Hmm, isn't this the same industry that charged us additional fees for each television in a house that was hooked up to the CableTV service? Why oh why is anyone surprised by this tactic? Especially from a monopoly. Let's face it, if the company wants to offer a service, they have the option to specify the terms of the service. If they say the residential cable access product is for one computer - that's the service. If they require a purchase of additional IP addresses to allow the user additional IP addresses - that's the service. If they want to offer a business class service with as many IP addresses as justifiable using ARIN guidelines - that's the service. You don't like it, don't buy it. They are under no obligation to give you what you want, although it usually does help sales. Greg U At 09:57 AM 1/31/2002, Martin J. Levy wrote:
I got this forwarded to me. I'm not impressed.
Based upon the general desire for providers to have NAT'ed users and to reduce IP-space usage where appropriate, does this make sense? I can understand the providers desire to increase revenue, but I don't believe this is a good way to do it.
Besides the technical difficulties of detecting a household that is running a NAT'ed router, why not win over the customer with a low-cost extra IP address vs: the customers one-time hardware cost for the router. There are people who would be willing to pay some amount monthly vs: (let's say) $100 for a NAT box.
Does anyone know what percentage of home broadband users run NAT? Does anyone have stats for IP-addresses saved by using NAT?
Martin
------ Forwarded Message From: Ward Clark <ward@joyofmacs.com> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:00:32 -0500 To: "NetTalk" <nettalk@sustworks.com> Subject: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"
Today's MacInTouch links to a report that appeared in SlashDot on Thursday:
"A co-worker of mine resigned today. His new job at Comcast: Hunting down 'abusers' of the service. More specifically, anyone using NAT to connect more than one computer to their cable modem to get Internet access- whether or not you're running servers or violating any other Acceptable Use Policies. Comcast has an entire department dedicated to eradicating NAT users from their network. ... did anyone think they'd already be harassing people that are using nothing more than the bandwidth for which they are paying? ..." Earthlink and Comcast have both been advertising lately their single-household, multi-computer services (and additional fees) -- probably amusing to many thousands of broadband-router owners, at least until the cable companies really crack down.
There's a huge number of responses (691 at the moment), which I quickly scanned out of curiosity. I'm not a Comcast or Earthlink user.
You can start here:
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/01/24/1957236.shtml
-- ward
-------------------- To unsubscribe <mailto:requests@sustworks.com> with message body "unsubscribe nettalk"
------ End of Forwarded Message