Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   AT&T argues that if they aren't allowed to interfere in which websites their paying customers are allowed to choose, the whole internet will be ruined   (arstechnica.com) divider line 47
    More: Asinine, common carriers, public switched telephone network, Communications Act of 1934, termination fees, Akamai, ad networks, EarthLink, net neutrality  
•       •       •

2661 clicks; posted to Business » on 10 May 2014 at 6:47 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



47 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-05-10 12:59:31 PM  
I say we give AT&T a choice, they can either be a common carrier or not but this in-between best-of-both-worlds shiat is over.
 
2014-05-10 02:40:29 PM  
That web page was painful.
 
2014-05-10 04:39:44 PM  
AT&T makes a good point about the settlement-free peering.  It works out in everybody's best interest in a lot of cases now because the cost of metering bandwidth is higher than just calling it a wash when both networks are sending the same amount of data to each other.  Being a common carrier would force the ISPs to measure bandwidth and send each other tiny little bills for a few dollars each month depending on who was slightly ahead.
The general public freaked out when Netflix inked run of the mill peering arrangements with Comcast and Verizon, but that would still happen to a large asymmetric service like Netflix.  You'd get some benefit of price regulation, but that's about it.

"Nothing in Title II says that every last provision has to apply to any Title II service. That's the whole point of forbearance. The fact that broadband providers could be entitled to something doesn't mean they actually are entitled to it, or that AT&T's cost-causation story is true."

So if I'm reading this right, his argument is that even if they were classified as common carriers, they wouldn't have to follow all the rules for common carriers, just the ones he wants them to?  That doesn't sound like it would work out...
 
2014-05-10 04:40:50 PM  
I'm not sure what AT&T's point is with the part about everybody being a common carrier under the new rules though.  They haven't really specified what the downside of that would be.
 
2014-05-10 06:58:53 PM  
Either the ISPs are common carriers or each CEO is personally liable for every instance of child pornography or other illegal content that crosses their wires/cables.

Either they filter no content and are common carriers or they accept personal liability for all content if they want to filter.  I'll accept either of those positions.
 
2014-05-10 07:02:12 PM  
Netflix still sucks on AT&T, and now AT&T plans to offer Netflix clone

You can see why they wouldn't want their customers to be able to choose anyone they like.
 
2014-05-10 07:13:44 PM  

BullBearMS: Netflix still sucks on AT&T, and now AT&T plans to offer Netflix clone

You can see why they wouldn't want their customers to be able to choose anyone they like.


To be fair, almost everything sucks on at&t and if they didn't hold a monopoly enforced by the politicians they buy, they'll be in quite a bit of trouble.
 
2014-05-10 07:25:00 PM  

AT&T is to the Internet what AT&T is to telephones.

 
2014-05-10 07:33:50 PM  

BullBearMS: Netflix still sucks on AT&T, and now AT&T plans to offer Netflix clone

You can see why they wouldn't want their customers to be able to choose anyone they like.


Shrug, Netflix works pretty well on my AT&T connection here in Austin.  I mean, it's definitely an outlier since Google scared them into offering affordable 300 megabit (we'll upgrade to 1 gig real soon guys, we swear) service here.  Score one for the free market though!
 
2014-05-10 07:39:18 PM  
Fark fark fark the peering discussion.

Why does it boil down to that? Because thats where anyone can most easily shift blame and.. both conveniently and by its nature, control and influence their customers end product (as a whole)

1) Further classify/quantify networks (which we sort of do already)

2) All peering relationships are mandated free.. cost of business

3) Providers of certain tiers and networks of certain tiers are mandated to maintain a certain minimum quantity of congestion-free peers to a variety of the established rankings

The net needs to become user/application centric. Focused on delivery.

Got a problem with that?

Well dont sell services your own infrastructure cant support.
 
2014-05-10 07:45:49 PM  
In·ter·net  [in-ter-net] 
noun
a) a vast computer network linking smaller computer networks worldwide
b) a vast advertising platform linking content providers with their customer's wallets

Which definition are we using?
 
2014-05-10 07:46:28 PM  

serial_crusher: BullBearMS: Netflix still sucks on AT&T, and now AT&T plans to offer Netflix clone

You can see why they wouldn't want their customers to be able to choose anyone they like.

Shrug, Netflix works pretty well on my AT&T connection here in Austin.  I mean, it's definitely an outlier since Google scared them into offering affordable 300 megabit (we'll upgrade to 1 gig real soon guys, we swear) service here.  Score one for the free market though!


