AT&T this year will voluntarily put mechanisms in place that will filter pirated material from the company's network. No specific technology has been announced, but insiders say that AT&T has been testing a solution from Vobile since last Spring. Yesterday at CES AT&T's chief lobbyist met with NBC, Microsoft and others to discuss the company's filtering plans.
quote:Mr. Cicconi said that AT&T has been talking to technology companies, and members of the MPAA and RIAA, for the last six months about implementing digital fingerprinting techniques on the network level.
As we've noted previously, AT&T is treading very dangerous ground here. Moral and legal debates aside for a moment, the elephant in the room has long been that p2p piracy has driven this industry, and by eliminating this as an option, many consumers will take their business elsewhere. There's also the fact that if poorly implemented, AT&T's countermeasures could impact legitimate content.
Investors may also not appreciate the added expense of AT&T playing piracy cop. P2P use continues to grow, and it's not as if the RIAA and MPAA haven't been using drastic measures to try and stop it. AT&T's deep pockets might help, but what precisely is AT&T's risk/reward ratio with such expenditures?
AT&T's clearly aware that the company needs to tread carefully. "Whatever we do has to pass muster with consumers and with policy standards," says chief AT&T lobbyist James Cicconi. "There is going to be a spotlight on it," he says. "We’ve got to figure out a friendly way to do it, there’s no doubt about it."
Question is, who do you go to?? I have AT&T and Comcast as my choices. One already filters P2P, and hinders other apps, and one is getting ready to. I am really not for government intervention in most things, but they are the ones that let them get this big so they need to control them too.
Considering they are a major part of the internet backbone, you aren't "going" anywhere. At some point or another, you are going to cross this network, and if they filter at their Peering routers, it won't matter who you "go" to...it can be stopped..
If it touches my business connections at all, I'll pull all our services from AT&T, the DSL, T1 and phone service. I'm tired of their shit and unreliably. For that $3000/m, we could do better.
I'm a little pissed off cause I've been waiting for them to give me the binding post number for the new fax line that was supposedly installed mid December.
The first time this impacts my connection by slowing it down, increasing my latency, or keeps me from downloading legal content I'm gone.
This isn't smart business policy. If you Google something, say a movie, and when you click the results, you get redirected to AT&T's ad page for unresolved URLs? Google indexes everything possible. Some things might be questionable but not illegal but blocked anyway.
How about a website selling MP3s from Indie artists being blocked? Or, blocking Yahoo msr transfers? Blocking VOIP apps? Blocking used DVDs or CDs on Amazon or Ebay?
This sounds like a clear "interfering with interstate commerce" situation. Is AT&T just looking for an excuse by Congress to enact "network neutrality" legislation?
Also, how does this affect their safe harbor status? If they have these filters and some bozo has illegal content on a homepage on AT&T, no DMCA takedown necessary just sue AT&T. The just took on the "policing role" so content on their network illegally is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
It also sounds like Sprint's deal where they change the contract terms and now all contracts are cancelled.
All the good muddy-boot Republicans will magically discover the illegal AT&T spying once Hillary is elected. In a heartbeat, protecting the US Constitution will become Republican job #1.
Let's hope the day never comes that Hilary is elected to anything.
You ever heard of an obscure little thing called "New York"?
Now, I'm not a Hillary fan, but I'm just curious to know what you find so bad about her. At least one thing I've discovered over the past decade is that most everything "evil" about Hillary was invented by the right wing attack dogs. I've got some issues with her husband's trade policies, so the Clintons are not beyond reproach. But please, tell me what she has done that makes it so horrible if she were to be "elected to anything".
I don't think they're going to try the things you mention - interfering with searches, purchases etc.. From what I've read in the articles about this, it seems they're going to inspect packets for the actual files.
To the grandparent poster's question, I wonder how it will affect connections. If they split the stream and inspect a copy while letting the original packets go thru, it would not slow things at all. If they are intecepting and literally filtering, it would be make the whole internet service sluggish.
Virus scanning servers that do this for companies add around 20ms of extra latency. So people web surfing probably wont notice a thing. Gamers wont be happy though. The problem is these fall apart when the files being scanned get into the GB range. Maybe they will have some smart way of doing it with a smaller set of information.
This isn't smart business policy. .... This sounds like a clear "interfering with interstate commerce" situation. Is AT&T just looking for an excuse by Congress to enact "network neutrality" legislation?
Also, how does this affect their safe harbor status? If they have these filters and some bozo has illegal content on a homepage on AT&T, no DMCA takedown necessary just sue AT&T. The just took on the "policing role" so content on their network illegally is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Yeah, that's what I have been thinking. I mean either AT&T's counsel has been asleep at the wheel, or this retroactive immunity shit has made them think they can do absolutely whatever the f they want to support corporate friends (**AA, etc.), and get away with it. THIS MUST NOT STAND! Perhaps this will be the opening needed to bust 'em for their organized crime involvement. If they can (try to) keep file sharers off their network (even when its fair use, though admittedly that's not the norm) then certainly they can be expected to limit the actions of criminal abusers of their network when they are notified of or are aware of their blatant abuse.
