ncguy68
join:2006-10-14
Kings Mountain, NC | reply to Doctor Olds
Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content
I agree there is plenty of legal content, but statistics show that most high bandwidth users are not downloading legal content. When you see links to MegaUpload, Sendspace, and Rapidshare...it's rarely legal content. Sad, but true. |
|
Splitpair
Premium
join:2000-07-29
Cow Towne
 ·T-Mobile US
1 edit | reply to DSL Lab Rat
said by DSL Lab Rat  :In an unprecedented move, AT&T announced today it's intention to begin blocking what it determines to be pirated content.... When entering into contracts with content providers try to imagine the leverage provided by offering to help them manage their piracy problems?
Now that's something that can't be found (for now) with cable.
Wayne
--
If you cannot fix it with a buttset and some beanies you ain't a technician. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| said by Splitpair :When entering into contracts with content providers try to imagine the leverage provided by offering to help them manage their piracy problems? Now that's something that can't be found (for now) with cable. Wayne Whoa whoa whoa... When did this suddenly become telco versus cableco? Last the facts showed, ATT was the only doing this (telco or cableco), so technically, this is ATT versus the rest of the industry.
As for it being a benefit for ATT, I don't know... If ATT wants to forfeit their common carrier status to do this route, then so be it. There better not be a single complaint from the usual Bell indoctrinates about how ATT is getting screwed and should still be able to be a common carrier when they do this in the future and the regulators slap them. ATT going this route sets them up for some major changes that they are not going to like... And rightly so if they go this way.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
Splitpair
Premium
join:2000-07-29
Cow Towne
·T-Mobile US
1 edit | said by bmn :Whoa whoa whoa... When did this suddenly become telco versus cableco? Last the facts showed, ATT was the only doing this (telco or cableco), so technically, this is ATT versus the rest of the industry. No whoa's about if they (at&t) can offer more protection to the content providers than cable is willing to do who's to say they shouldn't get a better rate from those providers. Lets not forget at&t is negotiating directly with content providers for IPTV content and those providers are the same ones complaining about piracy. As such it would be to at&t's benefit to take steps to restrict as much of that piracy as possible as it not only takes money off the content providers table it is a double whammy for at&t who is unable to lease the pirated content to subscribers while those pirates eat up at&t's bandwidth in the process.
Wayne
--
If you cannot fix it with a buttset and some beanies you ain't a technician. |
|
Splitpair
Premium
join:2000-07-29
Cow Towne
·T-Mobile US
| reply to bmn
said by bmn :As for it being a benefit for ATT, I don't know... If ATT wants to forfeit their common carrier status to do this route, then so be it. The CC at&t isn't forfeiting anything they will still be a CC. This change from what I can tell is by the ISP side of at&t a totally different entity.
Wayne
--
If you cannot fix it with a buttset and some beanies you ain't a technician. |
|
SpottedCat
join:2004-06-27
Miami, FL
| reply to DSL Lab Rat
It's kind of disturbing how telcos act as if they are doing us a favour when we are the ones paying them for access.
*WE*, collectively are their boss. *WE* are the customer. They should need permission from US, their users, to be able to do this.
It's sad that the majority of the userbase is oblivious to this sort of thing. I'm sure if there were an uprising of user complaints to this new policy, they'd be less quick to try to implement it.
Arrgh. Whatever happened to good customer service? |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN
| said by SpottedCat :*WE*, collectively are their boss. *WE* are the customer. They should need permission from US, their users, to be able to do this. You give them permission every month when you pay your bill. Vote with your checkbook. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to Splitpair
said by Splitpair :said by bmn :As for it being a benefit for ATT, I don't know... If ATT wants to forfeit their common carrier status to do this route, then so be it. The CC at&t isn't forfeiting anything they will still be a CC. This change from what I can tell is by the ISP side of at&t a totally different entity. Then if they aren't covered on CC, then the ISP side of ATT deserves to be 100% liable for any piracy that takes place on their network. After all, if they are taking steps to stop it, then they become responsible for enabling it if they fail to stop it.
