This is topic Say 'hello' to the Censored Internet !! in forum Rants, Raves, Rumors! at The Geek Culture Forums!.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
Posted by spungo (Member # 1089) on June 20, 2007, 09:42:
Anyone here an AT&T customer? You may think about switching providers. Looks like AT&T are thinking about filtering your internet for you -- isn't that nice of them? Yes, ladies and gentlemen -- the moment we have been dreading has arrived: we will soon have an edited internet here in the West (ironic, given how so many of us shake our heads at the thought of net censorship in less civilized countries). Ok, so they're only talking about movies, music, etc., ... for now! But then who's to say what a pirated movie is? One without an identifiable DRM component? (You can see that one coming -- that piece of software you wanted to download had no DRM signature -- sorry, we don't convey pirated wares -- bye-bye Linux downloads.)
I suggest anyone with AT&T drop them like a radioactive turd.
Posted by TMBWITW,PB (Member # 1734) on June 20, 2007, 16:10:
*sigh* And it was so nice having all my stuff on one bill. I'd better start looking around to see what other providers are in the area.
Posted by quantumfluff (Member # 450) on June 20, 2007, 22:15:
quote:This is the classic incorrect argument trotted out all the time. It has a simple solution. Meter bandwidth used and charge people for what they use. Who said "all you can eat" internet has to be $30/month. If I run a P2P upload host that runs at full throttle 24/7, then I should pay more for it.
“Somebody running a server in their basement on our network and uploading illegal copies movies raises the costs for everybody else and jams the network in ways we’re not compensated for,” said Mr. Cicconi, whose company is also one of the world’s largest providers of Internet-based corporate communications services.
This would also help solve the spam problem. If people owning zombie computers were being charged for all the spam they sent, there would be real consumer demand to fix the problem - and quickly. (Of course, those of you who are watching closely would realize that you can send a lot of spam without using enough bandwidth to notice, but the logic sounded good when I was spewing it the first time)
Posted by The Mu (Member # 5173) on June 25, 2007, 08:37:
Unfortunately, AT&T knows that for every one geek who will now forever shun their internet, there are ten net-users who want less pirated movies clogging the tubes so their porn will load faster.
It's the sad truth...
Posted by Slack User (Member # 9196) on June 25, 2007, 19:43:
People are going to copy no matter what you do.
Who would download a DVD anyways? 4,608,000 KB of data when you can rent it or netflix it and copy it in about 40 minutes. (Not that I ever have, I personally hate movies) I'm not supporting this but my point is hollywood should be thinking about this a little more.
The underground servers are constantly shifting, even if they block content the providers will just morph and change. If they create a "ultimatum" block they are going to screw up a lot of legit situations. If they block any AVI downloading that's going to screw a lot of people. AND even if they magically perfected the content blocking people will just proxy/tunnel to another ISP and use it to get to the content. It sounds like DRM, a pipedream. The true benefits of it are minimum.
South Korea is setting up blocked information from North Korea but any smart person in that situation can back door it. It only keeps the honest people honest.
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on June 25, 2007, 19:45:
This will probably translate to "block bittorrent" and my entirely legit 8-12 gig a month of Linux distro uploads will be blocked along with other peoples pirated music and movies. If they're worried about bandwidth hogs, then charge by the gigabyte, don't try to write perl scripts that block what may-or-may-not be illegal.
I can sympathise with the ISPs. In a competitive market, those who offer cheap "unlimited" plans are going to get the customers, but if too many of their customers take the word "unlimited" as a challenge, the ISP could go broke.
A while back one of the biggest ISPs here in oz introduced bandwidth limits on their "unlimited" plans. As you'd expect, their customers were not happy, and there were many public calls for people to "take their business elsewhere".
The company spokes-droids reaction?
This measure affects 5% of our customers. Those 5% account for over half our bandwidth usage. If they want to take their business elsewhere, they do so with my blessing.
Posted by davor (Member # 3073) on June 26, 2007, 01:53:
I do not support Internet piracy of any kind but if providers keep on blocking various websites, I'd endorse of any kind just to show "the big guys" that they are just waisting their money on things that are usless such as Internet censorship.
Posted by Lost1soul (Member # 8387) on June 26, 2007, 15:24:
This is an age old arguement and I agree with the majority of you. I mean, we can trot out the old "we have rights" arguement or the "freedom is paramount" arguement (oh the irony) but ultimately things are going to go over our head and it just makes you wonder if there are more of "us" or more of "them". It's true that people will find a way to pirate music/movies just as they always have (even before bittorrent and limewire). My opinions on the use of these programs is varied and I won't go into it but it WILL keep happening.....it just means they won't be using AT&T to do it anymore.
Posted by Slack User (Member # 9196) on June 26, 2007, 18:56:
There's more of us, but it never is about numbers, but instead, who is the loudest and most known!
