Slashdot Mirror


Interview with AT&T on BitTorrent Filtering

An anonymous reader writes "Slyck is running an interview with AT&T's Vice President of Legal Affairs, Jim Cicconi. AT&T discusses the latest in their effort to filter, however one interesting point tends to show they aren't moving anywhere until they discuss this with their customers. "We hear from our customers directly and indirectly. It's a very competitive business, ravenously so. I think our company is very, very sensitive to customer attitude — we have to consider this," Jim Cicconi told Slyck.com."

45 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. Hey slick by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Forget your customers, get your ass down to the local library and get your hands on the text of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act right NOW. You're opening yourself up to upwards of trillions in liability if your filtering doesn't work perfectly 100% of the time. You're also opening yourselves up to massive liability with the federal government (hint: take a quick look at Comcast vis-a-vis Bit Torrent).

    Quit spending all day being a PR monkey and get back to being a lawyer for your company. You're giving bad advice that has the potential to obliterate your employer.

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    1. Re:Hey slick by despe666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not worried about them, they'll just buy themselves another custom-made exception in Congress.

    2. Re:Hey slick by afidel · · Score: 4, Informative

      The safe harbor provisions. By selectively filtering content they are no longer a common carrier and are thus part of the content serving chain and are thus liable for "providing" each and every piece of content that successfully flows through their system. It's right there in black and white in a document that they and the content industry wrote, they figured that banning the act would be sufficient so they wrote it to fit their existing business model. Now they think they can make more money by not expanding capacity and therefore want to eliminate one of the more bandwidth intensive uses of their network.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  2. EDGE by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "If someone is using a p2p network on a cell 24/7, it can adversely impact the service of their neighbors. It has the effect of not providing the service paid for. Overwhelming usage is from BitTorrent traffic. No one wants to get to the point [where] we say, "You can't do that."

    Oh, now I get it. They think that's why EDGE is slow. Kind of cute in a retarded kind of way.

    Do they think EV-DO users aren't using P2P or something? Perhaps if they upgraded the network instead of locking it down, it might work better for them.

    1. Re:EDGE by stinerman · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, the Internet is faster for YOU if no one else does anything other than check their email. In fact, it's faster for everyone if everyone just doesn't use it. Look at all that theoretical capacity!

    2. Re:EDGE by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "We will provide greater bandwidth and service for everyone and invest in upgrades to our networks if this bill passes and you approve of this monopoly franchise agreement"
      First, agree to never give any sort of customer information to the government without a court order, then we can talk. Until then, AT&T, just stick to the agreements you've made with your customers. And if that agreement was "unlimited internet", don't whine about how much I use.

      It's funny how deeply caring and concerned about customers AT&T is when they're getting ready to fuck them over. They didn't seem to care so much when they bent over and handed our data to law enforcement without a judge's order.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  3. Re:asdlfkj3214^J!#$K%JEWKRJL^#!$%DJGASDLKTJ by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 4, Funny

    You make a valid point, but aren't you overstating the strength of your evidence?

  4. Not even close by TheMeuge · · Score: 5, Informative

    We hear from our customers directly and indirectly. It's a very competitive business, ravenously so. I think our company is very, very sensitive to customer attitude -- we have to consider this

    Hearing that hurt my ear. I've been a relatively unwilling AT&T customer 3 times now, due to various mergers and acquisitions, and they've managed to go against the consensus opinions of their customers on every issue that I have encountered, where such a dichotomy existed.

    For instance, I purchased my Blackjack from an authorized Cingular dealer, and received unlimited internet for $19.99 per month. I was really happy with the service. After Cingular became AT&T wireless, I began getting service outages, and now it takes me >2 minutes to connect to the internet, and the connection will time out after 2 minutes of being idle, rendering it almost useless. When I called, I was told that AT&T has different internet plans than Cingular, and my Blackjack could only get the $40/month plans, and they wouldn't help me with my service problems. I am still under contract, but it seems that AT&T isn't interested in their part of the deal.

    It is perfectly clear that as a part of a government-sanctioned mono- or oligopoly, they have no interest at all in their customer's opinions.
    1. Re:Not even close by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's your settings, reset your internet settings in the phone to default.

      I did that and now I get no problems with my blackjack. I even get over 740k in metro detroit when I am in 3G land.

      Also, do NOT sign a new contract with them. Stay with the old cingular terms. They will screw you hard if you change, and as long as you are a "old" customer you still fall under the old terms and you are safe from them screwing you on data plan rates.

