From Slashdot: Comcast goes after NAT users

[Richard Meeker]

Keep in mind that there is a major precedent that has already been set in
the telecom industry.  When a company leases a T1 connection, they pay one
price no matter how many computers and subnets that they hook up behind the
router(s).  They pay a certain price for a certain amount of bandwidth.
Cable may not be regulated, but it is part of the telecom industry and the
same principle applies.  We are guaranteed a minimum amount of bandwidth,
and we are told that there is a maximum amount of bandwidth (bursting????).
Unfortunately, the door could swing both ways on this argument.

>From a business point of view, if DSL is available in the same areas where
Comcast controls the cable lines, it would be financial suicide for them to
go after NAT users because those users will just switch to DSL.  In fact,
I'd recommend that Comcast users go that route if they are being harassed.
Frankly, if Time-Warner started harassing me, I'd switch to DSL in a
heartbeat.  I don't believe that DSL is as good as cable, but DSL is a
"human-speed" alternative for any harassment from the cable companies.

Just my 2 cents.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kclug at marauder.illiana.net
[mailto:owner-kclug at marauder.illiana.net]On Behalf Of Monty J. Harder
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 8:25 PM
To: JD Runyan; kclug at kclug.org
Subject: Re: From Slashdot: Comcast goes after NAT users

"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.