Posted by Just_Jess_B (Member # 2161) on June 26, 2007, 20:56:
quote:The Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.
Originally posted by Slack User:
There's more of us, but it never is about numbers, but instead, who is the loudest and most known!
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on June 27, 2007, 07:07:
Speaking as someone who helps manage a network with a large number of users, I must concede that cutting the bandwidth on P2P is one of the only ways to return throughput to normal rates. I'm sorry, but the everyday usage of BitTorrent & Limewire is a plague upon the Net. The former saddens me much more than the latter - and I've personally uploaded more than a few gig of Linux ISOs with BT, as well as downloaded a few. To me, it's damnably stupid that people use BT for illegal P2P - the entire system was *designed* to track users, ostensibly to 'keep it clean.' The 'censoring' part of dubious to me - I don't care what sites people are using...if L7 analysis reveals it to be P2P, it's getting throttled. Tests have shown average page loads to take anywhere from 4-20 times as long without prioritizing packets. I've heard all the rhetoric on net neutrality, and I do want to see things as open as possible, but there does come a point at which networks are abused, and something has to be done to keep it moving well for everyone.
Now, for typical residential service, qf is *completely* correct about proper billing. It was also written up somewhere (NANOG?) that there should be clear advertising that stated just what kind of access your fee gave you. More so, the article alludes to this with a quote that points out how customers were drawn to broadband with the tease of P2P. We've all seen the ads that say "get faster downloads!" What exactly does John Q. Public need faster downloads for, anyway? Illegal downloads, of course! A lot of people wouldn't immediately recognize the concept that /everything/ will load faster, but give them a hint that they can get music faster, and they'll dive right in. Personally, I was thrilled when I went to broadband, and could finally download Linux ISOs! [I started out buying a box-set...56k would have left me waiting a /long/ time.]
Posted by WinterSolstice (Member # 934) on June 27, 2007, 07:22:
I used to subscribe to the Walnut Creek BSD set, so they would send me the complete FreeBSD+Ports every couple months. At the time (mid 90s) it took so long to install over the wire that I would have been spending days on builds instead of hours.
I built one over the wire here at work the other day in about 2 hours... crazy, man
I agree with Dman that it's a shame that illegal P2P has pretty much ruined one of the better distribution methods. I guess it's the nature of humanity, but I wish they'd stop clogging the pipes and reducing *my* enjoyment
Posted by Just_Jess_B (Member # 2161) on June 27, 2007, 07:36:
I was about to make a stupid comment about just getting it on CD, but then I realized a lot of what's out there really is meant for download.
The movie industry needs to unclench. Yeah, there's going to be piracy, but people will *see* the film. If they like the film, the next offering might be worth the trip to the theater.
The problem is that the internet is anarchy. Corporations do not like anarchy. They like controlling everything, like they can with an established government. All one needs is enough powerful people to bribe into doing the wrong thing, and they win. The internet must make them bats--t nuts.
Posted by WinterSolstice (Member # 934) on June 27, 2007, 07:45:
XBox Live is a great example of why I don't like the idea of a Corporate Controlled Internet:
1) I see a video I really like (1-800-MAGIC by Rooster Teeth) on the Xbox Live Marketplace
2) I download it. It's funny as hell. I watch it several times. Yay me.
3) I see a sequel. It's also funny. I download it too.
4) I go to find out if there's more... the first two are gone, and I can't even see a trace of where the third one would be, let alone download it. It's just like they were never there.
That's the evil of a corporate controlled net. On the current model, everything put on the net survives forever somewhere. On a corporate net, it's all about what someone wants you to see. I hate it.
Posted by quantumfluff (Member # 450) on June 27, 2007, 09:30:
Jess and Winter are touching on the heart of the issue. Telecom providers see themselves as providing "services". Just as a Verizon POTS line provides a bundled ~56kbs channel and analog telephony service, they believe a Fios link should provide bundled IP transport and value added services. The telco/cableco mindset is that they should be able to make money from the content. They don't really care if people steal movies and the MPAA loses. They care that people are doing something valuable and they are not getting a cut.
Bob Frankston (the guy who pushed Mitch Kapur to write Visicalc) puts it best. "Hauling bits is like hauling garbage." It should be part of the municipal infrastructure. The disconnect is that ATT/Verizon have based pricing on giving away the transport and selling services (think razors and ink-jet printers). The only way to protect themselves is to not let you get services from others.
Posted by fs (Member # 1181) on July 09, 2007, 15:28:
I saw the mention of AT&T in an article on the European Commission wanting to filter the 'net.
Favorite quote: "You always need a provider here that gives you access to websites. They can decide technically which websites to allow. Otherwise, how would China block internet sites? There are no technological obstacles, only legal ones."
And in other P2P news, I imagine that the RIAA and MPAA are going to be in court looking for rulings similar to the one in Belgium soon.
© 2018 Geek Culture
Powered by Infopop Corporation