If you want to splinter off to lists that already
exist and actually have a number of NANOG
participants, can I recommend
Cybertelecom-l : federal initiatives that impact the
Internet with an emphasis on the FCC
www.cybertelecom.org
Cyberia-l : general rabble about Internet law with
lots of int
> > In other words, you reasoning is quite flawed the way I see it, and
> > blocking DoS is indeed legitimate and legally supportable. Excesses
> > are rarely protected by any legal statutes.
>
> To the extent a customer attacks or defrauds the carrier itself,
protection
> measures are allowed.
Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
Thus spake "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> By the way - the big one these days is the claim from the
> Tier-2/3 player that they are really subject to the same
> rules that the Tier-1 players are and that simply isn't
> t
Thus spake "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> By the way - the big one these days is the claim from the
> Tier-2/3 player that they are really subject to the same
> rules that the Tier-1 players are and that simply isn't
> true - nor should it be.
There is no technical or legal difference betwe
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of
Joshua Smith
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:48 PM
To: todd glassey; Stephen Sprunk; Michael Loftis; Robert A.
Hayden
Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes
Subject: Re: [RE: State Super-DMCA Too True
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 4:29 PM
To: Dan Hollis; Jack Bates
Cc: Kuhtz, Christian; todd glassey; Michael Loftis; Robert
A. Hayden;
North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes
Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
Thus spake "Dan Hollis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
&
> From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Common carrier status exists for this very reason. Unfortunately, it
> probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like spam and DoS,
since
> filtering on content inherently violates common carrier protection -- see
> the smut suit against AOL
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> Since a common carrier can't filter on content -- only fraudulent and
> malicious activity against the carrier itself -- there's not much (legal)
> purpose in maintaining an abuse@ alias.
Of course these are the same tier1s who whinge when people nullr
Thus spake "Dan Hollis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
> > On the other hand, an ISP that *is* aware of illegal activity would be
> > negligent not to look into it.
>
> How about the tier1's who route abuse@ to /dev/null? IMHO they are
> negligent and should be held l
Dan Hollis wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
On the other hand, an ISP that *is* aware of illegal activity would be
negligent not to look into it.
How about the tier1's who route abuse@ to /dev/null? IMHO they are
negligent and should be held liable...
I completely agree. Of cours
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
> On the other hand, an ISP that *is* aware of illegal activity would be
> negligent not to look into it.
How about the tier1's who route abuse@ to /dev/null? IMHO they are
negligent and should be held liable...
-Dan
--
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Okay, I'll admit filtering DoS will probably survive given it's a problem
for the carrier, not just the customer. But my original point is that as
long as ISPs do not examine the contents of a customer's packets, they
cannot be held liable for what's in them. Content filteri
"todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[cut]
>
> If you ship pot via FedEx, does the delivery guy go to jail
> too?
>
> THIS IS A REALLY BAD EXAMPLE -
not really, did the us postal service get in trouble for delivering
anthrax laden letters? no. if someone at the post office bypassed
t
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 04:32:18PM -0600, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> Thus spake "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Yes but this is specific to the argument on whether an ISP
> > should be accountable for what people do with its bandwidth
> > and what I think is ultimately going to happen is th
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 6:30 PM
> To: todd glassey
> Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes; Michael
> Loftis; Robert A.
> Hayden
> Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
>
>
>
> As reading your message both hurts my eyes and would take
> excessive ef
Thus spake "Kuhtz, Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [..]
> > AT&T/Comcast doesn't sell business accounts
> > (at least not here) but they will now sell you a more expensive package,
> > 3.5Mbit/384kbit, for $95/mo, including 'model rental fee', it includes
> > 5 IP addresses "VPN Capability"(?) as
Thus spake "Kuhtz, Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [..]
> > Common carrier status exists for this very reason. Unfortunately, it
> > probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like spam and DoS,
> > since filtering on content inherently
; "Michael Loftis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Robert A. Hayden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, 31 March, 2003 17:07
Subject: RE: State Super-DMCA Too True
> Stephen - my responses
[..]
> AT&T/Comcast doesn't sell business accounts
> (at least not here) but they will now sell you a more expensive package,
> 3.5Mbit/384kbit, for $95/mo, including 'model rental fee', it includes
> 5 IP addresses "VPN Capability"(?) as well.
