> <dig, dig>...actually, this is the only problem the article finds. And, > yes, I can certainly understand why they consider it a problem: those > neighbors are getting, for free, the same bandwidth they would if they > paid for the cable modem service. Sounds like theft of services to me.
It's a fairly arbitrary distinction. From one way of thinking, the whole purpose of IP is to multiplex traffic from multiple conversations - so what's wrong with using IP service to multiplex traffic from multiple conversations? The "problem" is that this practice interferes with the ISP's business model, which assumes that (for residential customers) there is a certain amount of money to be made *per residence*, and that additional money is made in per-residence increments. That reasoning is based on assumptions about both the demand that will be required by the residents, and the amount of money which can feasibly be extracted from them, and these in turn are based on social norms. However, the fact that a customer doesn't behave according to the ISP's assumptions does not inherently mean that the customer is stealing service - unless the customer has contractually agreed to limit the use of his internet service. But in a world where monopoly ISPs can impose arbitrary terms on contacts - like forbidding customers to run servers, or forbidding them to run certain applications, it's hardly surprising that customers routinely ignore such prohibitions. I don't regard that as theft either; I regard it as necessity. Keith
