 o2cool8
join:2002-04-19
Miami, FL | one that day comes.. A lot of people will be jumping ship, even if the alternate provider is junk. I was wondering though, what about companies who resale AT&T lines, will they also be filtered? | |
|
 | 
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | Re: one that day comes.. I hope they get insurance for the false positives, $175,000 a pop ... | |
|
| | 
TreeTopFlyer
@sbcglobal.net
| Re: one that day comes.. said by gaforces  :I hope they get insurance for the false positives, $175,000 a pop ... AT$T doesn't need insurance. They already own the government.
As for AT$T's implementation of filtering . . . I hope it ain't so. I'm not a big fan of AT$T, but right now it's my only choice for reliable HSI (unless you count Comcast with it's smoke & mirrors and daily outages of 2 hours or more).
Thankfully, with all the competition in the Houston market, my heads hurtin' trying to decide who to go to.  | |
|
| | | charterbites
join:2005-11-19
Covington, LA | Re: one that day comes.. It's cheap enough to have TWO providers of HSI. I have AT$T for my email and business transactions at 6 M and Charter 10 M for gaming for the kids and everything else.
It's only money! | |
|
| 
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| AT&T owns some of the internet backbones; a large percentage of internet traffic goes through AT&T control points. (That's why they were/are in a good position to spy for the Feds.) And in one article today a spokesperson said AT&T might offer Hollywood companies filtering that would affect traffic of other providers. | |
|
| | 
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | Re: one that day comes.. that is scary. any legal recourse? | |
|
| | |
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: one that day comes.. If you could prove that some legitimate video was filtered out by ATT, when you're not an ATT subscriber and didn't agree to their Terms of Service, then theoretically you could have grounds for a lawsuit - interference with contract, or something of that sort.
Realistically however, I think the only thing that will really have a chance is Congress imposing some sort of network neutrality law, or making the FCC do so. | |
|
| NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by o2cool8 :A lot of people will be jumping ship, even if the alternate provider is junk. I was wondering though, what about companies who resale AT&T lines, will they also be filtered? The question is, will AT&T also apply the filters to their backbone. They operate at least two transit networks (maybe three):
AT&T Worldnet Services, which is a Tier 1 network selling transit to other providers, such as Comcast. Probably also for their own dial and DSL customers (AT&T Worldnet).
AT&T Internet Services. This is the transit network used for 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' customers.
I expect that the transit network handling former Bellsouth DSL customer traffic should also be included.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| AT&T Wholesale DSL lines are different than their network. The ISP actually isn't reselling the network. Just the leased part and the DSLAM services basically.
The ISP is required to have an ATM line to the CO's they wish to service or the LATA. That ties them into the actual network. But each ISP is required to have their own backbone connection to the provider of their choice as long as they have the connection the AT&T phone network.
The ISP is pretty much separate network except for the last mile.
So this should not affect any wholesale ISPs. | |
|
|
| karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Re: The movie thieves will scream Net Neutrality Of COURSE they will. It's not the providers RIGHT to monitor what you use the internet for. If you choose to go to www.barely18.com, that's your RIGHT. If I choose to stream data from a remote site to my computer, that's MY right.
What planet are you from where you think this system has a chance in hell of working? Hell, just rar up the files and it won't find anything.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
|
| | 
mpelle4456
Say What?
join:2001-07-21
Tacoma, WA
·Advanced Stream
| Re: The movie thieves will scream Net Neutrality said by karlmarx :What planet are you from where you think this system has a chance in hell of working? Hell, just rar up the files and it won't find anything. It's simple - he works for Comcast. They PAY him to post these gems of wisdom (that tout the company line). | |
|
| | | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: The movie thieves will scream Net Neutrality said by mpelle4456 :said by karlmarx :What planet are you from where you think this system has a chance in hell of working? Hell, just rar up the files and it won't find anything. It's simple - he works for Comcast. They PAY him to post these gems of wisdom (that tout the company line). Wrong again. Don't you shills for copyright infringement ever grow weary of accusing anyone whose for honesty as an employee of the ISPs??
