AT&T Could Cut Off P2P Users 397
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."
I don't really blame them... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Stop this Unlimited Crap (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
It's THEIR network. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not Unreasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't really blame them... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:It's THEIR network. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's THEIR network. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not exactly.
Part or the problem is that they will use the term Unlimited. Then they will put on limitations. To me that instantly invalidates all their contracts.
Next they are operating as a "Common Carrier" that gives them all sorts of legal protections. This could cause them to loose their Common Carrier protections.
Re:It's THEIR network. (Score:3, Insightful)
It Won't Work, /. (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Step in the right direction (Score:5, Insightful)
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?"?
Re:It's THEIR network. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't really blame them... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's THEIR network. (Score:5, Insightful)
If only real life was that cut and dry.
It's not always a case of "Don't like it? Don't sign up".
What if you were unfortunate enough to live in an area where AT&T were the ONLY operators?
What if you have an iPhone?
What if you've already signed up to their UNLIMITED package and just started a 12-month contract only to find it's not quite so Unlimited?
BullSHIT (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Still, you have to wonder. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Step in the right direction (Score:2, Insightful)
Except that the internet is a big p2p file sharing environment. That's all it is. Saying that you don't want people to use p2p file sharing in the internet is like saying you done want people to use the internet.
And yes I do think they understand this and are using the excuse to put this sort of clause in because most people don't. In the future they can simply arbitrarily disconnect users who aren't using the system the way they're supposed to because of p2p app. use.
Re:Oh good. (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
3G People (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realize... (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:Class action suit brought by WoW players.... (Score:1, Insightful)
If you're so attached to WoW you need to get your latest patch over your cell phone, you probably need help.
If you're so attached to WoW you don't even read slashdot summaries ... well, maybe its time to take a break.
Re:Nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Maybe that is the reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever since getting my "3g" iphone, I've never seen a good 3g signal. Hope you like all that cash I send you AT&T.
Re:AT&T, prepare for a huge wave of angry call (Score:3, Insightful)
Title should have been "AT&T to cut off P2P users on 3G".
Re:Still, you have to wonder. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not unreasonable to think they'd want to. But that doesn't matter.
It is unreasonable to expect to be allowed to. Why? Because of the impact on the other users. Because it isn't what the network is designed to support.
Just because it's reasonable to want soemthing, doesn't mean anyone can or should provide it.
Re:Clear enough; no deal. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Step in the right direction (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah... slightly better than the crap that the likes of verizon and comcast are fond of pulling. But it IS still pretty evil, and a damn good argument for network neutrality legislation.
At the end of the day, the role of the bandwidth provider is to provide the bandwidth; not to play the role of censor, and dictate to people how to use that bandwidth. If AT&T can't deliver the service they sold to all the people to whom they've sold it; the onus is on THEM to upgrade their network so that they can do so. It is NOT the responsibility of the customer to refrain from using the bandwidth which they purchased in good faith.
In the short term, it's all academic anyway. So far as I'm aware, there's no Bittorrent client available for either my iPhone or Blackberry anyway. Hopefully, by the time there is, neutrality will have come through and congress or the FCC will do their job, and slap AT&T, an the rest, down into their place.
cya,
john
Justified for a wireless network. (Score:3, Insightful)
It is for the 3G wireless networks. The capacity of a network is calculated on a probabilistic model where a bunch of users communicate in intermittent quanta of downloads and uploads. So the bandwidth is provisioned, ( especially in a wireless network ) in such a way that you have the promised amount of bandwidth in spike. There is only that much you can put in a single wireless burst. A P2P application in sharp contradistinction, will generate a stream of steady and large volume of traffic in both directions, for as long as it is running. This will lock up a bunch of slots on a burst, starving other user terminals in the vicinity. The problem with torrents I think is not the amount of data transferred, but the pattern in which it is used. The attempt I think is to provide an uniform user experience for all.
It is understandable from a provisioning point of view, but let us see how it works out in the market.
Re:Nice... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, if THEY cancel the contract, they are ultimately responsible for absorbing all costs related. Termination fees only apply if you, the customer, cancel the contract.
It actually comes in quite handy to know that, as it allows you a nice opportunity to force your hand and get out of a contract without termination fees. piss off Customer Service enough and they terminate your plan for you citing "We are unable to meet your requirements of service, go elsewhere." and you get no termination fee.
Re:It's THEIR network. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's OUR network, primarily build with OUR tax dollars on the condition that they play nice.
Re:Nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Step in the right direction (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:Nice... (Score:4, Insightful)
Quoted from AT&T Wireless's Service Agreement [att.com] (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...
Re:Oh good. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nice... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't really blame them... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's not. It's like banning cars made in Germany because they make a few cars that *can* use a lot of gas, but in reality, we just don't want the competition.
Re:Nice... (Score:3, Insightful)
However by running the P2P app you are the one who broke the terms of the contract, thus having to pay early termination fee.
