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 11:26:11 -0500

>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 --

Makes sense to me--you don't hear as much about DSL customers sharing the 
service with their neighbors.  With cable, you're already sharing 
bandwidth, so you don't feel like you're losing anything if the people 
you're sharing with aren't paying for it.

Of course, cable companies probably won't impose rate limits as long as 
DSL remains an option, because then they wouldn't be able to claim 
(inaccurately) that cable gives you more bandwidth than DSL.

/=======================================================\
|John Stracke                   |Principal Engineer     |
[email-masked]  |Incentive Systems, Inc.|
|http://www.incentivesystems.com|My opinions are my own.|
|=======================================================|
|I'm not imaginary. I'm ontologically challenged.       |
\=======================================================/

---

From: "Francois D. Menard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:45:21 -0500

At least publicly ... In Canada, several cable carriers put rate limits
on the upstream at 14 Kbytes/sec and on the downstream at 2 Mbit/sec.
Of course, the service is much slower than that on evenings, but it
cannot be faster than that imposed by the rate limits either.

What is the real problem is that no cable carrier will actually file
their rate limits in their regulated rates before the CRTC.  They
clearly benefit from the fact that end-users have no way of actually
knowing that they are being rate limited.

Now that Bell Canada has just filed an economic evaluation demonstrating
profitability of providing residential ADSL at $19 CDN ($12-13US) per
month, cable carriers in Canada will have no other choice to increase
thos rate limits or risk loosing most of their subs to Bell.  That being
said, this will only happen if they can survive...

Cable carriers have an infrastructure which cannot be used to play the
bandwidth game.  That's why they're so fond of walled content gardens
and free portals.  The problem is that in Canada, they wont't be able to
play that game since higher-speed services over cable is regulated as a
telecom service as per CRTC decision 1996-1, something that DN00-185 @
the FCC is taking very long to come up to the same conclusions.

-=Francois=-

---

From: Gene Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:05:24 -0500

Using NAT to connect several of your own computers is one thing. 
Using it to connect your neighbors and buddies is quite another. Many 
ISP agreements have clauses forbidding resale, even if you don't get 
anything in return.

Gene

---

From: "Michael H. Warfield" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 19:44:49 -0500

> ISP agreements have clauses forbidding resale, even if you don't get 

	Getting nothing in return is not a sale.  That's why you
often have to sell something for a dolar to make it a legal "sale"
in most states (I've had to do this several times and, while IMNAL,
this is on legal advise from lawyers).  Examples, in Michigan, Kentucky,
and Georgia, where I have experience, you can not just "give away" a
car (they won't transfer the title) no matter what the condition.  The
recepient has to give you a dolar to pay you for that vehicle or it's NOT
a legal "sale".  Giving something away does NOT qualify legally as "resale".

	OTOH...  It is definitely unethical and most likely violates one
or more AUP issues.  Just don't confuse it with "resale".

> Gene

	Mike
-- 
 Michael H. Warfield    |  (770) 985-6132   |  [email-masked]
  /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/       |  (678) 463-0932   |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
  NIC whois:  MHW9      |  An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471    |  possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:35:48 -0500

On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 07:44:49PM -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> 	Getting nothing in return is not a sale.

Isn't this like going to an 'all you can eat' restaurant and giving
food to your friends?

--aaron

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:21:29 -0800

> Isn't this like going to an 'all you can eat' restaurant and giving

Closer to like going to an "all you can eat" restaurant that enforces 
you not bringing your own booze by giving you new cups filled with 
coffee, then complaining that they can't keep track of the cups anymore.

:-)

Joe