|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
> > Not true. An ISP can choose to allow NAT and wireless or not allow it. > This is the ISPs choice. The law is designed to protect the ISPs rights > from existing technology so that the ISP can bill appropriately > according to what service is being used. This does not mean that every > ISP will not allow NAT. > > > (Some DSL/cable companies try to charge per machine, and record the > > machine address of the devices connected.) > > And to use NAT to circumvent this should be illegal. It is theft of > service. The ISP has the right to setup a business model and sell as it > wishes. Technology has allowed ways to bypass or steal extra service. > This law now protects the ISP. There will be some ISPs that continue to > allow and support NAT. The problem is that these laws not only outlaw the use of NAT devices where prohibited, but also the sale and possession of such devices. Futher, I think many would disagree that the use of NAT where prohibited necessarily should be considered an illegal activity. Note that the customer is still paying for a service, so the question of "theft" is debatable. It is one thing for an ISP to terminate service for breach of contract by using a NAT device, it is quite something else to put someone in prison for such a breach. I found one large broadband provider in Michigan that prohibits the use of NAT devices -- Charter Communications. Comcast, Verizon, and SBC seem to allow them for personal household use (although they do have value-add services that charge extra for multiple routable static IP addresses). > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but the DCMA(sp?) already performed this > function. Circumventing copyright protection has always been deamed > illegal and they are just now implementing laws to help protect it from > technology. The DMCA refers specifically to copyrighted works and has several (somewhat weak) safeguards built-in (must be primarily designed to circumvent, of limited commercial use, allowances for reverse engineering for interoperability purposes) These state laws cover both ISP services and copyrighted content services and have almost nothing in the way of safeguards. > > > Heck, it is possible to real this Act to prohibit changing your > > operating system from M$ to Linux. > > > It would be a far stretch, and I do not feel that it would hold up in > court as applying. > > One thing to note, a telecommunications service provider is defined in > such a way that anyone running a network is included. The Michigan law covers only commercial telecommunications service providers that charge fees. It most definitely does not cover anyone running a network.
|