[45331] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rowland, Alan D)
Thu Jan 31 12:49:24 2002
Message-ID: <AD74E2EC6D5BEA47BCB067EB69D30AD203A8A875@petrified.mis.earthlink.net>
From: "Rowland, Alan D" <alan_r1@corp.earthlink.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:47:46 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I've seen a lot of good responses since this post but none that points =
out
the obvious, most broadband providers offer 'residential' and =
'business'
products. The former at ~$50/month for a 'single connection,' the =
latter for
~$120/month including most of the services at issue in this thread. You =
get
what you pay for.
Some day case law will catch up to this new media enough that when a
'residential' service customer seeks remedy for $X,000 in 'lost =
business'
the defense will be that if they want a 'business' connection, then =
that is
what they should have signed up for/been paying for.
When 1% of your users are sucking down %50+ of your bandwidth you may =
need
to discuss AUPs with that 1%. Don't expect your shareholders to cut you =
any
slack on this issue.
-Al
Just my 2=A2, feel free to use your delete key.
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin J. Levy [mailto:mahtin@mahtin.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 7:58 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Fwd: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"
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=20
Thursday:
"A co-worker of mine resigned today. His new job at Comcast: Hunting =
down=20
'abusers' of the service. More specifically, anyone using NAT to =
connect=20
more than one computer to their cable modem to get Internet access-=20
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=20
harassing people that are using nothing more than the bandwidth for =
which=20
they are paying? ..." Earthlink and Comcast have both been advertising=20
lately their single-household, multi-computer services (and additional=20
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=20
"unsubscribe nettalk"
------ End of Forwarded Message
