nanog mailing list archives
RE: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"
From: JC Dill <nanog () vo cnchost com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 19:53:09 -0800
On 02:18 PM 1/31/2002 -0500, Daniel Senie wrote: > >At 01:59 PM 1/31/02, Steven J. Sobol wrote: > >>On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Greg Pendergrass wrote: >> >> > It doesn't make sense that an ISP should complain that customers use >> 100% of >> > what they pay for. >> >>So you think that dialup users should be allowed to stay online 24/7 for >>$20/month on an account advertised as unlimited? > >If not, then the use of the word "unlimited" is more than a bit misleading, >no? Be careful what you market, as people (and the FTC) will be happy to >hold you to your word.So I take it that I get "unlimited" email storage disk space too? And I can send or receive emails of any size?
No? Hmmm. I better get the FTC involved. jcjc
Current thread:
- RE: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users", (continued)
- Message not available
- RE: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users" Daniel Senie (Jan 31)
- Re: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users" Stephen Griffin (Jan 31)
- RE: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users" Deepak Jain (Jan 31)
- Re: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users" Stephen Sprunk (Jan 31)
- Re: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users" Jon Mansey (Jan 31)
- RE: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users" Scott A Crosby (Jan 31)