lev
Napoleon is always right
Premium,Ex-mod 2002-08
join:2001-05-30
Chicago, IL
clubs: 
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Discussion of possible packet filtering
If people want to discuss the possibility of whether or not AT&T might implement any packet filtering, based on this news.com story here are welcome.
This came off a thread »At&t filter??? which I locked, because it was started by an anonymous troll. |
|
MacThrasher
Please replace user and reboot.
Premium
join:2002-04-26
Chagrin Falls, OH
clubs:
·AT&T Midwest
 ·DIRECTV
| Ok... I'll add my 2¢.
The network filtering seems to me something for AT&T to protect themselves from a lawsuit and/or protect their network. If these filters are for filtering P2P or other illegal activities like Kiddie Porn, I say good for them.
AT&T should have every right to do such. It is a better idea than the capping that cable ISP's do. Hey, if you violate AT&T's Terms of Service they should have every right to "filter" you.
To all of those that are "offended" by what AT&T is proposing, deal with it! It's not your network, it's AT&T's. You are just renting time on it.
--
The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.  • Never Forget. • Your Tropical Retreat from the stress of Jihad. |
|
username1961
Premium
join:2007-08-01
North Royalton, OH
1 edit | Filtering by the network will never work. It will be a a never ending cat and mouse game. The fact is if somebody want to break the law they will and they will keep trying. So you block certain ports before you know it the illegal activity is piggybacking on the same ports used by legitimate traffic. So now network providers has to start looking into the content of the stream. What about encrypted streams how they are going to handle that ?
At the end you end up making it too difficult for the legitimate users to use the network and not accomplishing anything.
This is like blocking the road for all traffic to prevent a child molester from driving to somebody's house. |
|
Zaber
When all are gone, there shall be none
join:2000-06-08
Cleveland, OH
clubs:
·Expedient
·XO COMMUNICATIONS
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to lev
OK, sure I will add the random ramblings that almost past for thoughts in my head:
I do not think AT&T has any right to filter data on their network. I can also understand why they might want to do it. I pay AT&T for a "pipe" to the internet, that’s all I want from them, is that dumb "pipe." I do not need them to protect me from myself or others online, nor do I want them to. I also find the idea of the filters very bad from an implementation stand point. I use bittorrent constantly, but I am not using it to download illegal stuff. I use it for whatever distro of the week is out and for things like OpenOffice.org. The developers of OSS software allow me to use their hard work at no charge, why should I not donate some of the bandwidth I have paid for to help them distribute it? How will these filters tell what I use BT for from someone downloading the latest movie to hit theaters? Further more will these filters be watching what web sites I visit? In their quest to block illegal activity will they block certain "hack" sites, if so who will decide what is a "hack" site? Again will Linux sites be blocked because some consider it a "hacker OS?"
As I said I can understand why they would want to filter their network. Now a days it is fairly safe to assume that the majority of internet traffic is some form of illegal activity. Working off of that assumption, it would be cheaper for them to stop the illegal activity, than to continually build out their network to support it. AT&T also is a content provider, as such they would have to compete with free downloads of shows that they want to charge you to be able to watch. Before anyone asks I would consider both of these sound business ideas, but for the sake of PR would not be so blunt about it.
Of course I have no information on how they plan to filter their customers. If they use a filter based on what protocol is being used there will be collateral damage, if they decide to monitor what machines mine connect to, it is none of their business. I pay them for a connection to the internet, that is exactly what I want, not the Internet as AT&T thinks it should be.
--
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime |
|
lev
Napoleon is always right
Premium,Ex-mod 2002-08
join:2001-05-30
Chicago, IL
clubs:
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to username1961
I ran into a problem earlier this year where yahoo was filtering any mail as spam based upon a specific domain's URL being anywhere in the message... even if it came from a yahoo.com or sbcglobal.net address.
It took several people weeks of pounding and screaming, including opening a ticket with AT&T's mail and our own Matthew's help before someone got lucky. Yahoo mail kept denying they filtered mail based on content of just one URL.
I'm not even saying AT&T will do or be able to do this. I'm more concerned that a bad implementation that causes even one headache for someone legitimately and legally using their network would be a mistake. That includes any slowdowns, aborted file transfers, or other problems. |
|
va176thunder
join:2001-09-14
Columbus, OH
clubs:
1 edit | reply to lev
For what it's worth, I canceled my SBC/AT&T DSL line in Feb and went with a substantially more expensive business class cable line for access and a VoiP phone provider for phone service after a billing dispute with AT&T spiraled beyond repair.
One of the things I use my "home office" connection for is researching blocked content for my employer to determine whether or not there is a business need to lift the content restriction (they block content that is not considered "business related"). Any type of connection that is filtered greatly impacts it's usefulness for me in this area.
