Mark Andrews wrote: > In message <4bcd14ef.8090...@zill.net>, Patrick Giagnocavo writes: >> Mark Andrews wrote: >>> In message <201004200022.o3k0m2ba007...@aurora.sol.net>, Joe Greco writes: >>>> I haven't seen any such documents or regulations. >>> People purchaced the service on the understanding that they would >>> get a Internet address. A address behind a NAT is not a Internet >>> address, it's a *shared* Internet address which is a very different >>> thing. >> Given that many ISPs put their sign-up documents, including contracts, >> on-line, you can no doubt supply a link to such a document that has >> legal terms that would preclude NATed service, yes? >> >> My recollection is only that I would be provided with "Internet service" >> or "access to the Internet" . No mention of RFC1918 space or other >> distinguishing information was given. >> >> Note in the below blurb no mention of publicly routable addresses... > > It doesn't have to as the normal definition of a Internet address > is a publically routable internet address. A address behind a NAT > is not a Internet address (Big I Internet). >
(hope the attribution is not screwed up) *ANY* valid Internet Protocol address is an "IP address" as mentioned in the contract I quoted. Including 192.168.99.2 . > If you supply something less than a full blown Internet access you > need to point out the restriction otherwise I would expect you to > be subject to "Bait and Switch" and other consumer protection laws. > You are charmingly naive about how "the law" actually works in the USA - that is IMHO. In any case, I left the large amount of quotes in to show that I (and possibly Joe) are asking you for specific examples to support your argument - and all you are offering is more of your personal opinion, which is not an objective source of support for your position. If I want that, I can go to any of *.livejournal.com, *.blogger.com , etc. --Patrick