Authority
Obama Biden '12
join:2000-03-29
Beverly Hills, CA | Misleading title
AT&T isn't OFFERING or supporting NAT but they haven't said "no nat" which this headline implies. |
|
TheGiant
Next Year Is Here.
join:2001-03-28
Augusta, GA | Users say no to AT&T
This will be their end if it is true. |
|
Supafly
Premium
join:2000-07-15
Elk Grove, CA
| Sucks for AT&T, many users will be pisssed.
Sucks for you AT&T users, good for linksys, i hear a petition coming....
Pretty bad idea in my case, although how are they going to find out if your already a subscriber that you have more than one pc? You can clone a MAC address with most routers
In my opinion, you shouldn't be charged anymore for more the 1 computer, since you should only be paying for the bandwidth and line.
--
Giggidy Giggidy Giggidy Giggidy! |
|
No_Strings
Premium,Mod
join:2001-11-22
The OC
Host:
Wireless Networking
All Things Unix
Cox HSI
Qwest
Efficient
| AT&T and NAT
AT&T has had this offering on their site for some time. The article implies that it's new - it's not. It also implies some nefarious intent. Probably not, unless you see the omission of a product that reduces revenue a conspiracy. There is no express or implied violation of the TOS for using a router. Is it really news that AT&T chose to limit the program to those products that fit its goals? Come on. Let's get on to something that matters.
--
Surf Without Strings |
|
gomer1701ems
join:2001-08-23
Minneapolis, MN |  First...
First, anti copy CDs, then no NAT.
Any other companies feel like shooting themselves in the foot? |
|
jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
clubs:
| reply to TheGiant
Re: Users say no to AT&T
quote:
AT&T Broadband's product director Scott Russell argues that consumers need good technical support and removing NAT is the only way to remote troubleshoot individual PCs on the LAN. "We don't support NAT boxes," Russell says. "Sometimes, we ask customers to disable the NAT box. If they do, we often find the problem, and find that problem is the NAT box."
Couldn't help but laugh at this. Bottom line they can't stop a NAT setup. However, I remember an article put in some time back where the cable companies are working on some sort of NAT variant that would allow them to see how many computers are being hooked and bill accordingly. That is their true goal. |
|
Supafly
Premium
join:2000-07-15
Elk Grove, CA
| Privacy issues
quote:
By taking NAT out of the picture, AT&T Broadband gains device-level access to customers' PCs and maintains a level of control over users' systems that could encroach on their privacy.
Yeah, that's why i don't agree, although giving out new IP's is actually preferred, i would much rather have on ip protected by a firewall, then have 4 ips not secured.
--
Giggidy Giggidy Giggidy Giggidy! |
|
Dewi
Premium
join:2001-09-28
united kingd
| A bit unclear what they mean .. is this optional?
If not, I am not sure how they might enforce it. It is pretty tricky to originate what is behind a a NAT based piece of hardware. The only way I could see is by using source level packet monitoring, and time of origin on packets. IE two packets leave the customer-site at the same time (or within a time delta) for different destinations. Of course, the user could also claim to have two browser windows open at the same time. Not to mention the intensive labor involved in the monitoring (and latency cost as packets as looked at).
Not sure about that article. If you read it in the worst sense, it could mean a disturbing shift. Whereas you previously paid per connection at a (mostly) predefined usage quote (IE 1500/128) .. AT&T may want you to pay per connection, with an additional cost per computer connected. |
|
RoundTuit
join:2001-12-28
Columbia, MD
| reply to TheGiant
Re: Users say no to AT&T
quote:
Any strategy that improves customer support and removes barriers to home networking deserves consideration, even at a cost of $5 or $10 more per month.
The above quote was lifted from the MacWorld article on AT&T. It seems to me that AT&T and other cable providers should first concentrate on learning how to support users with one IP address, and when they have that under their belts, they can move on to more complex issues. In the mean time, I will support my in-home network myself, thank you. |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY | reply to Authority
Re: Misleading title
true - well - they ask customers to disable it.. they don't like it.. so I changed the headline.. |
|
ki1o
Premium
join:2001-04-12
Atlanta, GA
| Good technical support?
quote:
AT&T Broadband's product director Scott Russell argues that consumers need good technical support and removing NAT is the only way to remote troubleshoot individual PCs on the LAN. "We don't support NAT boxes," Russell says. "Sometimes, we ask customers to disable the NAT box. If they do, we often find the problem, and find that problem is the NAT box."
When was the last time any one had good technical support from an AT&T tech? |
|
el scorcho
Cupid Stunt
join:2000-12-01
Elmhurst, NY
clubs:
| Comcast is attempting the same thing.
this was posted in Slashdot a few days ago - »slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/0···e=thread
quote:
"A co-worker of mine resigned today. His new job at Comcast: Hunting down 'abusers' of the service. More specifically, anyone using NAT to connect more than one computer to their cable modem to get Internet access- whether or not you're running servers or violating any other Acceptable Use Policies. Comcast has an entire department dedicated to eradicating NAT users from their network. We knew this was coming since this Slashdot article from two months ago, but did anyone think they'd already be harassing people that are using nothing more than the bandwidth for which they are paying? It makes me very happy that my DSL kit arrived yesterday, and I'll be cancelling my Comcast cable modem early next week."
--
let us go forward, not backwards! upwards, not forwards. and twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom! |
|
g0nepostal
I Am The One Her Mom Warned Her About
join:2001-03-23
Concord, CA
clubs:
 ·DSL EXTREME
 ·Astound Broadband
 ·magicjack.com
| Why bother?
