🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4qmqvh$g9a@newsgate.dircon.co.uk>,
Graham Swallow <gps@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <DtEGAy.DHM@djwhome.demon.co.uk>,
>David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> In article <31C583BF.557D@kalika.demon.co.uk>,
>>>
>>>Not at all! Masquerading is a *killer* feature in Linux, it really is
>>>superb. Personally, however, I *have* set up a News subsystem on my
>> 
>> To introduce some on topic (UK) content.  This is a breach of the Demon
>> terms and conditions, although they reportedly turn a blind eye to non-
>> commercial use of masquerading.  Commercial use is considered to require
>> their GBP 100 a month network account.  Remember that, for security reasons,
>> even the largest organisations are using address translating routers, so
>> without this rule, a 60,000 user company could operate on a single
>> tenner a month account.
>
>	With 60,000 users, they would have several sites, and an account for
>	each site. They would also be the first to expand that connection
>	to a better one, paying the full whack.

That was rhetorical.  60 users and maybe even 200 in the average technology
based company could easily survive on one analogue link, and this is probably
the market that Demon's network option is aimed at (many will never use it,
many will have very little time to use it).

>
>	More importantly, what would a 4 user site do? My guess is to set
>	up an email gateway, maybe adding IP_Masquerading, and dial in
>	four times a day.

Use one of the ISPs who provide four machine connections; they do exist
and they cost more than a tenner a month.  (Note that, because it is
a more common violation, Demon frequently point out that operating a
mail gateway is not allowed on the basic account.)

>
>	The ISP should not really be setting quotas on things that aren't
>	their business. They allow an IP address, provide a modem, etc.

Their business is making money, as is the case with most businesses.
Setting rules which avoid lost revenue are a perfectly valid business
condition.  They can impose any contract term they like, providing
it is not actually illegal.

>
>	I think that this is an anachronism, from when BT had the monopoly
>	on phone lines, and could distinguish "personal" and "business" use.
>	In future, the legislation may change, and a phone becomes a phone,
>	for ANY (legal) use. Ditto for IP account.

That isn't being realistic.  But, in any case, as Demon are giving a
semi-official dispensation to personal users, they would simply reclassify
eveyone as business and make it illegal for people run mail forwarding or
networks without the appropriate accounts, even if they were personal 
users.

As far as I know, businesses get better repair times and different (including
YP) directory entries.

I'd actually suggest the political trend (de-regulation) was the other
way.  Have a look at the situation with mobile phones; there are many
many tarriffs, but the one tarriff you will find very difficult to find
is a pure air time tarriff which isn't loaded to cover the initial subsidy
on the phone (the trick with mobile phones is to make two three hundred
pounds loss on the phone, then recover that early, and finally reap in
vast profits as the subscriber continues to pay the rate which was used
to recover the original subsidy).

Taking the commercial position a bit further, ISPs need to consider
things like:

- would the customer be prepared to pay more for the service;

- is the customer likely to cost the ISP more than their revenue, plus
  profit margin from that customer;

- would giving some customers permission, encourage others, who would 
  be prepared to pay more to use the same facility;

- can the rule be enforced.

Personal users are unlikely to be prepared to pay more and are unlikely
to generate a lot more long distance traffic as a result of
masquerading, but may set a precedent.  The enforcement question is a
problem, and I guess they would take the position that most good frauds
are difficult to detect, so undectability is not a valid reason for not
imposing a rule.  They would probably rely on accidental admissions,
and unusual traffic profiles as warnings.  If they strongly suspected
abuse but couldn't prove it, they would probably refuse to renew the
contract when it expired (most personal subscribers are on one month
contracts and most business ones on one year ones).

>
>	If they think that they should charge by the packet, megabyte or
>	second, then that is their business, and they will be competing.
>
>	Maybe you should try dircon.

I don't know Dircons T&Cs in this area, but generally ISPs enforce these sorts
of rules to the extent that their service gets abused.  My guess is that there
are less people on DIRCON likely to be trying to deny them revenue in this
particular way.

In any case, the current flat rate charging is significant here, as although
it benefits both the ISP and the customer by keeping billing costs down
(packet networks designed for commercial use, e.g. X.25, expose the
virtual circuits to the network, so charges can be made on the basis of
those, rather than individual packets), it is based on assumptions about
the network resources an individual subscriber will use; if those assumptions
break down, then either everyone has to pay more, or you have to charge
more in proportion to costs.  Restricting to a single machine is one way
of controlling, albeit crudely, the traffic profile.
-- 
David Woolley, London, England          david@djwhome.demon.co.uk