PLEASE NOTE MY COMMENT -- Net Neutrality redux : AT&T caught with smoking gun in hand (and still in hand).

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

I  can not verify this , I use Comcast and it works there -- but it is  
widely reported on many sites such as http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/26/att-blocks-4chan-this-is-going-to-get-ugly/

Dave

Begin forwarded message:

From: jamie <j () arpa com>
Date: July 26, 2009 10:32:21 PM EDT
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Cc: Jamie Rishaw <j () arpa com>
Subject: Net Neutrality redux : AT&T caught with smoking gun in hand  
(and  still in hand).

[ok to post/repost/edit for brevity]


Dave,

  It appears at AT&T (dial, DSL, black-label and my own home  
broadband service via u-verse product) has unilaterally and without  
explanation started blocking websites.

  I have confirmed this with multiple tests.  (It actually appears  
that these sites are being blocked at a local-global scale -- that is,  
each city/hub seems to have blackholes for the sites).

  The biggest one is "4chan.org"'s image server - img.4chan.  It's in  
Alexa's Top-1000 (#684).  Internet Route-servers on AT&T's network as  
traceroutes from various cities (including Chicago, St Louis, multiple  
sites in Northern and Southern California as well as NYC) indicate  
that the sites have been blackholed.

  And, annoyingly, this isn't the first time - they showed pro-Bush  
agenda just two years ago, censoring Pearl Jam anti-Bush-43 lyrics.

  Questions arise:

  -1- What to do?
    - AT&T has no right to censor or limit anything, period. (IMHO)  
(IANAL) (etc)
    - I'm now paying ~$150/mo for service with TV & Internet subject  
to filtering without permission?

  -2- Is AT&T acting in a way that negates its 'Common Carrier' status?

  -3- If AT&T is trying to "enforce" the CDA upon its subscribers'  
"eyeballs," doesnt it fall into the same dangerous ground that Prodigy  
did when it tried to police traffic?
  (Summary for the unfamiliar: The courts ruled that because Prodigy  
took a stance of monitoring (any) part of traffic, it was bound to  
"catch everything" and was thus no longer a carrier but a Publisher).   
(Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy)


Comments/opinions/etc from you and readers appreciated.

TIA,

-Jamie Rishaw





-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com