🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <mfdemiccoREMOVE_THIS-04EC59.08242519092002@news.fu-berlin.de>, 
mfdemiccoREMOVE_THIS@mac.com (Mike DeMicco) writes...
> In article <am87av$cd$1@reader1.panix.com>,
>  arnstein@panix.com (David Arnstein) wrote:
> 
> > Here's a question for the n.g.:  suppose I buy a cheap router that does
> > NAT and connect it to an AT&T cable internet modem.  Also suppose that
> > I connect several computers to the router and use NAT.  Do you think
> > that AT&T will detect the presence of the multiple computers, and accuse
> > me of theft of service?
> 
> Where does it say that you can't have a router? (Note that the multiple 
> computers thing where you have to pay for additional IP no.'s is not the 
> same as having a router.)


Based on what I read here, seems like they aren't telling 
customers they can't "have a router". (more specifically, that
they can't use NAT)

Which of course is a bit bizarre, because using NAT accomplishes 
precisely what they are apparently trying to curb by not allowing 
users to use multiple IPs: namely, multiple computers per household
cable account. 

Maybe they're hoping the average user wouldn't go get a box that
does NAT, and they don't make an issue about it because some focus
group told them users would feel it was too big-brother'ish to
make a policy against it.


-- 
Philip J. Koenig         The Electric Kahuna Organization        [anti-spammed]
----------------Computers & Communications for the New Millennium--------------
* To send email, remove numbers and spaces:  pjkusenet64 @  ekahuna27 . com   *
* Civilians killed in WTC attack: 2,830  Afghan civilians killed by US: 3,767 *
*http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/world/south_asia/newsid_2141000/2141975.stm*
* Simple answers are for simple minds.  Try a new way of looking at things.   *