Slashdot Mirror
AT&T to Help MPAA Filter the Internet?
Save the Internet writes "Ars Technica is reporting that the MPAA is trying to convince major ISPs to do content filtering. Now, merely wanting it is one thing, but the more important point is that 'AT&T has agreed to start filtering content at some mysterious point in the future.' We're left to wonder about the legal implications of that, but given that AT&T already has the ability to wiretap everything for the NSA, it was only a matter of time before they found a way to profit from it, too."
Not as I understand it (any lawyers feel free to correct me) but Telcos are common carriers only as applies to their voice networks. For reasons I don't fully understand, so-called "data services" are exempt.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
It fits the pattern we've been seeing from them. Remember, this is the company that pillaged South Africa's economy, rewrote its privacy policy to give itself more leniency, lobbies against net neutrality, and fights open-access wireless.
And don't forget, they shut down the time service too. Bastards.
On the 0th day, God created C
IANAL, but I'll correct you anyway. :)
http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/telecom_carrier.htm
http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/jones.htm
thus far, the law (CA 1934, CALEA, 47 U.S.C. 153(h)(1991), etc.) does not differentiate between a "communications provider" that uses voice or analog signal, and one that does packet pushing for data (which lately, could also be voice). Of course, as soon as you go modifying what you're carrying (snooping on traffic, prioritizing traffic for whoever pays the most, etc.) that common carrier status is in jeopardy.
The law could of course be rewritten at any time, or interpreted differently by any judge.
illum oportet crescere me autem minui
thus far, the law (CA 1934, CALEA, 47 U.S.C. 153(h)(1991), etc.) does not differentiate between a "communications provider" that uses voice or analog signal, and one that does packet pushing for data
The FCC and the Supreme Court seem to have decided upon a different interpretation. The court upheld the FCC's interpretation of the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
This quote is interesting:
The Court seemed to be somewhat uncomfortable, however, with the fact that the FCC's holding imposed common carrier obligations on high-speed digital subscriber line ("DSL") offerings by telephone companies, but not cable modem services--which compete head-to-head in the US internet access market.
and would indicate that the broadband offerings made by the Telcos are subject to common carriage regulation, whereas the cable outfits managed to avoid it. If that ruling still holds, it might put a bee in AT&T's bonnet.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
ATT you want to see what will make me pay $50 a month for my Internet from the cable company? Start filtering and I'll drop your crappy $20 DSL that day.
I hope you don't have this for a cable company.
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/04/2014236
http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-throttles-bittorrent-traffic-seeding-impossible/
Over the past weeks more and more Comcast users started to notice that their BitTorrent transfers were cut off. Most users report a significant decrease in download speeds, and even worse, they are unable to seed their downloads. A nightmare for people who want to keep up a positive ratio at private trackers and for the speed of BitTorrent transfers in general.
The truth shall set you free!
Well AT&T' s broadband division is completely seperate from its telephone division for this very reason (well probably more than just this reason). ISP's are not afforded common carrier status, the are ESPs or Enhanced Service Providers under FCC regulations and held accountable (well kinda) to a different set of rules.
I'm sure I've mentioned this before.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
No, of course not.
However, if a member of a law enforcement branch of the government says "this is legal" and it's plausible, I might answer differently.
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
Repeat after me:
ISPs are not common carriers
ISPs are not common carriers
ISPs are not common carriers
I'm not sure why everyone keeps thinking otherwise, but ISPs are not common carriers. They already do actions that would be in violation of common carrier status, and no, no one has or will be suing them for it.
There was a court case involving AOL that illustrated this very principle. "Common carriers" are generally considered to be immune from prosecution or lawsuits pertaining to the content that passes through their system, because they do not originate that content. They are merely passing it from place to place at the behest of third parties, so they cannot be held responsible for that content.
ISPs have often been able to claim the "common carrier" defense in court when users tried to sue them for things having to do with content (libel, slander, etc. by third parties).
In the AOL case, someone in a moderated chatroom made defamatory comments about someone else in the chatroom. The offended party sued both the defamer and AOL. The lawyers for AOL tried to get AOL excused from the suit, using the common carrier defense. The judge disagreed. The problem is that AOL moderates (censors) its chatrooms. The judge ruled that if AOL chose to control the content, then AOL was responsible for that content.
In a way this is kind of ironic, because their chatrooms were moderated in an attempt to keep things "family friendly". But in reality, they can't have it both ways. And that really is justice.
So, you are correct. The basic idea is: you cannot claim the "common carrier" defense if you control the content that passes through your service. Filtering (like censoring) most definitely qualifies as "control". Carriers who control their content can be sued for that content. So if they filter, they can then be prosecuted for passing along, say, illegal porn that goes through. And it would be pretty easy for someone to set up such a "passing through". So they are sticking their heads in a noose.
Which, by the way, is fine with me.
Contrary to what that other poster wrote, that is the law and it is real.