Well, then... You've totally convinced me that huge corporations should be able to buy off the government and then use their monopoly position to crush the competition.

/not really
 
2014-05-10 07:50:39 PM  

BullBearMS: serial_crusher: BullBearMS: Netflix still sucks on AT&T, and now AT&T plans to offer Netflix clone

You can see why they wouldn't want their customers to be able to choose anyone they like.

Shrug, Netflix works pretty well on my AT&T connection here in Austin.  I mean, it's definitely an outlier since Google scared them into offering affordable 300 megabit (we'll upgrade to 1 gig real soon guys, we swear) service here.  Score one for the free market though!

Well, then... You've totally convinced me that huge corporations should be able to buy off the government and then use their monopoly position to crush the competition.

/not really


"Huge corporations" and "the government" seems like a distinction without a difference.  You could just replace both with "rich and powerful."

You've totally convinced me that the rich and powerful should be able to buy off the rich and powerful and then use their monopoly position to crush the competition.

See?  That makes more sense.  Because that's how it always has worked.

/what is a government, if not a monopoly of the rich?
 
2014-05-10 08:56:22 PM  
Free market in action.

What kind of socialist Libbie commie would oppose that?
 
2014-05-10 09:39:43 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: Either the ISPs are common carriers or each CEO is personally liable for every instance of child pornography or other illegal content that crosses their wires/cables.

Either they filter no content and are common carriers or they accept personal liability for all content if they want to filter.  I'll accept either of those positions.


The CEO wouldn't be directly. The stockholders themselves would be (of which the CEO may be one),they're the aggregate of the corporation.

The Justice Department can subpoena every single shareholder every single time someone wants pirates a movie. Hell, we can divide the MPAA-established damages by the total number of outstanding shares and fine those individuals/organizations.
 
2014-05-10 10:21:27 PM  
This was AT&T's argument in Carterphone -- if you allow independent devices to be attached to the public-switched telephone network, YOU COULD BREAK THE WHOLE PHONE SYSTEM!!

That was 1966.

/Now get off my lawn.
 
2014-05-10 11:46:53 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Mr. Eugenides: Either the ISPs are common carriers or each CEO is personally liable for every instance of child pornography or other illegal content that crosses their wires/cables.

Either they filter no content and are common carriers or they accept personal liability for all content if they want to filter.  I'll accept either of those positions.

The CEO wouldn't be directly. The stockholders themselves would be (of which the CEO may be one),they're the aggregate of the corporation.

The Justice Department can subpoena every single shareholder every single time someone wants pirates a movie. Hell, we can divide the MPAA-established damages by the total number of outstanding shares and fine those individuals/organizations.


That's not how corporate law works.  Shareholders can't be held liable.  Their maximum loss is the value of their stock, and that is all.  And holding the stock cannot lead to criminal liability, no matter what the corporation does.    http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/97-4/Kahan.PDF
 
2014-05-10 11:49:34 PM  
The key is to require companies that offer network services and content such as tv programming to operate those units as separate businesses. The content is not regulated, but the content side must buy access to the network at wholesale rates. The network must sell access to any lawful service at wholesale rates and all services must be treated equally.
 
2014-05-11 01:21:54 AM  
The morel of the story (I know I spelled it wrong)

If you have AT&T ANYTHING. Dump it if you can.


Boycott the arseholes.
 
2014-05-11 01:50:12 AM  
AT&T: "the logic behind reclassification would dictate that when a search engine connects an advertising network to a search request or effectuates a connection between a search user and an advertiser, it too would be providing a telecommunications service. And so too would an email provider that transmits an email or a social network that enables a messaging or chat session."

Using that logic, does that mean AT&T considers any SMS app, like Handcent SMS, to be a telecom?
 
2014-05-11 04:08:01 AM  
First, do no harm.
 
2014-05-11 04:51:29 AM  

Omnivorous: This was AT&T's argument in Carterphone -- if you allow independent devices to be attached to the public-switched telephone network, YOU COULD BREAK THE WHOLE PHONE SYSTEM!!

That was 1966.

/Now get off my lawn.


Yep, same reasons and arguments. Same kind of bs that showed up with recordable media in the 80's and 90's. They want their pie and all of that sweet pie. You better not even look at it, you filthy competitor or we will make the government spank you!

\the sad part is that some of the execs for AT&T might have been on the board in '66 too
 
2014-05-11 05:41:35 AM  
i.imgur.com
Fark AT&T and death to all culture snitches.
 
2014-05-11 06:18:01 AM  

CujoQuarrel: The morel of the story (I know I spelled it wrong)

If you have AT&T ANYTHING. Dump it if you can.


