 MarkyDPremium join:2002-08-20 Oklahoma City, OK | This is one of the many reasons I'll likely never go back to AT&T. -- MCSE, ACSA, and a lot more | |
|
 |  | | Re: This is one of the many reasons In the very near future, it might be your only choice. -- Where have the adults gone? | |
|
 |  en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA | Yup... Big brother is ruining the Internet.
On one side: Comcast High(er) speeds, high(er) prices, Sandvine, caps
On the other side: AT&T Low(er) speeds, low(er) prices, NSA/Hollywood sniffing alliance, Microsoft IPTV (I wonder if the STB's track TV watching through Cookies).
Almost makes me think of AOL. Here's the Internet that we think you want to see/view. Anything else is deemed bad/illegal. -- Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: This is one of the many reasons said by en102:Almost makes me think of AOL. Here's the Internet that we think you want to see/view. Anything else is deemed bad/illegal. Great analogy. Take it one step further once the practice is established. The ISPs extort money from smaller web apps to be "verified" through their filter system.
Do you still think broadband is a privalege, and if so, are you happy with this type of topic? | |
|
 |  |  MrMoodyFree range slavePremium join:2002-09-03 Smithfield, NC | said by en102:Yup... Big brother is ruining the Internet. Microsoft IPTV (I wonder if the STB's track TV watching I'd bet the farm on that one, they have an open two-way connection, they're going to use it. -- "It is a future in which globalization really does work ... and everybody winds up getting to be part of the third world." - William Gibson | |
|
 |  |  |  en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA | Re: This is one of the many reasons That's how the wireless version works.... no streaming unless its provided by our content providers (i.e. companies that pay us money ... and we charge money from customers as well as ad providers). Money from every direction. Anything that doesn't pay or become 'approved' is deemed to be pirate and violates TOS. -- Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
 |  N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium join:2003-11-11 Philly burbs kudos:1 | The death star strikes again... | |
|
 |  hihi9 join:2007-05-06 Port Orange, FL | i am disgusted by this sniffling and putting a break on our broadband. oh wait it's our bandwidth. we pay for it but they don't own us but they think they do 
notice how they all spell your name in all caps JOHN DOE or JANE DOE Its on your DL, Birth Certificate and SS as well If you really own yourself then it would be spelled John Doe since that represent a person and not a corp aka strawman, not alive. | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: This is one of the many reasons Your not a person! Your all corn farmers! Them corn farmers spell in all CAPS right? ;D | |
|
 |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | Yeah, great choices eh?
AT&T with their NSA/Filter/blocking on one side.
COX on the other with their oh-so-generous 40GB per month data transfer cap. I guess most COX users are "Bandwidth Hogs" eh?
I'm tired of being the football to be punted around. I'd like some real service, real options, and real technology for my real money these companies keep taking. -- "Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
 OlegBellsouth FastaccessPremium join:2003-12-08 Birmingham, AL kudos:2 | Re: AT&T Piracy Filters Tread Dangerous Ground Wonder if costumer will have an option allow or block  | |
|
 |  amungusPremium join:2004-11-26 America | Re: AT&T Piracy Filters Tread Dangerous Ground Anyone in Costumes will immediately be assumed to be somebody they're not. sarcasm... | |
|
 |
 jjoshuaPremium join:2001-06-01 Scotch Plains, NJ kudos:3 | AT&T != ISP AT&T should no longer be considered an ISP or be able to advertise "internet" access if they filter content. | |
|
 |  morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 | Re: AT&T != ISP but think of the profit! | |
|
 DHRacerTech Monkey join:2000-10-10 Lake Arrowhead, CA | Not of this country Welcome to China!
