AT&T Piracy Filters Tread Dangerous Ground - Telco in talks with NBC Universal & Disney
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
AT&T Piracy Filters Tread Dangerous Ground Telco in talks with NBC Universal & Disney (old news - 01:54PM Thursday Nov 08 2007) tags: Video · competition · Fileswapping · business · content · net-neutrality · AT&T U-Verse · AT&T DSL Service
AT&T is the first ISP we've seen that wants to voluntarily put mechanisms in place that will filter pirated material from the company's network. "As AT&T has begun selling pay-television services, the company has realized that its interests are more closely aligned with Hollywood," AT&T's James Cicconi stated when the plan was first unveiled. No specific technology has been announced, but insiders say that AT&T has been testing a solution from Vobile since last Spring. Vobile insists their "Video DNA" technology has a "a near-zero false positive rate."AT&T has promised that whatever technology is utilized, they'll be sure to protect subscriber privacy. Given AT&T's recent history, that's not comforting privacy advocates. It also may not make simple business sense. Investors may not like a significant investment in a technology that -- if history is any indication -- pirates will certainly find ways around. Techdirt notes that the plans aren't legally necessary, since AT&T is protected by safe harbor provisions they helped enact. AT&T also risks a massive backlash from customers, given that it's no secret (unless you're in public relations, or denial) that piracy has been this industry's killer app. In addition to driving file traders to competing networks (if there are any), the filters, if implemented poorly, could accidentally block legitimate content. Given that this could rile network neutrality advocates, marketing of the plan will be key. Business Week says the company is hard at work on how to pitch this technology to their users, with one plan being to first sell the solution as an anti-kiddie porn weapon: AT&T is also working on a plan for marketing the approach to consumers. One possibility is to focus at first on using the technology as a way to filter illegal content, such as child pornography. "This could make it all seem a lot more innocent," says Forrester Research (FORR) analyst James McQuivey. The website notes that AT&T is in talks with NBC Universal and Walt Disney to help prevent specific trafficking of their content. NBC, in their never ending quest to help the American farmer, has been demanding that the FCC force ISPs to implement such filters, and has even advocated pirated content filters on home networking gear. Related:- AT&T To Buy Echostar?
- AT&T Invests In Anti-Piracy Firm
- TorrentSpy Calls It Quits
- AT&T Developing New Web Browser
- Wait, Why Exactly Am I Writing About Zillion TV?
- Google Voice Ban Is Clear Network Neutrality Violation
- Nobody's Complaining About Comcast's New Throttling
- What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
|
Links: New Topic
Forums »
page: 1 · 2
MarkyD @ 8th Nov 01:56PM:
This is one of the many reasons
I'll likely never go back to AT&T.
--
MCSE, ACSA, and a lot more
reply
Oleg @ 8th Nov 01:56PM:
Re: AT&T Piracy Filters Tread Dangerous Ground
Wonder if costumer will have an option allow or block :D
reply
S_engineer @ 8th Nov 02:03PM:
Re: This is one of the many reasons
In the very near future, it might be your only choice.
--
Where have the adults gone?
reply
en102 @ 8th Nov 02:03PM:
Re: This is one of the many reasons
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
reply
ATHF @ 8th Nov 02:11PM:
Some one forgot the NSA
»/r0/download/1···bile.jpg
needs to edited where the NSA servers :D
reply
N3OGH @ 8th Nov 02:13PM:
Re: This is one of the many reasons
The death star strikes again...
reply
jjoshua @ 8th Nov 02:16PM:
AT&T != ISP
AT&T should no longer be considered an ISP or be able to advertise "internet" access if they filter content.
reply
S_engineer @ 8th Nov 02:23PM:
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?
reply
MrMoody @ 8th Nov 02:24PM:
Re: This is one of the many reasons
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
reply
DHRacer @ 8th Nov 02:26PM:
Not of this country
Welcome to China!
ISPs should be pipe providers only, plain and simple. Irrespective of the content that passes through them.
reply
danclan @ 8th Nov 02:32PM:
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....
reply
en102 @ 8th Nov 02:35PM:
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
reply
grandpinaple @ 8th Nov 02:39PM:
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.
reply
grandpinaple @ 8th Nov 02:41PM:
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.
reply
averagedude @ 8th Nov 02:45PM:
Re: Before everyone gets their boxers in a bunch
- 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 -
reply
ninjatutle @ 8th Nov 02:48PM:
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.
reply
en102 @ 8th Nov 02:56PM:
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
reply
anon @ 8th Nov 03:29PM:
Re: Not of this country
said by DHRacer :
Welcome to China!
