SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"

Fri Feb 1 17:46:51 UTC 2002

<snip>
> Even this would have problems - there'd probably be a class action if 
> they required users not to use firewalls and I doubt they'd want to deal 
> with the support headache in convincing users to give up their wireless 
> access points.
> 
OK... I think the stuff gone with the <snip> was adequately addressed
by others.

According to the excerpts from the TOS, VMWARE, Firewalls (other than
an in-box firewall like BlackIce, etc.), WAPs and the like are already
prohibited.  All of those represent termination of the connection on
a non-comcast LAN.  VMWARE connects the vmware systems via a LAN
implemented as a driver in the host operating system kernel (at least
in Linux, I don't know about Windows).  Even if there's no physical
equipment outside the computer involved, it's still arguably a LAN.

That having been said, the real bottom line is that their policy
is a bad idea, and one which would prevent me from subscribing to
comcast.  If you are subscribing to comcast, you have the following
choices available to you:

	1.	Accept the policy and continue on.
	2.	Ignore the policy and accept the consequences.
	3.	Tell comcast that you feel they should reconsider their
		policy, and cancel your service if they do not.  They
		aren't the only ISP available.

> The real lesson is that filtering on equipment is a bad way to control 
> bandwidth usage. Of course, these are the same people who will complain 
> about something listening on port 80 which transfers 5KB/month but won't 
> say a thing if you spend 18 hours a day deathmatching and downloading 
> crap.

Here, I agree 100%.  Any attempt at an automated enforcement of the
above TOS is likely to be a DOS attack on their customers who
are not violating the TOS.

Owen