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
|
| | | | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Cox HSI
| Re: The movie thieves will scream Net Neutrality Nah this forum would be boring without a paid representative of the "other side". As long as they don't click on your links, no harm done
It makes the board more fun, when people accuse each other of copyright infringement and shilling, nothing is provable of course. | |
|
| | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL | Re: The movie thieves will scream Net Neutrality No need for proof when you've got some copyright infringers flat out bragging about their actions. I haven't seen any corporate shills seriously admit to their actions, but I'm willing to bet that's because there aren't any here. | |
|
| | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| I don't work for any phone, cable or ISP and i think this will be good. Why should i have to pay more at the theater when going to watch a movie because some stupid ass is stealing it at home and i have to make up for the lost profit that is actually deserved. | |
|
| | | | AquaBlaze
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| Re: The movie thieves will scream Net Neutrality said by hottboiinnc :Why should i have to pay more at the theater when going to watch a movie because some stupid ass is stealing it at home and i have to make up for the lost profit that is actually deserved. Wait...you believe movie ticket prices are such because of piracy?
...I think I have a bridge avaliable for sale. You interested? | |
|
| | | | jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA
| Well, you're paying more at the theatre because the movie studios want you to pay more and they can get away with it. They simply use "pirate movies" as an excuse to deflect some of the criticism. I'm not for pirating movies. I do think it is okay to move a copy around from your home computer to your work computer. I think that's fair use. | |
|
| | |
| | | DSL Oberst
join:2001-11-29
| Re: The movie thieves will scream Net Neutrality said by Doctor Four :If this cat and mouse game (or arms race if you prefer to call it that) continues, the logical conclusion is that there is going to be a p2p protocol that is so obfuscated/encrypted, etc. that it is going to be cost prohibitive to implement any piracy filter to stop it. Eh, it depends.
The problem with any arms race is who controls the medium the arms race takes place in.
With nuclear weapons back in the Cold War, you had two main players (and assorted allies), but no one person owned the playing field. Therefore, MAD was possible to maintain.
In the field of copyright infringement, regardless of whether you consder it right or wrong, the ability to own the backbone changes things. Playing strategy games are fine, but if you're the guy that owns the playing board and you can flip ALL the pieces off and take the game home...well, that sort of trumps anyone playing the game. If you're one of the players AND you can do that, the game can radically become unfavorable to the opponent. | |
|
| | | | lordjim
Premium
join:2004-03-26
Deerfield, IL
| Re: The movie thieves will scream Net Neutrality Ah yes ... but you also have to consider that those players are also customers. So it's not so simple: AT&T may control a good chunk of the backbone, but customers control their pocketbooks. That changes things too ... because many of those customers can only justify the cost of broadband as a means to download large files (legit or not.) If AT&T is going to seriously try to prevent that, hopefully the studios will be willing to cough up a share of their profits to make up for all the customers AT&T will lose. If I was still an AT&T Broadband customer they'd lose me for sure. AT&T may actually try playing network cop, but when the screaming starts they will probably quietly drop it. Personally, I don't see what they get out of it ... do the media companies have that much pull in the AT&T boardroom? What are they offering AT&T in exchange for this? Gratitude?
Besides, AT&T was never my broadband provider of choice anyway. I was an original @Home customer for years, until @Home folded and AT&T took over and screwed me out of my 4 mbit/sec symmetric connection, and shoveled 1.5 mbit / 25 kbps in my face instead. Then they had the cojones to raise my rates! And now that SBC took them over, I'm even less likely to ever have AT&T/SBC as my ISP. I'd rather move to another area than be dependent upon those bloodsuckers. | |
|
| | | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: The movie thieves will scream Net Neutrality said by lordjim :Besides, AT&T was never my broadband provider of choice anyway. I was an original @Home customer for years, until @Home folded and AT&T took over and screwed me out of my 4 mbit/sec symmetric connection, and shoveled 1.5 mbit / 25 kbps in my face instead. Then they had the cojones to raise my rates! And now that SBC took them over... You skipped a takeover, or three. While ATTBI did take over @Home, ATTBI was also a spin-off from AT&T. Ultimately, Comcast took over ATTBI. And all of that happened well before SBC took over AT&T.
I'm even less likely to ever have AT&T/SBC as my ISP. I'd rather move to another area than be dependent upon those bloodsuckers.
Actually, if you have 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' as your provider (they stopped calling themselves SBC in 2006), you have generally have a number of alternatives, including DSL Extreme and Speakeasy. While AT&T owns the copper to the premises, DSL Extreme and Speakeasy have their own ATM networks from the DSLAM to the Internet, so your service would never touch the ATTIS IP network.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | | | DSL Oberst
join:2001-11-29
| Eh? Those players are the customers? I've never seen it that way; we members of John Q Public are ultimately irrelevant except as cannon fodder on the field of battle. This can best be characterized as a struggle between corporate interests, government law and hegemony, and some few free-wheeling anarchist power groups.