      I dont care what they promise you, do NOT upgrade your plan or change it in any way until it's really worth your while as your data price will go to the $40.00 a month.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Not even close by Nullav · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because getting a $5 refund after a few years is really worth the trouble.

      --
      I just read Slashdot for the articles.
  5. Don't shed a tier for me by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My suggestion - though I'm not an AT&T customer - is to investigate the possibility of implementing tiered pricing as Time Warner is considering. If the problem with BitTorrent and other P2P apps (from your perspective, anyway) is disproportionate bandwidth usage, why not just charge more from the people using more than their fair share?

    That is, unless the true motivation here is that you're deep in the pocket of the content cabal and will do anything to get whatever pittance of a kickback they're willing to give.

    1. Re:Don't shed a tier for me by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Although there is some sense to what you are suggesting, there is still one problem: Unlimited MEANS unlimited. If you sell users an unlimited plan, it is UNLIMITED. If you sell them that plan then decide that it is only unlimited for certain types of traffic packets, well, that is just not legal. If you buy a car, you have reasonable expectations that it will work on ALL highways. If you buy an unlimited Internet plan, you have reasonable expectations that it will work for all Internet protocol types and traffic.

      If they want to sell a plan that does not permit P2P protocols, fine as long as that is what it says up front. If they want to sell a plan that only allows 10KB per month, no problem (good luck with that btw) and other such things. The trouble is that they sell unlimited plans, and their real problem is that they didn't think anyone would use the unlimited part. You know, customers get tired of trying to connect, so just don't use the service too much, then it's all good.

      Now, if the reason for wanting to filter is ONLY to help the **AA and/or government types to find out things about you, well... burn the witches in hell I say. Better yet, switch services, let the shareholders burn them. I switched, as fast as I could when AT&T merged with Cingular. Do you need a daddy? AT&T wants to be your Ma Bell?

    2. Re:Don't shed a tier for me by boyko.at.netqos · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, the problem is that charging for the data isn't going to do anything to resolve bandwidth issues. A user downloading a single large file during peak times at high speeds is going to create more of a bandwidth problem than a user downloading multiple large files via BT staggered over a couple of days. It's because data isn't the limited resource - data is unlimited. It's bandwidth - the capacity of the pipe at any particular time which is limited.

      If your neighbor's network is going slower because you're downloading a huge file, that's not a sign of you being a 'bandwidth hog' - it's a sign of improper QoS policies in place. Everybody gets a share of the pipe. If you want a bigger share of that pipe, you can ALREADY pay for more bandwidth, which is the limited resource. Charging for bandwidth AND data is "double dipping"

      In my opinion, it's just an excuse to try to maintain the old business models of cable TV (for cable companies) and cellphone/landline (for phone companies) when better alternatives (digital distribution/VoIP) exist.

      --
      I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
    3. Re:Don't shed a tier for me by Jurily · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is no such thing as "disproportionate bandwidth usage" in an unlimited plan. They sold it, but they don't want to deliver it.

    4. Re:Don't shed a tier for me by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Informative

      They don't advertise unlimited access. Prove me wrong. Fucking tard. 30 seconds with google reveals:

      http://www.consumer.att.com/plans/internet/

      Get unlimited high-speed Internet access over your existing phone line at great low rates. ... Plans as low as $19.95 per month

      So fucking stupid, it's no wonder you post as AC.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    5. Re:Don't shed a tier for me by petermgreen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A user downloading a single large file during peak times at high speeds is going to create more of a bandwidth problem than a user downloading multiple large files via BT staggered over a couple of days
      There are a couple of issues with this:

      The first is that very few people download hundreds of megabytes per day from non P2P sources. Even if they do (for example a video on demand TV series) the content provider is likely to take steps to place the content close to the users (because it reduces thier costs as well as the users ISPs costs, see for example the BBC who peer with most if not all major UK ISPs) whereas with P2P bits of the files tend to come from all over the world.

      The other issue is assuming a network that treats all packets equally a group of TCP connections competing for the line should end up with about equal bandwidth. So if you use a protocol that uses n TCP connections (I think bittorrent tends to use about 5 though it depends on configuration) at once to download a file you will end up with 5 times the bandwidth share as someone who is downloading using a conventional protocol that is based on a single TCP connection.

      If your neighbor's network is going slower because you're downloading a huge file, that's not a sign of you being a 'bandwidth hog' - it's a sign of improper QoS policies in place.
      One soloution is certainly a QOS system that limits bandwidth hogs to thier fair share while allowing normal users to have a normal bursty pattern. I think the main downside to that system is you really need to implement it at every level of the network as you can't be sure at what level of the network the pinch point will be.