Re:Step in the right direction (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, central monolithic control of content and we're to the point now that people want to serve their own content, locally, and that breaks so many business models that is can not be allowed.
I fully understand what p2p generally means, but it doesn't have to mean that. I think its way to generic, if they don't want people running servers then say so. If they can't figure out what applications are servers and which aren't then get out of the f'n business.
Re:Still, you have to wonder. (Score:1, Insightful)
To advertise a product, then come out later and change the terms of use of that product , and place limits on "UNLIMITED" is by all terms of the law, false advertising and breach of contract (no contract is valid if one side can change terms without recourse or refusal to continue under the new terms by the other party)
So anything in the contract that gives a party sole recourse to charge the other party is null and void once they alter the terms to fit only one sides needs and conditions without the other party agreeing to it.
Now for the real downside...just who in the USA could fight AT&T and it's legal goon squad and hope to win?
The fact that the big boys can walk all over the people with no worry about the law, shows what a sad state of affairs the USA has gotten into...the people have no power and big biz knows it...after all they OWN the lawmakers.
Old and not news. (Score:1, Insightful)
This is the stupidest news post I have ever seen.
First off, it's AT&T Mobility. The wireless service has had a 5 GB "soft limit" (means no overage charges, but lots of reserved rights) since January and has prohibited P2P, Slingbox, using the service to host a website, etc, for even longer than that. (It used to ban video streaming like YouTube, but they have recently removed that from the T&C's, apparently, since I can't find it anymore.)
The wireless internet access is not designed to replace a home internet connection. It's designed for mobile internet usage.
But really? Since it's a soft limit? You'd have to go over 5 GB first and probably more than once. Which you agreed not to do anyway, as the plans haven't had the word 'unlimited' in them since January. If you have this service and your plan does say 'unlimited' you have even more leeway if you go over 5 GB.
So quit 'cher bitchin'. I already have to explain this to slack-jawed yokels all day, please don't inflict slashdotters on me too.
Re:3G People (Score:1, Insightful)
SOMEONE KNOWS THAT THE CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL. Also, shouting and swearing make you all the more right.
I don't think that many people here expect to use ultra-high bandwidth applications from their phones (yet). The thing is that this is the "unlimited" service that AT&T is lying about selling us.
AT&T is using unreasonable means to try and achieve a reasonable outcome (assuming network load is their angle). If they are worried about network load then they should charge based on network load. If I want to use bittorrent on my phone and I load down AT&T's network then they should charge me for it. If they charge enough then network load will fall in a reasonable range.
People aren't angry because AT&T wishes to limit network load in order to maintain their service quality. They are angry because AT&T is trying to limit their network load by lying about selling an "unlimited" service and then breaking the network to reduce load. But even that isn't really that big a deal, the real problem is the president they are setting.
When it comes to being given an inch and taking a mile AT&T is a God. If they are allowed to take this inch then who knows where we will be down the road. And when AT&T gets something unreasonable then all the ISPs get the same thing.
Limiting the power of corporate interests is very important in a market with almost zero competition.
Re:Justified for a wireless network. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Step in the right direction (Score:3, Insightful)
Most contracts do not fit the legal definition of a Contract. There is no ability for one side to alter them. Add in that the only choices are limited monopolies/oligopolies set up and enforced by the government, and you lose the choice to not enter into the contract. If you have no say in the matter, it isn't a contract, it is a list of demands. Go into an AT&T store and ask if you can adjust the contract. Tell them you want the early cancellation fee to be $150. Hell, given the level of autonomy of the people in the official corporate stores, tell them you want to increase the cancellation fee from $175 to $200. I'd be willing to bet that the person there would be unable to alter that part of the contract up or down. Since you aren't dealing with someone that has the ability to modify the contract, and it isn't entered into by someone with the ability to modify it (from their side or your side) then it doesn't meet the legal standard for a contract. However, that standard has long since been ignored.
But all that aside, they promise Internet. They charge extra on the phones for Unlimited Data. The contract doesn't spell out what is unacceptable, other than they can cancel when they don't like how you use the product, with no warning, and bill you the cancellation fee. So, it's false advertising, and it's applying an ambiguous portion of the contract solely in their favor and branding you a P2P user (implying pirate) and blaming you.
Re:Voracious Bandwidth Devourers (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I can't believe a quote like "Tools that crush everyone else's fun", not only appears on slashdot, but gets modded up as well. The last part of parent is correct, you paid to move data for yourself. If you paid for unlimited use of a 10Mbps line, then your activity on that line had damn well better not be "crushing everyone else's fun". That 10Mbps better be there no matter how much pron your neighbour is uploading via p2p or any other protocol. I know Sen. Stevens told you that your neighbors p2p plugs the tubes, blocking the internet your boss sent you, but he was WRONG!
If users on an ISP are affecting each others traffic then the ISP is at fault and needs to stop over selling their lines, either by changing their contract terms or buying more bandwidth!