Bengt Gördén wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:40:53PM +0100, Carl Moberg wrote:
> >I think (ok, know) that it's more a question of keeping the number
> >of available end-user products to a working minimum, and more important,
> >to make them easy to understand. A parallell would be the old system
> >design saying "optimize for the common case". All ISPs would rush
> >multi-IP leases to ADSL users iff the common case was end-users
> >with servers at home.
> >So, for ISP:s, the most customer satisfaction with the smallest working
> >number of products, more income.
> Yes. And that boiles down to one ip-number per computer.
> Ok. I can agree on the definition of the lesser amount of product more
> income. But I still think that ISP:s should have been lifted in their
> ear for inventing this "no server on the net"-thing. The problem is
> that the normal customer doesn't understand the fundamentals behind
> computing and communication. ISP:s take advantage of that. So
> customers go for their crappy products. To cite Peter Lothberg about
> ISP:s (in this case Telia) "they do not contribute to Internet". ISP:s
> selling services like this do not contribute to internet. Without
> having investigated this i believe that, the more servers, the more
I must say that Peter Lothberg is right in that case
And the VLAS buy SF that telia uses is (according to me) a stupid
product, How can my IP phone login to their nonstandard system?
It should simply be: Plug, DHCP and Play ;)
If Telia would have launched their ADSL service with a simpler system we
wouldn't have the problem with NAT that exists today, since Telia has
80% of the ADSL market