      In my opinion, it's just an excuse to try to maintain the old business models of cable TV (for cable companies) and cellphone/landline (for phone companies) when better alternatives (digital distribution/VoIP) exist.
      With voip I agree with you but that isn't what this article is about. I would also agree with you if they tried to attack sanely implemented legitimate digital distribution of TV series but that isn't what this article is about either.

      Distribution using tools like bittorrent is a network admins nightmare. There is little to no attempt made to keep traffic on cheap local links rather than expensive international ones. Multiple TCP connections are used for a single download making the protocol more agressive in it's use of bandwidth (see above) and the ISP dare not try and do anything to cache/optimise it because they know that the bulk of the traffic is illegal.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    6. Re:Don't shed a tier for me by boyko.at.netqos · · Score: 2, Funny

      I agree with everything except the French-bashing. The French are actually known for trying out new technologies. The Concorde? The Bullet-Train? The Eiffel Tower? The Metric System? The Guillotine?

      --
      I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
  6. If True, Then Not Going To Happen by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Informative

    they aren't moving anywhere until they discuss this with their customers.

    If this is true, then it isn't going to happen. What customer is going to say, "Hey, block some of the applications I could otherwise use with this broadband pipe I pay for."

    Even if a customer isn't using it at the moment, they won't be in favor of blocking it since they might want it in the future.

    If this is true, then it will never happen at AT&T, and they were just blowing smoke to appease everyone since they know their filtering solution is impossible anyway. You can't filter what you can't read, and you can't read strongly encrypted packets - end of discussion.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:If True, Then Not Going To Happen by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Even if a customer isn't using it at the moment, they won't be in favor of blocking it since they might want it in the future.

      You're manking the assumption that customers are not stupid and short-sighted. AT&T will promise them a 50% discount for 3 months and they'll sign anything.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:If True, Then Not Going To Happen by n6kuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obviously you misunderstood what they mean by "discuss this with their customers".

      Discuss, as in, "Oh, by the way, we're changing the terms of your service."

      --
      If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
    3. Re:If True, Then Not Going To Happen by edmicman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But it doesn't just apply to "illegal" filesharing. More and more downloads are going to be handled via P2P protocols because of the bandwidth crunch that the ISPs have created for themselves. How many HD movie downloads via iTunes would it take to hit 160GB in a month? What about legal downloads of isos or movies via bittorrent? What about Joost streaming TV (or any streaming video technology) that makes use of P2P technologies?

      Capping bandwidths and throttling users is very shortsighted - it's only going to put off the inevitable. The truth is that the ISPs have always oversold their bandwidth, and are now getting burned for it. The answer isn't to limit people's use - the solution is to build more bandwidth infrastructure!

  7. Does filtering really work? by dattaway · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Many people on the dd-wrt forums would love to know how to do it. Its been tried on the L7 layer, but clients get around that in seconds.

    1. Re:Does filtering really work? by Artefacto · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not sure how they do it, but my ISP (netcabo, Portugal) is able to throttle bittorrent traffic even when the most strict encryption options are selected. They must be using good techniques to recognise bittorrent traffic in particular, because they're not able to throttle the encrypted protocols used by eMule. The method is so agressive that when it's in "throttle mode" other protocols may also be affected. It's also not mere passive throttling, they actually send false RST packages to your peers, so you can't keep a connection for long (talk about man-in-the-middle attacks...) And they don't acknowledge any of this ("p2p traffic speed is influenced by many factors" is the usual line) unless you get very deep in the support chain. There's no official position on this matter whatsoever.

  8. Already a dozen comments... by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...in a story where an AT&T executive is asserting it "listens" to its customers, and no wisecracks about NSA wiretapping?

    Come on, people, you disappoint me! ;-)

  9. No fuckin way! by superash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If someone is using a p2p network on a cell 24/7, it can adversely impact the service of their neighbors. It has the effect of not providing the service paid for.

    WHAT?? Was it written in the ISP subscription forms that you are not supposed to use p2p? And if I use p2p network and the whole cell is affected then its fuckin time you upgraded the b/w of the cell!!!

    It's like saying, "You are using a Microwave and a fridge, your neighbor cannot switch on the lights....so, you need to switch off your fridge". pah!

  10. Identifying Pirated Content by zifn4b · · Score: 5, Funny

    "We've [internally] tested several systems, and we're going to see if there's a way to identify pirated content on the network. That asks the question of what to do if we develop such as technology. The actual deployment raises a lot of questions, [such as the impact on] customer rights and government policy. We wouldn't proceed without answers to those questions." Hmm... maybe they could use something similar to this.
    --
    We'll make great pets
  11. And the Singularity is just around the corner by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 3, Funny
    So, when it happens, all our troubles with bandwidth will be forgotten...