^^
Perhaps
> From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[..]
> Common carrier status exists for this very reason. Unfortunately, it
> probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like spam and DoS,
since
> filtering on content inherently violates common carrier protection -- see
> the smut suit ag
-DMCA Too True
Thus spake "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yes but this is specific to the argument on whether an ISP
> should be accountable for what people do with its
bandwidth
> and what I think is ultimately going to happen is that
these
> laws are going to be
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 01:50:22AM -0800, Mike Lyon wrote:
>
> Ahh! But you see it ain't "all you can eat" or rather, "use as much
> bandwidth as you want as we don't throttle you at all." I recently signed
> up for Comcast and had it installed. I get some really nice download
> speeds, would
Thus spake "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yes but this is specific to the argument on whether an ISP
> should be accountable for what people do with its bandwidth
> and what I think is ultimately going to happen is that these
> laws are going to be put in place and as part of enforcing
> the
PROTECTED]>; "Tony Rall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "North
> American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 6:08 PM
> Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
>
>
> |
> | > Well, most p2p apps live on wel
To: todd glassey; Robert A. Hayden; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: State Super-DMCA Too True
Yah but that's all akin to asking hte telephone company to
make a log of
each and every phone conversation above and beyond billing
records.
Unless you get billed per-piece of e-mail, or per HTTP
ED]>; "North
American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
|
| > Well, most p2p apps live on well-known ports, and Cisco's QOS mechanism
| > allows easy classification on ports.
> Well, most p2p apps live on well-known ports, and Cisco's QOS mechanism
> allows easy classification on ports. Yes, most of the p2p apps are
> port-agile -- but only if they are completely blocked. My experience is
> that if you let the p2p stuff through, it'll stick to its default port and
>
Thus spake "Jack Bates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Actually, I think it was all the people going bust that were begging for
> the "killer app". Us country folk were happy with the way things were.
> As for using QoS for p2p traffic, would you like to explain to me how
> my Cisco routers can tell the di
Thus spake "Jack Bates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Granted, 99% of the oversell problem with home users has now
> become piracy. It's no longer the one or two power users, but
> everyone and their dog that is computer illiterate but can still install
> p2p software or at least use it if their friend in
, 2003 7:01 PM
To: todd glassey
Cc: Rafi Sadowsky; Jared Mauch; Jack Bates; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too
True)
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, todd glassey wrote:
> And then it hit me - NANOG has the opportunity to create a
> consortium of networking
e ISP's) and that's it.
Todd Glassey
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of
Robert A. Hayden
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 7:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
Can't NAT-like devices be just as viabl
NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too
True)
> I think that we possibly may need three subgroups. But
maybe
> not all at once.
why don't we just get it over with and break apart/dilute
into the usual
suspect: social, technological, legal, economic, political.
[sarcasm]
Kris
In the immortal words of Jack Bates ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ?
>
> The legal issues are technical on-topic and nanog related. However,
> there are some that want to know what's going on in the legal system,
> and others that don't. At the same time, t
In the immortal words of Avleen Vig ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> Look it's very simple.
> If you steal something, you go to jail. That's really nto hard to
> understand, and the reason it doesn't happen more often, is because
> prison systems are already too full of people convicted of more serious
>
> I think that we possibly may need three subgroups. But maybe
> not all at once.
why don't we just get it over with and break apart/dilute into the usual
suspect: social, technological, legal, economic, political.
[sarcasm]
Kris
MAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of
Krzysztof Adamski
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 6:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too
True)
You are two days to early.
K
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, todd glassey wrote:
>
> Rafi
> I think tha
Dan Hollis wrote:
They dont need to adjust their pricing, they just need to lobby for new
laws to protect their flawed business models. Oh wait, they just did that.
IANAL, but the laws won't last. If they are enforced, the courts will
overturn them. The exceptions are the mods for console game s
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
> It's aggrivating to wait while businesses finally keel over dead or
> adjust their pricing to match the real costs.
