From Slashdot: Comcast goes after NAT users

[JD Runyan]

I think this was for the list
----- Forwarded message from David Nicol <nicold at umkc.edu> -----

From: David Nicol <nicold at umkc.edu>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.7 i586)
To: JD Runyan <Jason.Runyan at NITCKC.USDA.Gov>
Subject: Re: From Slashdot: Comcast goes after NAT users

JD Runyan wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jan ,  at 03:12:20PM -0600, Bradley Miller wrote:
> > At 02:40 PM 1/25/02 -0600, you wrote:
> > > The idea of charging
> > >for network utilization is archaic.
> >
> > Ok -- let's think about that for a second.  Doesn't that point mean then
> > that spam should be permitted?  It's using a "renewable resource" so who
> > cares if it goes out to users?   If someone pays to have a TI and they want
> > to send emails to 10 gazillion people . . . why would we limit what they
> > send out on that TI?  Who are service providers to care what comes in on a
> > user's email account . . . or web browswer?   Pop-up ads are just as
> > intrusive and many times suck down more bandwidth then spam mails . . . but
> > people aren't nearly as hostile about them as spam.

I am -- I will not use sites that require javascript.

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
JD Runyan
		"You can't milk a point."
			David M. Kuehn, Ph.D.