From Slashdot: Comcast goes after NAT users

[Aaron]

I had to cut this one up... :)

> I would say it is more analogous to having multiple phones sharing one
line
> (and I know it is way more sophisticated than that).

Well, at least I agree with you on that point.

> They shouldn't really care what you do unless you have a server behind the
> NAT and are generating lots of upload traffic.

I disagree.  Even if you run a server you're still only using the bandwidth
you're paying for.  This comes right back to the fact that the internet is
built on oversubscription and now, with higher speeds, companies are finding
that they can't oversubscribe as much.  It's like running a T1 into my house
and selling 8 people a T1 off of that.  Sure I guarantee your speed to my
house, but above that, you share my bandwidth with 8 other people.  This is
how it's always been done. The idea was that not everyone would be using
thier bandwidth all at once so while they might not always get what you
promissed, it'd be close enough and you could always blame it on your
provider.  Gee, I really feel bad that companies are having to deliver what
they promissed in the first place.

> And while they could sniff the packets to determine if you may have
multiple
> machines, that sounds like more trouble than it is worth to them.
>
> Finally, no one is forcing you to buy broadband access, when you do, you
are
> explicitly accepting the terms they lay down.
> If you don't like the terms of the agreement, don't buy the service.
> Just because you can do something like NAT doesn't mean that it is your
> constitutional right or anything.

Wow...  do you work for Microsoft?  "I know it's not right, but we're the
only game on the field so what are you going to do about it?  It's not like
we've allowed you to have a choice or anything..."

>
> That said, can we kill this thread unless it has something more specific
to
> do with Linux?

Sure, start one up.

Aaron