Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Avleen Vig <lists-nanog () silverwraith com>]

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 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.