  AuthorityObama Biden '12
join:2000-03-29
Woodland Hills, CA | Misleading title AT&T isn't OFFERING or supporting NAT but they haven't said "no nat" which this headline implies. | |
|
 |  justinAustralian
join:1999-05-28
New York, NY
kudos:7 | Re: Misleading title true - well - they ask customers to disable it.. they don't like it.. so I changed the headline.. | |
|
| | AuthorityObama Biden '12
join:2000-03-29
Woodland Hills, CA | Re: Misleading title Any provider will ask for NAT to be removed for trouble shooting; that's not the same as banning it. Thought that MAY be next... | |
|
| pierce2
join:1999-09-22
Santa Cruz, CA
| 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] | |
|
| | |
| | dbarc
join:2000-01-22
Fort Wayne, IN | Re: ATTBI AUP said by pierce:
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.
And if your printer is on your network it's built-in print server, you're supposed to connect to their DHCP server? and pay as if it's another computer? I don't think so. | |
|
| | | | | Re: ATTBI AUP quote:
And if your printer is on your network it's built-in print server, you're supposed to connect to their DHCP server? and pay as if it's another computer? I don't think so.
It gets worse. Last I heard, there isn't a firewall that can be installed on a network printer...now anyone on ATTBI might be able to see your printer...and umm send print jobs to it  Just imagine this...if some hacker figured it's a printer, they could, umm send that 500 page book to it. And along with having to purchase a seperate IP, you could be out of luck for paper and ink cartridges too. Just when you need it... I have seen people in computer labs at the very least who will do that. Their a net admins nightmere. Then there's the number of people that put Direct PC on a win9x box and never bother to secure it....
But other scenarios can arise too. If a person for instance installs VMware
»www.vmware.com
and they use bridging mode with their ethernet card (the only method that at least for awhile was supported under Windows 2000, and perhaps now XP, that'd I'd have to check), then each virtual machine needs an IP too. Should a person have to pay for seperate IPs that exist for each virtual machine one might run concurrently withing the same physical PC? There are other modes, but they had issues with win2k/recommended not to use/disabled by default unless one installed the system service manually. Having to pay an additional $20 for IPs with a single computer because of virtual machines, not physically different computers is adding insult to an injury they're already doing to the customer. | |
|
| |  belawrenceThey'll never let you in
join:2000-08-06
Santee, CA
 ·Vonage
| said by pierce:
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
So, for every device on my home network that requires an IP address(computers, network printers, storage devices, video game systems, certain home MP3 players, etc.)I would need to pay an additional fee for? How greedy can AT&TBI get? I guess I have something else to add to my signature.
--
The DSL Advantage: static IP, higher upload speed, and being able to run my servers!
[text was edited by author 2002-02-01 04:33:16] | |
|
|  joakoPremium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:5
 ·Comcast
| Re: Misleading title "unauthorized receipt of the Service constitutes theft of service, which is a violation of federal law"
I think this is taken from a cable tv AUP? NAT is not "theft of service". And anyways I would love to see them try to have the feds bust you or sue you:
"ATT Broadband v NAT Users" | |
|
| | AuthorityObama Biden '12
join:2000-03-29
Woodland Hills, CA | Re: Misleading title said by joakimsen:
And anyways I would love to see them try to have the feds bust you or sue you:
"ATT Broadband v NAT Users"
I wouldn't. Stranger things have happened. | |
|
|  ssgblkhk
join:2001-11-14
Fort Campbell, KY | Anyone's or Companies entitlement to charge me for the number of computers that uses the ISP (whatever type of service) ends at the "door". I think it is outrageous that AT/T thinks they can charge me for networking equipment that I have purchased to include other computers. It seems to me to be on the border of illegal.
--
"Also I heard the voice of the Lord saying who shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, here am I, send me." | |
|
| AuthorityObama Biden '12
join:2000-03-29
Woodland Hills, CA | Be interesting to see what happens when we start plugging in our XBOX, ReplayTV, and other new net devices huh? | |
|
 TheGiantNext Year Is Here.
join:2001-03-28
Augusta, GA | Users say no to AT&T This will be their end if it is true. | |
|
|  jhboricuaExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN | 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. | |
|
| |  JYoungG L 2814
join:2000-06-13
Sherman Oaks, CA | 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" | |
|
| | | 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. | |
|
| |
| | | | It's not the policy, it's the hypocrisy said by netgear:
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.