2. It will not work for more than ten minutes before there is a workaround.
If it does screw up my connection I will just buy a couple of DS3 connections. I have been crunching numbers about starting up a WISP anyway to sell Internet access to two of our Industrial Parks and lots of my customers that live in the sticks and have no hope of anything but satellite.
quote:The first time this impacts my connection by slowing it down, increasing my latency, or keeps me from downloading legal content I'm gone.
Yup. The service I'm looking for in an internet connection is a pure data pipe. If they start selectively filtering stuff, I not only will never use them, but I will even make sure I steer my corporate clients onto alternative ISPs.
I can deal with throttling/shaping for bandwidth management reasons, but not outright filtering.
The minute they start filter content, I'd think that should kill their claims to common carrier status, since they are now deciding what is and isn't ok at the content level. I would think now you've just widened your liability by actively participating in censure/filtering.
I always see these posts regarding carrier status, but is this a reality in modern times? Are there enforcible laws that ding providers who muss with content instead of just passing it along? I've never seen an example of an ISP losing their "carrier status" because of their choice to filter or shape traffic.
I don't think we've ever had an issue with ISPs monitoring what their customers are doing and telling them "nope, you can't view that". So there wouldn't be an example. When the ISP stops passing data along to customers and starts inspecting and deciding the legitimacy of the data I don't believe they'll be immune to lawsuits. If the ISP is monitoring traffic and inspecting it to determine if its pirated I believe they can then be held responsible for piracy on their network.
Edit: The law was explained to me like this. UPS doesn't look inside your package. They've got no clue what it is. If you packaged an illegal substance in the box UPS can't be held responsible. They don't check what they're shipping. The shipper is legally responsible for what they're putting in that box.
I don't think we've ever had an issue with ISPs monitoring what their customers are doing and telling them "nope, you can't view that". So there wouldn't be an example. When the ISP stops passing data along to customers and starts inspecting and deciding the legitimacy of the data I don't believe they'll be immune to lawsuits. If the ISP is monitoring traffic and inspecting it to determine if its pirated I believe they can then be held responsible for piracy on their network.
Sure, as I already posted, there goes their safe harbor status. If you're going to be the cop, it's your rear on the line now.
Well Yes and no on the UPS example. Companies do make you declare what you post and assume it is truthful. Also, these companies (UPS, USPS, Fedex DHL, etc), scan packages to make sure they are not drugs or explosives I am sure. I would imagine some packages are screened without being opened. Therefore, these companies are liable if say something explosive were delivered. I don't think for one moment large packages go without inspection. Hence, postal carriers do hold liability in what's mailed or so I'd think. However, a better example would be with freight. If a company fails to inspect their containers properly (as is happening now) and something gets in, I'm sure they can fine that company.
I've had items of mine opened while in transit, but it was by Customs at the US-Canada border. I'm pretty sure UPS and Fedex couldn't care less about what's in the package, because they aren't paid to care.
Yes however, UPS clearly posts they reserve the right to inspect any packaged tendered to them for transportation/carrage. The same as FedEx, USPS (though they have more hoops to jump through b4 its ok), DHL, ect....
Nah, we won't screw with anything as uninspiring as that. The best thing to do here is to let AT&T go ahead and make the investment, roll this out completely, and then introduce legislation that requires any network provider who practices content filtering to filter for obscene content and child pornography. No matter how many overpaid ex-staffers SBC throws at that one, they will lose; after all, won't SOMEBODY please think about the children. I expect we could move that in a matter of weeks. After all, who can argue against protecting the children.
For the repubs, we're not requiring investment by network operators who have chosen not to add this tier to the networks, all we're saying is that if you are already filtering, you have to do this too. For the dems, well, we're protecting the children, and they don't have a problem with new business rules. Criminal sanctions for failure the filter the child porn sound about right, seeing as AT&T has opened the door. After that, Justice just has to have an intern set up an account with a web-based usenet provider, access it over AT&T, and let the fines fly.
This can only end one way for at&t - badly. There is no way that they can legitimately implement filtering technology that will please both the consumer and the entertainment industry overlords. It's just impossible.
I thought that U-Verse was the dumbest idea ever... Guess I was wrong.
What happens if this filter BLOCKS legit content? Say you have just taken a lot of family photos and now wish to upload them to a friend. You rar or zip them. Will this filter target them as piracy? What happens if you take video and send to friend, (avi, mpg, etc), will it flag this is piracy also? How exactly will this technology differentiate between legal and illegal? Honestly, I say ATT is looking to be sued into oblivion. Those NSA lawsuits are already pending, and LUCKILY, they don't have immunity yet. Top this off with new ones and this company is looking at some huge losses if these suits proceed. Frankly, I think it's time shareholders oust the board and president in favor of a new one. Unless they love losing huge amounts of money and seeing net losses on their dividends, this company's shareholders need to step in and make some immediate corrections. My 2 cents.
Now that the telcos have entered the digital movie distribution business, did any of you really think they would continue to allow you to run your pirate2pirate servers?