Boycott the arseholes.


What was the mushroom joke I missed then?
 
2014-05-11 07:08:45 AM  
Perhaps it's time to bring back the AOL 'walled garden' model for internet access. Most users have only a handful of sites they actually visit for social media, news, education, entertainment, and shopping.

You have a carrier-provided portal page that loads when you start your branded browser. A single screen name is common to any service you visit. This screen name is tied to the account, and allows for verification of all screen activity. User experience (and child safety) is improved by the removal of unregulated content. Anyone who guffaws at the idea of a customisable interface that uses only subscribed content just needs to use an iphone for a few days without a visit to the app store.

This would suit the vast majority of users who would appreciate the simplicity and safety of having a single point of contact for all technical and administrative issues.

Short version: Most of you goobers only tweet, stream video, and buy shoes anyway. It's not like you use the internet as a global network in the sense of aw-gosh-just-look-at-all-the-information-that-you-can-find.
 
2014-05-11 07:28:41 AM  
The USA could be common-carrier. ....But what about the rest of the world?

I keep thinking about this.

Ultimately, either it's completely deregulated, and there's 30 options for Internet to choose from, or the government provides the Internet access and what the people want.

If it's in the middle, the companies will act just like electricity and natural gas utilities. Very little new investment, and very little caring.

The only innovation as far as Internet access in the USA comes solely from Google. You should be scared. Not that it's Google necessarily, but they're the only ones and they could change their minds -- directors and shareholders come and go.

The best Internet seems to come from the 1st world countries with strong and small governments, such as South Korea.

I don't know how to solve the problem for the USA, but if it doesn't consider global competition, it's not what I'd consider a solution.
 
2014-05-11 07:59:18 AM  

Wake Up Sheeple: Ultimately, either it's completely deregulated, and there's 30 options for Internet to choose from, or the government provides the Internet access and what the people want.


Most of these 30 internet providers are mere resellers and shysters and fly-by-night operators. You can be an ISP by signing a few contracts with the actual providers of infrastructure, and then assembling some sort of marketing front that's used to entice end consumers into agreements.  Again, you can be an ISP without actually owning or maintaining much more than advertising and billing departments.

It isn't 1995, there isn't some sort of new frontier of information, there isn't any invention or innovation by mavericks with a dream, nor any of that other hogwash. It's parasites and camp followers and jumped-up digital wide-boys reselling the copper and glass of ATT and MCI and Sprint and a few others.

May as well cut out the middleman.
 
2014-05-11 08:05:17 AM  
letrole: May as well cut out the middleman.

Let me start off by saying, I'm well aware of your fark name.

But I was actually talking physical carriers. Completely separate Layer 1 and Layer 2.
 
2014-05-11 08:12:29 AM  
Anything AT&T wants should indicate the worst possible course of action for ordinary Americans.
 
2014-05-11 08:15:01 AM  

letrole: Wake Up Sheeple: Ultimately, either it's completely deregulated, and there's 30 options for Internet to choose from, or the government provides the Internet access and what the people want.

Most of these 30 internet providers are mere resellers and shysters and fly-by-night operators. You can be an ISP by signing a few contracts with the actual providers of infrastructure, and then assembling some sort of marketing front that's used to entice end consumers into agreements.  Again, you can be an ISP without actually owning or maintaining much more than advertising and billing departments.

It isn't 1995, there isn't some sort of new frontier of information, there isn't any invention or innovation by mavericks with a dream, nor any of that other hogwash. It's parasites and camp followers and jumped-up digital wide-boys reselling the copper and glass of ATT and MCI and Sprint and a few others.

May as well cut out the middleman.


Are you talking about Canada?  I hope you are because far as I know "signing a few contracts with the actual providers" needs the part about the actual providers giving your a competitive rate, which far as I know is only possible in Canada because that's how Rogers & Bell are forced to operate.  Much to my benefit there is at least a semblance of competition here, sorry about your Comcast.
 
2014-05-11 08:16:43 AM  

MurphyMurphy: Fark fark fark the peering discussion.

Why does it boil down to that? Because thats where anyone can most easily shift blame and.. both conveniently and by its nature, control and influence their customers end product (as a whole)

1) Further classify/quantify networks (which we sort of do already)

2) All peering relationships are mandated free.. cost of business

3) Providers of certain tiers and networks of certain tiers are mandated to maintain a certain minimum quantity of congestion-free peers to a variety of the established rankings

The net needs to become user/application centric. Focused on delivery.

