[NTLUG:Discuss] [ms.g@noitacude.com: [sb1116] ALERT: Texas "super DMCA" movingthrough the legislature]

[Darin W. Smith]

On Fri, 23 May 2003 08:48:01 -0700, Kipton Moravec <kip at kdream.com> wrote:

>
>> Besides, AT&T's agreement is kind of bogus.  It is only a *requirement* 
>> if you don't know another way to share the connection other than a 
>> hub/switch and multiple IPs from AT&T.  This agreement is informing the 
>> consumer of *one possible way* to do that, one which requires extra 
>> dollars to AT&T.
>> They just "fail to mention" that there is another way to achieve about 
>> the same end result, without sending them extra dollars.
>
> I disagree.  The argument you are making is that it is O.K. to steal 
> service if you know how to do it. (Lets see how that stands up in court. 
> AT&T says to the judge it is theft of services because we charge for 
> extra computers. You reply "No it is not because I know how to hook up 
> multiple computers without paying extra.")  The law if passed will make 
> it easier for the ISP to get you for theft of services, because they 
> charge for each computer hookup, and you are getting around that with a 
> router.
>

No, I'm not saying it is OK to steal anything.  How am I "stealing" service 
if I am only using the one IP address they allocate to me, and I am only 
using the bandwidth allotted me?  Am I "stealing" "potential profits" since 
they would like to charge on a per-computer basis (yet, currently, as I 
understand the law, they do not have the right to do)?  The argument I am 
making is that their terms of service do not specifically forbid you from 
NAT'ing.  I have only ONE computing device connected to *their* wire:  my 
cable modem.  I am using ONE IP and some portion of my allotted bandwidth.  
That is what I am paying for.  The number of machines I may have on a 
network behind my firewall is irrelevant.  If I'm running a company using a 
residential connection, then that is a violation of their service 
agreement.  If I consume "excessive" amounts of bandwidth on my connection, 
then that is a violation of their service agreement.

The service agreement section quoted, does not say that a user "must" use 
their method or be in violation of the terms of the agreement.  It says 
"you will need to" which is: this is how we want you to do it.  NOT this is 
how you MUST do it.

If they want to forbid NAT'ing, then they need to forbid NAT'ing.  And then 
they either need to have a provision in there for their own provided 
equipment, or just go to handing out lots of IPs for that extra charge.

> They already say you can not run a server on the cable network.  And I 
> believe they are checking for it on a continuous basis, by scanning those 
> ports.
>

No.  They say you cannot run a server for commercial purposes or draw 
excessive amounts of bandwidth.  BIG DIFFERENCE.

-- 
D!
Darin W. Smith
AIM: JediGrover