EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- President Obama Uses a Sledgehammer Against Dissent
- 'We Are Movement, Not a Moment': North Carolina Peaceful Uprising Continues
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- 'Masters of Austerity' Targeted as Blockupy Activists Shut Down European Central Bank
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- Is Enbridge Building a Secret Keystone Pipeline?
- President Obama Uses a Sledgehammer Against Dissent
- Victory: Connecticut Becomes First State to Require GMO Labeling
Popular content
Today's Top News
AT&T and Other ISPs May Be Getting Ready to Filter
For the past fifteen years, Internet service providers have acted - to use an old cliche - as wide-open information super-highways, letting data flow uninterrupted and unimpeded between users and the Internet.
But ISPs may be about to embrace a new metaphor: traffic cop.
At a small panel discussion about digital piracy here at NBC's booth on the Consumer Electronics Show floor, representatives from NBC, Microsoft, several digital filtering companies and telecom giant AT&T said the time was right to start filtering for copyrighted content at the network level.
Such filtering for pirated material already occurs on sites like YouTube and Microsoft's Soapbox, and on some university networks.
Network-level filtering means your Internet service provider - Comcast, AT&T, EarthLink, or whoever you send that monthly check to - could soon start sniffing your digital packets, looking for material that infringes on someone's copyright.
"What we are already doing to address piracy hasn't been working. There's no secret there," said James Cicconi, senior vice president, external & legal affairs for AT&T.
Mr. Cicconi said that AT&T has been talking to technology companies, and members of the MPAA and RIAA, for the last six months about implementing digital fingerprinting techniques on the network level.
"We are very interested in a technology based solution and we think a network-based solution is the optimal way to approach this," he said. "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."
Internet civil rights organizations oppose network-level filtering, arguing that it amounts to Big Brother monitoring of free speech, and that such filtering could block the use of material that may fall under fair-use legal provisions - uses like parody, which enrich our culture.
Rick Cotton, the general counsel of NBC Universal, who has led the company's fights against companies like YouTube for the last three years, clearly doesn't have much tolerance for that line of thinking.
"The volume of peer-to-peer traffic online, dominated by copyrighted materials, is overwhelming. That clearly should not be an acceptable, continuing status," he said. "The question is how we collectively collaborate to address this."
I asked the panelists how they would respond to objections from their customers over network level filtering - for example, the kind of angry outcry Comcast saw last year, when it was accused of clamping down on BitTorrent traffic on its network.
"Whatever we do has to pass muster with consumers and with policy standards. There is going to be a spotlight on it," said Mr. Cicconi of AT&T.
After the session, he told me that ISPs like AT&T would have to handle such network filtering delicately, and do more than just stop an upload dead in its tracks, or send a legalistic cease and desist form letter to a customer. "We've got to figure out a friendly way to do it, there's no doubt about it," he said.
© 2007 The New York Times
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

25 Comments so far
Show AllI knew this was going to happen, next AT&T will get an order from the shrub to filter any anti-bush comments from the net. And then they're going to slow sites like this one down to a crawl so they can't be used.
We are going to have to have an underground net, from house to house via wi-fi, that we control that doesn't allow large companies on it; only local little businesses would be permitted to advertise and traffic. Most computers now have the muscle to act as a server if you install a card to make them do that. All that is needed is switching software like Kaza or Napster used to connect it's peer-to-peer systems and a wireless card with antenna to make your machine a 300yard transmitter for the "Undernet."
Of course, big jealous brother will pass some AT&T written law giving them absolute monopoly over all nets, where they will threaten to sick the FCC on you if you do router functions.... We will have to just ignore them and boost the power of our Undernet. It will be like VHS tapes were: totally unenforceable since we own the equipment, and thus, according to US law, we own all the content of that server.
