said by bmn :

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.

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.

said by bmn :

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.

said by Splitpair :

Hence IMO the reason why at&t is doing what they are.

Wayne

said by »www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/···i#QID125 :

Question: What are the criteria a service provider must satisfy in order to qualify for safe harbor protection under Subsection 512(a) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?

Answer: Subsection 512(a) provides a safe harbor for service providers in regard to communications that do not reside on the service provider’s system or network, but merely pass “through” the system or network. Any copies of the communications on the system must be temporary, i.e., “intermediate or transient.”

A service provider must satisfy the following critical elements in order to qualify for the “safe harbor” or protection from liability provided by subsection 512(a) (note that subsection 512(k)(1)(A) defines “service provider” as used in subsection 512(a)):

(a) The service provider is an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications [512(k)(1)(A)];
(b) The service provider did not initiated the transmission of the material [512(a)(1)]
(b) The transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out by an automatic technical process [512(a)(2)];
(c) The Internet user, not the service provider, must select the origination and destination points of the communication [512(a)(3) and 512(k)(1)(A)];
(e) The service provider must not modify the communication selected by the Internet user [512(a)(5)];
(f) The communication is transmitted “through” the system or network of the service provider [512(a)(2)];
(f) No copy of the communication is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients [512(a)(4)]; and
(g) No copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, and provision of connections [512(a)(4)].

said by FAQFixer :

Now that's funny.

said by Splitpair :

Not when you work in cooperation with those who other wise would be suing you.

They will pay either more per sub for the content or more in court for their legal department or both.

Hence IMO the reason why at&t is doing what they are.

said by bmn :

You telling me some guy, in his three piece suit with a business degree has more of a clue than a system admin in the ISP hierarchy ? Which ISP have you worked for where the management was more technically savvy that the experts?

said by bmn :

I've rarely, and I mean rarely, met anyone in upper management that had a clue about the day to day operations of technical anything in all the organizations...

said by FAQFixer :

That's why it's so funny...I'm no suit nor do I have a business degree. Guys in three piece suits rely heavily on technical experts to help write those legal documents.

You've never met me.

said by bmn :

Never was a memo, but it is clear that even if such a memo existed, you would not be a position to receive one.

said by RJ44 :

In other words, and here's the point I was making, the only place some "rule" to limit ISPs to moving bits and only moving bits exists, is in your head. That may be how it's been in the past, that may be how it *should* be, but there's nothing written in stone anywhere requiring it.

said by bmn :

It is actually the way a majority segment of the IT industry thinks too. Its been an unwritten and generally agreed upon expectation that ISPs will just move the bits because the consensus amongst the technical community is that is the proper role of ISPs.

said by Splitpair :

A majority of them are also quite incorrect though that is not uncommon. If one wants bits moved from a to z untouched they need to hire and pay for a common carrier to transport those bits.

said by bmn :

It is actually the way a majority segment of the IT industry thinks too. Its been an unwritten and generally agreed upon expectation that ISPs will just move the bits because the consensus amongst the technical community is that is the proper role of ISPs.

said by bmn :


Then what, I'll ask, is the proper role of an ISP in your opinion ? If the goal is to get to the internet, an ISP is required.

said by FAQFixer :

Bovine Scatology. Where do you get such nonsense. No one in the Internet Service Provider Industry thinks that way. I am active in some of the largest ISP associations in the world and no one I know has ever expounded your views. Maybe you have been listening to the EFF for too long.

The reality is that the IT industry does not run the internet.

For profit businesses operate Internet Services.

This isn't some pie in the sky Utopian experiment with no basis in reality. Your views are about as smart as everyone living in communes, smoking dope, growing their own food, and making their clothes out of hemp. Hippy ideals proven to be idiotic.

I'm done. Come back when you have real experience.

said by bmn :

Then what, I'll ask, is the proper role of an ISP in your opinion ?

If the goal is to get to the internet, an ISP is required.

said by ncguy68 :

I agree there is plenty of legal content, but statistics show that most high bandwidth users are not downloading legal content.

said by Doctor Olds :

And more important, does not this move cause them to lose their coveted "Common Carrier" status?

Regards,

Doctor Olds

said by Splitpair :

And you point is?

said by bmn :

You said if you goal is to get bits from point A to point B untouched, you get a common carrier. If you need you bits to get to and from the internet untouched, a common carrier won't do you any good since they don't provide access to the internet.