Subject: Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP

From: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:40:15 -0500

>P.S.: Just to be clear, the other problem that the article finds with
>NAT is that it enables you to share your connection with neighbors.

<dig, dig>...actually, this is the only problem the article finds.  And, 
yes, I can certainly understand why they consider it a problem: those 
neighbors are getting, for free, the same bandwidth they would if they 
paid for the cable modem service.  Sounds like theft of services to me.

/=============================================================\
|John Stracke                   |Principal Engineer           |
[email-masked]  |Incentive Systems, Inc.      |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com|My opinions are my own.      |
|=============================================================|
|"You're nothing but a pack of ringleaders!" --_Wyrd Sisters_,|
|Terry Pratchett                                              |
\=============================================================/

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:14:01 -0500

> paid for the cable modem service.  Sounds like theft of services to me.

It's a fairly arbitrary distinction.  From one way of thinking, the whole 
purpose of IP is to multiplex traffic from multiple conversations - so 
what's wrong with using IP service to multiplex traffic from multiple 
conversations?

The "problem" is that this practice interferes with the ISP's business model,
which assumes that (for residential customers) there is a certain amount 
of money to be made *per residence*, and that additional money is made
in per-residence increments.  That reasoning is based on assumptions about 
both the demand that will be required by the residents, and the amount of 
money which can feasibly be extracted from them, and these in turn are based
on social norms.

However, the fact that a customer doesn't behave according to the ISP's
assumptions does not inherently mean that the customer is stealing service -
unless the customer has contractually agreed to limit the use of his
internet service. 

But in a world where monopoly ISPs can impose arbitrary terms on contacts - 
like forbidding customers to run servers, or forbidding them to run certain 
applications, it's hardly surprising that customers routinely ignore such 
prohibitions.  I don't regard that as theft either; I regard it as necessity.

Keith

---

From: jamal <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:14:51 -0500 (EST)

> paid for the cable modem service.  Sounds like theft of services to me.

maybe the bussiness model of shared bandwidth is the flaw in this
equation. It seems like some rate limiting SLA scheme is the way to go --
a lot more energy conserving than whining about evils of NAT for stealing
bandwidth.

cheers,
jamal

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:42:17 -0500

> Have you looked at any of these ISP's contracts?  Just accessing
> common web-based consumer applications on a single host violates
> their letter!

right.  and when such a contract forbids obvious and necessary uses of 
the 'net, it's pretty hard to take the rest of the contract seriously.

Keith

---

From: Matt Crawford <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:36:54 -0600

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:22:01 -0500

> paid for the cable modem service.

It's should not be surprising that this is a hot button item for them
since folks have been doing this with their video services for years..

					- Bill

---

From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 22:43:02 +0100

Matt writes:

> Have you looked at any of these ISP's contracts?
> Just accessing common web-based consumer applications
> on a single host violates their letter!

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.  Can you provide any examples?

---

From: [email-masked] (Claus Färber)
Date: 30 Nov 2001 15:00:00 +0200

jamal <[email-masked]> schrieb/wrote:
> maybe the bussiness model of shared bandwidth is the flaw in
> this equation. It seems like some rate limiting SLA scheme is
> the way to go -- a lot more energy conserving than whining about
> evils of NAT for stealing bandwidth.

The problem is with the flatrates. Flatrates are much more cheaper
than the bandwith you could use up with your connection. So the
business modell only works as long as they can base their
calculation on a one-average-user-per-connection concept.

If they'd just bill by traffic, there would be no reason not to
allow sharing your connection.

Claus
-- 
------------------------ http://www.faerber.muc.de/ ------------------------
OpenPGP: DSS 1024/639680F0 E7A8 AADB 6C8A 2450 67EA AF68 48A5 0E63 6396 80F0