[Services] AT&T to block pirated content in AT&T Southeast

[Services] AT&T to block pirated content in AT&T Southeast http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18542258 en Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:34:23 EDT Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:34:23 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18739846 TheRealEdwin : I noticed today that I was getting quite a few weird connections and here is what I got.

2007-07-24 12:04:03;AT&T - Possible Macrovision;76.202.76.134:50000; 192.168.0.8:29463;UDP;Blocked
2007-07-24 12:31:57;AT&T - Possible Macrovision;76.202.76.134:1892;192.168.0.8:29463;TCP;Blocked
2007-07-24 13:01:11;AT&T - Possible Macrovision;76.202.76.134:4371;192.168.0.8:29463;TCP;Blocked
2007-07-24 13:30:46;AT&T - Possible Macrovision;76.202.76.134:1884;192.168.0.8:29463;TCP;Blocked
2007-07-24 14:00:42;AT&T - Possible Macrovision;76.202.76.134:3268;192.168.0.8:29463;TCP;Blocked

On and on it goes. Looks like it tries port 50000 then tries another port.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18739846 Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:40:12 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18683399 Doctor Olds :

said by NormanS

:

They won't cut me off for downloading in excess of 200GBytes per month! :D

Not this week at least. ;)
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18683399 Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:48:52 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18683248 NormanS :

said by clecrupt :

Say, will AT&T still let you google rabbit hole?? :D

They won't cut me off for downloading in excess of 200GBytes per month! :D
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18683248 Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:27:35 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18682527 anon : you clearly know nothing about AT&T.

LoL.. I agree.

Hey, who ever 'knows' anything anyhow... Lord, first comes morality then comes knowledge. This thread is going down a rabbit hole.

Say, will AT&T still let you google rabbit hole?? :D]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18682527 Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:44:28 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18682088 NormanS :

said by clecrupt :

Ha! They don't call her MA-Bell for nothing.

AT&T was called "Ma Bell" long before this issue. And only because of the Bell affiliation. The new AT&T is not a Bell affiliate; there have been only a few subsequent to the Judge Green Consent Decree in 1984. Cincinnati Bell comes to mind; but it was never a part of the AT&T machine.

The next 'moral' move may be to have moses(Whitacre) introduce the 11th commandment : Thou Shalt Not Serf Against thy AT&T Broadband. :D

That will never happen. Ed Whitacre retired as CEO of AT&T in June, 2007.

You might want to stick to the Comcast forums; you clearly know nothing about AT&T.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18682088 Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:46:35 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18680642 anon : Ha! They don't call her MA-Bell for nothing.

The next 'moral' move may be to have moses(Whitacre) introduce the 11th commandment : Thou Shalt Not Serf Against thy AT&T Broadband. :D]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18680642 Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:32:06 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18680314 Doctor Olds :

said by logic1977

:

right now they arent blocking anything nor are there any details about what specifically may be blocked or how th emonitoring and blocking would be implimented.

I'd bet it will be Hollywood™ Approved with Microsoft© Encryption and Intel® Hardware DRM implemented for Core Duo and Dual Core CPUs.
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18680314 Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:35:07 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18680185 logic1977 : right now they arent blocking anything nor are there any details about what specifically may be blocked or how th emonitoring and blocking would be implimented.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18680185 Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:15:43 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18679111 dcuebas : I've been thinking about signing up with at&t (bellsouth) and found this thread when I was browsing this forum for any bellsouth / at&t issues. I was "this close" to ordering DSL 6.0 before I started doing some digging on this news.

Its been about a month since their content censorship announcement. Any updates as to how or what they're gonna be blocking?

I'm not worried so much about pirated content, but I am wondering about what sites or criteria they're going to block.
--
You can never waste time cuddling a puppy. That time comes back to you later in affection from the dog. My Snowdogs]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18679111 Mon, 16 Jul 2007 04:20:03 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18646262 Pashune :

said by NormanS

:

Try buying "Dennou Coil", or "Lucky Star" anywhere in the U.S. At least, at this time (as I write this) neither has been licensed for U.S. distribution. If you want to watch them, and others of their kind (anime; Japanese animation), you either wait until (or if) they are licensed, and published, by U.S. Companies, or you BT them.

*Lucky Star fanatic*

But that's not the point of this thread...heheh.

Or you can "Stage6" them until they get removed due to licensing..]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18646262 Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:02:56 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18645596 NormanS :

said by pas1972

"So you're saying the only reason to have a fast connection is to download pirated content?"

That's exactly what I was saying.

Then you are wrong. I know an architect who is a photographer on the side. He frequently deals with large files, legitimately, for which a 6Mbps connection would be barely adequate.

OTOH, high data speed is no excuse for engaging in ethically questionable activity.

I don't need to be a burglar in order to use locksmith tools; nor to I need to be a robber in order to use a firearm.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18645596 Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:14:14 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18645549 NormanS : Try buying "Dennou Coil", or "Lucky Star" anywhere in the U.S. At least, at this time (as I write this) neither has been licensed for U.S. distribution. If you want to watch them, and others of their kind (anime; Japanese animation), you either wait until (or if) they are licensed, and published, by U.S. Companies, or you BT them.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18645549 Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:05:57 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18643801 Doctor Olds :

said by heat84

:

You should read what you copy and paste and link to Dr. Olds. This is an AT&T Southeast forum and nothing on the pages you linked to and pasted from pertains to this region of the country.

AT&T is now in charge of many regions including this one as the latest acquisition. All the regions will eventually use the same services and with Usenet that will very likely be none (as in gone, gone, gone). Email however will stay legacy (meaning you keep @bellsouth.net for now) until they get tired of keeping it that way.

Nonetheless you asked this......

said by heat84 :
What's the address of AT&T's news server?

