In message <4BCD203E.3050302@zill.net>, Patrick Giagnocavo writes:
Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <4BCD14EF.8090204@zill.net>, Patrick Giagnocavo writes:
Mark Andrews wrote:
I haven't seen any such documents or regulations. People purchaced the service on the understanding that they would get a Internet address. A address behind a NAT is not a Internet address, it's a *shared* Internet address which is a very different
In message <201004200022.o3K0M2Ba007459@aurora.sol.net>, Joe Greco writes : thing. Given that many ISPs put their sign-up documents, including contracts, on-line, you can no doubt supply a link to such a document that has legal terms that would preclude NATed service, yes?
My recollection is only that I would be provided with "Internet service" or "access to the Internet" . No mention of RFC1918 space or other distinguishing information was given.
Note in the below blurb no mention of publicly routable addresses...
It doesn't have to as the normal definition of a Internet address is a publically routable internet address. A address behind a NAT is not a Internet address (Big I Internet).
(hope the attribution is not screwed up)
*ANY* valid Internet Protocol address is an "IP address" as mentioned in the contract I quoted. Including 192.168.99.2 .
If you supply something less than a full blown Internet access you need to point out the restriction otherwise I would expect you to be subject to "Bait and Switch" and other consumer protection laws.
You are charmingly naive about how "the law" actually works in the USA - that is IMHO.
Yes, things vary around the world. You failed to state "In the USA". There is plenty of case law in Australia about companies attempting to arbitarially change terms and conditions to the detriment of the consumer and being made to reverse the changes. Changing from a public IP address to a private IP address is a big change in the conditions of the contract. People do select ISP's on the basis of whether they will get a public IP address or a private IP address.
In any case, I left the large amount of quotes in to show that I (and possibly Joe) are asking you for specific examples to support your argument - and all you are offering is more of your personal opinion, which is not an objective source of support for your position.
If I want that, I can go to any of *.livejournal.com, *.blogger.com , etc.
--Patrick -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org