Fwd: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"

Gregory Urban urban at cs.umbc.edu
Thu Jan 31 19:50:38 UTC 2002

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?
>------ Forwarded Message
>From: Ward Clark <ward at joyofmacs.com>
>Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:00:32 -0500
>To: "NetTalk" <nettalk at sustworks.com>
>Subject: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"
>Today's MacInTouch links to a report that appeared in SlashDot on
>"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 at sustworks.com> with message body
>"unsubscribe nettalk"
>------ End of Forwarded Message

More information about the NANOG mailing list