And you got the complete answer. You didn't ask for just "this region" as I would have correctly replied there is none for this region. :uhh:

You also asked ...

said by heat84 :
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?

Most of the time they ignore the people that act like it is an entitlement from what I've seen.

said by heat84

:

And the ATT.net servers you posted are dead (for a long time I'm pretty sure). I found one of them myself a few months ago on a page that was like 5 years old. But thanks anyway. :) Actually the inet one works but won't except my BS login and password.

No they are not. You can read below for the details, you are just not authorized to use them. Your Bellsouth IP is blocked from even connection to some of the other servers.

said by heat84

:

I guess was over dramatic when I said I'd die without the BS news server,

And I know there's more than 2 servers. :uhh: I just meant that since BS is now AT&T I was thinking I could use their servers. But apparently not (yet).

Wishful thinking on using non-Bellsouth other region AT&T servers for Usenet. It will likely not happen as they are wanting to drop all of Usenet in-order to get further into bed with Hollywood. :hmm:

Anyway. Your IP is not going to be able to even access NNTP servers for WorldNet that is still active. You would need a WorldNet Dial-up account and matching IP before it will respond.

»www.download.att.net/plans/unlimited1.html
WorldNet alive and kicking...

quote:
Initiating server query ...
Looking up IP address for domain: inetnews.worldnet.att.net
The IP address for the domain is: 204.127.161.11
Connecting to the server on remote port: 563
[Connected]

You also cannot access any SBC/Yahoo servers or any AT&T/Yahoo servers as none of that infrastructure has been merged with former Bellsouth region of AT&T. We can call it BS/AT&T. LOL

Your Bellsouth credentials and IP will only allow you access to "newsgroups.bellsouth.net" period.

I never posted that you would have access to any of these other servers. I just posted that there were other AT&T servers depending on what region of the AT&T takeover wise a person was in and that there were indeed multiple servers under multiple names now all under the AT&T roof.

If you were an SBC/Yahoo DSL customer you would not have access to Bellsouth News but the SBC/Yahoo News servers instead. I'd bet they shut all servers down before they would consider consolidating them.

Regards,

Doctor Olds
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18643801 Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:29:47 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18643596 heat84 : You should read what you copy and paste and link to Dr. Olds. This is an AT&T Southeast forum and nothing on the pages you linked to and pasted from pertains to this region of the country. And the ATT.net servers you posted are dead (for a long time I'm pretty sure). I found one of them myself a few months ago on a page that was like 5 years old. But thanks anyway. :) Actually the inet one works but won't except my BS login and password.

I guess was over dramatic when I said I'd die without the BS news server, but I find that I get most stuff from either there or Bit Torrent. Although I did find a free server that's better than BS in all respects except DL speed. The max is 16 k/s. Though it does allow 3 or 4 connections which doesn't make that so bad. And no I won't tell anyone the address because then everyone would use it then it wouldn't be free anymore. But its not too hard to find with Google though. ;)

And I know there's more than 2 servers. :uhh: I just meant that since BS is now AT&T I was thinking I could use their servers. But apparently not (yet).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18643596 Tue, 10 Jul 2007 02:17:20 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18643544 Zoder :

said by FAQFixer

:

Not completely true. The safe harbor only exists when the ISP is the pipe only. BellSouth/AT&T is not only the pipe but the storage and means of distribution. It goes to the basic main function of the service, which is to illegally distribute a huge volume of copyrighted material. Grokster claimed that they didn't advertise that their service was to illegally distribute material and that people were misusing their service That didn't hold up because the court felt that is was the main purpose of Grokster(advertised or not). Since BellSouth/AT&T is acutely aware that the majority of the binary files are copyrighted and that they provide the access, storage, means to distribute the material, they can presumably be held liable.

The layman answer would be I believe Grokster and Usenet are different because Grokster was created for that purpose, advertised or not. Usenet is decades old, was not created for the purpose of piracy, and serves dual purposes. You could argue that alt.binaries.* be purged.

Legally, there was actually a case, that discussed this very issue. Ellison v. Robertson, et al.
»www.internetlibrary.com/cases/li···e349.cfm

On appeal, AOL was found to be protected from direct copyright infringement of Harlen Ellison's work stored on their usenet servers. The works were posted by an AOL subscriber. This affirmed the district court's ruling. The Court also ruled that issues of fact precluded it from determining at this time whether AOL was entitled to the protections of Section 512(a). This reversed the district court who had ruled that AOL was protected under this section from contributory copyright infringement. The Appeals court found that AOL did not have an adequate system in place for a copyright folder to file a removal complaint and for AOL to then remove the material and after repeated infringement, the customer. Specifically, they had changed their copyright abuse email address and never posted the change with the US copyright office. So complaints were never being received.

The fact is, that if the court ruling had been against usenet being protected, ISPs would have completely stopped hosting usenet in 2004 when the decision came down. Their legal departments would have seen to that.

I also have a question for you.

Do you think that if AT&T stopped hosting usenet servers they should also block access to 3rd party services like giganews? If yes, wouldn't they be violating their net neutrality commitment to the FCC when they received merger approval since Usenet contains before legal and non legal content just like the rest of the internet? If no, how are they not opening themselves up to liability under the DMCA once they implement the technology mentioned by Mr. Cicconi. By actively monitoring for piracy, they will lose safe harbor. As I discussed earlier, it's not good enough to make deals with the major media companies. Any copyright holder in the world would now be able to sue AT&T in US federal court.

Although I hope I'm wrong, I'm sure it is just a matter of time before AT&T cripples our Usenet service since SBC/Pacbell's is already. But I don't think it will be because Usenet makes them legally vulnerable.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18643544 Tue, 10 Jul 2007 01:51:40 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18643430 Doctor Olds :

said by heat84

:

In an earlier post in this thread it was said that there was an AT&T news server AND a BS news server. I guess that person was wrong?

