From Slashdot: Comcast goes after NAT users

[Bradley Miller]

At 12:12 PM 1/25/02 -0600, you wrote:
>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.

As I said in my earlier email, the way the "players" have decided to price
things is what's throwing things out of kilter.  High-speed conectivity
will not work under the "I'm a dial-up and paying for dialing in"
mentality.   There is only two ways to look at this in this light:

1) Businesses will force their network to conform (read the AUP and you'll
see how that works)
2) They can go bankrupt from frustrated customers

The argument for "they all oversell their bandwidth" is a valid one, but
remember that was looking at it from the dial-up user perspective.  Of
course nobody has a 1:1 user ratio for dial-ups and modems, so they will
not for bandwidth either.   But is it fair for Tom down the street to pay
$40/month to suck down 20/gig month while Mary only pushes 1/gig month?   

Ok -- now step back and look at it this way, you want the bandwidth piped
to your house to be just like water . . . except you want to be able to
have the hydrant open to fill your pool when you want and not pay for it.
Fair?  No.  No matter how you slice and dice it . . . businesses will not
be able to survive without some type of metering and payment for usage.

But wait -- what happens when they get greedy?   That's where having choice
will be paramount.  Would the cable company care about all this if someone
wanted to step in and say "ok, you have the line, we'll lease the pipe
going into the house and they'll pay me for bandwidth".  Suddenly the cable
company is back to doing what they do best -- putting cable to homes.  Let
other service providers fight over what they offer for $/gig fees.  

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

-- Bradley Miller