| reply to pnh102
Re: Hmmm... 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. |
|
|
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | 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.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
| 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
 FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | indeed. |
|