    Or, will all this data processing power be squandered on downloading videos of the shaved pudendum of one Britney Spears?

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  12. Competition? by webmaster404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a very competitive business

    Oh I am sure there is loads of competition in the ISP business dominated by 4 businesses, that must be a ton of competition with Verizon, Time-Warner and Comcast all charging sky high rates for ISP service. Really, there's almost no competition in the ISP field there's the big 4 and some local ISPs and that is about it. Thats about the same as MS saying that the OS business is very competitive with only 1 major universal competitor which is Linux (Yes there is OS-X but it doesn't run on standard computers)

    --
    There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
    1. Re:Competition? by rhizome · · Score: 3, Informative

      that must be a ton of competition with Verizon, Time-Warner and Comcast all charging sky high rates for ISP service.

      This is what has been termed The Big Lie, which if you sidestep the Godwinian implications allows AT&T to assert its barely bearable level of competition like Microsoft does with its own form of stiff competition. What they're competing against is "lack of complete domination," which is retarded in the broadest sense and an impossible Utopia in the specific.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    2. Re:Competition? by pavera · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The answer is phone services have a huge barrier to entry. You need somewhere in the neighborhood of 5-10 billion dollars to provide service (IE infrastructure, fiber, routers, etc) to all the homes in a single medium sized state. Multiply that by 50, and you need 250-500 billion dollars in capital to do the whole country.

      Then, you have to convince/bribe/cajoul the politicians in each state/city to give you rights of way so you can lay your fiber. This is going to cost another 5-10 billion dollars country wide. Then you have to spend another 50-100 billion in marketing to steal customers away from the incumbents. Now, maybe, if you're lucky and your marketing worked, and the incubents didn't drop their prices by 50%, you have a revenue stream.

      Once you have the infrastructure in place, adding MB of bandwidth is relatively cheap. This is why everyone hates the phone/cable companies, because they have no competition, but they could be providing much better services for the same we are paying now, but they dont' have to because there is not competition. If someone could magically lay a fiber network for cheap, they could destroy the incumbents. But the incumbents know this as well, and if someone did try to compete, they could just as easily drop their prices and keep customers from switching, causing the new provider to fail. They would then buy up the new providers assets at a bankruptcy fire sale, and then raise prices back up and not use the new assets to provide more services.

  13. All Depends on How They Ask by TechForensics · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You've never seen poll questions, have you? It all depends on how the question is phrased:

    1) Should we (AT&T) slow down some kinds of uses you can make of your unlimited pipe; or

    2) Should we throttle the bandwidth hogs who decrease the bandwidth available to YOU.

    That's what leading questions are all about...

    --
    Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
  14. Re:asdlfkj3214^J!#$K%JEWKRJL^#!$%DJGASDLKTJ by Scutter · · Score: 4, Funny

    WARNING - - - Cat-like typing detected.

    --

    "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
  15. I had AT&T's service by Jewfro_Macabbi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now I've dropped them like a bad habit. Seriously - their service sucks. Those commercials you see advertising their "broadband" network where the guys in a pond with a laptop surfing at high speeds. Yeah - my ass. I'm happy with my new Alltel service. Now I can download at the speeds faster than AT&T's total connection... The first month I used AT&T's mobile broadband - I received a $5000 dollar bill. I called them - WTF? They explained that though they had added unlimited net access to my account - they'd forgotten to take of the per MB charge - but they will fix it. The next month - a $15000 dollar bill - and the same rigamarole. Next month - a $34,000 dollar bill. At this point they disconnected my service for non-payment. I'll admit that lasted all of thirty seconds after calling them. It took 5 months for them to correct my bill.

  16. Actually... by The+Amazing+Fish+Boy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I posted one, but my ISP filtered the post.

  17. We listen to our customers... by Damocles+the+Elder · · Score: 3, Funny

    ..the same way we did opinion polls and studies to show us that our customers wanted to be wiretapped! Honestly. Everyone was emailing us, phoning us, saying that they wanted to be monitored. And who are we to deny our customers?

