SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"

In the referenced message, Greg Pendergrass said:

It doesn't make sense that an ISP should complain that customers use 100% of
what they pay for. So if 1% of your customers use %50+ of your bandwidth,
your 1% is getting their money's worth. If you don't want the customer to
use it, don't sell it to them.

The point is that customers don't pay for 100% of the available bandwidth.
Customers couldn't afford to pay for guaranteed 100% BW to all desinations
all the time. Hence, companies determine how much BW a typical user
is likely to use, build to that, and charge the customers based on how
much it cost to provide it. When folks use the service atypically, they are
using resources they didn't pay for.

If you think otherwise, build a company that doesn't aggregate flows, and
gives every customer (simultaneous) guaranteed MAX BW 24x7 to every destination
within their network and at least the first-hop into non-customer networks.

Thus spake "Stephen Griffin" <stephen.griffin@rcn.com>

The point is that customers don't pay for 100% of the available
bandwidth. Customers couldn't afford to pay for guaranteed 100%
BW to all desinations all the time.

Customers are paying for whatever service you have sold them, period. If
you sell them 'unlimited service', you must deliver them 'unlimited service'
or face fraud, false advertising, breach of contract, etc.

Hence, companies determine how much BW a typical user
is likely to use, build to that, and charge the customers based on how
much it cost to provide it. When folks use the service atypically, they

are

using resources they didn't pay for.

No, they're using resources they paid for but you assumed they'd not use.
If you can't tell the difference, ask your lawyer.

If you think otherwise, build a company that doesn't aggregate flows, and
gives every customer (simultaneous) guaranteed MAX BW 24x7 to every
destination within their network and at least the first-hop into

non-customer

networks.

No, you state in the Terms of Service exactly what you intend to deliver.
If you can't provide unlimited service, don't offer it. If you intend to
provide a "reasonable attempt to deliver all acceptable traffic," or
something similar, that's a totally different matter.

S

In the referenced message, Greg Pendergrass said:

It doesn't make sense that an ISP should complain that customers use 100%

of

what they pay for. So if 1% of your customers use %50+ of your bandwidth,
your 1% is getting their money's worth. If you don't want the customer to
use it, don't sell it to them.

The point is that customers don't pay for 100% of the available bandwidth.
Customers couldn't afford to pay for guaranteed 100% BW to all desinations
all the time. Hence, companies determine how much BW a typical user
is likely to use, build to that, and charge the customers based on how
much it cost to provide it. When folks use the service atypically, they are
using resources they didn't pay for.

If you think otherwise, build a company that doesn't aggregate flows, and
gives every customer (simultaneous) guaranteed MAX BW 24x7 to every
destination
within their network and at least the first-hop into non-customer networks.