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.
reply
anon @ 8th Nov 03:31PM:
Re: Oh noes
Simple... It isn't their job to do it. Just like it isn't the job of the auto industry to stop drunk drivers or gun companies to stop gun crimes. Period.
reply
morbo @ 8th Nov 03:07PM:
Re: AT&T != ISP
but think of the profit!
reply
mjwise @ 8th Nov 03:15PM:
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?
reply
Supafly @ 8th Nov 03:15PM:
Arabic?
Why is there Arabic writing in the article header image?
reply
BodyBumper @ 8th Nov 03:17PM:
Re: Oh noes
said by ninjatutle :
Hmmm they are stopping illegal activity. Whats the problem again?
Are you employed by AT&T, work with/for AT&T and/or receive money/compensation from AT&T to post here?
reply
exocet_cm @ 8th Nov 03:17PM:
New Layout!
Will look like this after these technologies are implemented.
reply
amungus @ 8th Nov 03:21PM:
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...
reply
texans20 @ 8th Nov 03:21PM:
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.
reply
jester121 @ 8th Nov 03:22PM:
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?
reply
ninjatutle @ 8th Nov 03:23PM:
Re: Oh noes
Yes, the Govt, G. Bush and family, RIAA, NBA and MLB also pay me as well.
That is how I can afford to live the lifestyle I've became accustomed too.
reply
amungus @ 8th Nov 03:23PM:
Re: AT&T Piracy Filters Tread Dangerous Ground
Anyone in Costumes will immediately be assumed to be somebody they're not.
sarcasm...
reply
amungus @ 8th Nov 03:27PM:
Re: Oh noes
...And that picture you posted was bootlegged too :uhh:
reply
hopeflicker @ 8th Nov 03:29PM:
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.
reply
ninjatutle @ 8th Nov 03:29PM:
Re: Oh noes
They pay me to post so I have immunity :huh:
reply
anon @ 8th Nov 03:32PM:
Re: Oh noes
OCILLA, among others, but you knew that. I applaud your tireless resolve and temerity.
reply
jester121 @ 8th Nov 03:32PM:
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.
reply
tdagg @ 8th Nov 03:38PM:
Re: Oh noes
That's a false argument. Aside from the immature insults and belligerent tone of your statement, P2P isn't just used to download copyrighted materials. Just as someone using encryption can't be assumed to be doing anything illegal.
Aside from that, AT&T has shown that they can't be trusted to protect their customer's civil rights. It's unfortunate that the assumption now is that potentially everything you do on the internet or on the phone is recorded in some form without a court deciding if it's relevant to a criminal investigation.
That is antithetical to the ideals this country was founded on and that made us the great country we [used] to be known for..
(and what we still criticize other countries for)
Personally, I don't have anything to hide and I wouldn't care if someone wanted to waste their time and storage space with what I do, and I've never even used P2P, but that's not the point. There are laws and rules that are put in place for a reason (granted the reasoning may be flawed in some cases). This incredible power these companies have at their disposal can [and is] abused by some of them (and you know what they say about 'power'..).
reply
amungus @ 8th Nov 03:38PM:
Re: Oh noes
lol, nice :D
reply
hoyleysox @ 8th Nov 03:38PM:
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.
reply
jdjbuffalo @ 8th Nov 03:39PM:
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.
reply
Doctor Four @ 8th Nov 03:40PM:
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)
reply
swhx7 @ 8th Nov 03:41PM:
Re: Before everyone gets their boxers in a bunch
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"
reply
TheWickerMan @ 8th Nov 03:41PM:
Re: Oh noes
said by ninjatutle :
Hmmm they are stopping illegal activity. Whats the problem again?
The problem is that the end does not always justify the means, even in the name of "stopping illegal activity."
reply
jdjbuffalo @ 8th Nov 03:45PM:
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)
reply
grandpinaple @ 8th Nov 03:51PM:
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.
reply
S_engineer @ 8th Nov 04:14PM:
Re: Not of this country
"Yangbin earned a BS degree from Zhejiang University in China "
Geez....
--
Where have the adults gone?
reply
Indymike @ 8th Nov 04:17PM:
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......
reply
TKJunkMail @ 8th Nov 04:31PM:
Re: Oh noes
said by BodyBumper :said by ninjatutle :
Hmmm they are stopping illegal activity. Whats the problem again?
