RE: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"

[Scott A Crosby <crosby () qwes math cmu edu>]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Borchers, Mark wrote:

> > If the ISP sells "unlimited" access, then customers have
> > every right to use it without limit.
>
> Indubitably.  But customers are not free to pick and choose
> among which provisions of the service agreement they want to
> abide by.  If the ISP provides unlimited access but limits
> the account to a single host, then that is the terms of service.
> The problem, as has been noted, is enforcement.

It is a single computer. If I have a dialup, as I have now, it is one
computer. If it NAT's other computers through it, I'm still using exactl
one connection. One IP.

Now, if I were to get two computers, and have both of them dialup, then
they'd have reason to complain and kick me off.

By the same token, a NAT box is one computer, uses the resources of one
computer. Only one computer is plugged into the cable-modem. Its a router,
but its still only one computer.


Also, 'terms and services' can be interesting.. Pulling out the nearest
paperback:

  ``Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of
    this publication may be reproduced, stored in, or introduced into a
    retrieval system, or transmitted in any form, or by any means ...
    without the prior written permission ....''
         -- Publication page of Simon Green's 'Deathstalker War'

Which claims, among other things that I cannot send this email, and I
cannot quote any extract, no matter how small, from that paperback. Both
of which are nonsense.


Scott