There is more than just two servers. :-)

»www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

BellSouth newsgroups.bellsouth.net

SBC Global (Yahoo) news.xxx.sbcglobal.net

(where "xxx" is your local area. Check this link for your address)

»help.att.net/docs/use/email/gen/···qcounter

News Settings:
I am dialing into AT&T Worldnet(R) Service
News Server (NNTP): netnews.att.net
I am connecting through a high speed connection or another ISP
News Server (NNTP): inetnews.worldnet.att.net

»wurd.com/settings.php#Accessing

Connecting to AT&T Worldnet Service
NNTP Server: netnews.worldnet.att.net or netnews.att.net (Port 119)
Accessing Through High-speed Connections & Other ISPs
NNTP Server: inetnews.worldnet.att.net (Port 563)

»helpme.att.net/article.php?item=287#nntp

[att=1]
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time?

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18643430 Tue, 10 Jul 2007 01:05:47 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18642967 FAQFixer :

said by Zoder

said by FAQFixer

:

From a legal point of view, according to recent court decisions, AT&T is partially liable for the activity.

Not completely true. The safe harbor only exists when the ISP is the pipe only. BellSouth/AT&T is not only the pipe but the storage and means of distribution. It goes to the basic main function of the service, which is to illegally distribute a huge volume of copyrighted material. Grokster claimed that they didn't advertise that their service was to illegally distribute material and that people were misusing their service That didn't hold up because the court felt that is was the main purpose of Grokster(advertised or not). Since BellSouth/AT&T is acutely aware that the majority of the binary files are copyrighted and that they provide the access, storage, means to distribute the material, they can presumably be held liable. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18642967 Mon, 09 Jul 2007 23:24:11 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18642785 heat84 : In an earlier post in this thread it was said that there was an AT&T news server AND a BS news server. I guess that person was wrong?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18642785 Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:45:18 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18642143 Zoder :

said by FAQFixer

:

From a legal point of view, according to recent court decisions, AT&T is partially liable for the activity.

What court decisions would you be referring to?

Grokster? It doesn't apply to ISPs protected by safe harbor. As long as AT&T continues to just pass the traffic along and doesn't monitor what the content is, they are not liable.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18642143 Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:03:09 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18641565 Tel :

said by CaptBobo :

I just ordered my Earthlink 8.0mbps today. The Deathstar is history. Since they took over BS my service has been crap. Having to Reboot the modem all the time to get the speed back to 6mbps, then it drops to 2.8 after a few hours.

Along with this strongarm tactic, it's time to hit them in the pocketbook. Bye Bye, thanks for flying Delta! ;)

Thank You, please close the door on your way out.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18641565 Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:18:51 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18641431 anon : I just ordered my Earthlink 8.0mbps today. The Deathstar is history. Since they took over BS my service has been crap. Having to Reboot the modem all the time to get the speed back to 6mbps, then it drops to 2.8 after a few hours.

Along with this strongarm tactic, it's time to hit them in the pocketbook. Bye Bye, thanks for flying Delta! ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18641431 Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:55:31 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18641213 jazzman916 :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18641213 Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:17:04 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18641190 FAQFixer :

said by heat84

:

If they shut down BS's news server, I'll just die. :o

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18641190 Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:12:46 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18640944 iLive4Apple : I have already ordered Charter Cable. bye Bye AT&T]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18640944 Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:29:23 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18640615 heat84 : 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. :o

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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18640615 Mon, 09 Jul 2007 16:28:22 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18578594 bmn :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18578594 Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:32:57 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18577853 Splitpair :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18577853 Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:09:01 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18577689 bmn :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18577689 Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:35:35 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18576963 Zoder :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18576963 Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:10:10 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18575899 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18575899 Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:59:21 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18575598 Pashune :
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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18575598 Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:04:26 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18575459 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18575459 Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:42:15 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18574441 logic1977 : 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18574441 Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:19:21 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18572833 Zoder :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18572833 Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:11:22 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18572787 bmn :
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). :huh:
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18572787 Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:04:26 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18572664 Claybraker :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18572664 Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:40:16 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18572561 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.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18572561 Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:48 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18572516 Claybraker :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18572516 Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:10:05 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18572239 logic1977 : 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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18572239 Tue, 26 Jun 2007 20:19:16 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18572154 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.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18572154 Tue, 26 Jun 2007 20:05:35 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18571887 Splitpair :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18571887 Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:19:04 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18571844 Claybraker :
said by bmn :

said by Splitpair :

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

And you point is?
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.

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18571844 Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:11:22 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18570075 bmn :
said by Splitpair :

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

And you point is?
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.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18570075 Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:59:20 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18569288 Splitpair :
said by Doctor Olds :

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

Regards,

Doctor Olds

Short answer is no. The common carrier/interconnect carrier at&t is not the same as the ISP at&t. One is highly regulated carrier and the other a non-regulated for profit corporation.

Wayne
--
If you cannot fix it with a buttset and some beanies you ain't a technician.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18569288 Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:37:25 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18569261 Splitpair :
said by ncguy68 :

I agree there is plenty of legal content, but statistics show that most high bandwidth users are not downloading legal content.
IMO that statement in of itself validates at&t's decision.

Wayne
--
If you cannot fix it with a buttset and some beanies you ain't a technician.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18569261 Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:32:27 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18569209 Splitpair :
said by bmn :

Then what, I'll ask, is the proper role of an ISP in your opinion ?
That is a question that you should direct to the management of the ISP you wish to hear the answer from. My decision as a consumer is to pick the ISP that provides the level of service I wish to have at the best possible price I can get.

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

And you point is?

