From Slashdot: Comcast goes after NAT users

[Marvin Bellamy]

Isn't this the same provider that just about went under?  I think this 
is pinhead executive's attempt to generate revenue.  If enough of the 
customer base bitches about this, I think that would scare them off 
enough to axe this stupid idea.

JD Runyan wrote:

>On Fri, Jan ,  at 03:12:20PM -0600, Bradley Miller wrote:
>
>>At 02:40 PM 1/25/02 -0600, you wrote:
>>
>>>The idea of charging
>>>for network utilization is archaic.
>>>
>>Ok -- let's think about that for a second.  Doesn't that point mean then
>>that spam should be permitted?  It's using a "renewable resource" so who
>>cares if it goes out to users?   If someone pays to have a TI and they want
>>to send emails to 10 gazillion people . . . why would we limit what they
>>send out on that TI?  Who are service providers to care what comes in on a
>>user's email account . . . or web browswer?   Pop-up ads are just as
>>intrusive and many times suck down more bandwidth then spam mails . . . but
>>people aren't nearly as hostile about them as spam.   
>>
>>Interesting food for thought eh?
>>
>>-- Bradley Miller
>>
>SPAM uses up my disk space, and it impacts the performance of my server.
>I have never made the argument that we deserve unlimited bandwidth.  I only
>argue that I am paying for capacity, and whether I use that capacity or not
>it is there for me to use.  I do not want to pay to have capacity available
>to me, and then pay again when I use that capacity.  Sell me 400K/sec or 
>1MB/sec.  Give me certain guarantees, and I will pay for the level of service
>I want.  The idea of paying for usage is the same concept that has died with 
>land line phones, and is dieing with cell phones.  It all but died with dial-
>up ISPs in the years preceding the broadband boom.  You pay for a certain amount
>of available bandwidth, and whether you use it or not is your choice.  The cable
>company make no promise that thier connection is equal to the number of customers
>times the speed of thier connection to thier POP.  You shouldn't need that kind of
>capacity any way, because TCP/IP is connectionless, and the majority of the internet
>is static in nature, thus you download it, and look at it, even animated doo-dads
>are static, because the files don't change.
>