Got a problem with that?

Well dont sell services your own infrastructure cant support.


I'm trying to think of a way I could exploit that set of rules, probably along the lines of declaring myself an ISP and my demark point is my current ISP's cable running to my house.
 
2014-05-11 08:25:27 AM  

Wake Up Sheeple: But I was actually talking physical carriers. Completely separate Layer 1 and Layer 2.



so who owns layer 1 anyway?


so who owns layer 2 anyway?


so who owns layer 3 anyway?
 
2014-05-11 08:36:32 AM  

BumpInTheNight: Are you talking about Canada?  I hope you are because far as I know "signing a few contracts with the actual providers" needs the part about the actual providers giving your a competitive rate, which far as I know is only possible in Canada because that's how Rogers & Bell are forced to operate.  Much to my benefit there is at least a semblance of competition here, sorry about your Comcast.



That's two separate issues. Terms are terms. That's whatever business agreement. The things that make up an ISP, that is to say the copper, the switches, trunks, exchange termination -- all that is infrastructure that the intentionally scare quoted "ISP" leases and hands off to the real provider. That even includes mail servers. Who owns and maintains mail.shyster-isp.com? Does Shyster ISP really have a mail server anyway? No, it's a virtual box. It's not even real hardware.
 
2014-05-11 08:38:25 AM  
letrole:
so who owns layer 1 anyway?
so who owns layer 2 anyway?
so who owns layer 3 anyway?


Who owns L3, L7, Plan 9?

Who is number 1?
 
2014-05-11 08:39:10 AM  

letrole: That's two separate issues. Terms are terms. That's whatever business agreement. The things that make up an ISP, that is to say the copper, the switches, trunks, exchange termination -- all that is infrastructure that the intentionally scare quoted "ISP" leases and hands off to the real provider. That even includes mail servers. Who owns and maintains mail.shyster-isp.com? Does Shyster ISP really have a mail server anyway? No, it's a virtual box. It's not even real hardware.


You're essentially arguing that UPS isn't a real company either because all their trucks are built by ford (or who-ever).
 
2014-05-11 08:39:44 AM  

BumpInTheNight: I'm trying to think of a way I could exploit that set of rules, probably along the lines of declaring myself an ISP and my demark point is my current ISP's cable running to my house.


You find the owner(s) of the infrastructure and sign a lease.
 
2014-05-11 08:51:48 AM  

BumpInTheNight: You're essentially arguing that UPS isn't a real company either because all their trucks are built by ford (or who-ever).


No, I'm arguing that your local chevrolet dealership doesn't design, build, or provide 5/50 warranty on the vehicles it sells. Honest Bob or Cowboy Cal or whoever is a smiling, reselling shyster. A bizzniss man, not a manufacturer.

And it's only anti-trust laws that prevent Chevrolet from operating its own stores at a much higher profit without going through the franchise model.
 
2014-05-11 08:56:31 AM  

letrole: BumpInTheNight: You're essentially arguing that UPS isn't a real company either because all their trucks are built by ford (or who-ever).

No, I'm arguing that your local chevrolet dealership doesn't design, build, or provide 5/50 warranty on the vehicles it sells. Honest Bob or Cowboy Cal or whoever is a smiling, reselling shyster. A bizzniss man, not a manufacturer.

And it's only anti-trust laws that prevent Chevrolet from operating its own stores at a much higher profit without going through the franchise model.


So then every ISP in the universe is really Cisco, Juniper or going out of business trying to use Netgear?  I guess that explains the mark up on Cisco's crap.
 
2014-05-11 09:05:41 AM  

BumpInTheNight: So then every ISP in the universe is really Cisco, Juniper or going out of business trying to use Netgear?  I guess that explains the mark up on Cisco's crap.


Cisco has its dominance because nothing but Cisco works well with Cisco. If the backbone of the interweb was actually as diverse as the idea of 30 scare quoted "ISPs" would seem to say, then you'd have entire segments with more economical kit providers.
 
2014-05-11 09:27:49 AM  

Wake Up Sheeple: The USA could be common-carrier. ....But what about the rest of the world?

I keep thinking about this.

Ultimately, either it's completely deregulated, and there's 30 options for Internet to choose from, or the government provides the Internet access and what the people want.

If it's in the middle, the companies will act just like electricity and natural gas utilities. Very little new investment, and very little caring.

The only innovation as far as Internet access in the USA comes solely from Google. You should be scared. Not that it's Google necessarily, but they're the only ones and they could change their minds -- directors and shareholders come and go.

