Splitpair
Premium
join:2000-07-29
Cow Towne
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to Claybraker
Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content
said by Claybraker  :Not true at all. Nothing stopping you from negotiating a deal with Level 3 or whomever. In that case, a common carrier would be mighty handy to get your bits to one of their POPs. How true.
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
| reply to Claybraker
said by Claybraker :Not true at all. Nothing stopping you from negotiating a deal with Level 3 or whomever. In that case, a common carrier would be mighty handy to get your bits to one of their POPs. Actually, cost and provider requirements. Any large provider, like Level3, has requirements on the size of the organization connecting. I contacted them once about providing internet access to a city government (city hall, police department, and all other agencies) in this area and they stated that they were too small.
As well, common carriers are still over priced on the last mile.
All in all though, I (and many others, especially small businesses) just need my bits to get to the internet and someone to call when that connection goes down. The rest of the "service" (or disservice in some respects - see the article about ad insertion on the front page) is not needed.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
logic1977
Premium
join:2001-02-11
Tucker, GA
| reply to DSL Lab Rat
It seems to me the purpose of an isp is whatever that's ISP's management thinks it is.
The guy in the suit may not know how to go in and support the network (then again he may depending on the company), but he doesn't need to either. That's what he pays his technical staff for.
What they don't pay there technical staff for is to make high level decisions on how they should provide there services and to make corporate direction setting decisions.
To block pirated content is a BUSINESS decision. It is not a technical decision so why should the network support group have input on whether it should be implimented?
There is a technical component to the decision of course. If you decide to block this content your network team needs to tell you how much it will cost in order to impliment the blocking mechanism, but outside of that what input do you think they should have? |
|
Claybraker
join:2002-04-13
none
| reply to bmn
said by bmn :said by Claybraker :Not true at all. Nothing stopping you from negotiating a deal with Level 3 or whomever. In that case, a common carrier would be mighty handy to get your bits to one of their POPs. Actually, cost and provider requirements. Any large provider, like Level3, has requirements on the size of the organization connecting. I contacted them once about providing internet access to a city government (city hall, police department, and all other agencies) in this area and they stated that they were too small. As well, common carriers are still over priced on the last mile. All in all though, I (and many others, especially small businesses) just need my bits to get to the internet and someone to call when that connection goes down. The rest of the "service" (or disservice in some respects - see the article about ad insertion on the front page) is not needed. Now you're starting to sound like a suit with that "cost requirement" thingy.
Level-3 doesn't have any requirements about the size of their customers, only the size of their checkbook.
If you've got the money, honey, they've got the pipe. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| said by Claybraker :Now you're starting to sound like a suit with that "cost requirement" thingy. Level-3 doesn't have any requirements about the size of their customers, only the size of their checkbook. If you've got the money, honey, they've got the pipe. Actually, they do. You have to purchase a minimum level of service from them before they will consider doing business with you. We called about a T1 line and they specifically stated that they will not deal with anything that small. We even asked about colo on another occasion and were told that they will not colo one or two 1U servers, they require that your purchase more than that. Someone else on the site ran into the same issue in another forum and was referred to a reseller who has racks in Level3 datacenters.
Their rational, from what the rep told us at the time, was credit stability. They prefer to deal with only large clients due because they are less likely to default on the contract.
You might not to believe it, but this is what we were told when when called them.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
Claybraker
join:2002-04-13
none
| said by bmn :said by Claybraker :Now you're starting to sound like a suit with that "cost requirement" thingy. Level-3 doesn't have any requirements about the size of their customers, only the size of their checkbook. If you've got the money, honey, they've got the pipe. Actually, they do. You have to purchase a minimum level of service from them before they will consider doing business with you. We called about a T1 line and they specifically stated that they will not deal with anything that small. We even asked about colo on another occasion and were told that they will not colo one or two 1U servers, they require that your purchase more than that. Someone else on the site ran into the same issue in another forum and was referred to a reseller who has racks in Level3 datacenters. Their rational, from what the rep told us at the time, was credit stability. They prefer to deal with only large clients due because they are less likely to default on the contract. You might not to believe it, but this is what we were told when when called them. T-1's are pussy circuits.
Real men use DS-3's minimum.
48's are better, and -192's are like way cool. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| said by Claybraker :T-1's are pussy circuits. Real men use DS-3's minimum. 48's are better, and -192's are like way cool. That was what they needed (and could afford). 
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL
| reply to logic1977
said by logic1977 :To block pirated content is a BUSINESS decision. It is not a technical decision so why should the network support group have input on whether it should be implimented? There is a technical component to the decision of course. If you decide to block this content your network team needs to tell you how much it will cost in order to impliment the blocking mechanism, but outside of that what input do you think they should have? How about whether implementing such a business decision will have negative effects on the overall performance of the network. Just because an exec thinks something might be a good business decision doesn't necessarily mean it makes sense from an engineering standpoint. |
|
logic1977
Premium
join:2001-02-11
Tucker, GA
| That's true, but that would be part of the feedback I would expect when I got the cost of implimentation.
At the end of teh day it is still a business decision for the suit to make is it not? It might be a challenge technically but you have to do what you have to do. |
|
Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
| reply to DSL Lab Rat
Surprised this tread did not get locked yet. lol
Interestingly this doesn't stop hackers or pirates they will find a new way of dist there pirated product or if it is legal they will find work arounds I am sure.
They went from P2P to Bit torrent. Now who knows besides Usenet services what else can be done out in cyberspace.