Wayne
--
If you cannot fix it with a buttset and some beanies you ain't a technician.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18569209 Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:24:28 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18567504 jazzman916 : Last warning. Keep it professional or don't play. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18567504 Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:02:42 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18567475 bmn :
said by FAQFixer :

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.

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.
ISP associations... Those definitely aren't unbiased sources of information... That's like getting your information for telco policy from the CWA or a telco trade group... Not only are they going to spin it, but they are going to make the people who don't agree with their spin look bad.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't work. They are going to change their line to whatever makes them the most money. They gave up on the "do the right thing" ethic a long time ago.

And sorry, but "just move my bits" idea isn't an EFF thing, its something the customers are demanding. Perhaps you should listen to them.

The reality is that the IT industry does not run the internet.
See how far the internet gets without the IT industry. Not very far.

For profit businesses operate Internet Services.
And they doing a good job trying to dismantle what
worked for so long... Breaking DNS with redirects instead of NXDOMAIN answers, ad injection via transparent proxies, trying to setup a system to extort money from content providers, etc. Yeah, that's stuff to be real proud of there. But hey, if you are making a profit, I guess ethics go out the window.

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.

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.
Ever notice that no one has ever referred to these businesses as "Internet Access Providers". It always called Internet Service Provider".
Thanks for showing the limits of your knowledge... They are not always just called Internet Service Providers. Internet Service Provider just gets used a vast majority of the time.

In fact:
»www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=In···G=Search

I'm done. Come back when you have real experience.
Good. Come back when you don't have to act like a spoiled brat to make your point...
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18567475 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:58:05 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18567270 jazzman916 : Looks like it is time for everyone to take a deep breath.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18567270 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:23:51 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18567197 FAQFixer :
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.

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.

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.
Ever notice that no one has ever referred to these businesses as "Internet Access Providers". It always called Internet Service Provider".

I'm done. Come back when you have real experience.
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18567197 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:08:41 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18566762 bmn :
said by Splitpair :

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.
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.
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.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18566762 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:46:40 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18566464 Splitpair :
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.
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.

Wayne
--
If you cannot fix it with a buttset and some beanies you ain't a technician.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18566464 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:48:26 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18566073 bmn :
said by RJ44 :

said by bmn :

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.
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.
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. Those that disagree with this stance have yet to produce a technically sound reason why this should change.

This is different from them providing content filter that block content you don't want to see, say porn and such; that's fine because it is an opt-in agreement, but this is nothing like that. This is a unilateral decision to block traffic outright that does not pose a direct security risk to anyone. Not really a good idea...

Not to mention all of the other reasons that it is a bad idea - loss of safe harbor protections, what is/isn't pirated/illegal material, enforcement policies, false positives, etc. - that are being mentioned.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18566073 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:45:22 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18565990 RJ44 :
said by bmn :

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.
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18565990 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:29:35 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18565697 bmn :
said by FAQFixer :

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?
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.
And you think I was talking about you directly ? Sorry if you received that impression...

However, to some extent, it appears that they don't pay attention... They may consult with them, but often times it appears they do whatever they want anyway. For example, strict prohibitions on servers - more of an attempt to force people to business services than anything else. The average user isn't going to setup a server and those that do, typically know what they are doing.

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...
You've never met me.

You just said you weren't a suit... Upper management = guys in suits and three letter titles (al la CEO, CIO, etc.) or more traditional titles (al la President, VP, etc), ergo you don't fall under that umbrella, now do you.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18565697 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:36:29 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18565629 FAQFixer :
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?
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.

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...
You've never met me. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18565629 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:25:49 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18565595 Zoder :
said by Splitpair :

Not when you work in cooperation with those who other wise would be suing you.
Except that AT&T can not possible make a deal with every owner of copyrighted work in the world. So they have the big media companies covered. Any small owner of copyrighted work can now sue them and they could be facing thousands of lawsuits of this type.

They will pay either more per sub for the content or more in court for their legal department or both.
They might pay more in fees per sub although that is open to debate, but unless the media companies can get Congress to change the law, Cable and other phone companies don't have to worry about lawsuits.

Hence IMO the reason why at&t is doing what they are.
Except that they currently can't be sued because of Safe Harbor. The only reason I can think of for this plan is that the Sr. Executives think working with the major content companies will be more profitable.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18565595 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:18:04 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18565589 bmn :
said by FAQFixer :

said by bmn :

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.

Now that's funny.
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? 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 I've worked for... Most other admins will agree.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18565589 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:17:18 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18565546 bmn :
said by Splitpair :

Ideally - you fail to stop our content from being pirated, we see you in court.
Hence IMO the reason why at&t is doing what they are.

Wayne

Actually, ATT is protected from any liability. The problem is that by actively taking on piracy, they become liable in the event that they fail to prevent it.

Someone else reminded me of the term I was looking for in the thread... Check out the safe harbor provision of the DMCA. They risk running afoul of that.

Specifically:
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)].
Note the bolded line.

If the provider modifies any of the data on its network related to piracy, at all, it looses liability protection from the piracy that occurs on its network.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18565546 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:10:40 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18565536 FAQFixer :
said by bmn :

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.

Now that's funny. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18565536 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:08:33 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18565517 Splitpair :
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.
If it looks good to the providers it has done it’s job hasn’t it now?

And in the process, ATT opens its self up to liability concerns.
Not when you work in cooperation with those who other wise would be suing you.

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?
Yes and those strings will be pulled when other legal users of that content renew their contracts with the providers. This will have a double affect as those providers who fail to do as at&t has will pay one way or the other. They will pay either more per sub for the content or more in court for their legal department or both.

Ideally - you fail to stop our content from being pirated, we see you in court.
Hence IMO the reason why at&t is doing what they are.

