North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Fwd: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"

  • From: Gregory Urban
  • Date: Thu Jan 31 14:53:39 2002

Hmm, isn't this the same industry that charged us additional fees for each television in a house that was hooked up to the CableTV service? Why oh why is anyone surprised by this tactic? Especially from a monopoly.

Let's face it, if the company wants to offer a service, they have the option to specify the terms of the service. If they say the residential cable access product is for one computer - that's the service. If they require a purchase of additional IP addresses to allow the user additional IP addresses - that's the service. If they want to offer a business class service with as many IP addresses as justifiable using ARIN guidelines - that's the service.

You don't like it, don't buy it. They are under no obligation to give you what you want, although it usually does help sales.

Greg U

At 09:57 AM 1/31/2002, Martin J. Levy wrote:

I got this forwarded to me. I'm not impressed.

Based upon the general desire for providers to have NAT'ed users and to reduce IP-space usage where appropriate, does this make sense? I can understand the providers desire to increase revenue, but I don't believe this is a good way to do it.

Besides the technical difficulties of detecting a household that is running a NAT'ed router, why not win over the customer with a low-cost extra IP address vs: the customers one-time hardware cost for the router. There are people who would be willing to pay some amount monthly vs: (let's say) $100 for a NAT box.

Does anyone know what percentage of home broadband users run NAT? Does anyone have stats for IP-addresses saved by using NAT?


------ Forwarded Message
From: Ward Clark <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:00:32 -0500
To: "NetTalk" <[email protected]>
Subject: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"

Today's MacInTouch links to a report that appeared in SlashDot on

"A co-worker of mine resigned today. His new job at Comcast: Hunting down
'abusers' of the service. More specifically, anyone using NAT to connect
more than one computer to their cable modem to get Internet access-
whether or not you're running servers or violating any other Acceptable
Use Policies. Comcast has an entire department dedicated to eradicating
NAT users from their network. ... did anyone think they'd already be
harassing people that are using nothing more than the bandwidth for which
they are paying? ..." Earthlink and Comcast have both been advertising
lately their single-household, multi-computer services (and additional
fees) -- probably amusing to many thousands of broadband-router owners,
at least until the cable companies really crack down.

There's a huge number of responses (691 at the moment), which I quickly
scanned out of curiosity. I'm not a Comcast or Earthlink user.

You can start here:

-- ward

To unsubscribe <mailto:[email protected]> with message body
"unsubscribe nettalk"

------ End of Forwarded Message