I agree they are in business to make a profit and I don't criticize them for that. But their public relations and news releases clearly are attempting to mislead, as others have pointed out, by pretending to talk about home networking and extending the service. They simply intend to charge more as more families trend toward 2nd and 3rd PCs and want them connected. Their AUP clearly targets these families.
The funny thing is, with Linux or Win2K or XP, you could have a single high-powered PC manage multiple sessions running on a number of smart terminals (thin clients) connected to that PC. This would not violate their AUP, and you'd simply be using the bandwidth you thought you were buying. Logically that's not much different from having multiple physical PCs with a NAT router in front, yet one is "legal" and the other isn't.
My advice to ATTBI is to be upfront -- clearly explain you intend to charge for each additional person simultaneously connected. | |
|
| |
| Re: Users say no to AT&T said by netgear:
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.
I disagree. the "cheap ride" will only end if we let it. @Home made good money as an ISP, they made very poor business decisions with regard to their "content business". Verizon and SBC keep shelling out fine money and they will finally get the message to play fair with the local ISPs.
Keep the faith with your local DSL ISP.
[text was edited by author 2002-01-31 02:32:01] | |
|
| |
| said by netgear:
Fact is, broadband and bandwidth companies are dropping like rocks... The cheap ride is coming to an end.
Sorry, don't believe it.
But I agree we are going to find out.
I think the repeated buying / re-selling / merging of regional cable monopolies at ever higher $/subscriber is the real cause. What started out as $2,000 per subscriber is now $5,000+ per subscriber. And what's new? Higher bandwidth? More pay per view channels? More corporate debt to repay for the take overs at ever higher $/subscriber?
My case has been Continental Cable; MediaOne; ATT Broadband; and now the Comcast deal is pending. What improvements have resulted for the subscribers as a result of these repeated take overs? Higher monthly fees? ;(
My guess is the best we can hope for is that the last buyer that gets caught hold the bag / no more musical chairs when this tulip bulb bubble bursts forcing them into bankruptcy leads to a serious mark down of the physical plant to no more than the real physical plant replacement cost.
--
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all other forms of government. - Winston Churchill
[text was edited by author 2002-01-31 14:08:46] | |
|
| | | | said by netgear:
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.
Companies are dropping because they make bad business decisions. @Home died only cause Excite drove them down. ATT is a company trying to hold onto old ways of doing business. Another reason @Home died (including some sabotage by ATT board members.)
Look at the front page of this site. Verizon and SBC get hit with more fines for not opening up their networks. Again, we are dealing with MaBell.
Fact of the matter is no company wants to compete on quality. They will continue to buy each other out until we have bigger monopolies. Why compete? Just be a local monopoly and make money with bad service because you are the only game in town.
OPEC hates a single work more than any other in the English language and doesn;t want to hear it from Americans: conservation. They raised prices and slowed production to get more money. Then Russia came in the game and now oil is all over the place and prices are falling. Competition plane and simple.
Millions of dollars a month go in. What does it all get spent on besides executive bonuses? | |
|
| | | | | Re: Users say no to AT&T said by moonpuppy:
ATT is a company trying to hold onto old ways of doing business.
They will continue to buy each other out until we have bigger monopolies. Why compete? Just be a local monopoly and make money with bad service because you are the only game in town.
OPEC hates a single wor[d] : conservation.
Couldn't agree more about monopoly and buy outs - sure seems to drive prices higher without increasing value to the subscriber.
As to the word "conservation" - I greatly prefer the word efficiency. Look 'em up in the dictionary - pretty similar. Yet conservation has the connotation of doing without, of saving, of deferring, while efficiency has a sexy, spend it wisely, get a better bang for the buck flavor.
6 of one, a half dozen of the other, but a world of difference in perspective / mental attitude!
This has been a "think speak" advisory. 
--
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all other forms of government. - Winston Churchill | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Users say no to AT&T Well I disagree about the conservation/efficiency argument. Conservation is a knee jerk reaction that can take a very short time while efficiency is a thought out proccess that takes longer. When the gas crisis happened in the early 70's, it was conservation followed by efficiency with the developement and sales of smaller, fuel efficient vehicles. Again with the recent price hikes last year of petroleum products, people started to conserve by not buying that SUV or not taking that long car trip.