I for one will extend no right of privacy or proprietary rights to the government/big corps if their content crosses over MY server.
pacplyer
"I regret that I have but one life to spend in the fight against gov/corporate tyranny" - pacplyer
RIAA=legalized pimping. If you have nothing to add to an industry and you make money "protecting" those given an endowed ability that makes a profitable service than you are a P I M P. It is disgusting the stigmas put on a black man in Harlem when compared to an equally malicious (if not multiple times more) white man in the Hills. One man is considered a common crook the other is living the "American Dream" someone needs to get organized money off freedoms ass. DEMOCRACY spelled with a capitol B-U-L-L S-H-I-T
This stinks like more Big Brother's spying on we the people.
phuck AT&T
don't pay their bill.
Pacplayer: I LOVE it!! Undernet indeed! If this keeps going we're going to be back to walkie-talkies and Ham radios to communicate.
I'm not very techy, so explain something to me. I have my DSL connection through my phone service (Qwest) but I have a local ISP that supplies my connection to the web (their server) and manages my e-mail boxes. I can have up to 22 e-mail address thru them. I pay for both services separately. Under this arrangement, can my web/internet stuff get slowed down or filtered? Isn't my local ISP acting as my server? I'm totally confused.
I would never sign up with Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, or any of the other big guys because they are not local. I probably pay a little more, but to me it is worth it to support local.
They're already filtering. In my area at least, I've confirmed that Comcast is rejecting YouTube e-mails of all kinds (noteably account registrations)
http://paulbramscher.blogspot.com/2007/11/comcast-censoring-youtube.html
It's important to realize here that the filtering isn't just going to be big guy vs. little guy. It'll be big guy vs. big guy -- and we're the cannon fodder. Our chief hope, I think, is that a sufficient number of them feel they are losing a critical mass of profits -- and re-open whatever some idiot closed off.
Don't vote for corporate candidates ... either Dem or Republican.
And don't be surprised if any anti-corporate candidates and or citizen organizing happen to accidently find their content blocked. Purely by accident of course. Or any websites complaining of AT&T's poor customer service just somehow won't be visible.
I use bit torrents a lot, for purely legal purposes. The musicians I like, starting with the Grateful Dead have always allowed audience taping of their concerts and have allowed fans to freely trade these as long as there's no money involved. If someone's making money selling bootlegs, they'll go after them. But if someone just wants to put up a Grateful Dead concert from 1978 and allow people to download it, they are very happy with that.
So, if they stop blocking bit torrent traffic generally, like Comcast was doing, then my perfectly legal use of my high-speed internet access for which I'm paying through the nose to get will be blocked. And if they don't block it generally, how would they tell that one MP3 that is a recording of copyrighted music is any different from a different MPS that is being legally transmitted?
We need a new paradigm. One that acknowledges our current technology, and where we are going. As opposed to one that's based on the days of Gutemberg and his printing press. Musicians like the Grateful Dead figured it out a long time ago. The rest of the industry has to catch up.
BTW, this policy was one reason why the Grateful Dead regularly were the highest grossing ticket selling band in the world. Their system was to allow fans, and potential fans, to freely listen to the music. Then charge them the ticket price when they've decided they like it and want to come see it. They got rich off this. The rest of the world could do the same.
Its going through the phone company. If they filter, the local ISP can't do @#$@. There's basically two cables into your home. Cable and phone. Your only choice is one or the other. The ISP just organizes and provides some services. But if the people who own the cable decide to filter, they can't do anything about it.
Well, the impact they'll feel from me is that I'll massively scale back the very high speed DSL I'm currently paying for. And I'll make sure they know I was paying that so I could legally swap music via bit torrents. If they take that away, I can save $30 a month by downgrading to an ordinary DSL service.
While this lasts, if you want to see lots of bit torrents from lots of groups that allow taping and trading, try bt.etree.org.
Cool ... local wi-fi nets will be the way to go. I seem to remember reading a few years ago about people starting to set these up. I'll have to go learn more.
Hey COMarc,
Guess which major contender for President of the United States supports net neutrality, extending even to P2P applications?
BA-RACK BA-RACK BA-RACK OBAMA!