  18. Re:lying by LaughingCoder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    profits matter more than the customers
    Except that AT&T also knows that without customers there can be no profit. So in that case, customers are all that matters. Hmmm, what we have here is a genuine conundrum. Maybe it's not quite as simplistic as you suggest. Maybe they really are considering their customers - even if it's for all the "wrong" reasons like making a profit and staying in business, rather than just "doing the right thing".
    --
    The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
  19. I hope this happens by AlgorithMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The day that P2P Traffic gets filtered will be the day when anonymous P2P will finally catch on...
    then - when everyone can download everything without any fear of being caught - the CD sales will finally become THAT bad, that the music industry MUST start thinking about making better offers OR die... anyhow the result will be that all these crazy lawsuit-waves and the evil legislation lobbying will FINALLY come to an end

    --
    The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
  20. I LOL'd by stinerman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's a very competitive business, ravenously so

    Yeah, 2.5 options make for a very competitive market. You (or other monopoly) own my phone lines, while my cable monopoly owns my cable lines. High-latency satellite connections, slow-ass dialup (still over the monopoly's lines, BTW), or "unlimited" (5GB cap) cell data plans are the rest of the .5 options.

    I think a lot of businesses would be quite happy to have such an absence of competition in their markets.
  21. metered usage is the long term solution by wakim1618 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are several advantages to treating bankwidth like any other utility. Yes, your monthly charges will vary. So does your electricity bill and gas bill. But at the same time, this will provide pressure from consumers for software companies to declare how often their software calls home and how much bandwidth their application uses. In turn, this provides impetus for Congress to pass legislation whereby stealth phoning home will be illegal. Yeah, this last bit is probably wishful thinking. On the other hand, if you are uploading/downloading tons of stuff on p2p, then the costs of providing service to you probably exceeds what you are paying. Nevertheless, there is a large incentive for segmenting market between casual and heavy users.

  22. For those who didn't RTFA... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For those who didn't RTFA, here's the relevant quote:

    Were focusing on pirated content over BitTorrent, [not BitTorrent per se.]

    Hey, hint, to anyone who thinks this is a legitimate position: That is like saying you're focusing on stopping pornography, not web traffic per se. It doesn't work that way; even when you know what you want to block by domain (myspace.com), you'll be foiled by high school students (and proxies).

    And that said, most ISPs are having a hard enough time blocking BitTorrent at all, much less trying to filter specific uses. The sooner you give up trying to filter stuff that your users don't want filtered, the sooner you can focus on a long-term solution that will actually work, like upgrading your network.

    On DSL, it bothers me when my housemates use YouTube, and I occasionally try to throttle them, for that reason. When we get 100 mbit fiber, it won't matter.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    1. Re:For those who didn't RTFA... by LordSnooty · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When we get 100 mbit fiber, it won't matter.
      Hmm, but by then hi-def streaming video will be the norm. The needs of apps always expand to fill the available pipe.
    2. Re:For those who didn't RTFA... by billcopc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not really.

      Right now the pipe is artificially small, and has been for over a decade. In 1998 I remember having 3mbit symmetrical DSL for less than what I pay now for what is effectively half-duplex cable. Back in 98, my LAN was 10mbit, the internet was 30% of my line speed - today I'm nearing the end of gigabit's usable lifespan, waiting for the monkeys-that-be to crank out 100gbit ASAP (skip 10gig, too little too late). I'd probably be relatively happy with even just 30mbit symmetrical. I mean, I already have a fat 100mbit pipe on a server in Europe for not much more than my total cable bill here in Canada. It's not a dedicated line, but I really don't mind slowing to 40-50mbit during peak hours. Why can't we have that kind of juice over here, on what is supposed to be a wealthy continent ?

      Lay down the goddamned fiber already. It will have to be done at some point, might as well do it now and lease me a chunk of it every month. Weak networking infrastructure is leaving us in the past.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
  23. Re:asdlfkj3214^J!#$K%JEWKRJL^#!$%DJGASDLKTJ by RadioElectric · · Score: 3, Funny

    Any cat capable of using the shift key is probably overqualified.

  24. Re:Liar, liar, pants on fire by mozkill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    i totally agree. the first thing I noticed when reading this was the lie that "they care about what the customer thinks." . we all know they only care about profits and methods of getting leverage to raise fees.

    --

    -- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
  25. But there are legal reasons for BitTorrent by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Such as downloading Linux distros and free and open source software.

    Some musicians, such as Michael David Crawford release their music in free OGG format with an open source license that allows it to be spread by BitTorrent.

    Not only that but Joost and Miro are video players that use P2P and BitTorrent to share videos that are also released into the public domain, open source, and free licenses.

    Like I said there are 100% legal reasons for using BitTorrent and P2P filesharing networks. This will hurt the free and open source market more than it cuts down on piracy. It is like giving commercial licenses a free pass and filtering or blocking the free and open source licenses. Some people write articles and howtos via Legal Torrents to promote their web sites in a free or open source license, as well as help out the community.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.