Aside fom all that, most customers of the ISPs are NOT using their broadband for downloads - the main players are corporations using the fat pipes and the average consumer who sends maybe an email or two a day and looks at webpages. Downloading is limited to the narrowly specialized geek population (like what tends to infest the forums here).
AT&T's big issue in it is what they have invested in the media companies. It's rather like what one of my former companies was to Mitsubishi (and by extension, Mitsubishi Bank). Even though the controlling interest of the chain was 4 ladders up, what Mitsubishi wanted my company ended up doing. Look to see who has the big controlling interests in each company and you can follow the money from there. | |
|
| 
hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
| said by TK Junk Mail :This will just inflame all those stealing movies and get them shouting about network neutrality. Like it is some inalienable right to get movies without paying for them. If the system actually works, it will put a dent in the practice of stealing movies - especially if other ISPs follow suit. nice flame bait, HCT
--
People pray to God because they're told to. | |
|
| | |
| | | lordjim
Premium
join:2004-03-26
Deerfield, IL | Re: The movie thieves will scream Net Neutrality I wonder: does a Telco/Cable/Megacorp shill make a sound if no one is listening to them?
He does when the proverbial tree falls on him. | |
|
| | | 
JoeOnSunset
Doublethink Is Doubleplus Ungood.
Premium
join:2002-11-25
Ormond Beach, FL
| said by Doctor Four :Precisely why I have him on ignore. Me too, but, I wish ignore worked for autoquotes too. That would be like noise-cancelling headphones for BBR. | |
|
| AquaBlaze
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by TK Junk Mail :If the system actually works, it will put a dent in the practice of stealing movies - especially if other ISPs follow suit. Because we all know, historically, that pirates have been deterred by anti-piracy measures.
Sorry, the new AT&T "feature" just screams of potential legit foul-ups, not to mention the slippery slope of ISP content filtering. | |
|
| | boober321
join:2003-07-15
Milwaukee, WI
 ·ViaTalk
·Earthlink Cable Mo..
| Re: The movie thieves will scream Net Neutrality said by AquaBlaze :Sorry, the new AT&T "feature" just screams of potential legit foul-ups, not to mention the slippery slope of ISP content filtering. No kidding. Just wait for when they filter out competing video sources and label them as "piracy."
I don't understand the whole rationale behind the opposition of net neutrality. By god these turds would cry like a stuck pig if anti-abortion, Christian and NRA websites got filtered. | |
|
| 
P Ness
You'Ve Forgotten 9-11 Already
Premium
join:2001-08-29
Cromwell, CT
clubs:
| said by TK Junk Mail :This will just inflame all those stealing movies and get them shouting about network neutrality. Like it is some inalienable right to get movies without paying for them. If the system actually works, it will put a dent in the practice of stealing movies - especially if other ISPs follow suit. Yes because companies are well known for stopping at just one thing that ends up saving them tons of money.
next you will see them filtering stuff from google because they want you to use their search tool, and then CNN because they are partners with FOX, on and on and on.....
great trend to support
--
www.stopfcc.comI do not think the government needs to restrict free speech especially on a device that has an off knob. | |
|
|
justaguy
@lmco.com
| Hi,
I download videos regularly, none of which are in violation of any copyrights. I will not patronize any company that even considers trying to censor my own informational interests.
You claim that if this system works that it will put a dent in copyright infringements. I say that you don't understand that this system is so easily bypassed that it won't even cause a blip on the radar the size of a honeybee.
AT&T is doing this because it shows that they are 'trying' in the end, it is a waste of money that will result higher prices for their customers.
Of course, aside from a letter that I am drafting explaining why I won't ever become an AT&T subscriber, I don't have any services to cancel.
When it comes to IP, I respect it. Yet I will not patronize a company that has practices like AT&T. | |
|
| | |
|
justaguy
@lmco.com | If the system actually works, it will put a dent in the practice of stealing movies - especially if other ISPs follow suit.
And just to reiterate the point.
How will this system work if someone encrypts their data? | |
|
| | thevorpal
join:2007-11-16
Endicott, NY | Re: The movie thieves will scream Net Neutrality Aside: finally registered. | |
|
| | | viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25 | Re: The movie thieves will scream Net Neutrality Welcome! | |
|
| |
hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
| said by justaguy :
If the system actually works, it will put a dent in the practice of stealing movies - especially if other ISPs follow suit.