Hey COMarc,
Do you think it would maybe be a good idea for people to start pitching in to help make Barack Obama the next president, instead of just carping and promising to riot against the Democrats in Denver?
What don't they want us to know?
This?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4315024059102108031
Or Maybe?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M58htE5IDHA&feature=related
Rebel Farmer, (love your screen name and posts by the way)
My understanding, (subject to someone here correcting me, and by all means, please do) is that the net is like a bunch of parallel intersecting water pipes. It has to pass through all kinds of fittings to get to the other "peer" who is willing to give you a free copy of his stuff, whatever that is... let's say it is a flyer of details of how to kill mosanto GM seed crop without killing your inherited seed stock that your family has passed down to you for generations. Now, the Fortune 500 doesn't want this flyer's info out there! These "waterpipes" can be slowed down or filtered depending on how much demand for "water" (data) there is, or by restrictions that fluorinate (kill) any part of the water that the guy who owns the pipe (and owns the water in it) finds objectionable. AT&T owns a shidtload of pipes and wants to nuke all the water going through their property and the government says "go for it" so they have agreed with most other pipe owners that radioactive water will kill all the things that BUG big business. Never mind that the water is going to be as deadly to your brain as MSM (main stream media.) They don't care.
Over the last seven years, big biz telecoms have bought up all the little owners of internet trunking lines, so now, they can probably nuke anything that, FIRST goes through your ISP (who probably doesn't care what you're looking at) and SECOND passes through the Internet trunking to the "BACKBONE" owned by AT&T, Comcast, Quest and other semi-monopolies. That's where they zap it.
So in summary, we are screwed again because we let "the big four" internet line owners railroad us into local monopolies.
Funny you should mention ham radios, because that would be a big part of the "Undernet". Ham's are independent cusses and those sets are essential for relaying undernet traffic where no residences exist. We could also ham our Undernet-BACKBONE over to a friendly country who loves freedom like Canada or South American countries, and enter the broader www.internet there.
The key to all this working of course is to make everything "open source" UNIX like Apple did. Open Source is smart, smart, smart. It means a whole bunch of geeks, who work for free, constantly fix, update, fight, and improve the system for absolutely no pay at all. And these guys hate Microsoft, gates, and the system. This is where rival software like "Firefox" browser and "Linux" operating systems came from.
There is precedence for this "undernet." In the late 1770's the founding fathers set up a pony express system to communicate outside the control of the crown and the Torry Loyalists. Sometimes the letter carrier was intercepted, sometimes not. But if you sent a letter through the postal system owned by the noblemen...... Lotsa Luck having it get through!
So it is known by historians that Ben Franklin, at the behest of John Adams, chair of the Continental Congress, set up an alternate underground postal system so that commanders of the American Cause of Liberty could communicate vast distances between themselves.
Oh Take heart Common Dreamers!
Liberty will not be silenced!
Freedom is an inalienable right that is in your very American Soul!
Just because the government has been highjacked by torturing Nazis and haters of the Bill of Rights does not mean they will win. In the long run, I pitty the government fool who is a party to war crimes.
pac
The antidote for Internet censorship is direct democracy.
COMarc: That really didn't answer my question. I have no cable line. Only a phone line. Is it possible that my ISP sends me the the signals from their server? There have times that I don't have a web connection when they are doing something to their server. What does all this mean? And how would wi-fi work?
Nader2000: I'm certainly glad to hear about Obama's stand on net neutrality. But I'm more than a one issue person. He also supports attacking Pakistan, staying in Iraq, and supports expanding nuclear energy. Where does John Edwards stand on the net neutrality thing?
Pac Player: Okay, so I get the water pipe thing. I would add that Quest one of the few telecos that refused to turn over info to the wire tapping/spying/web fishing criminals. Does that count for anything good?
JUST SAY NO TO NEED TO KNOW
Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), websites like YouTube are generally protected from the actions of their users. Instead, it's up to a copyright holder to challenge a perceived problem directly with a particular user, after which YouTube will react accordingly.
