Legality: Was Comcast/etc....

[ky0dr at kc.rr.com]

>It's like Apples/Oranges here.  Telephone is still only able to be used by
>one person . . . but think about it.  Local telephone call is under my
>basic rate but if I want to call California or China . . .
>
>TV way of looking at things is also flawed -- providing the signal doesn't
>impose a burden if you switch on multiple TV's.  In the good old days,
>telephones caused a burden on a phone system.  Just ask someone about
>having an old analog phone with a few others . . . they would barely ring
>if you had a lot of phones on the line.   The model changed when phones
>went state of the art and were basically less of burden on phone circuitry.

IMO, there are two reasons an ISP may choose to be NAT-hostile.

1. Because they think multiple computers connected means more bandwidth 
consumed.  I disagree with this.  Some one with N computers behind a NAT 
box does not necessarily consume more bandwidth (the real resource in this 
case) than one directly-connected computer streaming (in or out) MP3 audio 
and/or MPEG video all day long.
If the ISP is concerned about bandwidth, then address bandwidth, not an 
ill-conceived perception of what a bandwidth hog looks like.

2. As a service differentiation (i.e. something they can charge more for 
just because they can).  From their standpoint, they may want to provide 
simple "single user" service (really "single computer" service) at a "low" 
price, and charge a premium for "advanced" services (like "multiple user" 
service).  That mentality really irritates, me.

Either way, please, Mr. (or Ms.) Service Provider, charge me for how much 
of the resource I use, not *how* I use it.

David