Airwolf7
Premium
join:2004-12-12
Franklin, KY
1 edit | Don't mess with my connection.
The first time this impacts my connection by slowing it down, increasing my latency, or keeps me from downloading legal content I'm gone. |
|
claco
join:2002-09-29
Tallmadge, OH
| No more carrier status...
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. |
|
Airwolf7
Premium
join:2004-12-12
Franklin, KY
2 edits | I don't think that they have common carrier status because they are doing this on their ISP level and not their Internet backbone.
Edit: I someone wanted to make a fuss it would probably be about their DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions. |
|
swindmill
join:2002-07-12
Macomb, MI
| reply to claco
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. |
|
Mega DETH
It's All About The Ping
join:2003-08-20
Watertown, WI
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to Airwolf7
Re: Don't mess with my connection.
You got that right, I will be gone too
said by Airwolf7  :The first time this impacts my connection by slowing it down, increasing my latency, or keeps me from downloading legal content I'm gone.
--
"Action does not equal Achievement" |
|
deadzoned
Premium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA
 ·Cox HSI
| Bad idea
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. |
|
RainWind
join:2000-10-20
Van Wert, OH
1 edit | reply to swindmill
Re: No more carrier status...
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. |
|
verolom
join:2002-03-23
Eagleville, PA | reply to deadzoned
Re: Bad idea
you ain't seen nothing yet |
|
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| reply to Airwolf7
Re: Don't mess with my connection.
said by Airwolf7 :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.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl |
|
beerbum
Premium
join:2000-05-06
Reading, PA
clubs: |  Oh Noes!
oh noes !!!$$@!@^* soon people won't be able to download the Holy Bible to their phonez!!!
--
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it ! |
|
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| reply to RainWind
Re: No more carrier status...
said by RainWind :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.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
1 edit | Can we say MORE lawsuits against ATT?
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. |
|
ib50MbSoon
Formerly TwoKDialup
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI | Game Over!
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?
--
Comcast has spoiled me rotten! |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana | reply to supergirl
Will it block NSA piracy of my privacy???
....well  |
|
cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| government and internet connections
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. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to RainWind
Re: No more carrier status...
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. |
|
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs: | no
Once this effects my internet usage legit or not i am gone. and i just switched to them 2 weeks ago.
--
3 free for you/3 free for me: Free Stock Trades : PM Me |
|
its not hidden
@tel-ott.com
| reply to cornelius785
Re: government and internet connections
Its not a hidden agenda, it's called UVerse, the next generation of cable TV.
The shortsightedness of this management team is starting to show how silly their stripes.
I say let it play out... the more silly moves these companies make the more ammo the network neutrality people have. |
|
MagMan
Life is simpler when you tell the truth.
Premium
join:2003-10-01
Westlake, OH
·AT&T Midwest
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to Mega DETH
Re: Don't mess with my connection.
said by Mega DETH :You got that right, I will be gone too said by Airwolf7 :The first time this impacts my connection by slowing it down, increasing my latency, or keeps me from downloading legal content I'm gone. X3 color me gone.
--
"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is." |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to supergirl
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. |
|
