RE: State Super-DMCA Too True

["McBurnett, Jim" <jmcburnett () msmgmt com>]

> > 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.

NAT-- HMMM - In my eyes that is a security precaution for the ignorant..
Think of this: Joe user goes to Wally World, or Staples and get's a 
Linksys BEFSR11 cable/dsl router. He adds NAT, and walla, his computer is
no longer wide open to the world... Albeit not a stateful firewall,
it is much more effective than Norton or others, as it does not use the
resources of the system. If this is illegal, then the law truely is contradictoriy.
As I understand it, it says that a network operator has the right to protect
themselves. A network can be defined as 1 or more computers connected to 1
or more other computers.....


>    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.
HMMM - Cisco just bought Linksys-- This should prove interesting!!!!

> 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.
See note above... NAT- A poor man's type of firewall.....

>    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).
That is surprising.. IN SC I know charter does not say that..
As a Matter of fact, I have worked closely with several local
Charter Engineers. And they have really been exactly opposite...

>    The Michigan law covers only commercial telecommunications service
> providers that charge fees.  It most definitely does not cover
> anyone running a network.

how do they define a network? If I have a computer at home and it talks
to other computers.. Then don't I operate a network?

Later,
Jim