North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"
It doesn't make sense that an ISP should complain that customers use 100% of what they pay for. So if 1% of your customers use %50+ of your bandwidth, your 1% is getting their money's worth. If you don't want the customer to use it, don't sell it to them. I would suggest to Cable and DSL companies that charging an extra $70 a month is going to do nothing except make them loose customers and gain a bad reputation. Instead I would suggest to them to check the location of NAT users: if the customer is in a residential building then they would likely loose them by charging them $70 more a month, but if they are in a commercial building they could probably make them pay up. Greg -----Original Message----- From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Rowland, Alan D Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 12:48 PM To: email@example.com Subject: RE: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users" 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¢, feel free to use your delete key. -----Original Message----- From: Martin J. Levy [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 7:58 AM To: email@example.com 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:00:32 -0500 To: "NetTalk" <email@example.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:firstname.lastname@example.org> with message body "unsubscribe nettalk" ------ End of Forwarded Message