This thread is on steroids. lol |
|
Pashune
Inhaling at 675 KB per sec.
Premium
join:2006-04-14
Gautier, MS
 ·CableOne
 ·AT&T Southeast
| said by Surfinusa :Surprised this tread did not get locked yet. lol Interestingly this doesn't stop hackers or pirates they will find a new way of dist there pirated product or if it is legal they will find work arounds I am sure. They went from P2P to Bit torrent. Now who knows besides Usenet services what else can be done out in cyberspace. This thread is on steroids. lol I couldn't agree more. |
|
logic1977
Premium
join:2001-02-11
Tucker, GA | reply to DSL Lab Rat
I think the dedicated piraters will always find a way around it. But if the content providers say you have to do what you can, and you want to get in the business of being a content rpovider, you make whatever changes you can. |
|
Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL
| reply to logic1977
said by logic1977 :At the end of teh day it is still a business decision for the suit to make is it not? It might be a challenge technically but you have to do what you have to do. Sure. But that doesn't mean things can't get FUBAR'd. If this is going to be applied to the AT&T backbone too, it's going to effect a large portion of the internet in this country. But until we know more details on how this will work, it's all conjecture at this point. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to logic1977
said by logic1977 :I think the dedicated piraters will always find a way around it. But if the content providers say you have to do what you can, and you want to get in the business of being a content rpovider, you make whatever changes you can. This would be the first time that's happened then... And interestingly enough, by the content providers making such a demand, it opens up ATT and any other company that agrees to such a demand open to liability since they are no longer protected under the DMCA. It would almost seem like the content providers, by making such a demand, are trying to set the providers up so they can take them to court when they fail to stop the piracy on their network in its tracks.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
Splitpair
Premium
join:2000-07-29
Cow Towne
·T-Mobile US
| said by bmn :I think the dedicated piraters will always find a way around it. And as the background noise is lowered they will stand out like lightning rods on a steeple.
But if the content providers say you have to do what you can, and you want to get in the business of being a content rpovider, you make whatever changes you can. This would be the first time that's happened then... Uh not quite sure what you are typing but it seems to me there are content providers and MSO’s. I do not think a content provider would be willing to help another content provider stay in business IMO they would probably slice the competitions throat if given the chance.
And interestingly enough, by the content providers making such a demand, it opens up ATT and any other company that agrees to such a demand open to liability since they are no longer protected under the DMCA. What I posted was my opinion I do not think anyone has put forth any actual terms of what has or will be agreed to or who is bringing these offers to the table.
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 : And interestingly enough, by the content providers making such a demand, it opens up ATT and any other company that agrees to such a demand open to liability since they are no longer protected under the DMCA. What I posted was my opinion I do not think anyone has put forth any actual terms of what has or will be agreed to or who is bringing these offers to the table. Wayne You attributed some quotes to me there that weren't mine... 
Anyway, the specifics of the any deal wouldn't affect the DMCA though. If ATT takes steps to prevent piracy via blocking or limiting the speed that such material is transported through their network, it violates the portion of the DMCA that separates them from the liability of having piracy on their network. The regulation is clear that they aren't allowed to be free of liability with respect to any piracy on their network and be working to prevent it at the same time.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
heat84
join:2004-03-11
Fort Lauderdale, FL
·Comcast
·AT&T Southeast
3 edits | Is it possible that AT&T is blocking WinMX's default ports? Its default ports are 6257 and 6699. 6699 is fine but 6257 is apparently blocked. I uninstalled my firewall and have my modem in bridge mode. So (I assume) it can only be AT&T that's blocking that port. Sometimes WInMX's connection test passes but usualy it doesn't. Its easy enough to change ports, but I'd like to know why the default one seems to be blocked.
If they shut down BS's news server, I'll just die. 
What's the address of AT&T's news server?
You guys that hang around this forum alot seem to ignore people who ask about news servers. Maybe you don't know what they are? |
|
iLive4Apple
Hybrid power
Premium
join:2006-07-13
Helena, AL | reply to DSL Lab Rat
I have already ordered Charter Cable. bye Bye AT&T |
|
FAQFixer
Premium
join:2004-06-28
Powder Springs, GA
| reply to heat84
said by heat84 :If they shut down BS's news server, I'll just die. You guys that hang around this forum alot seem to ignore people who ask about news servers. Maybe you don't know what they are? No trust me...everyone knows what newsgroups are and they probably choose to not discuss them.
Since newsgroups are one of the largest sources of illegally distributed material, I would think that they will be shut down in the near future. From a PR point of view it makes no sense for a company to publicly say you want to help stop illegal downloading/sharing while actually providing access, storage, and distribution via newsgroups. From a legal point of view, according to recent court decisions, AT&T is partially liable for the activity. |
|
jazzman916
Life on the Upbeat
Premium,Mod
join:2001-09-01
Birdland
clubs:
 ·surpasshosting
Host:
Virtual Private Ne..
Satellite Radio
AT&T Southeast
Wireless Security
| reply to heat84
said by heat84 :What's the address of AT&T's news server? You guys that hang around this forum alot seem to ignore people who ask about news servers. Maybe you don't know what they are? NEWSGROUPS.BELLSOUTH.NET
--
"Hoaxes use weaknesses in human behaviour to ensure they are replicated and distributed. In other words, hoaxes prey on the Human Operating System." --Stewart Kirkpatrick |
|
