Fwd: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"
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.
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:
>To unsubscribe <mailto:requests at sustworks.com> with message body
>------ End of Forwarded Message
More information about the NANOG