And just to reiterate the point.
How will this system work if someone encrypts their data?
I dont even think encryption is needed. Just a simple Zip/rar file is all.
--
People pray to God because they're told to. | |
|
| | | 
Diaboyos
join:2007-08-21
·Comcast
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: The movie thieves will scream Net Neutrality said by hopeflicker :said by justaguy :
If the system actually works, it will put a dent in the practice of stealing movies - especially if other ISPs follow suit.
And just to reiterate the point.
How will this system work if someone encrypts their data?
I dont even think encryption is needed. Just a simple Zip/rar file is all. Is deep packet inspection not able to see inside compressed files? Or is it the breaking it up into chunks that it can't tell what it would be when it's recombined? | |
|
| | | | 
wolfox
Gentle Wolfox
join:2002-11-27
Fayetteville, AR
| Re: The movie thieves will scream Net Neutrality I theorize it is simply that when a file is compressed, the data making up that file no longer matches a signature in the blocking device database. Adding a password to your compressed file further hashes the data into obscurity. I would think that characteristic watermarking of copyrighted works embedded into the video frames has a unique signature that can be quantified and checked quickly. It's all for naught however if that watermark data along with all of the other digital frame data making up a single let alone all of the frames in a film are digitally "scrambled" or skewed just enough off center via compression.
Was that a run on sentence?
--
The RIAA killed my legal webcast. Sadly it will never be mourned... | |
|
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
edit:
November 16th, @11:05AM
| If the ISPs are allowed to start filtering traffic for content, we will never have safe or reliable internet communications. It will start with alleged copyright infringement, then more categories will be added - alleged defamation, alleged exposure of trade secrets, alleged trademark violations, alleged illegal pornography, alleged terrorism-related material, etc..
And because this is a corporation, there will be no due process, no recourse for mistakes, no compensation for victims of false positives, no oversight.
Is this the proper role of an ISP? I say no, their job should be only to deliver the traffic as well as possible. Responsibility for content should be a separate issue handled by the appropriate process of complaints, suits and takedowns.
Edit to add missing words | |
|
| | bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA | Re: The movie thieves will scream Net Neutrality Sounds like .cn to me... (China) | |
|
| | |
sad
@net.ae | Re: The movie thieves will scream Net Neutrality Hmm sounds like .ir .sa .af .iq .pk .sy .ly .sd .kp
Aren't we trying to defend ourselves from these guys ?
They seem to be winning, instead of us showing them the benefits that Democracy offers, we are 'becoming' them! | |
|
| | | | 
redshift
Premium
join:2004-03-23
Beverly Hills, CA | Re: The movie thieves will scream Net Neutrality What about .ae? Aren'they also blocking all forms of VOIP? You're one to talk! | |
|
| | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by swhx7 :If the ISPs are allowed to start filtering traffic for content, we will never have safe or reliable internet communications. I expect that filtering on the basis of propriety of the content would, and should be a problem (banning porn, then what comes next). Is filtering on the basis of legitimacy of the right to distribute the same thing?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| WrzWrz
join:2002-08-23
Fort Thomas, KY
·Insight Communicat..
edit:
November 16th, @05:00PM
| "The movie thieves will scream Net Neutrality"
No, the movie thieves will just begin putting their stolen movies into encrypted modules such as encrypted RAR archives which will bypass this foolish technology altogether.  | |
|
| jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA | I think it will anger the software pirates even more.
Of course, the people who are legally moving their movies from one computer to another while they're away for work will be thrilled by this. | |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| A Fair(y) Use Tale I wonder how A Fair(y) Use Tale would be flagged by the "Video DNA" system. For those who don't know, this is a video consisting entirely of tiny clips from Disney movies. Most clips provide only a single word. When strung together, they explain what Fair Use is and why it's important. The use of the Disney copyrighted material clearly falls under Fair Use, yet Video DNA might flag it (and thus AT&T might block it) simply because the material is copyrighted. | |
|
kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL
clubs:
| correct me if i'm wrong...... and maybe this wouldn't apply here, but wouldn't this jeopardize AT&T's common carrier status and push them into the role as publisher?
if this video DNA service didn't work as advertised, there would be a possibility, at least, of lawsuits coming at them from a million different directions. although i'd have to think their TOS is bulletproof enough to protect them. | |
|
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: correct me if i'm wrong...... I think the common carrier status was waived when the FCC declared it a "data service" instead of an "information service" or vice-versa or something like that - they had two categories and placed ISPs in one instead of the other and the common carrier principle was abolished. I probably have this mixed up; someone please correct.
