en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Any you thought snarfing phone calls were it...
Filtering / eavesdropping on my connection will keep me from signing any business (personal or other) with AT&T.
While I might have applauded AT&T for attempting to do FTTN as a viable product (jury is still out), playing buddy with NSA, on my calls is obviously not appreciated, and content filtering /deep packet inspection of my traffic is even worse.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA |  Good
I hate thieves. |
|
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs:
| So
Did they barrow some servers from China's internet brigade or are they just not for free speech on their network. I can see someone suing them because they blocked a site and the site is now losing revenue because of it. Maybe in ads or other sales. Isn't their a law against fair competition? How about one site banned has ads from a competing company. They would be in fact unfairly reducing competition unfairly. Can a lawyer speak up and continue on here and offer his two cents.
--
»www.LakeSemaJ.com
3 free trades for me, 3 free for you. PM Me
|
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
|  Blocking illegal content encourages more legal content
Filters that block content of course don't make more content available -- but such is the reasoning of DC lobbyists.
Blocking illegal content makes available more legal content as content providers feel more confident that they aren't being ripped off. So their statement is most likely accurate.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | reply to jgkolt
Re: So
There are no laws for what content AT&T can allow on their networks. In fact, as long as they have universal carrier status, they're not even responsible for illegal content on their network.
The only issue is that filtering content might remove their universal carrier status, thus making them libel for illegal content. But, under law, they can block ANYTHING they want. They could make it so that customers could ONLY get to the ATT.net portal if they chose.
Which is why service providers shouldn't be allowed to own national infrastructure without HEAVY regulation. Imagine if your electric company only dispersed electricity to appliances that they sold. And before you bring the utility argument, please understand that it is not possible to get a job that pays above the poverty level without an internet connection. At least not in the Urban/Suburban areas. |
|
ackman
join:2000-10-04
Acworth, GA | "appropriate under the law."
Um, that didn't really stop AT&T from breaking the FISA law by releasing private data to the government without a warrant or court order. Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws! |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Blocking illegal content encourages more legal content
And you have proof to back this statement up where ? Please share. |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to TKJunkMail
How does blocking 'illegal' content make MORE legal content available? What are you proposing, that the only content available is DRM megacorp controlled content? That's the ONLY kind of 'content' they release, and it has ZERO value to the vast majority of consumers.
In you world, at&t would block ALL mp3 files, and the only files you could get over the AT&T network would be itunes.
The entire concept is flawed from the start. If they ever DID try and 'filter' content, they would cause the net neutrality act to be signed into law the next day. THAT's what they should fear MORE than hollywood.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to Ahrenl
Re: So
said by Ahrenl  :And before you bring the utility argument, please understand that it is not possible to get a job that pays above the poverty level without an internet connection. At least not in the Urban/Suburban areas. Did you pirate your resume? What does obtaining employment have to do with blocking unauthorized content? |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to karlmarx
Re: Blocking illegal content encourages more legal content
said by karlmarx :How does blocking 'illegal' content make MORE legal content available? What are you proposing, that the only content available is DRM megacorp controlled content? That's the ONLY kind of 'content' they release, and it has ZERO value to the vast majority of consumers. Its a flawed logic approach.
What it sounds like is 'if we make only legal content available, companies will start promoting other $$ legal content and we'll be helping business... we're helping the economy by doing this, so we should be allowed to do it.'
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx :How does blocking 'illegal' content make MORE legal content available? TCH actually stated that by blocking 'unauthorized' content, the content owners may be willing to distribute more content using more distribution mechanisms. Fairly straightforward concept if you ask me.said by karlmarx :What are you proposing, that the only content available is DRM megacorp controlled content? I would propose that content owners be able to distribute their content in a manner that they desire. That may or may not require DRM. Also, that may or may not involve distribution via the Internet.said by karlmarx :it has ZERO value to the vast majority of consumers. I guess that would depend on whether consumers really want to enjoy content in an authorized manner or not.said by karlmarx :In you world, at&t would block ALL mp3 files, and the only files you could get over the AT&T network would be itunes. That's an ignorant comment. There are plenty of mp3 files floating around that the content owners have authorized. Besides, the file format is irrelevant.said by karlmarx :If they ever DID try and 'filter' content, they would cause the net neutrality act to be signed into law the next day. Good luck with that belief. And even if a "net neutrality" law is brought about and passed into law, it most likely won't be what a lot of individuals around this forum want. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :Blocking illegal content makes available more legal content as content providers feel more confident that they aren't being ripped off. .. So that means not blocking illegal content makes less content available?
