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