Wayne
--
If you cannot fix it with a buttset and some beanies you ain't a technician.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18565517 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:04:08 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18565508 bmn :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18565508 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:01:40 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18565462 Zoder :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18565462 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:52:32 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18565461 FAQFixer : 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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18565461 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:52:21 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18565065 bmn :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18565065 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:35:31 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18564902 FAQFixer :
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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18564902 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:05:19 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18564814 bmn :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18564814 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:46:15 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18564669 FROSTY : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18564669 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:22:24 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18564369 anon : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18564369 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:18:40 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18564297 anon : 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..]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18564297 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:01:41 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18564174 RJ44 :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18564174 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:13 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18564065 bmn :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18564065 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:14:17 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18564019 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.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18564019 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:06:24 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18564006 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.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18564006 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:04:01 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18563512 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18563512 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:39:59 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18563393 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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18563393 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:17:10 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18563092 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.

Wayne
--
If you cannot fix it with a buttset and some beanies you ain't a technician.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18563092 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:14:18 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18562582 Splitpair :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18562582 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 07:31:11 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18561542 bmn :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18561542 Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:44:28 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18561313 Splitpair :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18561313 Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:46:52 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18561175 ncguy68 : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18561175 Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:11:31 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18561089 Doctor Olds :
said by ncguy68 :

If they start blocking too much content there will not be much need for 3mbps and 6mbps...for the 'average' home user. Media content is the basic need for extreme highspeed. When an ISP starts to limit what content can be downloaded it will be a crippling blow to the internet as we know it. If they choose to block content they are only hurting themselves in the long run.

The key is that they are not blocking "content" in general they are only going to be blocking "illegal content". There is plenty of "legal content" still to be downloaded.

You could fill up a hard drive with what is archived at the Internet Archive.

»www.archive.org/details/movies

quote:
Welcome to the Archive's Moving Images library of free movies, films, and videos. This library contains thousands of digital movies which range from classic full-length films, to daily alternative news broadcasts, to videos of every genre uploaded by Archive users. Most of these movies are available for download.

Regards,

Doctor Olds
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18561089 Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:46:52 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18561085 Bal3Wolf : I fail to see your logic get 6m you must pirate and do illegal stuff. Hmm how many computers do you have at your house on 1.5m get 3 or 4 its going to be slow when every one is surfing and watching movies on the many sites you can watch legally. Or playing online games and downloading legal games aka steam you can now buy nearly every game that hits stores online and download them. Ever heard of itunes download legal music and tv eps and soon full movies would you wanna wait all day on a 1.5m or get it alot faster on a 6m. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18561085 Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:45:48 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18561023 ncguy68 : I guess I have to put in my 2 cent worth.

If they start blocking too much content there will not be much need for 3mbps and 6mbps...for the 'average' home user. Media content is the basic need for extreme highspeed. When an ISP starts to limit what content can be downloaded it will be a crippling blow to the internet as we know it. If they choose to block content they are only hurting themselves in the long run.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18561023 Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:30:57 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18558279 RJ44 :
said by pas1972 :

I did say that I believed that by cutting the ability to receive pirated material out of their network, that they would negate the need for at least 50% of their current 6 meg users to have a 6 meg connection. I stand by that statement.
Yeah, that's exactly what you said all right.

said by pas1972 :

"So you're saying the only reason to have a fast connection is to download pirated content?"
That's exactly what I was saying.
This is really very simple. That is the statement I'm disagreeing with. Not with all these other statements you've made since. That does not say "THE AVERAGE HOME USER" or "50%" of users or anything remotely like it. Unfortunately you don't seem capable of defending that statement you made, so you choose to make up new ones to defend and pretend I'm disagreeing with them, instead.

I'm done with this one.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18558279 Sun, 24 Jun 2007 08:19:43 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18557851 beldin : Of course, there are always ways around any filters that are put in place. They will only stop the "average" user from obtaining pirated content. The "hard-core" users will still be able to get most anything they want with just a little more work.

I could care less if filters are put in place. I've got 6.0 service because I've got 4 computers, a PS2 and an XBox360 all connected. Plus the fact that when I download from iTunes, I don't want to wait a long time for it come down. And, the price difference from 3.0 to 6.0 is such a small amount that I figured it would be worth it.
--
DSL Extreme 6.0]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18557851 Sun, 24 Jun 2007 01:59:29 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18557656 Doctor Olds :
said by Oleg :

Carrier would not start blocking web sites used to distribute illegal content :D

The Routers once setup to block pirated material sure would. It is a simple no-pass, no go situation coming soon to you.

HTTP, FTP, NNTP, ect would all get filtered.
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18557656 Sun, 24 Jun 2007 00:47:26 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18557578 Oleg : Carrier would not start blocking web sites used to distribute illegal content :D]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18557578 Sun, 24 Jun 2007 00:23:06 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18557156 jazzman916 : Now, that the personal pot shots are out of your system, let's all get back on track.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18557156 Sat, 23 Jun 2007 22:14:55 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18556937 pas1972 :
said by DSL Lab Rat :

pas1972,

Why do you have 6 Meg service?

Lol, now that was funny. :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18556937 Sat, 23 Jun 2007 21:10:48 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18556924 DSL Lab Rat : pas1972,

Why do you have 6 Meg service? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18556924 Sat, 23 Jun 2007 21:07:18 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18556913 pas1972 : I haven't changed my standpoint yet, though apparently you lack the English comprehension skills to notice.

People like you love to argue and picture everything in the world as black and white.

If I were to say, "Women are terrible drivers," you'd naturally jump on the band wagon and tell me how not all women drivers are bad because your Aunt Floe has never had a ticket or accident. Which would be a completely pointless argument considering that of course not all women drivers are awful, it's a generalized statement and of course there are always exceptions to the rule.

I never once said, "Every single Bellsouth user that has a 6 meg connection uses it to download pirated material".

