- Related Stories
-
Thanks to BitTorrrent, Net neutrality debate reignites
November 2, 2007 -
AT&T to ramp up IPTV's expansion
January 25, 2007 - Related Blogs
-
AT&T considers filtering for pirated content
January 9, 2008
For the past several months, AT&T executives have said the company is testing technology to filter traffic on its network to look for copyrighted material that is being illegally distributed. James Cicconi, senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs for AT&T, reiterated the carrier's plans last week during a panel discussion at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.
"We are very interested in a technology-based solution and we think a network-based solution is the optimal way to approach this," Cicconi said in a New York Times article. "We recognize we are not there yet but there are a lot of promising technologies. But we are having an open discussion with a number of content companies, including NBC Universal, to try to explore various technologies that are out there."
AT&T's plans would turn the nation's largest telephone company into a kind of network cop, a role that some say could turn dangerous for the company. For one, filtering packets to determine whether they contain copyrighted material raises privacy concerns. And AT&T customers who have already been concerned about the company's alleged role in the National Security Agency's domestic spy program, could take their broadband, TV and telephony business to a competitor. Also, AT&T could be opening itself up to a mountain of legal troubles.
"I can't see why filtering traffic would be of interest to AT&T," said Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia University and an Internet pundit. "AT&T spent six years and millions of dollars lobbying for a law so they wouldn't have to filter for copyrighted material on their network. And now they want to do it."
AT&T hasn't indicated which technology it might use. But it has confirmed that it's been testing software from a number of companies including Vobile, a start-up in which AT&T has also invested. The carrier has also said that it's been working for the past six months with members of the Motion Picture Association of America and Recording Industry Association of America to figure out ways in which it can curb the flow of illegal content on its network.
AT&T argues that it must get involved in stopping the flow of pirated content because much of this content is shared using peer-to-peer protocols, which eats up valuable network bandwidth, slowing network connections for many of its customers.
"Ultimately, our customers and their online experience come first," said Michael Balmoris, a spokesman for AT&T. "This is not about the vast majority of customers who consume content online legally. This is about combating illegal activity."
Content agreements an issue
AT&T is also likely driven by its need to strike deals with content providers for its U-Verse IPTV service. Voluntarily agreeing to filter traffic on its network could help the company get a more favorable deal with content owners, such as NBC Universal or Disney.
Rick Cotton, executive vice president and general counsel for NBC Universal, said he often argues the network management point when trying to persuade Internet service providers to filter traffic. But he admits that content agreements also factor into the discussion.
"I also make the argument that it doesn't make sense to allow people to utilize (the carriers') infrastructure to steal material that (the carriers are) trying to acquire for another part of their business," he said. "Can I say which consideration affects which ISPs? I can't answer that question. But I do think it's something they ought to take into account."
So far, most ISPs have remained tight-lipped about whether they are testing content filtering on their networks. The other two major phone companies in the country, Verizon Communications and Qwest Communications International, declined to comment for this story. Time Warner Cable, the second largest cable operator in the nation, wouldn't confirm whether it is testing filtering technology, but a spokesman said the company is working closely with copyright holders to address the piracy issue.
Comcast, the largest cable operator in the country, said it is not using or testing content filtering technology. Last year, the company got into hot water when there were reports that it had been slowing down some peer-to-peer traffic when the network was congested. The Federal Communications Commission is currently investigating the situation.
That said, the movement to involve ISPs in monitoring and filtering traffic has been growing internationally. In November, ISPs and content producers in France signed an agreement, backed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, to begin testing filtering technology on carrier networks. A similar movement is afoot in the United Kingdom. And late last year, officials in Australia said they hoped ISPs would implement filtering technology to remove pornography from Internet connections that connect to schools.
These moves come despite widespread criticism from consumer activists that content filtering violates customers' privacy.
"Content filtering is like the cops knocking on everyone's door to make sure there are no stolen goods inside," said Art Brodsky, a spokesman for Public Knowledge, a digital-rights public interest group. "Searching packets on a network throws out the whole idea of innocent until proven guilty."
See more CNET content tagged:
AT&T Corp., traffic, agreement, service provider, spokesman
profit and share Child Pornography on the Internet. Any company
who is willing to take on that responsibility, reporting their findings
with the Authorities, supporting with their technology should be
highly rewarded and recognized.
AT&T, NBC/Universal, et al - Keep up the great work with this!
You probably think George Bush is leaving the country in better shape than he found it. Great a brain and then use it to see the real implications of what they are doing.
ISP's are a conduit and nothing more. They are also shielded for this very reason. What you are asking is far beyond their scope and responsibility.
Maybe we should make you see a psychiatrist before you by a pen and some paper, you might write down some threatening words. Want to buy some aspirin, I think you need 14 doctor consultations to make sure you aren't planning on overdosing with that aspirin. Yes, these are fitting analogies.
This is because media companies have/are treatened AT&T or paid them off to reduce the transfer of copyrighted material. However, this is also a technology that has many false positives, so AT&T customers will find many website downloads will not work and internet radio may be blocked as well.
It is not to protect children, but to protect the bloated revenue of multimillion dollar companies so they can continue to sue 13 years olds and single mothers.
$hit?
AT&T is only looking to filter copyrighted material. They are giving
the reach-around to their corporate bedfellows in the media
industry.
Click a wrong link, next thing you know you are getting pop ups, or sending out emails flooding the internet with dubious content. Illegal in some areas and picked up by the AT&T sniffers. Your computer, You are responsbile, You did it, You get to pay the price. Nevermind that you didn't do anything but click a wrong link and then fix your comptuer.
My only wish is that when you get your wish you get to be the first test case for why I think it's a bad idea.