They dont need to adjust their pricing, they just need to lobby for new
laws to protect their flawed business models. Oh wait, they just d
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Get some QoS for the p2p traffic and stop complaining. One moment everyone
is begging for the "killer app" to motivate high-speed residential
connectivity, the next they're pissing and moaning because it actually
happened.
Actually, I think it was all the people going b
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 02:49:29AM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
>
> Yeah. Give things away for free and you go bust. In Oklahoma, the telco
> price for DSL is around $35. SWBell was doing a plan for the longest
> time (may still be doing it) of allowing ISPs to use their DSL, but the
> problem wit
Peter Galbavy wrote:
Er, isn't that the fundamental difference between IP and fixed-bandwidth
voice ? I have spent any number of years trying to 'educate' old guard telco
management and planners that one of the key economic benefits of the
Internet over old fashioned private networks is that the sh
> Er, isn't that the fundamental difference between IP and fixed-bandwidth
> voice ? I have spent any number of years trying to 'educate' old guard telco
> management and planners that one of the key economic benefits of the
> Internet over old fashioned private networks is that the sharing of cap
Jack Bates wrote:
> Please see Saphire worm. Then tell me that an ISP doesn't oversell
> services. The fact is, the entire Internet is oversold. If everyone
> did their full capacity, it would crash. DSL is also based on this
> assumption. Most of the providers selling DSL at the cheap rates are
Jack Bates wrote:
Dan Hollis wrote:
Using the law to defend deceptive business practices. Makes perfect
sense.
It's either that or start charging the customer's what it really costs.
They've been so happy to get away from that. Large networks have cut
their rates based on oversell so that mid-
William Allen Simpson wrote:
...snip...snip...
(a) “Telecommunications” and “telecommunications service” mean any
service lawfully provided for a charge or compensation to facilitate
the origination, transmission, retransmission, emission, or
reception of signs, data, images, signal
and stay two steps ahead.
>
> Todd Glassey
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rafi Sadowsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 11:36 AM
> To: Jared Mauch
> Cc: todd glassey; Jack Bates; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: St
Original Message-
From: Rafi Sadowsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 11:36 AM
To: Jared Mauch
Cc: todd glassey; Jack Bates; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too
True)
Hi guys,
Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ?
--
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> As Larry Blunk points out, to "possess" an encryption device is a felony!
The law as written would seem to make microsoft windows nt/2k/xp/etc
illegal to possess. Perhaps someone can print up a bunch of stickers
"Under 750.540c enacted 03/31/2
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
> I disagree with the method, but who am I to say someone else's business
> plan is faulty and they shouldn't be allowed to enforce it?
Enforcing your business plan yourself or having uncle same enforce it for
you are two different things. Apparently you p
- Original Message -
From: William Allen Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, March 30, 2003 9:39 am
Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
>(b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any
>telecommunications service.
>
>
Cisco/the industry
would be so out of touch..
J
> -Original Message-
> From: William Allen Simpson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 9:39 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
>
>
>
> Jack Bates wrote:
>
Jack Bates wrote:
>
> William Allen Simpson wrote:
> > It outlaws all encryption, and all remailers.
>
> I'm missing where it outlaws these? In fact, it outlaws others (say your
> ISP) from decryping your encrypted data.
>
That is not correct.
I'm very sensitive to these issues. As those of
Dan Hollis wrote:
Using the law to defend deceptive business practices. Makes perfect sense.
It's either that or start charging the customer's what it really costs.
They've been so happy to get away from that. Large networks have cut
their rates based on oversell so that mid-sized networks could
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Dave Howe wrote:
> it is the hop from 4 to 5 I am having trouble with
Using the law to defend deceptive business practices. Makes perfect sense.
-Dan
--
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
I am not sure I am following the argument here.
as far as I can make out
1. Many (all!) providers underprovision (aka oversell) their bandwidth,
expecting peak utilisations to be approximately the provisioned amount
because experience has shown that actual usage is only a percentage of
theoretic
--6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
An entity claiming to be McBurnett, Jim ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
:=20
: I am not for or against either..
: just putting thoughts out there..
: NANOG-Legal would
JM> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 17:18:42 -0500
JM> From: "McBurnett, Jim"
JM> maybe I should have said Stateful inspection..