ISPs should be pipe providers only, plain and simple. Irrespective of the content that passes through them. | |
|
 |  | | Re: Not of this country You should check out the management team at Vobile and you'll suddenly see irony of your statement... Pay specific attention to the founder of the company. | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: Not of this country "Yangbin earned a BS degree from Zhejiang University in China "
Geez.... -- Where have the adults gone? | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: Not of this country With all the press regarding "Lead Contamination" in products... could we see "LEAD" in the internet connections that would make our systems ill?  | |
|
 |  |  |  |  batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ | Re: Not of this country The Yellow-Red menace is the hacking capitol of the world. With the US of A going to a computerized defense system US could be in big trouble in the not too distant future. | |
|
 |  | | The Business Week article is full of interesting things:
said by »www.businessweek.com/technology/···rss_tech :AT&T confirms it has invested in Vobile, but a spokesperson says the company has "not selected or endorsed any specific technology" for its antipiracy efforts, and didn't confirm talks with Disney or NBC. said by »www.businessweek.com/technology/···ge_2.htm :AT&T first learned of the Santa Clara startup through its chairman, Vernon Altman, a senior partner at Bain & Co., who also knows CEO Stevenson. Sources say AT&T's Stevenson, Disney CEO Bob Iger, and NBC Universal's Jeff Zucker have been involved personally in the discussions. said by »www.businessweek.com/technology/···ge_2.htm :What's more, if AT&T can convince consumers to let it monitor what they're watching through so-called opt-in agreements, it could offer far more detailed information on their likes and dislikes, in turn enabling AT&T and its partners to land lucrative deals with advertisers hungry for such data. | |
|
 |  batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ | said by DHRacer:Welcome to China! ISPs should be pipe providers only, plain and simple. Irrespective of the content that passes through them. Ma Bell, the common carrier, is dead and yet the people bitch. | |
|
 danclan join:2005-11-01 Midlothian, VA 1 edit | Before everyone gets their boxers in a bunch none of the companies have ever established that their products work...work on encrypted packets...work on ascii converted data etc....until someone can demonstrate that stuff can actually determine that the contents of say a p2p encrypted packet are of copy writed content ....i think you can relax
from their web site it appears to be more aligned with stopping youtube type uploads etc...
i could be talking out my butt here.... | |
|
 |  | | Re: Before everyone gets their boxers in a bunch They'll just ban encryption on their network or degrade it... If they can find a way to identify pirated content getting around pesky checks and balances like encryption, vpn ssh, etc is a walk in the park./tin foil hat off. Take this at least partially seriously. | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: Before everyone gets their boxers in a bunch Yeah right. If they ban encryption they will lose subscribers by the truck load. I wouldn't be surprised to see them lose 5-10% inside of 3 months of doing this.
VPN is a key legitimate use of encryption that all kinds of people use to do work from home.
Normal people would get their pitch forks over something like this. | |
|
 |  |  |  batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ | Re: Before everyone gets their boxers in a bunch said by jdjbuffalo:Normal people would get their pitch forks over something like this. Ready normal people? Ready! The internet is for porn. | |
|
 |  |  swhx7Premium join:2006-07-23 Elbonia | From »www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/08···plosion/ :
quote: Neil Armstrong, products director at BT-owned ISP PlusNet, said: "It isn't possible for us to tell if a customer is downloading a copyright file or not unless we specifically 'snoop' every packet on the customer's line.
"We would obviously only do this where we have a proper request from the relevant legal authority to do so, and even then it is unlikely we would be able to see inside encrypted payloads."
[...]
The rapid acceleration in encryption isn't limited to BitTorrenters. Estimates say torrent traffic accounts for about between 50 and 60 per cent of all file-sharing. Usenet, which the RIAA recently said is a bigger offender than Kazaa-type services, accounts for about another 25 per cent. It's set to see more scrambled files shared over it, too, as providers including Giganews now offer SSL encryption.
Paul Sanders, part of the team of music and ISP veterans behind PlayLouder [said] "I think this trend is absolutely a warning to those people in the music industry who believe they can win this war"
| |
|
 |  |  | | There is no REASONABLE reason to get around encryption. They would be violating privacy issue for the customers. What we do is NONE of the "dumb pipe's" business. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: Before everyone gets their boxers in a bunch Ah, but that assumes a dumb pipe. If their is a need for large scale encryption in the situation we are talking about it is already not an unfiltered pipe. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ | Re: Before everyone gets their boxers in a bunch said by grandpinaple:Ah, but that assumes a dumb pipe. If their is a need for large scale encryption in the situation we are talking about it is already not an unfiltered pipe. People want the ISP to control spam, trolling and many other uses of the internet. You can't have it both ways. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  ThalerPremium join:2004-02-02 Los Angeles, CA kudos:3 | Re: Before everyone gets their boxers in a bunch said by batterup:People want the ISP to control spam, trolling and many other uses of the internet. You can't have it both ways. Customers like features that add benefit to them. How exactly is gimpifying their net exactly a selling "feature"? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  See 6 replies to this post |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  | | No one has expressed interest in control of trolling and if they have they are the minority. Spam is and always will be a problem. People have more or less accepted this. People want the ISP to control spam, but I don't see how that relates to dumb pipes so please elaborate. Oh and list the other controls users want so I can specifically answer them. | |
|
 |  3 edits | - sarcasim - Privacy - that was so 19th century......