Anyway, common carrier is a good principle and if it did still apply, or if it does, as soon as ATT started filtering it would become responsible for any infringing content. | |
|
| NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by kaila :and maybe this wouldn't apply here, but wouldn't this jeopardize AT&T's common carrier status and push them into the role as publisher? AFAIK, AT&T's "Common Carrier" status only applies to their ILEC and LD business, not to their Internet business.
What intrigues me is whether their Tier 1 Network (AT&T Worldnet Services) falls under their "Common Carrier" status, or not. I believe that their ISP business (AT&T Internet Services, which provisions their 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' DSL service) is not covered by their "Common Carrier" status.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
NRHM
@on.ca
| Is AT&T the ISP or AT&T the NSP planning on deploying this? This begs the question; is this being implemented by AT&Ts last mile to customers who use their Internet service, or on their network trunks, AKA part of the backbone of the Internet?
If it's the latter, what happens to all these people who peer off of AT&Ts network? Will any packet routed through the AT&T network, despite the fact that the parties on both ends of the connection aren't AT&T customers, be inspected and dropped if their little box decides that it's pirated? | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
Matt
You can't fix stupid
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
 ·Corporate Colocation
|  Cheapest Way
Like a poster said, the pirates will simply archive or encrypt their data and AT&T's investment is nullified. That takes all of 1 extra minute to do so it's no burden for the pirates, but this system will undoubtedly flag tons of legitimate content and wind up causing a headache for the non-pirates out there.
I'm also curious to see exactly WHERE this is implemented. If it flags any traffic, even transit, traversing their network, the potential for false positives is HUGE.
Even if the accuracy rate is 99.99999%, .000001 of a few petabytes of traffic a day is a HUGE amount of false positives.
--
Pretty Fly for a White Guy™ | |
|
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Cheapest Way I think the way it works is the Hollywood companies supply hashes or signature sets or some such representing movies, shows on a list. Those are plugged into the machine and it scans for those movies & shows - probably the latest hit movies, popular shows etc.
That almost has to be the way it works because it would be practically impossible for any setup to have a list of all the copyrighted content in the world and who has permission to do what with it - the database for that would exeed the capacity of any system.
The product is claimed to be able to identify content even with format and codec transformations. It is easier to imagine how this would work in the case of a stream: then you have full and consecutive frames to work with.
Supposedly there are products that also can reassemble video, audio from sets of packets despite near-random order and fragmentary frames and so on. But regarding this kind oftraffic the claims become more dubious.
With encryption on the content, it will almost certainly be unable to identify anything at network speed, if at all.
If they're planning to use man-in-the-middle to spy on SSL transmissions, we need to write to Congress and get this outlawed ASAP. | |
|
vicorjh
Premium
join:2007-06-24
Arlington, MA
| Another way to double dip? Also, I could see AT&T making a killing from those companies that want their copyright material as part of the filtering system database. If this is AT&Ts strategy...
E.g. You want AT&T to catch your copyright material on the network, there will be a master processing charge to generate the hash. There will be a per hit charge. And a monthly maintenance fee. And, oh yea, don't forget the two year service agreement. Ka-Ching.
Oh, if your copyright content hash or otherwise isn't in our priority hash database, we may delay your content while we search for a match (frame by frame for video?) in our non-priority hash database, just in case ya know. | |
|
BillTager
join:2000-09-20
Charlotte, NC
| Who's Job Is It? While I understand the desire to curtail piracy, I'm not convinced that ISP's should be responsible for this. What's the difference between this and putting the DOT in charge of reducing interstate drug trafficking?
--
Praise be to my Cadillac | |
|
| lordjim
Premium
join:2004-03-26
Deerfield, IL
| Re: Who's Job Is It? Why, because it would be just plain wrong to allow people to watch pirated DVDs while simultaneously smokin' a little mediocre Mexican weed. Although, frankly, a couple hits might take the edge off having to sit through yet another Hollywood crapfest. | |
|
phatness
join:2002-07-02
Old Greenwich, CT
clubs:
| Disney and AT&T: team america, world police Disney would invest in a company like this. They pay ex-KGB agents to search for movie pirates in Moscow theaters.
They have lost their minds!
But at AT&T, they already have so many systems between their customers and the internet, what is one more? | |
|
AT&T Invests In Anti-Piracy Firm
The movie thieves will scream Net Neutrality
·