I did say that I believed that by cutting the ability to receive pirated material out of their network, that they would negate the need for at least 50% of their current 6 meg users to have a 6 meg connection. I stand by that statement. It's my opinion based on what I know of the majority of people around me that use broadband.

"The difference between a 6 meg connection and a 1.5 to the average home user when they are downloading mp3's legally and watching YouTube is negligible."

There's where I referred to the average home user. You must have missed that when you were busy trying to come up with a witty reply.

Usually when I refer to the "average home user" I'm referring to the guy that surfs the web, checks email occasionally, and might actually watch a video on YouTube once every few days.

If you wish to sway my opinion, how about posting some statistics on the number of users on 6 meg that use their connection to download pirated material? Since we both know you can't do that, what we're left is with both of us having differing opinions, and you trying to force your opinion down my throat.

As far as me thinking your a Bellsouth employee, with you constantly displaying the need to support Bellsouth's point of view, even if it's something that would effect their customers in a negative way, it would be a logical conclusion that you're an employee. If you aren't then maybe you should get a hobby or something?

Edit: Oh and btw, I'm not offended. I'm astounded that you're trying to argue with me about my opinion.

You asked a stupid question, I answered it.

When and if you stop asking stupid questions, I'll be more than happy to stop typing stupid answers for you.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18556913 Sat, 23 Jun 2007 21:05:51 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18556845 RJ44 :
said by pas1972 :

You notice I did say FOR THE AVERAGE HOME USER.
No, actually I missed that. Please show me where the statement "THE AVERAGE HOME USER" was made in your earlier posts.

What I *did* see, was this:

said by pas1972 :

"So you're saying the only reason to have a fast connection is to download pirated content?"
That's exactly what I was saying.
Once again, you've made an outrageous statement, then become offended when someone calls you on it. Followed by the typical attempts to backtrack on what you actually said, and/or make false claims about what the person challenging you said. Also followed by the predicable accusasion of personal attacks and flaming.

Like it or not, piracy is not the only reason to have a fast connection, and if you're unable to think of any other reason, you are definitely lacking in imagination. And I'll stand by that statement. Apparently you've already changed your mind about that and are now agreeing , even while trying to make it look like that's not what you originally said. See above quote for reference.

Hey, I have an idea. Maybe if you only said what you meant in these posts there wouldn't be these misunderstandings. But when you say one thing then go in half a dozen different directions when challenged on them, it gets messy.

PS...please go back and look very carefully to see if you can figure out whatever makes you think I'm a BellSouth tech. Once again, you've jumped to the wrong conclusion.

Regards!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18556845 Sat, 23 Jun 2007 20:51:33 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18556534 pas1972 : Pashune, I never said that people didn't use their 6 meg connection for legal purposes. What I said was that the main reason most home users would get a 6 meg connection is to download pirated material.

That doesn't mean that people only use it for pirated material. It just means that if Joe Smoe has a 1.5 connection and uses his internet casually like most people, then he upgrades to a 6 meg connection, the chances are he won't be able to tell the difference between his 1.5 meg and his 6 meg. More than likely under those circumstance Joe Smoe will downgrade his service rather than pay the extra money monthly. Unless Joe Smoe is the type that likes to show up his friends, then he'd keep the 6 meg just to be able to brag that he had 6 meg.

This entire discussion has brought another question to mind, why do ISP's always act like it's so terrible for their users to actually use the bandwidth they pay for?

If they sell you a 6 meg line, but want to through a tantrum if you actually use the full 6 megs, why not just sell a maximum of 3?

It seems to me like they are acting like the injured party when they are gambling on people not using the bandwidth, then people actually do.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18556534 Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:18:52 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18556462 pas1972 :
said by RJ44 :

My, what a narrow little imagination you have. I happen to have a 6 meg connection which I use quite frequently for purposes other than downloading pirated material. I think it's hilarious that you believe that's the only thing someone could make use of it for. But I guess the whole world has to fit your predetermined views, huh?

About as much as the world has to fit yours.

You notice I did say FOR THE AVERAGE HOME USER.

You were once again too busy stepping up on the podium to notice.

Let's cover this, I WAS STATING MY OPINION. I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS IF YOU AGREE WITH IT OR NOT.

Are we on the same page now?

Though I'm sure there are plenty of legal uses for large amounts of bandwidth, the PRIMARY reason people upgrade speeds is to be able to download larger files in shorter periods of time.

You can run off at the mouth to try and make that statement not be true, but in the end you won't sway me over to your side, so why bother arguing?

I think someone already confirmed my assumption a couple of replies up when they stated that P2P traffic was the majority of traffic on Bellsouth's network. That would tend to say that quite a bit of people are using their broadband for the exact purpose of piracy.

Oh and btw, I hope you noticed me not being nice anymore. It's a direct response to you trying to belittle me in your post.

Edit: Boy you Bellsouth techs sure do act professional to the public. I wonder if you talk to your customers that way when on a service call? It would be far easier to have a rational discussion if you didn't always try and belittle and degrade people because they don't agree with your opinion. In your eyes I may have a limited imagination, but in my eyes you lack the maturity to have an adult discussion.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18556462 Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:01:09 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18556435 Pashune : I'm not trying to push off your opinions at all, Pas1972. I can definitely name a legal use for Extreme 6.0 speeds though.

Stage6, anyone? The HD of YouTube, after all. :)

»www.stage6.com/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18556435 Sat, 23 Jun 2007 18:53:53 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18556377 RJ44 : My, what a narrow little imagination you have. I happen to have a 6 meg connection which I use quite frequently for purposes other than downloading pirated material. I think it's hilarious that you believe that's the only thing someone could make use of it for. But I guess the whole world has to fit your predetermined views, huh?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18556377 Sat, 23 Jun 2007 18:43:51 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18556312 Doctor Olds :
said by DV0407 :

Doctor Olds i actually said earthlink because i wouldnt get the packet shaving with them, cause if you see several post above it says RR is doing the same. and by speeds i meant Eearthlink doesnt offer the speeds RR does.
You do realize that packet shaping is still far better than no packets at all (as in zero packets)? You do follow that right?