Using encrypted technologies is a dead give away that you are doing something illegal. They will simply block all encrypted data. If you don't have anything to hide...so why are you using encrytion? Soon the only way to surf the net will be totally naked with a blind fold.
Edit: - SARCASIM - | |
|
 |  |  en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA | Re: Before everyone gets their boxers in a bunch Yeah - I'll just put my SSN, and bank account info into a non SSL / HTTPS bank web site. -- Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
 |  |  MadcapBaby's on FirePremium join:2004-06-26 Fpo, AP | You mean all this time I was supposed to be wearing clothes? | |
|
 |  |  | | Would you like to buy from ebay or amazon with encryption when entering in your social security and credit card numbers. I think they will get sued to death if this happens. Its an invasion of privacy and theres a law that says that any isp blocking access to features or future growth of the net is going against the law. They would be stupid to do this. Hope they pay big time if they do this. You can't kill something bad without taking out part of the good crowd to. Piracy has been happening since the dawn of time with music and all types of stuff. Music and images never had copyright back than either. It was actually encouraged to get someones music in the 19th century and improve on it. Now you can't do jack because people are so dam greedy. I bet if copyright laws were less restrictive we would have gotten like 1GB internet already with super cheap computers and parts. We would be advancing so fast we wouldn't even remember the time we hit 600mhz cpu. I think its all scam with at&t practically. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: Before everyone gets their boxers in a bunch Without encryption i meant  | |
|
 | | Conflict of interest Isn't it in some way illegal for AT&T to degrade internet service to promote their own television service. I mean regardless of whether the content is pirated or not, the removal of pirated content from a network that was built on the backs of tax payers should be left to proper legal process. I know I'll get a bunch of responses that say, "It's their network," but it's really not. Tax subsidies and monthly bills pay their network bills so technically it's our network. Not to mention the fact that they were a government sanctioned monopoly for the better part of their days. AT&T should be broken up into HSI and television sellers... I think when people start to realize that it is actually our network and that it will be very difficult to build another one (again on our backs) they will understand how critical it is to oppose AT&T. This really makes me angry because while the world moves into the direction of eliminating middle men like the RIAA and MPAA AT&T takes a step backwards. What they are doing is simply illegal. | |
|
 |  jester121Premium join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL | Re: Conflict of interest LMAO...
Why don't you try commandeering a police car in your town (after all, your tax dollars pay for it so it must be yours!) and let me know how your argument holds up.
What is this, the new "warm fuzzy" socialist movement? | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: Conflict of interest Actually your police car analogy works perfectly against you. You can't individually commandeer a police car, but collectively you can. That is what this is collective action against a corporation overstepping it's legal bounds. You see the police car also has to abide by laws that the rest of society agrees upon. If the police officer driving the car starts doing illegal things with the car then the car will be commandeered and the officer punished by no less than the government itself. So in that sense the taxpayers are collectively commandeering the car. Same argument applies to AT&T. We paid for their network, (in part) the government gave them right of way and a monopoly. So guess what, when they start abusing their position as a network provider, we will happily commandeer their police car and give it to someone more worthy to drive. | |
|
 |  |  |  jester121Premium join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL | Re: Conflict of interest Truly a dizzying intellect -- by your logic any company that sells anything belongs to the community at large (after all, if our money hadn't bought their product they wouldn't exist), and therefore we can all just take what we want at any time, all the time.
I don't even know how to categorize this way of thinking -- communist anarchy?
I knew this was going to be fun when I got to the part about police cars having to abide by laws.  | |
|
 |  |  |  |  | | Re: Conflict of interest Ok so first off, you've conceded the police car analogy to work for my model of the corporation (since you didn't choose to answer it in any way). Now onto your second example:
Companies do belong to their respective communities. Companies have to abide by the local laws regarding pollution, right of way, zoning laws, etc... If they break these laws then they will be punished, but they won't necessarily be repossessed. They may however be forced to pack up their toys and leave the factory or whatever other space they are occupying. If it is just one dissatisfied customer not much will happen as usual because the customer is free to take their business elsewhere.