Are you employed by AT&T, work with/for AT&T and/or receive money/compensation from AT&T to post here?
Typical reflexive post by those who defend piracy - "you are against piracy, so you must be an employee". How about he is against piracy because he isn't a thief and thinks it is wrong.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
reply
karlmarx @ 8th Nov 04:47PM:
Re: Oh noes
The problem is quite simple. In your ORIGINAL post, it CLEARLY STATES, 'is investigated by the FBI'. I don't know which alphabet YOU use, but the letters 'FBI' don't show up when I write AT&T. Unless, of course, you are a supporter of the Bush regime, who clearly believes that the letters FBI exist in ALL corporations.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs.
reply
karlmarx @ 8th Nov 05:00PM:
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.
reply
anon @ 8th Nov 05:13PM:
Re: Not of this country
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.
reply
BodyBumper @ 8th Nov 05:25PM:
Re: Oh noes
said by TKJunkMail :said by BodyBumper :said by ninjatutle :
Hmmm they are stopping illegal activity. Whats the problem again?
Are you employed by AT&T, work with/for AT&T and/or receive money/compensation from AT&T to post here?
Typical reflexive post by those who defend piracy
I don't download movies, music, video games, etc, in my opinion no one is entitled to get any of that for free when the legal owners of those materials charge a fee for their works. In the rare event that I want to see a movie I go to the local video store and rent it.
I never intended to imply or suggest that I was being "reflexive" or insulting it was a simple question and ninjatutle could have volunteered to give a simple yes or no answer.
- "you are against piracy, so you must be an employee".
That is your opinion.
How about he is against piracy because he isn't a thief and thinks it is wrong.
That has nothing to do with my original question but I do not disagree with that opinion.
--
"Time does not actually exist beyond an artificial measure we create in our minds to separate events we experience into blocks that are easier to reference instead of as a whole single event that just happens and continues happening" - evolvedant
reply
Alakar @ 8th Nov 05:30PM:
Re: Oh noes
said by TKJunkMail :said by BodyBumper :said by ninjatutle :
Hmmm they are stopping illegal activity. Whats the problem again?
Are you employed by AT&T, work with/for AT&T and/or receive money/compensation from AT&T to post here?
Typical reflexive post by those who defend piracy - "you are against piracy, so you must be an employee". How about he is against piracy because he isn't a thief and thinks it is wrong.
I am employed by AT&T and I think this is a horrible idea. Simply from a financial standpoint this policy is short sighted and will open up a huge can of worms. Legally, when we start filtering content, we will then be opened up to lawsuits for anything that gets through or doesn't get through. This will trash our safe harbor status and will open us up to litigation on everything and anything. Are we going to start filtering content going to other ISP's that lease part of our network? If we start filtering this content where does it stop? Should AT&T start filtering content that praises competitors or rips on AT&T? How about if the filter content for the political candidate they support?
--
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom; it is the arguments of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt the Younger
reply
gaforces @ 8th Nov 05:35PM:
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.
reply
ninjatutle @ 8th Nov 05:35PM:
Re: Oh noes
Don't you have work to be doing?
reply
jgkolt @ 8th Nov 05:36PM:
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
reply
batterup @ 8th Nov 05:39PM:
Re: Not of this country
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.
reply
batterup @ 8th Nov 05:42PM:
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.
reply
pokesph @ 8th Nov 05:58PM:
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)
reply
Ghostmaker @ 8th Nov 06:00PM:
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.
reply
Alakar @ 8th Nov 06:13PM:
Re: Oh noes
said by ninjatutle :
Don't you have work to be doing?
Great comeback. :uhh:
reply
jjeffeory @ 8th Nov 06:14PM:
Re: Before everyone gets their boxers in a bunch
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.
reply
jjeffeory @ 8th Nov 06:18PM:
Re: Conflict of interest
Apples and Oranges.
reply
jjeffeory @ 8th Nov 06:19PM:
Re: Oh noes
They are ALSO stopping LEGAL activity. THAT is the problem. Get it?
reply
jjeffeory @ 8th Nov 06:21PM:
Re: Oh noes
It seems to me that he is against BitTorrent. He is also likely against the consumer being able to choose what they use their connection for.... It seems that way to me.
reply
grandpinaple @ 8th Nov 06:24PM:
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.
reply
ninjatutle @ 8th Nov 06:32PM:
Re: Oh noes
"...put mechanisms in place that will filter pirated material from the company's network."
