Trying to make NAT guilty by association would be funny if
it weren't ridiculous. Of course, one can misuse even water --
what else is new? And there are those who would much rather
have an Internet control center, as long as it is their own and
they get paid for it.
But the whole idea of limiting connections at the end of a
TCP/IP connection is misguided. The cable operators are
trying to sell seats in my own house. By this kind of thinking,
I can't have my family sit around the TV set when I buy a DVD
movie.
Trying to mud the waters by having a diagram with other houses
using a NAT connection was also misleading. The essential point
missed here is that users have the right to use the Internet TCP/IP
connection in their home, and as a TCP/IP connection is extensible
so be it. Users may not be able to resell that connectivity but they
surely are entitled to use it. Also with wireless interfaces around the
house.
Ellis' article also missed the opportunity of clarifying the abuses by
the cable companies in trying to control what users do with the
Internet connectivity they buy. Those cable companies call
themselves "broadband" but they are just an old pay-per-view
TV network. A TV network is not an internet. And maybe that is why
broadband is not advancing as people predicted -- not because of
NATs but because of lack of vision of those companies. They
want to promise the moon but they wish to deliver a rock.
I regret that Ellis must now be found guilty by association ;-)
Cheers,
Ed Gerck