republican-creole
Search:  

 
theme to black backgroundlet page decide theme
HomeFind ServiceReviewsISP NewsFAQsForumsToolsDatabaseAbout 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » AT&T does not like NAT
view: topics flat text 
Post a:

Comments on news posted 2002-01-29 19:48:37: AT&T Broadband has announced a partnership with Linksys to offer home networking gear as part of its US$45-per-month cable service. ..

page: 1 · 2

meee

@mediaone.net

Blah blah

Sooooooo.....you all complain and bitch and whine about att having crappy service and yadda yadda, but tell me this: When are you ppl EVER happy? Name ONE single company that can please you? You can't! Get used to it or get out.
permalink · 2002-01-30 21:49:49 · Reply to this

DSun101
To Tired To Make Sense

join:2001-03-23
Boonton, NJ

Re: Blah blah

ooo i couldn't resist, fine ill name one,

Optimum Online.

i get 5000kbps down and 980kbps up that comes to 620kB/s or so and 115kB/s upload. hell ya im happy. Not to mention alot of ppl on OOL get 8000kbps down and 980 up.
permalink · 2002-01-31 15:29:53 · Reply to this

fuzz
Fuzz
Premium
join:2000-06-05
FuzzLand

Re: Blah blah

The TROLL got you eh':)
--
fuzz
permalink · 2002-01-31 18:41:28 · Reply to this

Blizzard0

join:2000-06-27
Beverly Hills, CA

 when trolls attack bahhnaaannaaa

gotta be a at&t executive. i had verizon dsl @ $200 a month for great speead and i loved it. nothing like over 10 mbit when they tell you capped at 7.1 mbit and nothing like a 1.5 mbit upload for $219 a month total. damn now that was happiness and hell if they could get it to me for the same price i'd take it in a heart beat...so i guess you are incorrect we were happy at one time.just your crappy company has to try to take advantage of less knowledgeable customers.
--
No man was ever honored for what he received but rather what he gave.
permalink · 2002-02-02 15:14:02 · Print · Reply to this
HDT0

join:2000-06-15
Albuquerque, NM

Monopolies

The one thing we should remember is that a lot of the "cable" companies like ComCast are monopolies in their communities, so you don't have much choice.

Also, in many cases they are advertising how much better/faster they are than DSL. Well, most DSL providers don't care if you are using NAT or not, or how many PC's are hooked up.

Both the phone companies and cable companies tried to do this in the past - charge per device (outlet), but in both cases that was outlawed. I think the same thing will eventually happen with this if they pursue this. I see legal action in the future. I can see the Consumer Protection divisions of a lot of Attorney Generals offices getting lots of calls about this one.
permalink · 2002-01-31 00:32:36 · Print · Reply to this

Spatch
Stugots
Premium
join:2001-06-29
Savannah, GA

Didnt the cable companies try this already with tv

When cable tv first came around, they used to charge by the tv for cable and it was ruled that this was unfair and they started charging by the house. This seems to be the same kinda thing to me. 1 house=1 connection, no matter if you have 20 computers. As long as they all share the same 1 ip, whats the difference. This is just a ploy to get deeper into the consumers wallet.
permalink · 2002-01-31 11:34:18 · Reply to this
Majiir

join:2002-02-01
Baton Rouge, LA

Too bad you guys can't get cox.net

It's been decent so far, they're still working the kinks out, but at least they allow home networks.
permalink · 2002-02-01 01:46:14 · Reply to this
heya0

join:2001-11-08
Los Angeles, CA

so what? we got router...

thats what a router for, as long as ur network use one public ip, they wont know a diference. att use ur mac address to check, as long as ur router support clone mac address, ur fine. it's just another fancy feature they want u to pay for. and that guy says: "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."
ya they all blame the customer for faults, like computer tech support, all they know is format ur drive, and for isp support, it seems all r power cycle ur modem. besides, for 4.95, they still just give u a router, it's basically a nat box, what the hell they trying to say??? do they actually give u some extra static ip to go alone with the plan? bottom line is, they just want more money, a home network plan is one way, at least it's better than sell ur email address to some spammer.
permalink · 2002-02-03 02:14:38 · Print · Reply to this
badaple

join:2001-12-02
West Linn, OR

what is nat

okay so I am dumb. what is nat. I am a victim of reduced bandwidth. attbi.in the Portland market and have not heard of nat before.
permalink · 2002-02-06 19:23:46 · Reply to this
XPDRAGON

join:2001-04-14
Neptune, NJ

Re: what is nat

NetworkAddressTranslation=On one side of the router or proxy (preferably the ISPs) The internet sends requested web traffic to the one & only address the router exposes ie; 169.253.178.0. It then routes the Web info to the Address of the PC that sent the request ie;192.165.1.104,which the Internet can't see. In theory you pay for one Internet Connection while NAT allows you to )snicker) share it with up to 250 computers on your LAN.
The Boneheads in an effort to sqwwweeezze..every possible $$ out of us dont like dis!" Hey yo'! You got 5 PC's hook up; Yo, you pay for 5! Or else we break your face! YO!??
And thats the story of NAT the little protocal that could.
permalink · 2002-02-11 21:29:37 · Print · Reply to this
youngmoore

join:2001-03-16
Marietta, GA
·Sprint Mobile Broa..

All of you are missing one important point

If ATT Bans NAT/routers then they open themselves up to a hole new relem of lawsuits due to hacking. Everyone knows that more hackers sit on cable than anywhere else. NAT by its nature provides security from port probs, root access,etc "you know the list goes on and on" If ATT does this then they will bear the burden of providing this security to their entire user base at no cost. Hell they can't even supply 1500/128 much less montior your and everyones connections and filter every hacker/port prob out there. Right now if a hacker gets threw your NAT/Firewall its your job to track his access,stop hime and then report him. If ATT tried this all I see is lawsuites, lawsuites, lawsuites. If "and I will never be a att again" I were a ATT user and got hacked I would be the first one in court.

This just shows that in that board meeting that they either totaly left out the security OPS rep or he/she is clueless as what this could bring.

Don't expect this to live that long as soon as the legal team figuars out that with this policy brings a high amount liablty.

ym
permalink · 2002-04-30 07:34:23 · Print · Reply to this
Forums » AT&T does not like NATpage: 1 · 2

Thursday, 03-Dec 16:26:59 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.
page compression OFF