Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » AT&T Defends Network Filter Plans » Any you thought snarfing phone calls were it...
 
Search Topic:
  Share Topic:
RSS topic:
 toggle:
flat / full
normal / watch
Post a:
Post a:
AT&T cancelling accounts like zecco over customer comments »
« Communists  
AuthorAll Replies


DivineDark

join:2001-08-30
Oklahoma City, OK
clubs:

reply to jester121
Re: Any you thought snarfing phone calls were it...

said by jester121 See Profile :

said by odog See Profile :

Because your customers would defect from you. If I was a customer of an ISP, and my ISP only used AT&T for their internet connection my customers would get mad at me for not being able to use P2P. Also if you are a business level customer you buy raw, naked internet, with no restrictions.
Plenty of small businesses wouldn't mind AT&T filtering potentially illegal traffic from their network; it saves them some expense in installing filter/block software.

It all comes down to which direction the market takes. I'd say the vast majority of customers are going to shop price and speed, and if they find out afterwards that P2P doesn't work, they'll get over it.
So what liability does this give the Telcos since they want to play nanny? What if child porn slips through or even worse a unreleased copy of X-Men?


anonymouse5

@rr.com

Yep, sacrificing common carrier status would be stupid

If AT&T or any of the other "big stupids" decides to start filtering their traffic for content:
(1) it won't work. There's no way to identify all "unwanted" traffic, since it can simply be encrypted. If they required that all traffic whatsoever had a certificate approved by some central authority (the only way it could actually work), they'd have every business with a VPN up in arms -- and the certificates would be copied within seconds.
(2) More significantly, it would sacrifice the common carrier status which Internet providers enjoy. Because Internet providers agree to carry all traffic on an equal basis, not discriminating, they are not liable for its contents under the "common carrier" doctrine. If they start discriminating they become liable. For *all* of it. They'd be bankrupt quite promptly, and executives would be in prison. This is a can of worms which AT&T's lawyers will tell them *not* to open.

Now, they can probably avoid sacrificing common carrier status if they only filter a short blacklist of material "opportunistically", by arguing that it's like the post office refusing to carry parcels which start emitting smoke. But obviously such a filter would be totally worthless and would exist only as an advertising-to-the-RIAA-and-MPAA gimmick.
Forums » AT&T Defends Network Filter PlansAT&T cancelling accounts like zecco over customer comments »
« Communists  

Most commented news this week
· [174] East Coast Verizon Workers Authorize Strike
· [166] Is AT&T Hinting At Usage-Based Pricing This Fall?
· [149] Time Warner Cable Using Fine Print To Foist Caps On Customers
· [125] Is Broadband A Civil Right?
· [111] The Great Landline Exodus Continues
· [97] Update Your Browser, Dummy
· [82] What's Your Favorite Newsgroup Provider?
· [80] Comcast Hit With Another Throttling Lawsuit
· [77] Friday Open Thread
· [73] Google's Cerf: Baby Bells Act Like Tots Having Tantrums
Saturday, 26-Jul
00:17:27
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
8th year online! © 1999-2008 dslreports.com.
page compression OFF