|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 03:58:17AM -0500, Larry J. Blunk wrote: > > 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 really fail to see what the problem is. > You're trying to justify that you should be allowed to use NAT (and by > implication, mulitple nodes behind your NAT) and it not be illegal. > If your ISP says that you are paying for access *per node* and not > allwoedto use NAT, then your use of NAT is theft of service, because > you're not paying for those extra nodes to access (through) the ISP's > network. > The extra cost (or lack there of) to the ISP is irrelevent. If you're > not allwoed to use NAT, you're not allowed to use NAT. > If you're paying for per-node access, breach of this is theft of > service. I'm not trying to justify allowing the use of NAT where it is prohibited by a terms of service agreement and thus grounds for termination of service. However, going beyond termination of service and making this an illegal act under law (possibly punishable by a felony conviction and 4 years in prison) is an entirely different case. If you stop paying your ISP bill (thus getting several months for free until the ISP cuts you off) wouldn't that also be theft of service? Should one also be subject to a felony conviction and 4 years of prison for such an act? > > > 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). > > Interesting that Charter Communications in Los Angeles doesn't mind you > doing this. Here is my reference for Charter Communications in Michigan, however, this web page could be out of date. http://support.chartermi.net/gh/residential/pipeline/ Additional Computers: Charter Communications allows up to 3 computers behind each cable modem connected via a hub. The customer is responsible for the purchase and installation of the hub, cross over cables and ethernet cables necessary to connect the additional computers. Charter Communications does not support or install hubs or additional computers. Charter prohibits the use of routers or proxy servers behind cable modems. Use of these methods to connect additional computers and Local Area Networks is grounds for disconnection of service. For more than 3 computers or for a Local Area Networks please speak to our Commercial Sales Team: 888-968-3442.
|