As far as EL not packet shaping I think you may not understand that EL just resells the TW/Brighthouse service and uses the same packet shaping Routers/Gateways.

»Earthlink HSI Cable FAQ »Will I get the same speeds from Earthlink as my cable carrier?

Regards,

Doctor Olds
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18556312 Sat, 23 Jun 2007 18:23:48 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18556250 pas1972 :
"So you're saying the only reason to have a fast connection is to download pirated content?"

That's exactly what I was saying.

The difference between a 6 meg connection and a 1.5 to the average home user when they are downloading mp3's legally and watching YouTube is negligible.

Most users get faster connections because they need the bandwidth. Why do they need the bandwidth? Because they're downloading 4 gig dvd's and iso copies of games.

The idea that someone would need a 6 meg connection to surf the web is laughable.

Btw, exactly why would you be insulted at the idea? Are you a majority stockholder in AT&T's stock?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18556250 Sat, 23 Jun 2007 18:04:32 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18556172 RJ44 :
said by pas1972 :

I find it funny how people will defend a corporation's position.

Let's say that AT&T does implement this some type of anti piracy measures.

Most people don't pay for 6 meg broadband so that they can surf the web. There's a reason people want to have that much bandwidth.

If all I did was play some online games and web browse, a 1.5 meg connection would be fine.

By cutting out piracy they cut out the need for the larger bandwidth connections, and potentially a large percentage of their customer base that only uses DSL because they need the bandwidth in order to be able to download the pirated content.

So you're saying the only reason to have a fast connection is to download pirated content? Or are you saying they should support piracy because it lines their pockets?

Geez...I don't know whether to be insulted at the insinuation or laugh. Please don't tell me that if AT&T went on record as supporting piracy you'd applaud them.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18556172 Sat, 23 Jun 2007 17:47:45 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18555639 pas1972 : I find it funny how people will defend a corporation's position.

Let's say that AT&T does implement this some type of anti piracy measures.

Most people don't pay for 6 meg broadband so that they can surf the web. There's a reason people want to have that much bandwidth.

If all I did was play some online games and web browse, a 1.5 meg connection would be fine.

By cutting out piracy they cut out the need for the larger bandwidth connections, and potentially a large percentage of their customer base that only uses DSL because they need the bandwidth in order to be able to download the pirated content.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18555639 Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:21:30 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18555069 DV0407 : Doctor Olds i actually said earthlink because i wouldnt get the packet shaving with them, cause if you see several post above it says RR is doing the same. and by speeds i meant Eearthlink doesnt offer the speeds RR does.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18555069 Sat, 23 Jun 2007 12:42:33 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18554163 anon : beldin, that's funny about what you said about Usenet. I'm not that tech saavy, but figured it out easily with online directions. I have two friends I've tried to push into the Newsgroups direction, but they both seem to think it's too hard. One is a Ga. Tech math grad! The other works in a technical job at a TV station. This cracks me up. They both think I'm computer-smart. No way, I just realize that almost any computer problem can be explained by others online.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18554163 Sat, 23 Jun 2007 07:01:28 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18553898 Doctor Olds :
said by DV0407 :

i cant get cable yet and on top of that the cable company thats installing cable in my area is none other than Bright House. So id have to get earthlink form them instead of RR....but i hate earthlink and it doesnt have as high speeds. :(

I think you are highly confused as Earthlink is not a forced provider (it is one option, but you do not have to choose it) and the speeds are indeed higher.

»cfl.mybrighthouse.com/products_a···ult.aspx

quote:
Bright House Networks High Speed Internet Service VERSUS DSL

We offer you a choice of High Speed Internet providers: Road Runner High Speed Online, Road Runner Premium and Road Runner Lite, EarthLink High Speed Internet or EarthLink Lite. You choose which works best for you!

Our top speeds let you surf the Web at up to a blazing 10Mbps! Road Runner Premium is up to 180 times faster than dial-up. With DSL your top speed offer is only 6Mbps - that's 1Mbps slower than our standard speed!

--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18553898 Sat, 23 Jun 2007 03:12:02 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18553120 DV0407 : oh crap id drop dsl in a sec with this, BUT i cant get cable yet and on top of that the cable company thats installing cable in my area is none other than Bright House. So id have to get earthlink form them instead of RR....but i hate earthlink and it doesnt have as high speeds. :(]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18553120 Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:12:08 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18553059 Claybraker :
said by FAQFixer :

said by Claybraker :

said by FAQFixer :

Hopefully!!!! Second only to P2P applications, Usenet is the single largest distribution source of pirated and copyrighted material.

Why don't you just rent a billboard and announce it to the whole friggin world?

Sheesh.

That's all we need, another batch of newbies with their 64kbs crap.

Sorry about that. The good news is Usenet is definitely not friendly for newbies. The wierdo/screwball/can't take direct sunlight/never kissed a girl before/hardcore nut case/I live in my parent's basement/local charter member of the Amiga Club/I soiled myself waiting for a multi-part binary to download population usually scares them off in minutes. ;)

Of course I'm not talking about any of you guys. ;)

It like that lady who used to say, "Whenever you are in a large crowd always try to identify the crazy looking, insane person. If you can't find them...it's you!" :)

It's fallen from it's former glory, but alt.usenet.kooks used to be one of my favorite haunts. I even had a highly coveted @lart.com email address from Taylor Netscum. You can't buy one of those, they have to be earned.