Still, if tomorrow Comcast or any other broadband provider said they had to raise prices 30% or more to stay alive, you would see people drop their service enough to where they made the same amount of profit. | |
|
| joakoPremium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Not so much with cable services that are just DHCP, but more for PPPoE DSL services, routers **REDUCE** tech support costs because the typical call is reboot modem, reinstall software. There is no issue of what OS or software you are using. If you can get to the config page of the router, it is either an issue with CPE, the line or routers. | |
|
| |
| | | | Re: Users say no to AT&T [Q]This is bs. will folks using routers and multiple PC's get more bandwidth? LOL.. LOL..
I see it is you give me bandwidth, it's up to me to do what I want with it.[/Q]
That's exactly how it works. If someone is working as a net admin on a corporate network and something goes wrong...how do you think it falls? There's a router in place, if there is a problem on one's own side of the router, it's their responsibility to fix. If the problem is on the other (IE the ISP's network)...guess who's responsible?
It isn't exactly like AT&T could actually prove whether one is using a NAT or not...or that there couldn't be ways to "deceive" the system if you will. If I was an AT&T customer and I chose to run one, I would. And if they asked, I'd just lie. Want to say otherwise? Well prove it MaBell, cya.... | |
|
| | | Sure, how are they going to find out how many user are there on the other side of the line? Once they come up with a way to prove it, those "prove" will easily be patched by the NAT router software/hardware company. This is totally stupid.
Nice Try, but No Cigar. | |
|
| | | I voted with my wallet: When our local town offered cable TV/broadband service when AT&T and Bellsouth would not even give a clue when broadband services would be available, AT&T was history. A laughable part of the "improving customer service" BS can be found in the Atlanta area, where AT&T provides "new, improved" phone number support and they are ALL busy form 8-5PM. I couldnt even reach a real person on the number for signing up as a new customer. The only way to cancel was to make a trip to the local ex-MediaOne office and do it in person. The poor folks in the office say they have never seen support so bad. The local cable company has real live people support who seem to be technically competent. I've even been able to discuss VPN issues with them. If our local folds, I'll go to DSL and a satelite dish, but never again to AT&T. They need to make money, but charging for additional PC's reminds me of the time when the cable companies wanted to charge extra for a VCR hookup. If they do come up with a NAT variant that allows them to block a home router, they may gain revenue in the short-term, but can lose marketshare. Unless they are the only game in town. The local and small providers need our support so we have real competition. | |
|
| | 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! | |
|
Host:
Wireless Networking
All Things Unix
Cox HSI
Efficient
Southwest Chat
| 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 | |
|
|  Kefka
join:2001-10-30
Lansing, MI | Re: AT&T and NAT you are right. not sure what all the fuss is about...AT&T's broadband unit (and their billions of dollars in debt) is being acquired by Comcast so I'd be surprised if they really care what happens.
--
moral indignation is jealousy with a halo | |
|
| |  First...
Any other companies feel like shooting themselves in the foot? | |
|
| | 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! | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
 DewiPremium
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. | |
|
| pierce2
join:1999-09-22
Santa Cruz, CA | Re: A bit unclear what they mean .. is this optional? NAT use can be detected pretty easily by monitoring the patterns of source ports... For instance, Linux 2.2.x IP Masquerade always uses source ports above 60000, which is very unusual. Pretty much all common NAT routers and software packages have a fingerprint similar to this. | |
|
| |  ksw_92
join:2001-05-13
La Verne, CA | Re: A bit unclear what they mean .. is this optional? said by pierce:
For instance, Linux 2.2.x IP Masquerade always uses source ports above 60000, which is very unusual.
That's not unusual; that's just following IANA specs for dynamic/private port number usage (49152-65535).
I liken this to the old trick that cablecos used to use: charging a "per TV" fee. That failed in the end, too. | |
|
 ki1oPremium
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? | |
|
| | | Re: Good technical support? 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! | |
|
| | pierce2
join:1999-09-22
Santa Cruz, CA | 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. | |
|
|  g0nepostalI Am The One Her Mom Warned Her About
join:2001-03-23
Concord, CA | From looking at the ATTBI forum, I'll venture a guess:
"Very rarely, if at all."
gp | |
|
g0nepostalI Am The One Her Mom Warned Her About
join:2001-03-23
Concord, CA Reviews:
·magicjack.com
·Astound Broadband
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Why bother?