JM> IE inspection of SMTP whereas it limits the commands
JM> that are allowed and makes protocol adjustments.
That would be a protocol-level proxy, and is orthogonal to state.
, IMHO
Jim
> -Original Message-
> From: William Devine, II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 5:15 PM
> To: McBurnett, Jim; 'Jack Bates'; 'Rafi Sadowsky'
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super
IL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: State Super-DMCA Too True
>
>
>
> JM> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:34:28 -0500
> JM> From: "McBurnett, Jim"
>
>
> JM> NAT-- HMMM - In my eyes that is a security precaution for the
> JM> ignorant.. Think of this: Jo
JM> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:34:28 -0500
JM> From: "McBurnett, Jim"
JM> NAT-- HMMM - In my eyes that is a security precaution for the
JM> ignorant.. Think of this: Joe user goes to Wally World, or
JM> Staples and get's a Linksys BEFSR11 cable/dsl router. He adds
JM> NAT, and walla, his computer
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 13:13:24 -0800 (PST) Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
> > enough to scare people into not breaking them. However, history has
> > shown that we instead make it a criminal offense and use that as the
> > way to scare people into doi
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Avleen Vig wrote:
> I can't see why you have a problem sending someone to jail for commiting
> a crime.
The punishment does not fit the crime. The punishment here is more severe
than a lot of violent crimes.
Unless of course you feel that "stealing service via NAT" is a tru
Dan Hollis wrote:
Since when should breaking an ISP's TOS incur a heavier prison term than a
guy who beats his wife?
And like wife beating, I'm sure that people will still break the ISP's TOS.
-Jack
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
> enough to scare people into not breaking them. However, history has
> shown that we instead make it a criminal offense and use that as the way
> to scare people into doing what is right to begin with.
Since when should breaking an ISP's TOS incur a heavi
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
>
> Not true. An ISP can choose to allow NAT and wireless or not allow it.= 20
> > This is the ISPs choice. The law is designed to protect the ISPs rights=
Shades of "You MUST rent your telephones from Ma; FOREIGN EQUIPMENT
may damage
In a message written on Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 11:22:11PM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
> 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
>
On Sunday, 2003-03-30 at 09:07 CST, Jack Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Please see Saphire worm. Then tell me that an ISP doesn't oversell
> services. The fact is, the entire Internet is oversold. If everyone did
> their full capacity, it would crash. DSL is also based on this
> assumption.
flation ya know..
Jim
> -Original Message-
> From: Jack Bates [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 2:41 PM
> To: Rafi Sadowsky
> Cc: Jared Mauch; todd glassey; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too Tru
Rafi Sadowsky wrote:
Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ?
The legal issues are technical on-topic and nanog related. However,
there are some that want to know what's going on in the legal system,
and others that don't. At the same time, those wanting to keep track of
legal issues may not
Hi guys,
Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ?
--
Rafi
## On 2003-03-30 14:07 -0500 Jared Mauch typed:
JM>
JM>
JM> Hello,
JM>
JM> Someone write up a list charter for a new list and let me know.
JM>
JM> I can host such a list.
JM>
JM> - Jared
JM>
JM> On
Hello,
Someone write up a list charter for a new list and let me know.
I can host such a list.
- Jared
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 11:04:07AM -0800, todd glassey wrote:
>
> That's why we need separate lists for them. This is a real
> issue though and its important
nstraining how you architect your
business.
Todd
-->-Original Message-
-->From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-->[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
-->Jack Bates
-->Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 9:59 AM
-->To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-->Subject: NANOG Splinter List (Wa
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Lambert) [Sun 30 Mar 2003, 20:19 CEST]:
> http://www.personaltelco.net/index.cgi/StealingBandwidth?action=highlight&va
> lue=CategoryPhilosophy
>
> (quoting)
> "Traditional broadband providers cry foul when users take their cable modem
> or DSL connections and beam them
> If you price your product on the assumption that the average customer only
> uses 5% of their bandwidth then it doesn't take many customers using 50%
> or 100% of it to really spoil your economics
Personal Telco has some interesting opinions on this:
http://www.personaltelco.net/index.cgi/Stea
Jamie Lawrence wrote:
Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree, if you think those where good
laws.
