[45348] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Fwd: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gregory Urban)
Thu Jan 31 14:51:32 2002
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20020131134208.028ab430@pop.cs.umbc.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:50:38 -0600
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
From: Gregory Urban <urban@cs.umbc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020131074533.01e4e9f0@wheresmymailserver.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
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?
>
>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