The same principle applies, for example, to gun manufacturers not being liable for the actions of gun owners.
Since the RIAA has worked itself into a legal lather running around the country suing users for peer-to-peer sharing of music, peer-to-peer software itself has developed into serious, marketable legal applications way beyond the illegal variety.
Likewise, the music business has gone not only online digital over the Compact Disk, but shunned the album for the individual song in an expanding, legal market.
So the RIAA has found itself routed and thrown aside by the very market it supposedly defends, in a move that rakes away the excessive middle-man fees and royalties it was really defending. The RIAA has shot itself in the virtual digital foot.
Of course copyright involves more than music, and the question is why have the facility-based internet providers taken such an interest in tracking copyrighted materials beyond that already initiated by the RIAA?
Are they directly liable under DMCA? For what? Who are they protecting? Or is this a way to mine data in general for valuable marketing information under the pretense of "protecting copyrighted material"? How would anyone ever know the difference?
Conveniently, this issue emerges right after the FCC opened the door on concentrated ownership but before the FCC closes the door on net neutrality with a contested proceeding before it.
What a perfect fit - just before controlling web content in a non-neutrality way, they will have gathered a wealth of data on exactly what to control. After all, to identify what is "copyrighted", all that "non-copyright" data must be tagged accordingly for appropriate distinction. It's just a matter of digging into those data packets more deeply.
The abuse of property rights granted by the government through patents and copyrights has swung widely from the protection of inventors, writers and artists as independent agents to widespread abuse by corporations as tools of monopoly to crush the very sources of competition once protected.
For example, when the Google project to copy in full, works in the public domain for which the copyright had expired, some asserted it was still illegal and required permission - from authors long dead and not possible to verify otherwise.
Forget about fair use - this is no use at all as the default position, unless one travels to the Library of Congress to read the original copy under strict oversight with no copy privileges.
Now they're taking it a step further. The default position, like everything else, is shifted to guilty until proven innocent - all internet traffic will be monitored for evidence of copyrighted data, which of course will be voluminous based on fair use.
Ironically, this legal use will then be turned on users for far smaller incidence of illegal use to justify carte blanche spying on all data all the time by all users. Works every time.
Edit function inoperative.
Sorry, I meant "There is PRECEDENT for this "undernet."
B-Payne: I think I understand some of what you said. So, what do we do now? Who and what do we fight for or against?
REBEL FARMER,
yes, Quest rebelled, refusing to allow warrant-less wiretaps, and the government shut them out of all the juicy DHS gov contracts and is still punishing them with FCC harassment and not letting them expand or merge. The other telecoms got big while quest suffered. I believe the CEO resigned over this?
Right out of the neocon playbook. Do it our way or we play hardball.
So I don't think that counts for anything other than I would give Quest my business for having balls; but I seem to remember they finally caved? Not sure.
But almost all the big telecoms caved when the gov wanted to wiretap in the wake of 911. The only answer is to "BE THE NET" and own a piece of it: swearing to fight bigbrother/big biz. It is now cheap enough to do this.
Wi-Fi is a miniature radio transmitter already installed in most new laptops and many portable devices. The equipment is already FCC compliant and, as all computer hardware can be: IT CAN BE HACKED BY A REBEL PROGRAM TO RE-COMMAND THE TRANSMITTER TO ONLY BROADCAST TO OTHER MACHINES WHO ALSO HAVE THIS PROGRAM INSTALLED
This is how Napster, Kaza, Limewire and others burp songs only between themselves using the internet.
"Undernet" would give away it's software for free, just like Limewire does.
Of course this is outside the capabilities of most of us here. The progressive community must court the "open source" UNIX community and have them come up with something.
I was going to put up a progressive web page earlier this year, but stopped when I saw the government slowing down non-corporate traffic. I knew then that censorship was next.
If you ask me, this issue is worse than the Stamp Act of 1765 which taxed all things on paper. And that Act started the American Revolution in the minds of the colonists.