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] | |
|
|
See 20 replies to this post |
|
 spamdPremium
join:2001-04-22
Cherry Valley, IL
| AT&T should merge with AOL Well it's safe to say that AT&T can't fool us here at DSLR.
About the only people who would agree to this is AOL users. Because they have no clue, as to how computers work, or what a packet is. If AT&T wants to make any money off of this they should go where the people are clueless about what a NAT box is, and thats AOL.
--
»www.arts.arizona.edu/v2/
[text was edited by author 2002-01-30 04:47:29] | |
|
| BeeperPart Of The Problem
join:2001-09-27
Dayton, OH | Re: AT&T should merge with AOL Be careful what you wish for. It might come true. | |
|
| |
 willardkMod 2000-03
join:1999-12-02
Jackson Heights, NY | bottom line - AT&T Broadband is dying and this "decision" was a poorly made one to try to squeeze more money out of customers already paying for capped bandwidth. I'd like to see how AT&T geniouses who can't figure out how to run a stable service and provide good technical support are gonna figure out who is using more than one computer. A NAT router with a spoof mac address looks like a regular computer to folks on the outside.. ...
Bandwidth nazi's here we come.
... next year AT&T broadband just won't exist....
Will | |
|
| | |  Re: bottom line - AT&T Broadband is dying
| |
|
| | willardkMod 2000-03
join:1999-12-02
Jackson Heights, NY | Re: bottom line - AT&T Broadband is dying yes, but these methods cost money...lots of money to implement. I suspect AT&T will victimize the easily scared customers and make money off of them and leave the rest alone because catching them will cost money and money AT&T Broadband don't have.
Will | |
|
| | | | | Re: bottom line - AT&T Broadband is dying said by willardk:
catching them will cost money and money AT&T Broadband don't have.
This is true. BTW, hasn't Comcast already agreed to acquire AT&T Broadband? | |
|
 deltat2000Timor Omnis AbestoPremium
join:2000-04-13
127.0.0.1 | So now AT&T has an excuse.....rotflmao I have a freind who has had to increase his log file size for his firewall to 20 meg just to accomodate all the port scanning his isp (AT&TBI) has been performing on his nat firewall......well it just goes to show you...that their moral retardation almost equals their technical retardation.
rotflmao
--
The Future Is Purchased By The Present! | |
|
 XBL2009------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL
·EarthLink
·AT&T Midwest
| How would this play in court How would this play in court, your honor I signed up with AT$T and then bought a router at Best Buy to hook up my 2-4 computers in my home. At no time did I steal bandwidth I only used the bandwidth I was alloted and spread it across my 2-4 computers.
Cable companies use to have a service charge for having more then one TV hooked up and I don't think exist anymore. | |
|
 tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| Bad business idea This seems like a bad business idea. The folk’s running NAT are most likely early adopters willing to pioneer new technology. Their success will expand demand for the service. Falling PC prices and broadband access is just crying out for a home network.
I'm involved in several home networking standards groups. We are talking about home networks with hundreds of IP addresses. Do you really want to pay $5 a month for every Internet toaster? No one would tolerate the electric utility charging for every motor or light bulb. Communication providers will have to adopt the same business model or become irrelevant.
They have identified a real problem with complexity of home networks. This is an opportunity to sell additional services. I think they would have been much better served by offering this as a value added service. That way they generate additional revenue without pissing off customer that want to manage their own network.
By doing this they are playing into the strengths of the Telco's. The Telcos have been forced to live with the notion of a Network Demarcation point. What is inside is the providence of the home owner, what is outside they are responsible form. The Cablecos on the other hand are used to charging for each device. If they do not change business model they will simply cease to exist. | |
|
|  dnoyeBFerrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
| Actually its good business Lets be real. Is it really NAT they are afraid of? No. Its just like any jury selection process, get rid of the smart people because they will reveal your deceptive activity. Thats their first objective.
Of course the 2nd is more legitimate. All you windowsNT and Linux users selling dial-up connections by way of NAT to your mom and pop must be stopped. That is a legitimate concern. Stop NAT and you stop the dialup. of course you can NOT stop NAT.
now if they adopt ipv6 I am sure there will be a way to stop it then, and there will be a way to charge MORE for quick ping times...The current internet is a free internet protocol. Ill take the good with the bad as long as no one can control which I take.
