Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Could Cut Off P2P Users
malign noted that AT&T has stated that using P2P on their 3G wireless network is grounds for disconnection. The lobbyist told congress "Use of a P2P file sharing application would constitute a material breach of contract for which the user's service could be terminated."
Sprint has a $60/month unlimited plan, with no dependency on a voice plan. I'm using it now.
It could widely open the door for such clauses in regular ISPs contracts...
This is nothing new. It's just usually not enforced.
For instance, Rogers's (Canadian ISP) TOS/EUA forbids a normal thing like hosting a website at pain of connection termination:
[4,k: not] operate a server in connection with the Services including but not limited to mail, news, file, gopher, telnet, chat, web, or host configuration servers, multimedia streamers, or multi-user interactive forums;
Rogers EUA
Violation is sufficient for them to cut your internet connection. Of course, they prevent people from doing this accidentally by fidiling with ICMP. In combination with their DNS poisoning, excuse me, helpful assistance... Rogers is becoming a really bad ISP.
That and the "unlimited service" means "we'll kick you off if you use over 5 gigs".
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Except when you violate the TOS they charge you an Early Term Fee or you can keep paying monthly for no access. It's in the legalize you signed. Sorry no free subsidized Iphone for you ;P
I recommend ATT or Verizon, both equally, and no one else.
I disagree. If you live in a major city both T-Mobile and Sprint are valid options. Both of them are focused on covering the areas where 90% of the population spends 90% of it's time. If you live in a decent sized city and rarely venture out into the countryside then why the hell should you pay half again as much (or more) for service with Verizon or AT&T?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
1. It's lose.
2. All the old common carrier rules went out the window with the internet. Not by law or anything, but just look at all the poking around in your data ISP's do nowadays. If they haven't lost CC protection for it yet, I doubt they ever will.
um...I hate to burst your rant, but for AT&T, it was in their contract saying wireless users can not use P2P. It's not like AT&T is booting them for copyright infringement...just lagging down networks with P2P.
Just because they are the ones canceling the contract doesn't mean they won't charge you the "early termination" fee.
If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
Quoted from AT&T Wireless's Service Agreement (emphasis mine). So yes, they can in fact charge you the fee if they are the ones canceling the contract.
IANAL either, but AFAIK, contracts are either totally or partially unenforceable if the contract as a whole or some part of the contract either violates a state or federal statute or violates public policy.
In other words, if you sign a contract agreeing to let me murder your wife, it's not enforceable.
Companies need to be responsible as well. You can't just write any old thing into a contract and expect it to hold the weight of law.
No. Illegal clauses / illegal contracts are not enforceable, regardless of your signature on them.
"In law, a default is the failure to do something required by law or to appear at a required time in legal proceedings." -wikipedia
IANAL, but failure to uphold your end of a contract (violating terms of service which results in a breach of contract) is a form of default.
The land shall stone them with the bread of his son.
Yeah, I almost had a heart attack. I thought this was for DSL and fiber customers when I read the title. Cutting off wireless P2P is at least understandable.
I doubt Sprint doesnt' allow streamin internet radio. On my Sprint Centro, which has a Sprint Firmware, a program is included that not only plays internet radio, but has a huge list of radio stations built in. AT&T specificaly disabled the internet-radio functionality of the included software, so it's clearly doable, but Sprint chose not to.
But "Judge Rules Sprint Early Termination Fees Illegal"
see here:
http://mobile.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/31/1627226
I see nothing wrong with this. On DSL networks, the bottleneck is between the DSLAM and the Internet. When congestion occurs, it's easy to add more bandwidth to a node. On cable networks, it's a little worse: each DOCSIS channel is ~38 mbit and shared. When congestion occurs between customers & the node, providers have to split up the node or possibly add more channels(?) for data service. Still, cable providers can just add new equipment & fiber and move some customers to it.
When wireless networks get congested, things aren't as simple. Licensees have a limited amount of bandwidth that must be shared with other services (be it GSM/EDGE vs. HSDPA or CDMA2000/1xRTT vs. 1xEV-DO.) If there's no more bandwidth to allocate, providers can add more capacity with additional base stations (expensive, difficult in some areas), reduce usage, or deploy new technology. And it seems like most providers already do all three to avoid congestion on data networks: those who use large amounts of bandwidth aren't welcome, new base stations are built when needed, and the technology is being upgraded every few years. None of these options can really be implemented
Compared to DOCSIS or ADSL, 3G cellular technologies are slow. DOCSIS is a ~38 mbit shared downstream (per channel). HSDPA (AT&T's current 3G technology) is 1.8 mbit on most devices and 3.6 mbit on newer phones.
P2P isn't very ambiguous: it's any appliation where every user works as a client and a server (BitTorrent, Skype, etc.) There's no clear client-server relationship. Protocols like HTTP, HTTPS, enterprise VPNs, etc. are not P2P. It's clear that the client is connecting to the server.
Maybe not? http://www.crn.com/retail/209900617 [crn.com]