Not only are the people sending the illegal material going to be open to lawsuits, ATT should be as well.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to RJ44
said by RJ44 :said by SpottedCat :*WE*, collectively are their boss. *WE* are the customer. They should need permission from US, their users, to be able to do this. You give them permission every month when you pay your bill. Vote with your checkbook. No. Every month, when you pay your bill, you are paying ATT to do one thing and one thing only with respect to being an ISP - move your bits. ISPs are suppose to move your bits and that is all. ATT, nor any other ISP, should not be involved in bit mangling.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to Splitpair
said by Splitpair :No whoa's about if they (at&t) can offer more protection to the content providers than cable is willing to do who's to say they shouldn't get a better rate from those providers. Because anything ATT can do is largely going to be feel good stuff that looks good for the content providers, but in the end really does nothing.
Lets not forget at&t is negotiating directly with content providers for IPTV content and those providers are the same ones complaining about piracy. As such it would be to at&t's benefit to take steps to restrict as much of that piracy as possible as it not only takes money off the content providers table it is a double whammy for at&t who is unable to lease the pirated content to subscribers while those pirates eat up at&t's bandwidth in the process. And in the process, ATT opens its self up to liability concerns. How much you want to bet that the content providers are going to just GIVE ATT a better rate, there are going to be strings attached to it?
Ideally - you fail to stop our content from being pirated, we see you in court.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN
| reply to bmn
said by bmn :said by RJ44 :said by SpottedCat :*WE*, collectively are their boss. *WE* are the customer. They should need permission from US, their users, to be able to do this. You give them permission every month when you pay your bill. Vote with your checkbook. No. Every month, when you pay your bill, you are paying ATT to do one thing and one thing only with respect to being an ISP - move your bits. ISPs are suppose to move your bits and that is all. ATT, nor any other ISP, should not be involved in bit mangling. That's interesting, I must have missed the memo defining the "ISP Rules" and limiting them to moving your bits and nothing else.
Regardless, I stand by my statement. If you're paying them, you're accepting/approving their policies and practices in the only way that really matters. |
|
skyne7
@bellsouth.net
| badmagicnumber: way to multipost..
RJ44: True, but for a large sum of us, AT&T is our only broadband option. I'd leave them faster than you wouldn't believe for even *considering* traffic shaping/filtering if only they had a little competition here.. I'm not agreeing with badmagicnumber, but really all I pay them for is pots, reliable service (which they provide very well), and to move my bits. Not to dictate me. Not to tell me what I can and cannot do on their comparatively small end of this huge interconnected network. People pay for the bandwidth, let them do with it as they wish-- eventually they'll get caught if its bad. I don't pirate nor do I promote piracy, but it's the concept of what they're trying to do that bugs me. I _would_ show them with my wallet, but damned if I'm going back to 56k again.. |
|
lol_at_ATT
@bellsouth.net
| Regardless of what AT&T wishes they could do, they could not prevent me from finding the content I want to find on the net, unless they do what they are doing right now: Not providing my entire area with broadband.
As it is, I can get whatever I want right now, though I have dialup and am only limited by the size of the files.
Once the infrasturcture is there, you can get DSL from many other providers who will not bother with such draconian measures. |
|
FROSTY
Premium,MVM
join:2000-08-10
Pinson, AL
clubs: 
| reply to DSL Lab Rat
I would like to know:
1) How are they going to determine what is not legal?
2) Will they provide a list?
3) How are they going to block it?
Ports? Transfer protocols? IPs?
4) What if they block something that is legal?
If they block something I know is legal, then they are going to have one POed customer looking for another ISP...
I could drop DSL and the landline, keep the cellphones, and go with Charter for TV and Internet only. I would save over $50 a month in doing so. The only reason I have stayed with BSFA, cough AT&T, is the DSL.
--
"When you set yourself on fire and aim for the sky, you hope to leave behind some sparks of heat and light ... Like a vapor trail." - Neil Peart 2002 |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to RJ44
said by RJ44 :That's interesting, I must have missed the memo defining the "ISP Rules" and limiting them to moving your bits and nothing else. Never was a memo, but it is clear that even if such a memo existed, you would not be a position to receive one.
