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

[David A Venable]

Call me old fashoned but If your ISP has this stipulated in their 
agreement then it already is theft of service to NAT your network without 
paying for the additional service. I'm not endorsing their agreement but 
that is one of the reasons that I don't have a service that charges for 
extra computers using the service. The only way to show these companys 
that their agreements don't make sense in light of the boom in home 
networking is to take your money elsewhere.

Dave

On Thu, 22 May 2003, Kipton Moravec wrote:

> I am not a lawyer but this is my interpretation.
> 
> If your internet service provider offers basic service for X dollars and 
> will sell additional home hookups for an additional $5 per computer, then 
> the Linksys firewall router could be considered a theft of services because 
> you could hook up more than one computer behind the firewall to get to the 
> internet.
> 
> I just found it on ATT broadband web site: Home Networking Services
> "In order for multiple computers to access the Internet simultaneously on 
> your home network, you will need to purchase IP addresses (Internet 
> Protocal Addresses) for each additional computer you are adding to your 
> home network.
> 
> These addresses are necessary in order for you to expand your high-speed 
> cable internet service on more than one computer.
> 
> Please contact your local AT&T Broadband Internet Customer Care center or 
> ISP for IP address pricing in your area."
> 
> So if you have multiple computers in your home network and have not 
> purchased the "IP Addresses" for the additional computers, then it would be 
> considered a theft of service.
> 
> Kip
>