State Super-DMCA Too True

> 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this web page could be out of date.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.

Larry J. Blunk wrote:

   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?

If it takes a few months for the ISP to cut you off for not paying your bill, that is their own fault. Concerning someone going to jail for running NAT in breach of TOS, I find it supportable. There is precedence set with the Cable companies (using equipment to allow service to be used on more than tv's than allowed by the cable company would be equivelent here).

-Jack