»www.lart.com/

Long live the cabal. TINC.
Long live the lumber cartel. TINLC.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18553059 Fri, 22 Jun 2007 22:58:44 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18552850 beldin : I know it's weird, but there are only a couple of people at work that have any idea what the Usenet actually is. When a customer has a problem getting access to newsgroups, they always send 'em to me and I get it resolved in a blink.

You'd think that people that do tech support for ISPs would at least know what news groups are and how to access them. Of course, most of the people that I work with are still in high school. I guess there are few of us left that remember the days of Gopher, Telnet, Finger, Whois and most especially Usenet.
--
DSL Extreme 6.0]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18552850 Fri, 22 Jun 2007 22:26:09 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18552720 FAQFixer :
said by Claybraker :

said by FAQFixer :

Hopefully!!!! Second only to P2P applications, Usenet is the single largest distribution source of pirated and copyrighted material.

Why don't you just rent a billboard and announce it to the whole friggin world?

Sheesh.

That's all we need, another batch of newbies with their 64kbs crap.

Sorry about that. The good news is Usenet is definitely not friendly for newbies. The wierdo/screwball/can't take direct sunlight/never kissed a girl before/hardcore nut case/I live in my parent's basement/local charter member of the Amiga Club/I soiled myself waiting for a multi-part binary to download population usually scares them off in minutes. ;)

Of course I'm not talking about any of you guys. ;)

It's like that lady who used to say, "Whenever you are in a large crowd always try to identify the crazy looking, insane person. If you can't find them...it's you!" :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18552720 Fri, 22 Jun 2007 22:00:07 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18552599 Claybraker :
said by FAQFixer :

Hopefully!!!! Second only to P2P applications, Usenet is the single largest distribution source of pirated and copyrighted material.

Why don't you just rent a billboard and announce it to the whole friggin world?

Sheesh.

That's all we need, another batch of newbies with their 64kbs crap.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18552599 Fri, 22 Jun 2007 21:35:29 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18550326 Trimline : Good information. Road Runner is using "packet shaping", see a very long thread here - »[TWC] TW Officially Announces Packet Shaping for All RR Users

As for myself, I just don't understand why anyone would want to spend the time to copy movies or CD's (not to mention exposing your PC to viruses and hackers). Not only does it take a lot of time and materials, you can instead go to your neighborhood Blockbuster and buy 4 movies for $20.00, or E-Bay hard to find movies. As for CD's, I shop on-line. Just ordered 8 music CD's for $40.00. I realize I shop for bargains, but at least my favorite entertainers get some type of royalty pay.
--
FWD#537129]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18550326 Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:09:10 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18549823 JALman : Now I gotta make a "Civil War" banner with "I'm with the EFF" sloppily placed.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18549823 Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:38:26 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18549764 FAQFixer :
said by Doctor Olds :

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....

With this move, will they drop all Usenet Servers that they host (Bellsouth, AT&T, SBC)?

Hopefully!!!! Second only to P2P applications, Usenet is the single largest distribution source of pirated and copyrighted material.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18549764 Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:28:42 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18548929 tidal : Yeah I'll be dropping my DSL if that happens. I grew up in Germany so getting German content in the US is impossible. I love how short sighted companies are and how they only care about covering their a$$es.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18548929 Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:24:41 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18544370 Doctor Olds :
said by GreatGoogly :

Would this mean they'd only drop their own server access or also implement the means to block a user from using a different newshosting company?

According to the "a network-based solution" that means from *any* source as they are going to block it from being able to enter their network period. Since they are aligning themselves with Hollywood, they would have to block it from the entire network.
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18544370 Thu, 21 Jun 2007 09:23:34 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18544169 anon : Would this mean they'd only drop their own server access or also implement the means to block a user from using a different newshosting company?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18544169 Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:14:33 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18544040 Doctor Olds :
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....

With this move, will they drop all Usenet Servers that they host (Bellsouth, AT&T, SBC)?

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

Regards,

Doctor Olds
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18544040 Thu, 21 Jun 2007 07:01:39 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18543664 pas1972 :
said by madmax2000 :

cable companys just rate limit their customers who download illegal things and who have to deal with shared bandwidth.

Their limits are pretty high though, more than I'd ever download in a month. If AT&T implements some type of IP or packet filtering for torrents and the like, I'll be switching over to cable for sure.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18543664 Thu, 21 Jun 2007 01:52:34 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18543571 boast : If this is does get executed, I won't hesitate to drop AT&T.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18543571 Thu, 21 Jun 2007 01:16:28 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18542955 madmax2000 : cable companys just rate limit their customers who download illegal things and who have to deal with shared bandwidth.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18542955 Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:55:10 EDT Re: [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18542382 pas1972 : What they're going to wind up doing is chasing off a majority of their subscribers, who can go to cable and not worry about anti piracy measures.

It honestly sounds like another case of big business listening to lobbyist rather than to the consumers that support them.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18542382 Wed, 20 Jun 2007 21:21:50 EDT [Services] AT&T to block pirated content http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18542258 DSL Lab Rat : In an unprecedented move, AT&T announced today it's intention to begin blocking what it determines to be pirated content....

»www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?···AndMedia

"AT&T on Wednesday became the first major U.S. telecommunications carrier to announce that it was taking steps to curb Internet piracy on its network.

The move marks a surprising reversal for AT&T, given that telecoms and cable companies have traditionally stood behind legal protections to avoid responsibility for copyrighted movies and music flowing through their pipes.

"What we're trying to do in our piracy initiative is to try to come up with a network-based solution", AT&T head of external and legislative affairs Jim Cicconi said during a panel about rights management at the Digital Hollywood conference in Santa Monica."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18542258 Wed, 20 Jun 2007 21:00:06 EDT