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

[Darin W. Smith]

On Thu, 22 May 2003 22:40:09 -0500 (CDT), David A Venable 
<davidv at adoptageek.net> wrote:
> 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

WHERE elsewhere?  I don't know about you, but Comcast has a monopoly on 
high-speed internet access in my neighborhood.  I can't very well just sell 
my house and move to a more favorable neighborhood to take my business 
elsewhere.

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 saw this in my EULA too, in the same packet that had an advertisement for 
"Whole Home AT&T Broadband -- powered by Linksys"

The whole thing is really stupid.  The only time I have more than one 
machine hooked up is the rare occasion when I fire up my Windows laptop.  
And since there's only me, I can only use one of my machines at once.

I think what you are going to see the cable industry pushing, is stuff like 
is enabled by SB1116--the ability to charge per-service.  Just like they do 
with cable--it will suddenly become OK for you to have multiple outlets 
receiving "basic service"...but you'll have to pay for extras, like the 
ability to use SSH, or to run a web server.  All this is easily 
controllable by them in their data centers.  They are just looking for the 
legal means to do it.

-- 
D!
Darin W. Smith
AIM: JediGrover