I don't necessarily think they are good laws. What it comes down to is
this. A person will do whatever they think they can get away with if the
punishment is only losing their service. I personally
todd glassey wrote:
Actually I proposed that NANOG also consider several
splinter lists. Including one concerned with the Legal
Issues with operating network services, and since there are
jail terms being talked about I suggest that these are now
sub-organizations who's time as come.
I completely a
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
>
>
> Banning NAT and servers is a simple way to filter out most of the "power
> users" without scaring the "mom and pop" customers with bandwidth and
> download quotas.
Problem solved -- all my local machines are not on a NAT block,
b
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 11:55:44AM -0500, Larry J. Blunk wrote:
> > 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
> > se
> 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
>
[snip]
You can be assured that what ever references to "trick or acrobatic flying"
will be challenged by the AOPA (aopa.org) . Those rules/laws are the
domain of the FAA.
Sounds like too long of a winter and it froze their brains.
M
This was passed in a lame duck session (December 11, 2002)
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 con
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 03:58:17AM -0500, Larry J. Blunk wrote:
> >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
> > n
Jamie Lawrence wrote:
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the
notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the
public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged
with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even
> > 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
Can't NAT-like devices be just as viable as a security device as well?
Is the ISP willing to take responsiblity for security breaches on my home
network because they banned my firewall? From a
political/public-perception standpoint, treat those ISPs that are
complaining about NAT as being soft on
Mike Lyon wrote:
Ahh! But you see it ain't "all you can eat" or rather, "use as much
bandwidth as you want as we don't throttle you at all." I recently signed
up for Comcast and had it installed. I get some really nice download
speeds, would be surprised if the download has a cap on it. However,
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 03:58:17AM -0500, Larry J. Blunk wrote:
>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
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Simon Lyall wrote:
>
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2003, Tony Rall wrote:
> > No, it is not theft of service. It doesn't cost an ISP more for me to
> > have 20 machines than it does if I have just 1. Nor does it cost them if
> > I use NAT.
> >
> > What might cost them more is if I use
| If you price your product on the assumption that the average customer only
| uses 5% of their bandwidth then it doesn't take many customers using 50%
| or 100% of it to really spoil your economics.
Turn this assumption a part of the service: place a monthly transfer limit
of some gigabytes. Thi
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Simon Lyall wrote:
> Banning NAT and servers is a simple way to filter out most of the "power
> users" without scaring the "mom and pop" customers with bandwidth and
> download quotas.
Hardly. Banning NAT doesn't filter out anyone. There are plenty of "power
users" without N
On Sat, 29 Mar 2003, Tony Rall wrote:
> No, it is not theft of service. It doesn't cost an ISP more for me to
> have 20 machines than it does if I have just 1. Nor does it cost them if
> I use NAT.
>
> What might cost them more is if I use more bandwidth or use additional IP
> addresses (for whi
>
> 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
> I
On Saturday, 2003-03-29 at 23:22 CST, Jack Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> William Allen Simpson wrote:
> > (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 o
- Original Message -
From: Jack Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, March 30, 2003 0:22 am
Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
> > (Some DSL/cable companies try to charge per machine, and record
> the
> > machine address of the devices connected.)
&
JB> Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:22:11 -0600
JB> From: Jack Bates
[ snip ]
JB> One thing to note, a telecommunications service provider is defined in
JB> such a way that anyone running a network is included. This means that
JB> running a business or home network protects your network. If in the
J
William Allen Simpson wrote:
It outlaws all encryption, and all remailers.
I'm missing where it outlaws these? In fact, it outlaws others (say your
ISP) from decryping your encrypted data.
It outlaws connecting any device "without the express authority of the
telecommunications service provid
WAS> Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:53:32 -0500
WAS> From: William Allen Simpson
[ snip ]
IANAL, but VPNs look like trouble waiting to happen. And then
there's promiscuous mode...
Eddy
--
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network
Declan McCullagh sent out an email 7:56 am EST this morning,
referencing his full report at:
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-994667.html
I was shocked to see that Michigan has *already* passed such a law!
(Also Virginia, Delaware, and Illinois.)
I've found the new law(s), and they basically out
98 matches
Mail list logo