The original article indicates it will be "targeted" and "appropriate" (yes, I did actually read it), so I guess my question is who will determine "the targets" and "the appropriateness"? What avenue will be available when it impacts legitimate traffic? What about business customers, AT&T wasn't clear - should they expect a possible impact? Will it only be peer-to-peer traffic, or could it impact my ability to download my iTunes or Audible.com book-on-disc purchase?
Who's going to troubleshoot these issues - are they willing to commit technical resources to troubleshoot? My experience with AT&T's support is that their level 1/2 don't have the skill set to.
What will be interesting will be the first game/application vendor that indicates on the packaging of the software that it may not function properly on AT&T networks. |
|
Gus K
join:2003-08-22
Hammond, IN
| reply to MacThrasher
said by MacThrasher  :Ok... I'll add my 2¢. The network filtering seems to me something for AT&T to protect themselves from a lawsuit and/or protect their network. If these filters are for filtering P2P or other illegal activities like Kiddie Porn, I say good for them. AT&T should have every right to do such. It is a better idea than the capping that cable ISP's do. Hey, if you violate AT&T's Terms of Service they should have every right to "filter" you. To all of those that are "offended" by what AT&T is proposing, deal with it! It's not your network, it's AT&T's. You are just renting time on it. |
|
Old_Grouch
Don't just sit there silly DO something
Premium
join:2004-05-26
Greenwood, IN
clubs:
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to lev
at&t rarely does something without reason. Especially - especially something that nobody else is really doing.
I like to ask myself why they would do it before trying to form an opinion. In this case, I haven't pondered it at length because articles I've read indicated they would likely use tools (software) that were not yet developed and that they had no idea what deployment strategy would be required.
I can imagine a couple of catalysts to their statements of intent:
• - they sense that they and other ISPs will be mandated to do it at some point and would rather lead than follow or be told where to go
• - they think it will buy friendship in Hollywood and elsewhere for license negotiations for their U-wish stuff
I can't see copyright or license holders being overly swayed by their efforts. They get excited on revenue generation as much as revenue protection and until at&t can show they deliver to as many homes as the others, I wouldn't expect any grandstanding to garner them very much in the way of discounts for U-wish licenses.
at&t (or SBC or Ameritech or...) can not stand being told what they have to do unless it is something they wanted to do all along. If they can step out front of something they sense will come whether they engage or not, it allows them to influence the solution.
If they create a mouse trap that might be embraced and mandated to others, it could be just good enough to work but require significant diversion to make it work on other networks and distribution schemes.
at&t, my opinion, is trying to avoid being told what to do and how to do it. If they can find a scheme that seems to work, they could get kudos from a variety of desired areas and if the result is mandated for inclusion in other competitive areas but causes the competitors to pause and retrofit or modify while at&t goes down the road...they win/win.
I still have a so-what shrug. Nobody liked it when games and software were copy protected. Nobody liked it when macrovision and other encoding schemes tried to keep unauthorized copies of media from the streets. And, nobody much will like that at&t or someone else comes up with a way to interdict unauthorized sharing. Hackers, phreaks and evil doers will have a hay day with it.
Sortta like restrictor plates on Cup cars. Did it slow them down? Yep, for a while. Now the biggest effect is the waaaay kool wrecks.
--
At Team Discovery we know how to get more outta that danged 'puter of yours! |
|
theorrii
@sbcglobal.net
| reply to lev
I was somewhat alarmed at that news, some time ago, having just switched from Comcast to AT&T DSL, but at least it seems to me that there are concrete things and that there are potential things, or "wish lists".
Ok.
Comcast notifies you when you are "busted" by organizations that end in AA. AT&T is talking about taking these notifications one step further, with a "strikes" policy, essentially. If you're in the habit of uploading copyright-infringing material, AT&T wants to stop you from doing that - most likely by suspending or terminating your account - not much different from what Comcast or any other ISP might do.
So the plan is to "escalate". Which, in turn, keeps the network "clean". Or at least, cleaner. That's not a bad thing.
Knock those folks off the network that are constantly getting "busted".
The deep packet inspection and so forth is very speculative and may be ineffective at stopping piracy without impacting other things.
But the main thing I get from these talking points is simply to "escalate" any instances of subscribers continually uploading copyright-infringing materials regardless of what warnings or notifications they may receive.
As far as filtering, let's say you've failed to respond to numerous emails regarding your online activities, perhaps at that point your IP addy might get "filtered", so as to not pollute the overall network with undesirable things.
By having a "cleaner" network, everyone benefits. Certainly, with dynamic IP addresses, we all share the pool of IP addresses, and it would be nice if we all treated those IP addresses with respect. |
|
