Comment Open Letter to Author, challenge to OpenSource (Score 1) 979
Subject: CAT vs NAT
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 09:21:00 -0500
From: anon@netscape.net
To: Ellis299@aol.com
In your article CAT vs NAT you missed many saliant and critical points. Until recently multiple IP addresses were unavailable for the home user, requiring a "business" connection at considerably higher prices, and usually the service was not provided to home. Home office users had no choice, the service providers incalcitance and myopia could not stand in the way of need and innovation. Case in point, my co-worker was one of the test users for @Home. The day the service was installed he tried to hook up his second computer and was told by @Home that he was limited by @Home to one address and try as he may they would not sell him a second address. With a newborn in arms and needing both parents to work from home, he installed a beta version of Novell's NAT product and promptly called @Home for help to properly configure his side of the network. He made them aware of what he was doing and they told him he was in violation of his agreement. He asked for a second connection and box to the h ome, but they refused. With thier help he completed the NAT installation and the problem solved, or in your opinion, crime perpetrated.
Let me offer one more thought. Any scheme invented by the Cable Operators that flew in the face of innovation or proved costly, would be defeated by the droves of people who needed innovation. Imagine the headache and huge cost the cable operator could bear in any investigation of NAT usage that involved physical inspection as electronic efforts would be both disguised by real users and ghosted by software designed to mimic NAT usage and network loads. Now wouldn't that be a scary idea?
--
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 09:21:00 -0500
From: anon@netscape.net
To: Ellis299@aol.com
In your article CAT vs NAT you missed many saliant and critical points. Until recently multiple IP addresses were unavailable for the home user, requiring a "business" connection at considerably higher prices, and usually the service was not provided to home. Home office users had no choice, the service providers incalcitance and myopia could not stand in the way of need and innovation. Case in point, my co-worker was one of the test users for @Home. The day the service was installed he tried to hook up his second computer and was told by @Home that he was limited by @Home to one address and try as he may they would not sell him a second address. With a newborn in arms and needing both parents to work from home, he installed a beta version of Novell's NAT product and promptly called @Home for help to properly configure his side of the network. He made them aware of what he was doing and they told him he was in violation of his agreement. He asked for a second connection and box to the h ome, but they refused. With thier help he completed the NAT installation and the problem solved, or in your opinion, crime perpetrated.
Let me offer one more thought. Any scheme invented by the Cable Operators that flew in the face of innovation or proved costly, would be defeated by the droves of people who needed innovation. Imagine the headache and huge cost the cable operator could bear in any investigation of NAT usage that involved physical inspection as electronic efforts would be both disguised by real users and ghosted by software designed to mimic NAT usage and network loads. Now wouldn't that be a scary idea?
--
