From Slashdot: Comcast goes after NAT users

[Aaron]

> 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?

I love the TV argument. (because it works well for my position.)  Of course
it's fair.  Is it fair for Mary to pay the same rate for her TV service when
she only watches TV one hour a day and Tom watches it 12 hours a day?  The
point is that the availability is the same.  Usage is irrelevant because you
can't use more than you pay for in this case.  Like a restraunt... is it
fair for me to pay the same price for my steak as the guy at the next table
if I only eat half and he eats it all?

> 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.

Lets journey back...  many years... well, not all that many.  Remember?
Yes... you remember.... the $800 AOL bills.  The $500 Genie bills?  Because
they charged by the hour for access.  Remember when 20 minutes a month for
$50.00 was a great deal on a cellular phone plan? And 60 cents a minute over
that was the going rate?

Companies have figured out that they make more money charging flat fee's.
That way when you only use your cell phone 10 minutes they still get $30 or
$40 instead of $6.  When you're like my father and only use your AOL account
to check your e-mail twice a week they still hit you for the $21.95 a month.
There are MANY more people out there under using services than using WHAT
THEY ACTUALLY PAY FOR.

> 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.

In a perfect world, this is how it would be.  Have you seen the requirements
cable companies have put on leasing thier lines?  No small or meduim service
provider can get access.

Aaron