Where does it say they are blocking legal content?
reply
batterup @ 8th Nov 07:54PM:
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.
reply
hihi @ 8th Nov 08:23PM:
Re: This is one of the many reasons
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 :uhh:
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.
reply
gaforces @ 8th Nov 08:36PM:
Re: near zero
Because they are lawyers, they KNOW the law (at least 50% of the time.)
reply
Thaler @ 8th Nov 08:40PM:
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"?
reply
Thaler @ 8th Nov 08:47PM:
Re: Oh noes
said by ninjatutle :
Hmmm they are stopping illegal activity. Whats the problem again?
Because it's just another layer of crap "services" that I don't need from an ISP, nor do I need an ISP rifiling through my legal data streams.
...plus there's that whole "slippery slope" thing. If filtering potentially pirated data files gets cleared, what's to stop the next company making a further leap on where we can and cannot browse? Laws already exist to stem & prosecute piracy. Go after the criminals and leave us law-abiders alone.
reply
Boomerang86 @ 8th Nov 10:35PM:
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.
reply
Madcap @ 8th Nov 11:20PM:
Re: Before everyone gets their boxers in a bunch
You mean all this time I was supposed to be wearing clothes?
reply
KrK @ 8th Nov 11:59PM:
Re: This is one of the many reasons
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!)
reply
KrK @ 9th Nov 12:03AM:
Re: Oh noes
said by Alakar :
Simply from a financial standpoint this policy is short sighted and will open up a huge can of worms. Legally, when we start filtering content, we will then be opened up to lawsuits for anything that gets through or doesn't get through. This will trash our safe harbor status and will open us up to litigation on everything and anything. Are we going to start filtering content going to other ISP's that lease part of our network? If we start filtering this content where does it stop? Should AT&T start filtering content that praises competitors or rips on AT&T? How about if the filter content for the political candidate they support?
Exactly. Once AT&T blows up their own safety net, they become liable for everything they wrongfully block or accidently allow through.
God Help them, you can almost hear the legal firms saying "Release the Hounds!"
If I was a shareholder, I'd be mightly pissed that AT&T is making such an incredibly costly mistake.
--
"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!)
reply
grandpinaple @ 9th Nov 01:21AM:
Re: Before everyone gets their boxers in a bunch
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.
reply
cork1958 @ 9th Nov 04:40AM:
What a crock!!
Yeah,
What a crock on AT&T's part for even thinking this!!
reply
batterup @ 9th Nov 09:29AM:
Re: Before everyone gets their boxers in a bunch
said by Thaler :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"?
It is a selling feature to the people with BIG bucks, the people that provide professional content for entertainment. There is way more money to be made in CATV then internet and both are carried in the same tube.
reply
Thaler @ 9th Nov 09:36AM:
Re: Before everyone gets their boxers in a bunch
said by batterup :
It is a selling feature to the people with BIG bucks, the people that provide professional content for entertainment. There is way more money to be made in CATV then internet and both are carried in the same tube.
And that has what to do with anything? You were talking about customers somehow "wanting" ISPs to police their broadband connection (which I feel is incorrect). Just because a bozo-the-clown CEO wants to block certain areas of the 'net, doesn't mean paying customers want/need interference on their services.
reply
anon @ 9th Nov 10:38AM:
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? :p :p :p
reply
LeeWL @ 9th Nov 10:46AM:
Re: near zero
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.
reply
Sabre @ 9th Nov 11:03AM:
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!
reply
bylo @ 9th Nov 12:59PM:
Intriguing comments in today's National Post [Canada]
Sandvine technology 'hot' [my bold] quote:
The principles of "net neutrality" are as old as the telegraph, but they've only become widely known since the advent of the digital age. Simply put, net neutrality ensures that all communication traffic, be it voice or data, has not been tampered with as it travels between any and all sources. But in North America, net neutrality lies in a legal grey area. In Canada, Philippa Lawson, director of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, says blocking Internet traffic raises the question if it is unfair discriminating Web usage which is prohibited under the Telecommunications Act.
In the United States, an FCC policy statement says "consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice," but that principle is "subject to reasonable network management."