I went over to ATTBI's page where they show the Linksys gear that they are selling to their customers to use for their home networks. It is interesting how NONE of it supports NAT.
While there is nothing legally wrong with what they are doing, I think it is sickening how they cleverly phrase the text on the page: "Order your Home Networking Service of Multiple Computer Access by clicking on the link above. This service is necessary to expand your high-speed cable Internet."
Never mind that instead of buying a mere hub, wireless access point, or a switch (and then playing the extra five bucks a month for each client PC's IP), Joe Q. Public can save himself some money each month by purchasing and using a NAT-capable router instead of paying for the additional IPs. To me this is a classic example of how a company won't mention all the options to take advantage of users without the knowledge of or the inclination to research all possible options.
This is just plain corporate greed at work. Don't tell me about how I am causing ATTBI losses by using NAT to connect all my home PCs. Last time I checked, I am paying for a pipe rated at 1.5Mbps down, 128Kbps up. There is nothing wrong with my using all the bandwidth I have available by sharing it among the PCs in my network.
How is my making full use of my pipe causing ATTBI a loss? I am sure that even with the four PCs downloading data all at once, I am not even approaching my pipe's full capacity - unless of course I am DLing something like an ISO image or am watching streaming video on all 4 machines, something that doesn't happen very often.
This is nothing more than ATTBI attempting to steer their non-technically inclined users to buy equipment being sold by Computers4Sure on behalf of Linksys, with ATTBI then steering those same users into leasing more IP addresses - of course, for more money - that they wouldn't need if they simply had more information.
That's just wrong.
g0nepostal
[text was edited by author 2002-01-30 04:15:04] |
|
g0nepostal
I Am The One Her Mom Warned Her About
join:2001-03-23
Concord, CA
clubs: | reply to ki1o
Re: Good technical support?
From looking at the ATTBI forum, I'll venture a guess:
"Very rarely, if at all."
gp |
|
netgear
Restless Native
Premium
join:1999-12-20
Arlington, TX
·AT&T DSL Service
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to TheGiant
Re: Users say no to AT&T
Fact is, broadband and bandwidth companies are dropping like rocks... The smart ones, will do whatever is necessary to survive. It's not good news for those who've been getting their connections for loss-leader pricing.
Here are the choices - you can pay more for services, or you can watch as your provider goes under.
This isn't "rocket science," it's simple economics. The cheap ride is coming to an end. |
|
CyBeRiAN
join:2001-08-16
Sacramento, CA
| reply to g0nepostal
Re: Why bother?
I'm just curious....
I would think that we have some ground since we're not doing anything illegal. We're buying our own software/hardware and sharing the 1.5mb connection they provide for us. We're not stealing or getting more bandwith then what we paid for. So how is NAT wrong?
It wouldn't shocked me to see some cases arise from something like this if they go after NAT users (like comcast is doing).
It's kinda like saying..here's a piece of land that's 1.5 aches, but you can only put 1 house on it, even though we're paying/paid for that 1 ache. What would be the point?
It's not like AT&T makes adding additional computers easy.
Any comments? |
|
JYoung
G L 2814
join:2000-06-13
Sherman Oaks, CA
| reply to jhboricua
Re: Users say no to AT&T
I show that quote and had to laugh also because I thought that it was pure BS.
22 Million households at $9.90 a month comes out to $217,800,000 extra gross income per month. Not bad for what is essentially a con job.
Problem is that there are some people who will fall for this though.
--
If you're wondering how he eats and breathes and other science facts, then repeat to yourself "it's just a show, I should really just relax" |
|
pierce2
join:1999-09-22
Santa Cruz, CA
| reply to Authority
Re: ATTBI AUP
actually, their AUP forbids hooking up more than one computer without paying for it.... See »www.attbi.com/general-info/bb_terms.html for instance, clause 6(g)....
(g) Theft of Service. Customer shall not connect the Service or any AT&T Broadband Equipment to more computers, either on or outside of the Premises, than are reflected in Customer's account with AT&T Broadband. Customer acknowledges that any unauthorized receipt of the Service constitutes theft of service, which is a violation of federal law and can result in both civil and criminal penalties. In addition, if the violations are willful and for commercial advantage or private financial gain, the penalties may be increased.
OTOH, the way they want you to implement 'home networking', its almost impossible to use your new network for anything *BUT* internet, they suggest running a firewall program on each computer. that makes file and printer sharing within your home rather painful.
so, I guess if you want to use NAT legally, you should subscribe for as many computers as you have connected (gee, does the router count as another?) and pay the monthly per system fees...
[text was edited by author 2002-01-30 03:46:32] |
|
pierce2
join:1999-09-22
Santa Cruz, CA | reply to el scorcho
Re: Good technical support?
Only, COMCAST doesn't HAVE the 'no multiple computers' clause in their published AUP. AFAIK, that /duh posting was a troll. |
|
pierce2
join:1999-09-22
Santa Cruz, CA
| reply to CyBeRiAN
Re: Why bother?
re: zoning, not at all unusual. I have 2.5acres here, zoned R20 with a deed restriction that says only one house per 'lot', and no subdivision. I knew this when I bought the place, so I can't really complain.
re: ATTBI, the 'deed restriction' in effect here is clause 6(g) of »www.attbi.com/general-info/bb_terms.html
(g) Theft of Service. Customer shall not connect the Service or any AT&T Broadband Equipment to more computers, either on or outside of the Premises, than are reflected in Customer's account with AT&T Broadband. Customer acknowledges that any unauthorized receipt of the Service constitutes theft of service, which is a violation of federal law and can result in both civil and criminal penalties. In addition, if the violations are willful and for commercial advantage or private financial gain, the penalties may be increased.
|
|
