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

To: ietf at ietf.org
Subject: Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP
From: claus at faerber.muc.de (Claus Färber)
Date: 30 Nov 2001 15:00:00 +0200
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.4.30.0111281105060.9163-100000@shell.cyberus.ca>
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org
User-agent: OpenXP/32 v3.7.5 (Win32) beta @ 2001-11-14-1733d

jamal <hadi at cyberus.ca> 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

References:
- Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP
  - From: jamal

Prev by Date: Re: ipngwg, please stop the insanity
Next by Date: Re: Cable modem spec.
Previous by thread: Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP
Next by thread: Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

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

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.