Even though I have basically shown how your analogy works in my favor I must reiterate that we are talking about a company that was built on the backs of taxpayers and was given a government sanctioned monopoly. So we have a completely different situation where the consumers hold even more rights. Not to mention the fact that the company was given right of way (although this is part of the monopoly argument).
All things aside, on the topic of government land seizures, if it weren't for eminent domain a lot of good things would not have come to fruition in this country. | |
|
 |  |  |
 1 edit | Oh noes Hmmm they are stopping illegal activity. Whats the problem again?
Oh yeah, there's a bunch of whiny, warez, illegal movie downloaders here. | |
|
 |  See 20 replies to this post |
|
 mjwise join:2007-05-09 Ann Arbor, MI | So....yeah... the whole marketing it as stopping child pornography thing? How the heck would that even work? Wouldn't they actually have to have a collection (!) of it to match stuff flowing through their network against? Would they have to have people actively try to collect it? Doesn't that seem like a really bad idea? | |
|
 |  | | Re: So....yeah... Not necessarily. They can use hashes of the material. These hashes could be provided from the FBI. When they get a request for a media file they could then run the same algorithm that the FBI uses to produce the hash and see if it matches any in their database.
Btw, this is likely one way they will do checks for these media files too (there are others but most take a good amount of time to run. I doubt people will be willing to wait to get their media files for minutes or hours to verify their validity) | |
|
 | | Arabic? Why is there Arabic writing in the article header image? | |
|
 |  jester121Premium join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL | Re: Arabic? Because Karl thinks Americans are scared of anything to do with people who write like that, and naturally AT&T is just as evil. | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: Arabic? No, it's actually just a form of encyption. Remember, if you have nothing to hide, why use encyrption? Having an expectation of privacy is the same reason we wear clothes. You may have an ides what someone is concealing in there, but it's none of your business. -- Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
|
 exocet_cmI am the law - Judge DreddPremium join:2003-03-23 New Orleans, LA kudos:2 1 edit | New Layout! Will look like this after these technologies are implemented. | |
|
 amungusPremium join:2004-11-26 America Reviews:
·KCH Cable
·AT&T DSL Service
| that diagram.. Looks like yet another layer of latency at the very least. Wonder how gamers will react, or if it'll affect them.
Either way, I seriously doubt that their measures will impact anything.
Cat, mouse, cat, mouse, cat, mouse, TIGER - OMG!!!
Good ol "Ma Bell" with their ill communication... | |
|
 |  gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall join:2002-04-07 Santa Cruz, CA | Re: that diagram.. If people get higher latency because of this, making the network sluggish, they will lose customers. When AOL got huge, thier network suffered huge pings and disconnects. Then they started auto-disconnecting people, it went from bad to worse, and people left in droves.
If they really wanted to stop piracy, they could donate to law enforcement cybersquads, to have them enforce the laws. | |
|
 | | Encryption It's hard to determine the contents of an encrypted packet. Unless they begin cutting access to secure.usenetserver.com, they will not be able to stop me at all. | |
|
 hopeflickerCapitalism breeds greedPremium join:2003-04-03 Long Beach, CA kudos:1 | ZIP/RAR What about archives that are password protected. Is it possible that their system can "peek" inside these archives? -- People pray to God because they're told to. | |
|
 |  Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDISPremium join:2000-09-05 Dallas, TX | Re: ZIP/RAR I doubt it.
So far, there hasn't been a single anti-piracy technology that has proven to be 100% effective. Even Sandvine has been bypassed. -- "The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
| |
|
 | | Thought about switching to Uverse Time warner promotional deal and the bill went up by $50. Was angry and thought about swtiching. Talked to nice AT&T lady who was going door to door promoting UVerse. Considerd offer - I could save $. Then I remembered reading about proposed AT&T content restrictions on BBR.
No thanks AT&T. Time Warner is not cheap, but I'll keep them for now. Chose the service that does not hamstrung with chains and manacles. | |
|
 | | Safe Harbour By actively scanning for "illegal" file activity, won't AT&T loose their 'safe harbour' status as an ISP?