I thought that big media talking point was dead after CBS folded on their threat to withhold HD programming if the broadcast flag wasn't implemented.
Did you not get the memo with the updated talking points? |
|
whocares
Premium
join:2003-07-26
..
1 edit | reply to Ahrenl
Re: So
said by Ahrenl :There are no laws for what content AT&T can allow on their networks. In fact, as long as they have universal carrier status, they're not even responsible for illegal content on their network. The only issue is that filtering content might remove their universal carrier status, thus making them libel for illegal content. But, under law, they can block ANYTHING they want. They could make it so that customers could ONLY get to the ATT.net portal if they chose. but 2 questions/statement,
(1) ISN'T it against the FCC law or rule or (just an "unserstanding among the entertaiment/ broadcasting (TV) industry, that no SMUT.(xxx) will be broadcasted over the airways?
2 WHY shouldn't I be allowed to (IF i am paying for a service, (ie stars,time warner Directv,ect) be able to recorded the movies that are shown (for my own private collection) & burned onto a dvd?
jazzy
--
SOME people make use of a chat forum the same way public walls are used for graffiti,I don't feel compelled to respond to their graffiti ,then I feel equally at ease about ignoring they're post,I'll go about making my post & having fun wih FRIENDS. |
|
quatrix
Premium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL | reply to ninjatutle
Re: Good
"TROLL"! "TROLL"! Your ethics and honesty are unwanted on BroadbandReports. Sign yourself up for a karlmarx brainwashing and come back when you're nice and slimy. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to nasadude
Re: Blocking illegal content encourages more legal content
said by nasadude :So that means not blocking illegal content makes less content available? You left out the keyword "illegal" when stating making less content available. |
|
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | reply to quatrix
Re: Good
Sorry, I don't believe in the BBR Cult. |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs | reply to quatrix
LOL
That's funny.
Karlmarx will be around soon, if he isn't all ready...
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… |
|
BodyBumper
join:2004-06-21
Beverly Hills, CA
| Goodbye
The day AT&T puts this in place I'm leaving.
The term "Pirated material" is very vague, most of us think of pirated material as Movies and Music but it can go beyond that take the MediaDefender leak into consideration one could consider that as "pirated material" or what if someone leaks government corruption, the agency involved could claim that the information released is "pirated material.
AT&T probably won't respect fair use so say goodbye to those video or audio clips that you enjoy from movies, tv shows and even news clips.
I've seen it time after time where sites like youtube remove millions clips off their site and in a sense they are removing a part of history.
"copyright infringement" and "pirated material" should be handled on a case by case basis. ISP's should not get involved by instituting network wide bans of any material, doing so is censorship.
--
"Time does not actually exist beyond an artificial measure we create in our minds to separate events we experience into blocks that are easier to reference instead of as a whole single event that just happens and continues happening" - evolvedant |
|
meskinct
Mad Scientist at Work
Premium
join:2002-01-07
Danbury, CT
clubs: | Good luck with that AT&T
Good luck with writing that software AT&T. Everyone will just start encrypting everything and sue your ass if you try to break that encryption. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
2 edits | So lets see
ATT wants immunity from eavesdropping
ATT wants to filter and mine your data
What next? The ATT we want access to your PC policy to make sure nothing on there harms the company in any way? Better yet, how about the ATT banking records division. If we know your financial details, we can assess how much to charge you for broadband. If we find you are rich, we'll raise your price.... This company disgusts me.
I hope this immunity crap is NOT passed in congress. If it is, Americans can kiss their rights goodbye FOREVER. It'll be the final nail in the coffin signing away our freedoms to companies. Basically, this legislation will serve as the open door policy to allow businesses to do as they please. If the immunity does not pass (high doubt), then this action will open ATT for more lawsuits. What happens if they filter the upload of a home video, and cause it to be lost in transmission? What happens if a company's data gets corrupted because a filter suspects it's a pirated file? The sky is the limit and so are the problems with ATT. |
|
