nozero
Eschew Obfuscation
Premium,MVM,ExMod 2003-06
join:1999-12-29
InnerSanctum
clubs:
 ·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·PowWeb
| Don't swat at my gNAT.
I'm of the opinion that I pay X dollars for X bandwidth, which Comcast and ATTBI before them and @home before them, have never guaranteed beyond the lame "up to x times faster than" qualifiers. What I do with said bandwidth should not be the concern of the ISP especially if they do not provide static IPs.
--
Every moment is a chance to turn it all around.
Even if only one cure is found, don't you want to be part of it?
Join us won't you? |
|
sago
join:2001-12-19
| It must be easier for ISP's when customers use routers; there are less IP addresses they need to hand out. Also, with wireless being as popular as it is these days, routers are probably here to stay. Most ISP's allow home networking - they just don't offer tech support for it - I think home networking is probably here to stay.
I wonder if it would be feasible to try to figure out how many computers are behind a router. What would happen if the software detected more than one computer? Would the customer get cut off? Would they be forced to pay extra? And how reliable is this information? If the detection software makes a mistake what happens then? It doesn't seem to be 100% foolproof.
The ISP might be able to accomplish the same goals by setting monthly data transfer caps. Heavy users would be encouraged to switch to a more expensive plan, and beyond that, the ISP might start cutting people off. Also, because file sharing and peer-to-peer applications use up lots of bandwidth, monthly transfer limits might be considered as a way to discourage copyright infringement.
[text was edited by author 2003-04-24 19:30:28] |
|