These guys are insane, stupid or just like appearing that way. When has anyone been able to put a dent in piracy over P2P, let alone been able to do it without interfering with legitimate downloads? Haven't the **AA's been trying this for years only to see an increase in piracy? Whatever AT&T can come up with I'm sure someone will find a way to defeat it soon enough. That's not taking into consideration the legal issues.
i know some people hate the government meddling in the economics or anything else, but the sooner the a net nuetrality bill (along with something on connection filtering) is passed the better. if it is written well, isps won't be able to filter content. i also don't think att should be acting like the police. i also wouldn't be surprised if there are some deep and hidden connections to the mpaa and riaa to att.
i think another solution would be also to break up the mafia like orgainizations with monopoly-like powers RIAA and MPAA.
When will AT&T finally realize that internet piracy filters:
1. DO NOT stop piracy AT ALL!! Hell, these filters won't even slow piracy down!! 2. Slows down internet traffic. 3. Angers and annoys legal users. 4. Blocks legitimate, legal content. 5. Will be cracked just like the ten year-old kid in Australia did a few weeks back. 6. Could drive AT&T into the financial abyss in terms of lawsuits from customers, content providers, and loss of common carrier status.
I for one will go to my ISP in Upstate South Carolina(who is an AT&T re-seller)and ask that they NOT implement these proposed piracy filters.
The vobile website seems to be implying that they would be watermarking (videoDNA or whatever they call it) movies, and that it will survive compression. Then they scan for it a few data chunks at a time. Doesn't hollywood already do something like this to catch people who mess around with screening copies?
This really isn't even worth debating, or worrying about. It'll simply never fly. It's a huge wast of money. If you own AT&T stock, you may want to evaluate if now is the time to sale. I intend to buy once they realize what a disaster is, as their stock price drops. I love the idea, it's gonna be a money maker for me.
This really isn't even worth debating, or worrying about. It'll simply never fly. It's a huge wast of money. If you own AT&T stock, you may want to evaluate if now is the time to sale. I intend to buy once they realize what a disaster is, as their stock price drops.
Furthermore, as soon as they try to do it everyone migrates to encrypted/password protected files that can't watermarked. It's really stupid.
So, will all P2P apps have built in encryption now to overcome this?
ALso, DirecTV is starting their On Demand service which uses the internet connection to deliver shows to your DVR. I would say pretty much every single show they have is copyrighted by someone. Will this service be able to tell teh difference?
This is going to be a very dumb idea. For instance, I am employed at a hospital. We have a legal copy of the 2006 NFPA revision cycle on one of our servers so I can access it at any workstation on our network. Right now, I can be at one of our sattlite clinics 30 or 40 miles away from the hospital and still access the entire NFPA CD. Since we just bought a hospital in an adjoining state, I will be needing to access this info to insure that the new hospital is in compliance. Since AT&T is our provider, when I try to access the NFPA database on the server from the another location, this has the potential to block it! The NFPA CD is copyrighted and copy protected, and this is why I argued for the purchase of the network licensed CD!!
Sounds to me like some well-laid plans to lose not only my personal business, but many large corporate accounts.
"AT&T's deep pockets might help, but what precisely is AT&T's risk/reward ratio with such expenditures?"
If AT&T or Vista's DRM can produce a means to distribute content while preventing piracy it would be attractive to the provider who doesn't want it pirated. In turn, the end user who desires the content goes to where the content is available.
"Movies, music, and literature! Available now through AT&T and Vista!"
Seems a plausable reward it does, whether it's Vista, AT&T or anyone capable of national distribution.
"In turn, the end user who desires the content goes to where the content is available."
Umm, it's AVAILABLE in a BETTER format for free. That's what piracy is by definition.
Vista has not stopped HD video from being pirated, it's physically impossible to do so. The computer DOES WHAT IT'S TOLD, not what the copyright owners tell it to do. I can watch a HD DVD on my monitor at full resolution by sending the data to the monitor. The file I am playing has been cracked, the computer doesn't have any reason NOT to do what I ask of it.
Unless the bush regime manages to get a clipper chip in the computer, the computer works for the OWNER OF THE COMPUTER, not the owner of the copyright.
I wouldn't know if it's impossible. If it is then they would certianly be chasing a ghost. But if it's not impossible then being the owner of the content medium of choice would seemingly have its benefits.
A lot of people currently use newsgroups to download "pirate stuff". All that is needed to be done is encrypt connection between newsgroup provider and at&t will not be able to make inspection.
I still think the ISPs are crazy to get involved with this as this could lead to liability issues.
If they start guaranteeing in any way that their networks limit piracy --- and piracy is found --- the RIAA(s) will turn to the ISPs to be held liable. This is a losing precedent.
If you own a private roadway and illegal drugs are transported on it, it is not your job to police the criminals. However if you know or suspect illegal activity on your road --- you should report that activity to the police. That is about the limit of what I see this turning in to --- however this brings up right to privacy telecommunication laws etc.
this is one sure fire way to lose all their customers cept those old fogeys that still rent their 1960's phone from ma bell.Go ahead and put whatever measures you like into place AT&T, I've been looking for a good reason to leave besides the over-priced dsl that you offer in the old bellsouth region.Insight 10.0 (10 mb/ 1 mb) is looking mighty tempting.