[45329] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jon Mansey)
Thu Jan 31 12:20:11 2002
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:18:09 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v480)
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
To: "Martin J. Levy" <mahtin@mahtin.com>
From: Jon Mansey <jon@interpacket.net>
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020131074533.01e4e9f0@wheresmymailserver.com>
Message-Id: <7F7432E0-166E-11D6-9E8D-003065477C74@interpacket.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
2 comments
1) when your primary machine is an XP/2K box running ICS, is that illegal
also? Are we to expect comcast to come knocking at the door wanting to
inspect the configuration of our PCs to see if it has 2 NICs, or a
wireless card in it? Are we supposed to willingly just open up our PCs so
comcast can look inside?
2) I heard recently of ppl openly sharing their broadband connection using
802.11 access points, Airports etc among friends, neighbors, coworkers. I
can see where your DSL or cable company would be a little more concerned
about losing revenue like this, over just 2 or 3 PCs sharing at one
domestic location.
jm
On Thursday, January 31, 2002, at 07:57 AM, 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?
>
> Martin
>
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: Ward Clark <ward@joyofmacs.com>
> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:00:32 -0500
> To: "NetTalk" <nettalk@sustworks.com>
> Subject: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"
>
> Today's MacInTouch links to a report that appeared in SlashDot on
> Thursday:
>
> "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@sustworks.com> with message body
> "unsubscribe nettalk"
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
