There is also Customer contacts ACCC in Australia and complains that Sony is not supplying a working product and Sony gets fined and instructed to change their rules about customers behind CGNATs.
> On 7 Apr 2022, at 03:24, Jared Brown <nanog-...@mail.com> wrote: > > Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: >>> I would expect the trend to become that ISP's refuse to accommodate 3rd >>> party vendors shenanigans to the point where it hampers their operations or >>> to the point where it cost them more to do so. >> >> $ISP_1 refuses to accommodate Sony’s shenanigans… >> Three possible outcomes: > The three possible outcomes assume status quo is maintained. > > However, if ISP A makes a business decision to not accommodate 3rd party > shenanigans and modifies policies accordingly, then we have a new equilibrium. > > Outcome 1 is maintained: Customer churns off ISP A. Everybody wins. > > Outcome 2 is no longer a single outcome, but rather several: > a. Customer is upsold to gaming package which includes a static IP. > b. Customer returns Playstation and buys Xbox instead. > c. Customer declines gaming package, but continues to bother customer > service. Customer is directed to 3rd party customer support. Further customer > contact is handled via self service portals and other low cost customer > service channels. > d. Customer terminates contract and goes offline. > > Outcome 3 is resolved by ISP A telling returning customers that service at > that address is only available if ordered together with the gaming package. > >> All of this, of course, becomes an effective non-issue if both $ISP and Sony >> deploy IPv6 and get rid of the stupid NAT tricks. > Well yes... > > ... but why would Sony do that when they have so conveniently externalized > all costs? > > > - Jared -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
