modem to provide a broadband link to a local network which may be a traditional wired LAN or a wireless LAN using an 802.11 access point.

With this configuration it will be possible to have multiple devices sharing a single iBurst connection. Due to the likely increased usage there will be a premium charged for this mode of operation over a typical single user account.

Roman4604 · Nov 3, 2005

Go look at the FAQ on their site.

RichardP · Nov 3, 2005

WHAT! When did this Creep in?!!! So just because I have a Wireless AP at home and use it on my notebook I have to pay more!!!!

SCREW THAT! I Paid for 3 Gig! and if I have 100 PC's using it, then so be it...

Ravilj · Nov 3, 2005

Have a look at my editted post above: http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=348482&postcount=2

RichardP · Nov 3, 2005

When was that added in to the FAQ! ? anyone know ? I dont see an "Edited Date" and the Helpdesk tekkie didnt know about this either. (as I told him I use a broadband router)

The @ssholes have 2 FAQ entries with the same topic.

Nab · Nov 3, 2005

Well since my connection is split in many ways, I volunteer to pay them more money BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA HAHA #@^$ers! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Unchained · Nov 3, 2005

ic said:
Sadly this is nothing new - this internet connection sharing 'surcharge' was a stated WBS policy going back to [at least] November 2004, i.e. before WBS even knew how to introduce a cap...

This was a major concern for me before signing up in Feb.

mikeysa · Nov 3, 2005

Just spoke to the helpdesk and gave them a piece of my mind. They are totally unaware of this. Charlton says that he spoke to 2nd level (whoever they are) and says that the bit in the faq just means that you will use your bandwidth up sooner so in all likelyhood it is going to cost you more - not thet you'll be charged upfront to use a router. I have now escalated the call as to why my router still cannot connect. I'm not very hopeful. Gawd dammit ! The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

Unchained · Nov 3, 2005

ic said:
WBS' left hand is chopping off WBS' right hand & then WBS says 'wow that hurt - did I really just do such a stupid thing...'

Obviously have their hands in the pockets ('wow that hurt') iso out fixing security and the network

rustic · Nov 3, 2005

I want to know how they are going to pick up what device is doing the authenticating ( PC or Router )? Unless they have some device that can pick up NAT headers in packets, how are they going to do it?

alchamy · Nov 3, 2005

rustic said:
I want to know how they are going to pick up what device is doing the authenticating ( PC or Router )? Unless they have some device that can pick up NAT headers in packets, how are they going to do it?

If they start doing that then you just proxy everything

Jongi · Nov 3, 2005

So rustic are you saying that the technology doesn't existing to ascertain whether they you are using a router or not?

LazyManJoe · Nov 3, 2005

Guys,
I think you're ripping this whole issue completely out of whack !

The statement in the FAQ has been there (almost) since inception (I remember seeing it there last year Nov already).

I think they just had some issues with their authentication system lastnight - I had issues and my firewall successfully authenticated this morning 2:00 am. (Seems to have been related to PPPoE.)

Rustic, I agree with you - how will they pick up that I'm using a router/firewall/etc. ?

My 2 cents

rustic · Nov 3, 2005

Jongi said:
So rustic are you saying that the technology doesn't existing to ascertain whether they you are using a router or not?[/QUOTE

Not sure, thats why I'm asking...

Roman4604 · Nov 3, 2005

The only way to conclusively prove this is possible, is to compare a PPPoE negotiation packet trace from Window's and some other device's (e.g. Linux, Linksys etc.) PPPoE adapter.

I know within PPPoE packets are VSA fields (Vendor Specific Attributes) which are preload with values at the vendors discresion. All one would need to do is find something specific to Windows, and reject any auth requests that dont contain that specific vendor attribute value.

Anyone out there have the appetite to do some packet capturing?

alchamy · Nov 3, 2005

Ultimately they cannot block Linux Auth requests, there are several users with single Linux desktops.

So all you do is NAT packets from a linux router, if they start sniffing for NAT you Proxy everything, simple!

If they are stupid enough to block Linux and only allow windows then you proxy everything from a windows95 box.

But in all honesty I do not see them enforcing something this stupid.

Roman4604 · Nov 3, 2005

alchamy said:
But in all honesty I do not see them enforcing something this stupid.

We all hope so, but my tests were very conclusive (Win vs. Dlink rtr) & so were that of others (using linux PPPoE).

mic_y · Nov 3, 2005

yeah i agree with alchamy, it is too much effort, for no gain. It is too easy to get around, and there is no benefit for them. If people you their cap more quickly caus there are 2 pc's on one account, then the better for them.

mikeysa · Nov 3, 2005

well i STILL cannot connect with my router. And I don't know how to "proxy everything"

WBS now want you to pay extra for using a router !!!

Executive Member

Well-Known Member

Executive Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Expert Member

Expert Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Executive Member

Expert Member

Executive Member

Expert Member

Active Member