SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"

Scott Francis darkuncle at darkuncle.net
Thu Jan 31 19:06:44 UTC 2002


On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 01:59:06PM -0500, sjsobol at JustThe.net said:
> 
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Greg Pendergrass wrote:
> 
> > It doesn't make sense that an ISP should complain that customers use 100% of
> > what they pay for.
> 
> So you think that dialup users should be allowed to stay online 24/7 for
> $20/month on an account advertised as unlimited?

perhaps the advertising language needs to be overhauled. Obviously, a dialup
user running services pulling max bandwidth 24/7 on an entry-level account is
a problem. However, to play devil's (customer's?) advocate, it _is_
advertised as 'umlimited access' ... It seems kind of, well, silly to
advertise a service in certain language, and then to complain when somebody
takes you literally.

Perhaps I'm just not seeing this from the business perspective. :)

-- 
Scott Francis                   [email protected] [home:] d a r k u n c l e . n e t
Systems/Network Manager          [email protected] [work:]         t o n o s . c o m
GPG public key 0xCB33CCA7              illum oportet crescere me autem minui
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 872 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20020131/31585b7e/attachment.sig>


More information about the NANOG mailing list