It seems to me that these two can't both be true. IP Addresses cannot at
once be scarce enough to charge for and non-scarce enough that scarcity
is
a non-issue.
I don't think anybody's actually saying that addresses aren't scarce;
they're saying that NAT solves the scarcity problem.
Meanwhile, cable companies aren't actually worried about charging per
address; their (perceived) problem is unauthorized users, and they're
using addresses as a proxy for users.
/================================================================\
|John Stracke |Principal Engineer |
|jstracke(_at_)incentivesystems(_dot_)com |Incentive Systems, Inc. |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com|My opinions are my own. |
|================================================================|
|He wondered if Elli was going to buy that explanation. His taste|
|for heavily-armed girlfriends did have its drawbacks. |
\================================================================/