On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Noel Chiappa <jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@xxxxxxxxx>
So this is rather amusing: you're trying to tell me that ISPs wanted to kill
> The ISPs had a clear interest in killing of NAT which threatened the
> ISP business model.
NAT, and I have other people telling me NAT was an intergral part of ISPs'
master plan to take over the universe.
Clearly you all both can't be right.
Not at all. It is entirely possible for them to be telling everyone else not to use NAT because it is 'evul' while planning to deploy and use it themselves.
In practice the two positions were separated in time by many years as my ISP allowed me to use NAT ten years back and my current ISP actually requires me to use a NAT box as the NAT capability is built into my cable modem.
On the network neutrality thing, I think the arguments on both sides as specious. The fundamental issue is whether ISPs will be permitted to leverage local monopolies on the provision of broadband services to establish monopolies in network services that depend on those monopoly services.
Some people have ideological blinkers that tell them that the free market solves all problems and since the markets in the US are free (they must be because it says so in the constitution) there can be no monopoly issue. Markets are not perfect, people need to get over that.
It seems reasonable to me that any party that has a local monopoly in providing broadband services has to be regulated up the pattottie and the same is true if the number of providers is effectively constrained. Network neutrality is just a fix for a market failure situation.
If an ISP wants to have a pricing model where I get my 1x Internet connection for $X but Sony can stream an HD movie to me at 10x by paying to temporarily up my connection, that seems perfectly fine to me. If on the other hand I am paying $Y for that 10x connection then the ISP has no business demanding a double dip from Sony or whoever.
Website: http://hallambaker.com/