That being said, ATT is being paid to do by their customers for one basic thing, move bits and nothing more. The customers have the expectation that their data will move from point A to point B without interference. The customers are not paying ATT to filter out specific content, especially at the behest of a group that should be doing their own damn enforcement.
As for said "memo"... ISPs have operated on the premise that all they were to do is move the customer's bits, not mangle them. It has been that way for a long while now.
Sorry if that fact about ISPs counters the ATT created reality you seem to accept, but dat's da facts (from someone who worked with an ISP).
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
FAQFixer
Premium
join:2004-06-28
Powder Springs, GA
| reply to SpottedCat
said by SpottedCat :It's kind of disturbing how telcos act as if they are doing us a favour when we are the ones paying them for access. *WE*, collectively are their boss. *WE* are the customer. They should need permission from US, their users, to be able to do this. It's sad that the majority of the userbase is oblivious to this sort of thing. I'm sure if there were an uprising of user complaints to this new policy, they'd be less quick to try to implement it. Arrgh. Whatever happened to good customer service? That's right, by God. Customers have a Constitutional right to illegally download and distribute copyrighted material. I also read that the EFF said that anyone is allowed to do anything they want as long as it feels good. I, for one, will not stand idly by while some heartless corporate entity tramples the United States of America. Who's with me?
/sarcasm 
said by bmn : ISPs have operated on the premise that all they were to do is move the customer's bits, not mangle them. It has been that way for a long while now. Sorry if that fact about ISPs counters the ATT created reality you seem to accept, but dat's da facts (from someone who worked with an ISP). Righto. I can assure you, with no shadow of any doubt, that your opinion is completely wrong. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
1 edit | said by FAQFixer :said by bmn : ISPs have operated on the premise that all they were to do is move the customer's bits, not mangle them. It has been that way for a long while now. Sorry if that fact about ISPs counters the ATT created reality you seem to accept, but dat's da facts (from someone who worked with an ISP). Righto. I can assure you, with no shadow of any doubt, that your opinion is completely wrong. You are free to believe what you want, regardless of the facts or not. ISPs have always moved user data unless there is a legitimate security issue. This fails that test.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
FAQFixer
Premium
join:2004-06-28
Powder Springs, GA | So how many ToSs (Terms of Service), AUPs (Acceptable Use Policies), and EULAs (End User License Agreements) have you helped author, edit, approve, or implement for major ISPs.
Where does your experience come from? |
|
Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL
2 edits | reply to bmn
said by bmn :said by Splitpair :said by bmn :As for it being a benefit for ATT, I don't know... If ATT wants to forfeit their common carrier status to do this route, then so be it. The CC at&t isn't forfeiting anything they will still be a CC. This change from what I can tell is by the ISP side of at&t a totally different entity. Then if they aren't covered on CC, then the ISP side of ATT deserves to be 100% liable for any piracy that takes place on their network. After all, if they are taking steps to stop it, then they become responsible for enabling it if they fail to stop it. Not only are the people sending the illegal material going to be open to lawsuits, ATT should be as well. I believe what you are referring to is the "safe harbor" provision of the DMCA. Not common carrier status.
To qualify for safe harbor status, an ISP must have no knowledge of the infringing activity occurring on their network. If AT&T is going to start inspecting customers packets, they are opening themselves up to copyright infringement liability for any pirated material that still gets through their network.
quote:
That's right, by God. Customers have a Constitutional right to illegally download and distribute copyrighted material. I also read that the EFF said that anyone is allowed to do anything they want as long as it feels good. I, for one, will not stand idly by while some heartless corporate entity tramples the United States of America. Who's with me?
Your right, but I believe many customers feel that their ISP should not be spying on the content of the packets they are sending. It doesn't have to be illegal activity for customers not to want their online activity monitored. This is the company who passes all of our long distance calls to the NSA. They've lost my trust that they can monitor my packets and not abuse the information that they gather.
Now if they are not going to be monitoring packets and just filtering websites and ports, I don't see how this plan will be very effective in fulfilling its stated purpose. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to FAQFixer
said by FAQFixer :Where does your experience come from? Network / Systems administrator... You know, those people who actually have the technical knowledge and operate servers and network equipment... In other words, not coat and pressed shirt guy whose out of touch with the technical side.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