The best Internet seems to come from the 1st world countries with strong and small governments, such as South Korea.

I don't know how to solve the problem for the USA, but if it doesn't consider global competition, it's not what I'd consider a solution.


Europe, where there are many more providers competing, has recently passed strong Network Neutrality laws by an overwhelming margin.

The European Parliament has voted to protect net neutrality, limiting the power of telecoms providers to charge third parties for faster network access.

Members of the European Parliament approved the legislation by 534 votes to 25, with 58 abstentions - clear support for Commission vice president Neelie Kroes, who has pushed strongly for the changes.

Telecoms regulator BEREC says that several internet access providers across the region have been blocking or slowing down services such as Skype or Netflix , with the Commission suggesting that as many as 100 million users may have been affected.

Providers will now be allowed to slow or block internet access only to enforce a court order, preserve network security or prevent temporary network congestion. Even in these cases, measures must be "transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate", and mustn't last longer than necessary


The problem in the US is that we continue to allow the providers to buy each other out, so we have very little competition, and we allow those providers to buy control of the FCC so that long standing common carrier restrictions already present in our laws are not enforced against internet providers.
 
2014-05-11 09:27:55 AM  

FormlessOne: AT&T is to the Internet what AT&T is to telephones.



I have absolutely no love for AT&T service of any kind, but I have to declare that some of the best land-line telephone hardware I've used has been AT&T branded.
 
2014-05-11 09:35:49 AM  

Gunboat: That's not how corporate law works. Shareholders can't be held liable. Their maximum loss is the value of their stock, and that is all. And holding the stock cannot lead to criminal liability, no matter what the corporation does. http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/97-4/Kahan.PDF


I am aware of that, thank you, but I was expanding the argument originally presented by Mr Eugenides.
If a telecom company like AT&T insists upon regulating content through their pipes (and filtering said content as they see fit), then they should be liable for any criminal activity (like child pornography or illegal file sharing) that pass through on their watch.

Since it isn't prudent to lock up the physical piece of paper that is a corporation, you must go after the entities capable of actually making a decision: the shareholders.

Or, the telecoms can eat a bowl of dicks, be common carriers, and drop this entire double-dipping-on-revenue idea.
 
2014-05-11 09:41:40 AM  
These guys are organizing a coordinated attack just like we had when Fark and so many other sites turned their website black and urged their customers to contact Congress and stop SOPA.

s3.amazonaws.com

Here is the part of their site that helps you call, email, and tweet at your Congress critter.
 
2014-05-11 09:52:33 AM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: If a telecom company like AT&T insists upon regulating content through their pipes (and filtering said content as they see fit), then they should be liable for any criminal activity (like child pornography or illegal file sharing) that pass through on their watch.



Well, that's the case with BT in England. If you, as a business, library, whatever, provide a wireless access point with no key, or public signage with the key so that users can still connect anonymously, then guess what, your business just became an ISP, not just somebody with access being shared by coworkers. Looks like it would be the other way around, but no, you're not considered an ISP if you limit connection to known parties.


So your business just became liable for what goes on, and your only recourse to being shut down by the real ISP (such as BT) is to provide proof that you have taken reasonable steps to monitor, log, stop, and report any illegal usage.
 
2014-05-11 09:54:22 AM  

BullBearMS: Here is the part of their site that helps you call, email, and tweet at your Congress critter.


So how am I supposed to help? I'm not a folk singer. I can't even play guitar.
 
2014-05-11 11:13:32 AM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Mr. Eugenides: Either the ISPs are common carriers or each CEO is personally liable for every instance of child pornography or other illegal content that crosses their wires/cables.

Either they filter no content and are common carriers or they accept personal liability for all content if they want to filter.  I'll accept either of those positions.

The CEO wouldn't be directly. The stockholders themselves would be (of which the CEO may be one),they're the aggregate of the corporation.

The Justice Department can subpoena every single shareholder every single time someone wants pirates a movie. Hell, we can divide the MPAA-established damages by the total number of outstanding shares and fine those individuals/organizations.


.... I would go to some research before you start spouting off about things.  Maybe I'm missing some sarcasm here, but this is the exact opposite of reality.  If this were true, almost no companies would be able to sell their stock.
 
2014-05-11 08:58:11 PM  

Oreamnos: FormlessOne: AT&T is to the Internet what AT&T is to telephones.


I have absolutely no love for AT&T service of any kind, but I have to declare that some of the best land-line telephone hardware I've used has been AT&T branded.


If it was made before 1980, yeah. After that? Not a chance in hell.
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report