Ian Brown writes:
> ... subscribers to agree not to use the service as a means to create a VPN.
Russ Nelson replied:
> Could someone describe to me (in my ignorance) the problem this rule is intended to
>solve?
Jay Dyson replied:
> The whole prohibition with respect to VPN is to coerce @home customers to buy @work
>accounts
> which run (if reports are to be believed) around *ten times* the cost for the
consumer.
An Anonymous Coward at Slashdot had previously discussed this with Comcast,
and yes, they're strictly doing it for the money. No security issues,
just the usual combination of greed and cluelessness.
I'm not sure about Comcast's current pricing, but I think the price for the
business-quality supported service is more like 4-5x residential price rather than 10x.
It does have the advantage that they're more likely to fix it quickly if it breaks
as opposed to the standard "it's only television, we'll fix it Monday morning
if the weather's good" cable TV repair priorities.
(The problem with charging 10x is that much of their target market can do DSL instead.)
Anonymized Coward Conspiracy, Inc.
