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! |
|
Pebody
join:2001-02-02
Mannford, OK
| said by Supafly:
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.
So, are you saying that you wouldn't want to set up your own firewall, to save $$? The best reason I can think of for having an unprotected IP is the fact that I, and only I would have complete control over it.
--
{Peace through superior firepower}
First rule of fiber optics: you never talk about fiber optics
|
|
Supafly
Premium
join:2000-07-15
Elk Grove, CA
| no i mean i like my hardware firewall protecting my single IP, if i have multiple IP's then i need multiple firewalls for each computer, and i like hardware, not software solutions
--
Giggidy Giggidy Giggidy Giggidy! |
|
six9
join:2001-12-03
Atlanta, GA
 ·Comcast
| reply to Supafly
said by Supafly:
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.
I agree with you there. No way will I let my windows boxes out on the internet without some kind of protection. It's worse than letting a teenage boy out without condoms. Something bad WILL happen with a M$ box on the internet unprotected. At least the boy can pull out if he forgets them.
On another note, if AT&T would guarantee 1500/128 on the additional IP's with no degradation in service when both systems are downloading, it might be worth it. But I believe the speed is capped per modem, not per IP. So what would be the advantage of paying the extra 5 bucks a month? |
|
ki1o
Premium
join:2001-04-12
Atlanta, GA
| said by six9:
On another note, if AT&T would guarantee 1500/128 on the additional IP's with no degradation in service when both systems are downloading, it might be worth it. But I believe the speed is capped per modem, not per IP. So what would be the advantage of paying the extra 5 bucks a month?
The advantage would be for greedy AT&T getting $5 extra a month. Their is no advantage for the consumer. |
|
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null | reply to Supafly
I would pay $10 or 15 if they give me an extra IP and around 800kilobits more bandwidth. |
|
finortis
join:2001-11-30
| reply to Supafly
The advantage in purchasing multiple IPs (in addition to one for the router) would be if you wanted to put servers on the Internet, outside the NAT (aka make the accesible from elsewhere). But we all know cable companies issues with people running their own servers, so that's pretty much out with them.
Otherwise customers should take the stance "you don't have a leg to stand on legally...note what happened when you tried to do this with cable TV...so I'm using it. You have an issue, guess I'll be getting myself a lawyer" hehe |
|
