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."
It could widely open the door for such clauses in regular ISPs contracts...
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.
Not to say that both are mutually exclusive, of course.
Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
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.
As long as they're clear about what they are and aren't selling for $XX.99 per month, they're free to not sell whatever they don't want to sell.
(The mistake that the ISPs made was in claiming to sell YYY Mbits/s 'unlimited' and then not actually providing that.)
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Sprint has a $60/month unlimited plan, with no dependency on a voice plan. I'm using it now.
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
By selectively banning accounts for certain types of traffic, AT&T has effectively disqualified themselves from the safe harbor provisions. All that someone needs to do is download some pics of kiddy diddling and AT&T could be sued to oblivion for providing child pornography. Safe harbor ONLY applies when the ISP doesn't bias network traffic.
"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
1. Profanity on AT&T's network will be fined at $0.99 per incident
2. Failure to return mother-in-law's call will temporarily disable all other outgoing calls.
3. Calling ex-girlfriend after 10 pm will be charged at time-and-a-half.
4. Using map feature to locate a Verizon retail store will cause your handset to be remotely bricked.
5. Calling AT&T customer service will result in temporary data throughput reduction.
6. Calling three friends in a row within a three minute period will result in suspension of outgoing call privileges.
Super, this is an easy way out of any ATT contract. Fire up a P2P client and you are out of your contract with no termination fees. Cool.
AT&T can certainly change their contract as they deem apropriate. I'm pretty certain that's become a common practice. But A lot of you decriers of 'FOUL' are kind of missing the point.
The whole "Legitimate" reason for using P2P / BitTorrent whatever is to try and ensure that there will be more bandwidth for a desired file than will be availible by any one provider.
That is to say, now adays files are so large and there is so much demand that unless you have oodles and oodles of upstream bandwidth, someone is going to get denied access because of too many users. (any of you who may remember ftp archives like WU) or downloads that are much slower than that 8Gb fiberline you just had run the last mile to your house.
It's the same philosophy that you all bitched about when you'd say MS Windows expands to fill all resources. Just because you can use P2P doesn't mean you should. A lot of you are savvy enough to know how to limit the number of upstream clients you can provide for. But in general uncontrolled P2P will consume as much of your upstream as it can while your downloading your Pr0n.
Anyone who plays WoW will know their P2P is vicious, and this is from a company with the most popular MMORPG in the world, Billions of dollars a month from user fees and such and they have to use your network to help spread their updates?
So cry if you get thumped by the 'Corporate Giant' trying to keep the hard working hacker down. It's not about unlimited data, it's about people using tools that crush everyone elses fun using that service.
Think about it, you paid to move data for yourself up and down that line, P2P makes you a data dealer for 2 - 100's more all on that one line you are paying for.
Probably blew my Karm but oh Well.
DS
Today? I don't know. Today P2P is mainly used just for the sharing of large data files.
It's pretty to imagine future applications where it really makes a lot of sense, though. Imagine this: your jabber server says that someone wants to initiate a VoIP phone call. The caller's request is PGP-signed, so you don't just immediately reject it out-of-hand as obviously a spammer. You immediately download their public key from a keyserver using a non-p2p protocol, but now you need to do a reputation lookup, to find out if anyone on your reputation WoT asserts that this identity is not a spammer. Your phone, talking through giFT layer, sends a request out to a variety of p2p networks, asking for reputation attestations concerning keyid 98379234. You get an answer from someone, where 43523453 (who happens to be someone with an already-positive reputation in your local cache) attests that 98379234 is not a spammer, so your phone goes ahead and beeps and displays "incoming call." The file transferred is really pretty small and not incompatible with the idea of bandwidth-limited networks.
p2p's potential applications are vast. We're just in the very early days, is all, so we don't always see every way it could be used.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.