Given that they will be "protecting" us, we will have the right to sue them when they mess up and don't "protect" us.
They really might want to reconsider this move...... | |
|
 |  | | Re: Safe Harbour Actually since ATT is of the knowledge of what is being transferred thru there network I would think the RIAA and MPAA could beat the safe harbor protections easily in a court of law and receive a judgment for damages. I do hope there legal department considers that aspect. | |
|
 jgkoltPremium join:2004-02-21 Lakewood, OH | near zero Bah How do they know if the file being transfered is legal or not? How do they know if i transfer an mp3 file to someone else wither or not we both have the physical mp3? That is flawed right there. -- 3 free for you/3 free for me: Free Stock Trades : PM Me | |
|
 |  pokesphIt Is Almost FastPremium join:2001-06-25 Sacramento, CA kudos:1 | Re: near zero said by jgkolt:Bah How do they know if the file being transfered is legal or not? How do they know if i transfer an mp3 file to someone else wither or not we both have the physical mp3? That is flawed right there. OR if it's being transfered from, oh lets say, my home machine to my lap top while I'm out on the road somewhere.. (same for some previously recorded / saves (dvr ?) video file or anything really) | |
|
 |  gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall join:2002-04-07 Santa Cruz, CA | Because they are lawyers, they KNOW the law (at least 50% of the time.) | |
|
 |  LeeWL join:2002-11-10 Morrisville, NC | said by jgkolt:Bah How do they know if the file being transferred is legal or not? How do they know if i transfer an mp3 file to someone else wither or not we both have the physical mp3? That is flawed right there. Recently, DirecTV launched an On Demand service that uses the internet to allow you to select files for download. They have movies, TV and other content. All of that is copyrighted material, but I assume that DirecTV has cleared the rights for that form of distribution. Is this new setup going to be able to tell.
And of course, this is a competing service to ATT. I am sure they will go out of the way to make sure that it does not get "accidentally" delayed or degraded. | |
|
 Irun Manwhat obstacle?Premium join:2002-10-18 Walden, NY | Glad AT&T doesn't offer home BB service here! AT&T wants to fight piracy with this, but plans to sell it to Joe and Jane Broadband Consumer as a weapon in the war against child pornography?
Who in their right mind would even attempt to copyright such a thing? -- Don't pay ME back, pay it forward. | |
|
 | | What a crock!! Yeah, What a crock on AT&T's part for even thinking this!! | |
|
 SabreDi relung hatiku bernyanyi bidadari join:2005-05-17 | It's not about the piracy. This has nothing to do with "piracy". This is about control, plain and simple.
I have written things that I have posted on the Internet. They are copyrighted, to me, as the original content creator. Now, anyone who would take that, reproduce it, or otherwise make use of it, without my express permission, is committing an act of piracy and breaking the law. As content creator and holder of the copyright, it is mine to decide who I allow to access and use my three-page diatribe on what's wrong with Final Fantasy 7.
Now, what if I choose to exercise those rights against AT&T users? Suppose there are specific users out there I want my essay blocked from. How am I going to do that? •How is AT&T going to determine the identity of every single user, in order to confirm whether or not it's one I want blocked? •What procedures will I be offered to verify if a violation of my copyright has occurred? And what greivance procedures are there, and how will AT&T assist me? •Primarily, are they going to give a darn about me, a private individual copyright holder?
My suspicion is that the answers are •They can't, •None, •Not on your life.
This is about cuddling up to certain major institutions, primarily the **AAs (and maybe some international equivalents). Say what you want about whether what they're doing is right or wrong, but I believe that what they're claiming here is not only unfeasible, but extremely limited.
This is about giving the **AAs et al. what they're asking for - control. Control over who can see what they own, how much it costs, how it's distributed. It's not about stopping piracy. Piracy is one very large and well-animated strawman. -- With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world.
Save American Soccer - Stop the MLS! | |
|
 |  elveySpamassassin join:2001-02-17 San Francisco, CA | Re: It's not about the piracy. Excellent essay!
I'm wondering: What fraction of the folks reading this thread and thinking 'yeah, how dare they invade my privacy' actually have and use PGP or S/MIME email? | |
|
 |
|