Amazing how sometimes history can repeat itself, isn't it?
pacplyer, your idea of an undernet, with all the users becoming peer to peer and communicating through wi-fi (but stronger) antenea on their homes. I believe this idea has already been suggested. It is called WI-MAX. At least that's what I thought that (Wi-Max) was about. Correct me if I am wrong.
When I first heard about Wi-Max, I thought, yea, then we can all be a network of internet users without having to go through the stupid cable companies or telephone companies. In fact, we could have phone service through this peoples-network and stop paying all those stupid phone bills. Am I correct here or not?
Crocodyl.org has a company profile on AT&T that contains lots of great information on the company that suppliments this story well. Also, you can update the profile by logging in and creating an account:
http://crocodyl.org/wiki/at_t
"We've got to figure out a friendly way to do it, there's no doubt about it," he said.
Now that's funny!
Enjoyed it Rebel,
and thanks atelios for the info. Wikipedia has a big page on the "WIMAX" you mentioned and I will try to digest it. It is exactly what I had in mind. It was a 5 billion dollar project by sprint/nextel that was shelved, it says, last month (probably because they figured out we would hack them out of the monthly fee.) Says before them it was used in 2005 for the tsunami in indian ocean area countries after the wave wiped out the coastal systems.
But a network that does not use any wired technology like phone wire or cable is being developed, it says, for countries or topography that can't handle the expense of existing wi-fi. But my feeling is, we don't need no stinking big company. We'll start our own rebel networks using non-proprietary hardware that exists right now. Besides the slightly higher power antenna, your laptop that you have right now can be used to play hot potato with all your neighbors, and their neighbors. All you need is switching technology (a software program) that will bias out any traffic that you don't like.) For example: all dot coms would could be blacklisted in favor of only "dot smallcom's". And any regular internet traffic would be nulled out until it had the signature that it came from outside the country via ham radio (meaning that it is "pure" - not-filtered-by-the-corp-gov.
As to property rights (like music) I believe no one has a right to stop me from trading my LP music albums that I already paid for, the same way I did when I was a kid. Just because it's not in vinyl form doesn't change the principle that I OWN that music. Just because artists and recording company CEO's feel they need private jets and hundreds of millions of dollars to be treated fairly - well I don't call that fair.
Good thread, too bad more didn't get involved.
pac "digital freedom" plyer
pac
BUY LOCAL!!
Yes, local wi-fi nets seem agian to be the way around corporate monopolies. Yes, many individuals would have to buy the equipment and do the work, but it is attainable.
Just like using solar panels to power your home and your electric car would remove the monopoly of the oil and utility companies.
Just like local food coops give you better food, and are better for our enviroment and economy.
No one will give you power. you have to take it. And with local wi-fi nets you have the opportunity. Yes it is dangerous and difficult to spend all that money do all that work and still have to fight the corporations.
Local collectives, neigborhood associations, unions.... it's not a 'socialism' goverment- just the people taking matters into their own hands when they realize that their princes and captains of industry do not have the commoners' interests at heart and will not give up power.
Rebel Farmer,
Qwest has a LOCAL office for you. Comcast has a LOCAL office for you.
Neither one of them is truly a LOCAL company though; Qwest is a "Baby Bell" company.
Stop fooling yourself into thinking Qwest is better since they are "local".
Qwest has screwed A LOT of people in Colorado (where they are mostly a LOCAL company); whereas Comcast in Colorado is really good.
It's the same argument people use to deny Walmart, but accept Target. COME ON people! If you don't shop at Walmart for moral reasons, the SAME morality should stop you from shopping at Target.
Cable internet is much better than DSL too.
as for this argument; How would you all feel if YOUR copyrighted material was dispersed for free?
micah: I didn't say Quest was local. I don't have a choice about my phone service. I said my ISP was local. Comcast, Verizon, et al are mega corps. I will NOT use them. And, by the way, I don't shop at Wal-Mart, Target, or any other Big Box store.
Pac Player: Thanks for the info. And as far as I know, Quest didn't fold on the warrentless wiretaps.