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.