dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
3074

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Hmmm...

How much did 4chan.org pay AT&T for this publicity?

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

probably not a cent. its too sweet of a deal for them.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 edit

FFH5 to pnh102

Premium Member

to pnh102
And it didn't stop DailyKos from jumping to the wrong conclusions and going off on a rant:
»www.dailykos.com/storyon ··· -tonight
Expand your moderator at work

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102 to ArrayList

Premium Member

to ArrayList

Re: Hmmm...

said by ArrayList:

probably not a cent. its too sweet of a deal for them.
I must be getting cynical. I must admit that prior to this story I'd never heard of this website.

While I don't have any evidence to back up this assertion, I've come to believe that the saying "you can't buy this type of publicity" isn't really that true anymore.

cameronsfx
join:2009-01-08
Panama City, FL

cameronsfx to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
Well, AT&T blocked MySpace once blaming a "router issue." Even MySpace said it was an AT&T issue and they were working with AT&T. Funny, however, once Murdoch bought MySpace, no issues again.

It does raise the specter of AT&T blocking websites in the "public interest."

I don't know the truth so perhaps AT&T should publish it with facts to support it.
Expand your moderator at work

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102 to cameronsfx

Premium Member

to cameronsfx

Re: Hmmm...

said by cameronsfx:

I don't know the truth so perhaps AT&T should publish it with facts to support it.
There is legal precedent that would allow for AT&T to be punished for blocking any website. I would refer to the case of one DSL provider blocking access to VOIP providers a few years back (the details escape me).

Furthermore, I would imagine that AT&T probably does not want to play the role of content police. Blocking access to certain parts of certain websites would most likely result in AT&T losing "common carrier" status with regard to its Internet network.
Expand your moderator at work
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin to pnh102

Member

to pnh102

Re: Hmmm...

4chan did not buy publicity to reach the likes of you.
Expand your moderator at work

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to pnh102

Member

to pnh102

Re: Hmmm...

I had heard of it but figured it was on the same level of crap as Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter.
Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium Member
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO

Corydon to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
I'd say that the underlying assumption, that we need some kind of net neutrality, is sound regardless of the reasons for the temporary "ban".

Last night, AT&T demonstrated that they can block access to a particular site and that, under certain circumstances (whatever those may be), they are willing to block access to certain sites.

In this case, apparently 4chan was blocked because it was the target of an ongoing DDOS attack. Well what kind of message does that send to attackers? That if they make life hard enough for a big enough ISP, they actually do have the power to shut down access to their targeted site?

That's a recipe to guarantee that these attacks continue and, if anything, get worse. Who do the script kiddies target next? The RNC? The White House? AT&T just set a bad precedent.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

said by Corydon:

I'd say that the underlying assumption, that we need some kind of net neutrality, is sound regardless of the reasons for the temporary "ban".

Last night, AT&T demonstrated that they can block access to a particular site and that, under certain circumstances (whatever those may be), they are willing to block access to certain sites.

In this case, apparently 4chan was blocked because it was the target of an ongoing DDOS attack. Well what kind of message does that send to attackers? That if they make life hard enough for a big enough ISP, they actually do have the power to shut down access to their targeted site?

That's a recipe to guarantee that these attacks continue and, if anything, get worse. Who do the script kiddies target next? The RNC? The White House? AT&T just set a bad precedent.
I don't see it that way. The site is back up - probably after AT&T & the web site putting mitigation measures in place to blunt the effect of the DDOS attacks. A reasonable response to what occurred.

Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
MVM
join:2003-02-18
San Jose, CA

Nerdtalker to pnh102

MVM

to pnh102
Uh... They didn't pay anything. In fact, that'd be breaking the rules as a matter of fact.

I'm just glad AT&T went and fixed this before things got too out of hand. Backlash is probably still coming though.

I read that thread last night as this was taking off and agree with the one guy who asks if anybody's ever heard of spoofed headers. Why the hell would 4chan be DDoSing itself? This is a completely clueless statement made by AT&T to admit wrongdoing; it's their way of covering their a**es before the cogs of the internet hate machine got fully spinning. Perhaps wise, but unwise of them to not admit wrongdoing and instead mutter something about DDoS and ARP and reliability that doesn't make sense.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList to battleop

Premium Member

to battleop
no. 4chan (especially /b/) is far below the likes of social networking sites.
ArrayList

ArrayList to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
it does not matter why they blocked it. the point is is that they proved they have the means to do it and are willing to do it. net neutrality takes that job away from them.

goofy01
join:2004-02-05
Hammond, IN

goofy01

Member

Not if they claim the offender is attacking their network or their customers.
Expand your moderator at work

Dennis
Mod
join:2001-01-26
Algonquin, IL

4 recommendations

Dennis to ArrayList

Mod

to ArrayList

Re: Hmmm...

said by ArrayList:

the point is is that they proved they have the means to do it and are willing to do it. net neutrality takes that job away from them.
AT&T controls the routing within their network and peering routers via something you might have heard of called the IP protocol (TCP and UDP). They have always had the ability to control where traffic flows...everyone has, it's how the internet works.

Net neutrality is a seperate issue and to be quite frank if you can't understand that you shouldn't really comment on it. The issues surrounding net neutrality don't have to do with blocking certain websites (although they can) but rather imparing or giving the ISP some type of unfair advantage that upsets the playing field.

This whole situation is really just being overblown.

SLD
Premium Member
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA

SLD

Premium Member

Whoh....nice bitch-slap, man!

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords to ArrayList

MVM

to ArrayList
said by ArrayList:

it does not matter why they blocked it. the point is is that they proved they have the means to do it and are willing to do it. net neutrality takes that job away from them.
I think that 4chan was the focus of a DDOS attack and the node was, innocently, sending back ACKs to the forged SYNs it received. If true, that's a good enough reason for AT&T to null route that IP and it's not a Network Neutrality issue at all.
dynodb
Premium Member
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

1 recommendation

dynodb

Premium Member

Right, because the kiddies at 4chan would never, ever be involved in perpetrating a DoS attack

cameronsfx
join:2009-01-08
Panama City, FL

cameronsfx to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
said by pnh102:

said by cameronsfx:

I don't know the truth so perhaps AT&T should publish it with facts to support it.
There is legal precedent that would allow for AT&T to be punished for blocking any website. I would refer to the case of one DSL provider blocking access to VOIP providers a few years back (the details escape me).

Furthermore, I would imagine that AT&T probably does not want to play the role of content police. Blocking access to certain parts of certain websites would most likely result in AT&T losing "common carrier" status with regard to its Internet network.
Hmm....I care if AT&T loses common carrier status? NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
cameronsfx

cameronsfx to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
said by pnh102:

How much did 4chan.org pay AT&T for this publicity?
As some people say, "Who cares?"

Never been there, never will.

4Chan.org sounds like some group to promote Jackie Chan movies!

WeRAnonymous
Professional Troll
join:2008-12-10
Ottawa, ON

1 recommendation

WeRAnonymous to ArrayList

Member

to ArrayList
said by ArrayList:

no. 4chan (especially /b/) is far below the likes of social networking sites.
I saw what you did thar!