I agree that they should have added this as a service. And if they were smart it would be a $0.50 charge. That way they could at least identify those using NAT.
[text was edited by author 2002-01-30 10:35:32] | |
|
| | Didn't AT&T lose this battle 20 years ago? I seem to recall that before 1984, the telco charged extra for each phone extension in the house. Phones came in black or beige; a new feature like TouchTone(tm) came along once every 20 years; and the phones were hardwired directly into the wall.
At the time of the divestiture, the gov't threw out this closed-system format and mandated (a) RJ-11 jacks and (b) no extra charges for hooking up as many phone extensions as you want.
Prediction: AT&T will lose again. | |
|
| dbarc
join:2000-01-22
Fort Wayne, IN | Re: Didn't AT&T lose this battle 20 years ago? said by richb01803:
I seem to recall that before 1984, the telco charged extra for each phone extension in the house. Phones came in black or beige; a new feature like TouchTone(tm) came along once every 20 years; and the phones were hardwired directly into the wall.
At the time of the divestiture, the gov't threw out this closed-system format and mandated (a) RJ-11 jacks and (b) no extra charges for hooking up as many phone extensions as you want.
Prediction: AT&T will lose again.
Actually, I think it was pre-devisture. Before the Carterphone case was lost by ATT, they (still holding the baby bells) didn't permit any owner supplied equipment. You leased their Western Electric phone from them and paid through the nose.. I mean by the month. If on GTE, you got your Automatic Electric phones the same way. | |
|
kenyg
join:2001-02-09
Hatboro, PA | No NAT?!?! Yep, not fooling us here as DSLR -
When I moved into my house, I called the cable people, they told me the cost, and then said it would be $1 per month for any additional TV's. - Hmmm, says I, nope, just want one hooked up. Then off to Radio Shack I go, and come back with ..... yep, a cable splitter.. We've got 5 TV's, that's $48 a year for them to install the same splitter.
This ATT deal is the exact same thing. They figure Joe-sixpack AOL user hasn't a clue, and they can drum up some additional revenue for nothing.
I can envision the boardroom where this decision was made, and the Corporate weenie staring at his spreadsheet projections -
cripes -
Ken
--
640/90 - Verizon
formally 784/784 from Northpoint...sniff | |
|
 scragg2
join:2000-10-01
Virginia Beach, VA | Here is a better idea DSL Reports forms a partnership with Linksys, Netgear, and SMC. Broadband subscribers buy their home networking products right here (they even have a few different manufacturers to pick from). For only $3.95 we give them all the support they need in a special forum!
Whey let At&T make all the cash for something almost any regular reader of the forums here could do?!
Anyway.. this is about the cheesiest idea AT&T has come up with yet.
--
Trust me... I are smart. | |
|
| | OTOH Gee, what if, as a protest, customers decide to continuously (repeatedly?) upload *and* download junk, 24 x 7?
Either from the farthest point on the web or from an electronically adjacent neighbor.
I think, by the terms of service, that's technically legal.
Think that would put an end to this BS?
Or just shoot ourselves in the collective foot?
Additionally, separately, as CPU power continues to grow, I predict soon we will re-invent "mainframes" and homes will only have 1 computer with multiple "terminals" for human use, rather than the current implementation via a small LAN of a few PCs. Whata' they gonna' do then?
--
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all other forms of government. - Winston Churchill | |
|
 Coder6C W B
join:2002-01-07
Ypsilanti, MI | I can just as easily abuse the sevice with 1 comp I can max out my 1500/128 connection with 1 computer or with 1 + N number of computers, its just as easy either way. The whole banning NAT thing is just ridiculous and a ploy for the cable companies to make more money.
Jeez! | |
|
| | Now tell me this I just ordered ATTBi service. Now the salesman told me that if I network my two computers that without buying an additional IP that I could not be on the internet with both computers at the same time. I said thats fine the other computer is just going to be used to check e-mail. Now is this true or can I surf the net on both the computers at the same time without paying the additional 4.95 a month if they are networked? Sorry if this is a dumb question i'm new to all this | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
|
·
·
