From Slashdot: Comcast goes after NAT users

[Monty J. Harder]

"JD Runyan" <Jason.Runyan at nitckc.usda.gov> wrote:

> > I would say it is more analogous to having multiple phones sharing one
line
> > (and I know it is way more sophisticated than that).
> >
> >
> I would agree, but my argument was what the Cable/DSL companies would
argue to
> win.  Your argument would get them kicked out of court, because it has
already
> been ruled in KS, and I believe in most other states(maybe at the federal
level)
> that the phone companies cannot charge you for your phone per phone jack.
They
> can charge for the service they provide.

  Well, there you go.  The trick is to get the court to see it as the phone
analogy.  The IP address is a phone number.  The NAT firewall is a PBX/key
system.  You can only move one conversation or fax at a time on a phone line
(or just so much data bandwidth), no matter how many phones, fax machines,
or modems you have attached to it.

  The cable companies have even opened the door in the consumer's
consciousness by running those adverts that show the guy jumping up and down
for joy because he actually got a phone call while he was on the Internet.