This "advertisement" speculates on what AT&T envisions for the future of the Internet:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/10/comcasts-world-without-network.html
What the rocket scientists at AT&T can't figure out is that they are dumb pipes, they will always be dumb pipes, and their value-add is making the dumb pipes faster.
Once the carriers get that concept through their skulls, perhaps they could spend their hundreds of millions of dollars on R&D (say, in early investments in companies like Facebook or Google) instead of on beltway lobbyists, lawsuits and campaign contributions.
They have an inherent conflict when you provide the tunnel for information to flow through and now you want to control what goes through the tunnel in order to sell your own product and exclude others' products. If possible, I will not do business with any company that violates my privacy and constitutional rights.
Major media companies are probably pushing this control mechanism to be implemented because they are greedier and greedier. People do not want to pay $20 for a movie or a music CD anymore. Most teens do not care about ?owning? an original, when they can download from iTunes or rent via Netflix? Controlling the Internet traffic for ?copyrighted material? is an excuse to target consumers and new markets. But then again, who really knows about these companies? motivation.
AT&T?s blabber about the ?valuable network bandwidth? affected by the peer-to-peer protocols is not even based on any serious data. When AT&T plays the customer satisfaction card stating that ?Ultimately, [their] customers and their online experience come first?, we ought to answer this:
95% of the Internet traffic is composed of spam & pornography (let?s not even mention the spam/pornography). If ISPs were really concerned about their customers? experience and satisfaction, they would try to implement filters and legal actions against people using the internet to target us.
ISPs: do you really want your customers to be happy? Use your time, money and energy developing new technologies allowing us to surf faster and cheaper anywhere & everywhere in the country. Create new products, new services in order to help us improve our Internet experience (Google is not an ISP but they sure know how to invest their money to give us the best of the Internet.
The truth is the Internet communications are already under deep scrutiny. If (and when) a private corporation is able and allowed to play on the legal field, there is no more guaranty for privacy and individual freedom. What is the next step? Are we going to be allowed to arrest our neighbor ourselves because we know they use P2P protocols and systems to download music? When did getting the justice in our own hands become acceptable?
I don?t care if my neighbor downloads movies from the eDonkey network, but it would disturb me to know that he is sharing child pornography. How come the filtering technology does not apply in this field?
Let?s be honest for a second: implementing a filter to ?spot? copyrighted material has nothing to do with the will to prevent illegal content from circulating on the web. It is the answer to $-companies that want to make more money!
"Ultimately, our customers and their online experience come first," said Michael Balmoris, a spokesman for AT&T. "This is not about the vast majority of customers who consume content online legally. This is about combating illegal activity.?
Do you seriously believe that we are buying that?
it is the ISPs job to police such a thing, is that not all use of copyright
material is illegal. The concept of fair use allows you to use copyright
content in certain circumstances for debate, etc. How in the world
would such a system deal with fair use?
I certainly agree with another commenter that we are on our way to
being China if something like this goes into effect. Of course, we have
sold our souls to the chinese in so many other ways, it should not
surprise us that we begin adopting their big brother ways. Maybe
some of the silicon valley globalist will wake up.
This development just highlights anew the abuse of the copyright
provision in the constitution to protect authors for a limited time by
corporate media who line the pockets of politicians who aid them in
an end-run around the constitution. To these people limited time =
forever and they intend big brother systems like this one to police this
dangerous public policy.
Fair Use is not an issue. ISPs will not be suing you or sending you to jail. Just filtering content on THEIR network, and giving "illegal" content less priority than the AT&T "legal" services they provide.
This is not about scarcity, copyright infringement, pornography, or anything else they tell us. In order to control people and bleed them for all they are worth, problems must be created to justify market manipulation, surveillance and censorship.
This could be very dangerous and very expensive for them to implement. If a virus inside a packet meant for P2P traffic gets through to a business, that business could then sue AT&T for damages to their network because AT&T failed to detect it and stop it. Even if they weren't monitoring for it, they demonstrated they *could*, and therefore are liable for negligence. If they weren't monitoring other users and not that particular one, some lawyers could spin that into intentional negligence.
I can easily see a lot of big money lawsuits being leveled at AT&T for this.
There is a reason why private companies aren't used for police departments.
Good try guys......
"Build a better mouse trap and you get smarter mice"
1. From companies like AT&T and Comcast that want to restrict
access and bandwidth based on whether a site is affiliated with
them or has content that they don't like.
2. Child pornography sites or sites that include non-consensual
content. It would be up to law enforcement to determine this
through legal means - AKA constitutional. Something that the
Bush administrations seems to forget from time to time.
Copy right ! My right to unearned moolah !
No decency standards.
No control of child sex trade.
No suppression of sedition.
No anti-corruption.
No law enforcement but one: Money for music.
run my computer for piracy? If I'm going to use it for pot grow
lights? If I'm going to use it to electrocute someone? No, and if I
do these things, it isn't their responsibility.
Bit-moving companies should be the same as electricity-
moving companies or water moving companies or any utility.
Just push the bits through the tubes. Don't ask, care, or take
responsibility for the use of the bits. If utilities start policing the
use of the bits, they are going to have to take responsibility for
the uses the bits are put, and be liable. Do they want that
burden? No, and I don't want them in my face, either.
- Corporate Slow-Pokes
- by gurfrip January 17, 2008 8:46 AM PST
- The trick to copyright protection (as I am the biggest victim in history with You Tube) is to disable the anarchaic function that instigates the crime.
- Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 4 pages (112 Comments)We do not need an Intenet Cop (catchy thought), we need the gurfrip system (intelligent reality).
Corporations like AT&T should "RUN" to JP to inquire.
Sincerely,
James Reginald Harris, Jr.
Inventor