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."
3G wireless data networking is a service with very limited total bandwidth. It has a premium price, and is primarily targeted at business users. Given the basic physical limits involved with the radio spectrum in question, you really have to either do this or have specific bandwidth quotas to effectively manage a network.
Having said that, I prefer Verizon's solution of clearly stated 5GB quota with overage at a known and stated cost. I don't use their service as a primary internet connection, but it's invaluable for the ability to connect from *anywhere*. This is particularly useful as I run my own consulting company, and need to be able to have access no matter what.
(Ultimate lightweight setup: Xseries Thinkpad plus Verizon EVDO modem)
ERROR: Null
Why must they sell this "unlimited" crap that is actually very limited? Give me data and a rate schedule, just like with voice minutes. Let me specify a cap so that some errant process doesn't wipe me out financially.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Before the hordes of angry /.'ers start cursing AT&T into oblivion, let me start by saying it's their network and they can impose whatever rules they feel like. Nobody is forcing you to sign up; there are options.
Over their cell network, I don't think this is an unreasonable stance for them to take. Sure, it may be annoying for the .05% of users (or whatever miniscule percentage of people) who are affected by this, but this isn't about internet access for the home computer - it's about wireless internet access for a cell network. Sure, when our cell phones are much more advanced and p2p applications make sense I'll think they need to rethink their stance, but for now, it's pretty reasonable. imho.
While this may be oppressive, at least users now know where they stand.This has to be better than an invisible, 'if we think you're using too much we may slow you down, and then lie about it repeatedly' policy.
Similarly, it's better that they're reminding customers of this and giving them a heads up. If it's in their contract, couldn't AT&T automatically pull the plug on their service and say later "You breached the contract...you *did* read the contract, didn't you?"?
No, they should not be able to say that. Because if they say that, every ISP can and will say that, then they start preventing you from downloading competitor's material, then they start censoring, and then the internet begins a slow death spiral in the US.
ISPs should be covered under common carrier laws. That means they are not responsible for the content of the information they transmit, but that they can also not give preferential treatment to a specific type of information or deprecate another type of information. They key here is the content of information. Downloading one 5 MB file should not be any different than downloading another 5 MB file, no matter what's within the file or what program you use to download it.
Content providers are putting more and more pressure on ISPs because they can. The ISPs in turn put pressure on the consumer and start setting standards which they should not be setting. Content providers should not have this much control!
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Before the discussion wanders off topic, it's important to note that this is not about copyright violation, something that's not mentioned anywhere in the letter. But, to quote from the letter:
Todayâ(TM)s P2P file sharing applications are inappropriate for AT&Tâ(TM)s mobile wireless broadband network, which is optimized to efficiently support high data rates for multiple users that send and receive intermittent or âoeburstyâ traffic generated by activities such as browsing the Internet and sending email. Because P2P file sharing applications typically engage in continuous (rather than bursty) transmissions at high data rates, a small number of users of P2P file sharing applications served by a particular cell site could severely degrade the service quality enjoyed by all customers served by that site.
So really, the issue isn't even P2P - the issue is "continuous transmissions at high data rates."
Now, the other day I spent about 2.5 hours on a Skype video call, and a few days before that I downloaded an ISO over HTTP (Mythbuntu). Will activities like those eventually be labeled a breach of service, because of their nature as "continuous transmissions at high data rates"? What about visiting Hulu? I think those are all pretty legitimate questions.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
"Does he really have many options if he wishes to choose another ISP?"
If we were talking about land-based ISP service, the answer would depend on where you live, but in most places there's at least one other option if you know where to look.
But we're not talking about land-based ISP service. We're talking about 3G cell phone service.
"ISPs due to infrastructure tend to have a natural monopolies. They have the responsibility of responding to the demands of their users."
Ah, the good old sense of consumer entitlement. So if I own the only lake-side property in town, and the folks in the town want a lake-side restaurant, I'm obliged to operate one for them? Nonsense.
The only special obligation placed on a monopoly is that it not abuse the free market with the power that being a monopoly gives it. Not being in the business you want them to be in isn't an abuse.
Wow, I just read through the comments at a threshold of 0, and it's clear that a whole lot of you can't seem to understand that WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A 3G DATA NETWORK. So all you people talking about downloading large files using BitTorrent or playing WOW, how many of you do that from YOUR FUCKING CELL PHONE?!?!?
This guy's the limit!
That Comcast is a ground based cable carrier, and hid it's interference, and AT&T is a wireless carrier whose TOS openly states that use of P2P applications on their wireless platform is grounds for termination of the contract? Slight differences there...
Best Slashdot Co
It could widely open the door for such clauses in regular ISPs contracts...
Two points:
1) This is actually a very different thing to a regular ISP contract, and is not related to copyright law. They're banning P2P because their network cannot handle P2P. That may be their own damn fault, but it's not an argument about users rights so much as an argument about their network infrastructure and QoS management.
2) Blanket banning P2P simply would not work at this stage for regular ISPs. Honestly, it's too late for that. It's already embedded in what consumers do, and you can't just turn it off any more. There are already too many legitimate consumer-oriented applications that make use of P2P; including that $100 million a month cash-cow, world of warcraft. (Sure, you can http if you have bad/no p2p access, but it would be a real degradation of patch-download time if you tried.)
Also streaming TV (see Joost, BBC iPlayer, etc) is starting to make use of it.
This is nothing new. It's just usually not enforced.
Even if it's enforced, I don't think RIAA should rub their collective hands just yet.
The old model says, do what you want with Internet connection, but if we find you breaking the law, we'll put you in jail, make you pay trough the nose etc. etc. This a significant deterrent for people thinking to use P2P illegally.
What they are proposing here is: do what you want make sure you are not caught; if we do catch you, we will give you a slap on the wrist.
This will just drive people to use more and more stealth P2P applications, share knowledge about what works and what not, switch from torrents to things la freenet etc.
A three-strikes and your out policy still allows three tries, and that's plenty of room for experimenting, only the most obtuse users will keep using the same p2p application to eventually be cut off. The users will always move faster than the corporate ISPs ability to implement piracy detectors.
This is a desperate move, and privacy issues aside, a good development for driving work on the anonymizing P2P services.
I think this is a step in the wrong direction. Id rather have them throttle my torrent or whatever
You're just falling into their trap. Later they'll cancel this and say "the only way to avoid this is by throttling", and you'll say "whew! I'm ok with that!"
If you don't stand up for your rights, who will?
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.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that suggest that if they terminate you specifically for nonpayment or default, ie, billing issues, they can hit you with that termination fee? I don't see anything in there about breaking the rules...
Granted IANAL, but I don't see legality as an issue here. By signing the service agreement (whether you did so physically or digitally), you have agreed to abide by the terms that they have provided to you before signing. If you didn't read them before agreeing to them, it's your loss.