Raising the question (in Canada) doesn't answer it ;) and making a policy statement (in the US) doesn't give it the force of law.
reply
jester121 @ 9th Nov 02:00PM:
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. :uhh:
reply
whiteshp @ 9th Nov 02:48PM:
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
reply
batterup @ 9th Nov 04:11PM:
Re: Before everyone gets their boxers in a bunch
said by Thaler :
And that has what to do with anything? You were talking about customers somehow "wanting" ISPs to police their broadband connection (which I feel is incorrect).
Customers are continually bitching about spam and how the ISP is not stopping it. Customers are continually bitching to ISPs about being port scanned. People are even bitching to ISP about people posting off topic in USNET. That is a fact. So dumb pipe or bitch to the ISP to stop certain traffic you can't have it both ways.
The US of A had a common carrier for communication and the people bitched and killed it.
reply
batterup @ 9th Nov 04:15PM:
Re: Not of this country
said by fooewe :
With all the press regarding "Lead Contamination" in products... could we see "LEAD" in the internet connections that would make our systems ill? :p :p :p
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.
reply
grandpinaple @ 9th Nov 04:50PM:
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.
reply
grandpinaple @ 9th Nov 05:10PM:
Re: Before everyone gets their boxers in a bunch
The people that bitch about Usenet are 1 percent of percent of percent. The people who bitch about spam want it stopped within reason. I'm not sure who is bitching and why about port scanning, but if it it's anything like the other two examples you gave it also is not as extreme as you make it out to be.
reply
Thaler @ 9th Nov 07:55PM:
Re: Before everyone gets their boxers in a bunch
said by batterup :
The US of A had a common carrier for communication and the people bitched and killed it.
You make it seem as though the customers are the one clamoring for gimped ISP access.
reply
anon @ 10th Nov 01:16AM:
Re: Before everyone gets their boxers in a bunch
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.
reply
anon @ 10th Nov 02:24AM:
Re: Before everyone gets their boxers in a bunch
Without encryption i meant :)
reply
tmc8080 @ 10th Nov 05:53AM:
Poop
This idea of filtering content is POOP. Why build a several billion dollar network NO ONE WILL WANT TO USE. Even if it were a FIBER TO THE HOME with bandwidth that made Verizon's FTTP look like dialup.. who would want to use it if you don't have privacy or relative free reign on what content (within reason) you want to get from the internet??
That's almost like trying to sell bible belt theocracy to San Franciscans.. one size DOES NOT fit all.
reply
batterup @ 10th Nov 10:53AM:
Re: Before everyone gets their boxers in a bunch
said by Thaler :said by batterup :
The US of A had a common carrier for communication and the people bitched and killed it.
You make it seem as though the customers are the one clamoring for gimped ISP access.
Yes they are, they want gimped what they don't like. Everybody doesn't like something. Gimp for one gimp for all.
Why do ISP always provide an abuse contact? The people want ISPs to be proactive. If I use my POTS to break the law one does not call TPC one calls the LAW. POTS from TPC is a common carrier service, internet is not.
reply
Rekrul @ 15th Nov 07:58AM:
I think this is a great idea!
The day AT&T puts this plan into effect and starts filtering copyrighted content, I'm going come up with something I can create from scratch and sell. Maybe some 3D models, or icons or whatever. Then I'll put up a web site selling copies of it for $1. I figure at least a couple people will take the chance and buy a copy. Then, as soon as I find a copy of it floating around the P2P networks that is downloadable through AT&T, I'll file a lawsuit against them for failing to prevent the "theft" of my IP (Intellectual Property).
It should be a pretty easy win, since they'll have flushed their safe-harbor provisions down the toilet by actively trying to filter copyrighted content. :D
reply
prestonlewis @ 20th Nov 01:08AM:
Monopoly
One nice thing about America's free enterprise system can be demonstrated by the actions of huge companies like AT&T (for former Soutwestern Bell). The bigger they get, the more anti-consumer they become, the more people yearn for competetion with lower prices and less restrictions, the more likely someone with a few bucks will rise up and give the people what they want. Wireless ISPs, cellular internet offerings, etc. Someone will step up to the plate and offer better services than AT&T. Even Comcast, not one of my favorite companies, is at least predictable and they offer more than AT&T does in my city. Higher internet speeds, cable as opposed to satellite TV, telephone service instead of AT&T really old wiring in Sacramento, the list goes on.
There are few companies that I really, really dislike but Ed Whiteacre's SBC/AT&T is one of them.
reply
elvey @ 22nd Nov 12:04PM:
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?
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC