Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AT&T Could Cut Off P2P Users

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the take-their-ball-and-go-home dept.

The Internet 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."

cancel ×

397 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Nice... (5, Interesting)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | more than 6 years ago | (#24415881)

It could widely open the door for such clauses in regular ISPs contracts...

Re:Nice... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24416237)

It could widely open the door for such clauses in regular ISPs contracts...

This is nothing new. It's just usually not enforced.

For instance, Rogers's (Canadian ISP) TOS/EUA forbids a normal thing like hosting a website at pain of connection termination:

[4,k: not] operate a server in connection with the Services including but not limited to mail, news, file, gopher, telnet, chat, web, or host configuration servers, multimedia streamers, or multi-user interactive forums;

Rogers EUA [yahoo.com]

Violation is sufficient for them to cut your internet connection. Of course, they prevent people from doing this accidentally by fidiling with ICMP. In combination with their DNS poisoning, excuse me, helpful assistance... Rogers is becoming a really bad ISP.

Re:Nice... (4, Insightful)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416373)

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.

Continuous Bandwith (1, Troll)

hellfish006 (1000936) | more than 6 years ago | (#24415889)

Are there not a ton of continuous bandwith applications that are not p2p and completely legal and used heavily by many people? I mean come on AT&T, at least make the excuse believable. The people you are cutting off are smarter than that and will take you to court over it, I can already see the EFF jumping down your throat. Good luck with this!

Two Words to AT&T (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24415899)

Fuck. Off.

Re:Two Words to AT&T (0, Redundant)

wattrlz (1162603) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416135)

-1 Cowardly -1 Troll -1 Offtopic (you think AT&T reads /. ?) +1 Insightful +1 Eloquent

Step in the right direction (4, Interesting)

adpsimpson (956630) | more than 6 years ago | (#24415905)

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.

Re:Step in the right direction (5, Insightful)

Tabernaque86 (1046808) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416093)

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:Step in the right direction (1, Insightful)

BigGar' (411008) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416129)

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.

I don't really blame them... (5, Insightful)

slk (2510) | more than 6 years ago | (#24415917)

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)

Re:I don't really blame them... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24415963)

Even if you cut off P2P, there are tons of ways users will still do huge downloads.

Re:I don't really blame them... (1)

wattrlz (1162603) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416235)

P2P has a lot of overhead that regular ftp, or even http, doesn't. It's like mandating new cars have a certain mpg rating to conserve oil. It would be much more effective to just disallow registration of any vehicle that didn't meet the new standard, but after five years or so nine out of ten vehicles on the highway will be new and the remaining 10% won't be that much of an issue.

Re:I don't really blame them... (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416101)

Then the answer is don't say unlimited for example, rather then AT&T saying unlimited data, they should clearly state in ads, but no P2P.

Re:I don't really blame them... (1)

Quantus347 (1220456) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416103)

Is the justification Bandwidth and the belief that P2P will overload it or is it just another ploy in the copyright Wars? And what about the increasing number of applications that use BitTorrent technology for legitimate, non file-sharing purposes?

Still, you have to wonder. (4, Insightful)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416119)

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:Still, you have to wonder. (4, Informative)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416285)

My Sprint wireless service already says that things like streaming VOIP (or even streaming Internet radio) are against the terms of service. Apparently it's for "web browsing and email" internets only.

That and the "unlimited service" means "we'll kick you off if you use over 5 gigs".

Re:Still, you have to wonder. (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416319)

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.

And you were doing this from a cell phone, or a cell-tethered computer?

Re:Still, you have to wonder. (1)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416439)

And you were doing this from a cell phone, or a cell-tethered computer?

No, I wasn't. In fact, I wouldn't think of purchasing one of those plans unless I were sure I could use it for whatever I wanted, and unless the price came down a bit. But why is it unreasonable to think that someone on a cell-tethered computer might want to use Skype Video or visit Hulu? One of my relatives travels frequently, and his cell-tethered computer is his only form of Internet access when he's not at home, which can often be for weeks at a time.

Re:Still, you have to wonder. (4, Insightful)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416533)

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:I don't really blame them... (4, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416185)

3G wireless data networking is a service with very limited total bandwidth. It has a premium price, and is primarily targeted at business users.

We're talking about AT&T.
You know, the people with the exclusive deal on the iPhone...
You're trying to tell me that those millions of iPhone subscribers are business users?

Maybe "3G wireless data networking" was "primarily targeted at business users" by AT&T, but they got the iPhone and with it comes the non-business masses. Not to mention that 3G is not "primarily targeted at business users" anywhere else in the world.

Stop this Unlimited Crap (4, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#24415923)

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.

I second that! (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416061)

Honesty in advertising is something that must be enforced again. Where did it go?

It's THEIR network. (4, Insightful)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | more than 6 years ago | (#24415925)

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.

Re:It's THEIR network. (4, Insightful)

ari_j (90255) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416001)

There's a difference between imposing rules and reinterpreting a contract that you've already entered into. If there is a contract term that actually does cover lawful P2P usage, that's imposing a rule. If there is a contract term that prohibits using their network to infringe anyone's copyright and they claim that lawful P2P usage falls within that prohibition, that's different.

From the article (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416195)

AT&T's terms of service (as well as the TOS for most other carriers) bars the use of P2P applications on the wireless platform.

Apparently to conserve limited bandwidth.

Re:It's THEIR network. (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416049)

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. (1)

Toandeaf (1014715) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416425)

Many people are saying that this is a bandwidth issue not a copyright one. I don't really see how this has relevance to Common Carrier protections.

Re:It's THEIR network. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416591)

They could then just put a download/upload cap. By targeting one technology they are at risk.

Re:It's THEIR network. (2, Informative)

b96miata (620163) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416661)

1. It's lose.

2. All the old common carrier rules went out the window with the internet. Not by law or anything, but just look at all the poking around in your data ISP's do nowadays. If they haven't lost CC protection for it yet, I doubt they ever will.

Re:It's THEIR network. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24416667)

Next they are operating as a "Common Carrier" that gives them all sorts of legal protections.

Must ... not ... lose.. temper ...

Re:It's THEIR network. (3, Insightful)

amnezick (1253408) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416051)

yes but if you're already "in" can you get out now that they've changed "the rules of the game"?

Re:It's THEIR network. (5, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416099)

the fact both comcast and AT&T are doing this and not getting punished by the market as it is says pretty clearly that one of two things are true: 1) there is little if any competition and/or 2) people really don't care enough to switch sadly both are probably true to some extent.. which explains a lot of why the US is near the bottom of industrialized nations in terms of the capabilities of our broadband/wireless networks...

You do realize... (4, Insightful)

wiredog (43288) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416243)

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:It's THEIR network. (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416441)

You left off 3) in the heavily regulated telecom industry, the federal government at best doesn't care, and at worst is supportive of this sort of thing.

Your first point is really the key one for most folks. There is no meaningful competition in telecoms.

Re:It's THEIR network. (4, Insightful)

neokushan (932374) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416109)

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 (4, Insightful)

hellfire (86129) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416111)

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!

Re:BullSHIT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24416447)

1) We're not talking about ISP service.

2) I don't know why so many people are enamored with slippery slope arguments; it's a logical fallacy.

3) How you think they should do business is irrelevant; you didn't invest the time, thought, energy, money, effort, insight, or any of the other things needed to build the business in the first place.

Oblig (1)

wattrlz (1162603) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416375)

Ha-ha, I use Sprint. Never got kicked off of EVDO for downloading some fan-subbed Anime :P (though they do have their own issues, don't get me wrong).

Seriously, though. Why do people still use AT&T? Aside from iPhone fever or living in a remote area where AT&T is the only game in town it sounds like there really aren't any compelling reasons to sign up with them.

Re:It's THEIR network. (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416587)

Why do people keep modding this kind of crap as insightful? It really isn't:

let me start by saying it's their network and they can impose whatever rules they feel like

Yeah, it's their network, and they sold unlimited access to it. Now, they want to act as if they did not since they're losing money. That kind of behaviour is usually illegal.

Nobody is forcing you to sign up; there are options

Nobody forced them to take money for "unlimited" access. There were other options for them. But they took the money. Now that have to stick by what they sold.

they can impose whatever rules they feel like

No. Not once they've sold access to it.

Not Unreasonable (5, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 6 years ago | (#24415957)

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.

Re:Not Unreasonable (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416073)

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.

This is exactly what I was thinking, but will they really rethink their stance? Somehow I doubt it.

Re:Not Unreasonable (1)

Toandeaf (1014715) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416463)

They might not, but if the legal challenges are held back until they could be useful it is possible that they could be forced to rethink it.

Re:Not Unreasonable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24416499)

many people use their cell phone to bridge the internet connection to their home pc or notebook.

FCC... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24415971)

fine the fuck out of them already! How dare they pull this kind of shit RIGHT AFTER Comcast was told to stop sending TCP reset packets to torrent clients.

Oh good. (1)

z00_miak (1305831) | more than 6 years ago | (#24415973)

I'm glad we're headed in the right direction.

What scares me the most is not AT&T alone, but the precedent they're setting for ISPs worldwide.

Whether it's their network or not shouldn't matter. ISPs due to infrastructure tend to have a natural monopolies. They have the responsibility of responding to the demands of their users. Who are they to choose how a user will use his connection? Does he really have many options if he wishes to choose another ISP?

Re:Oh good. (4, Insightful)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416199)

"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.

Re:Oh good. (1)

Toandeaf (1014715) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416521)

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.

This is nitpicking but if you own lake side land and the town wants a lake side restaurant couldn't they zone the property for a business?

Cellular Interwebs (1, Informative)

QuantumPion (805098) | more than 6 years ago | (#24415977)

I recently bought an EEE PC and enrolled in my cell carrier's data plan to allow tethering. It's great, I love being able to connect to the net relatively securely from anywhere. And it makes a great backup in case my home cable modem goes out. The problem is, I only use it occasionally, and most carriers have outrageous plans.

For someone who is interested in cellular internet in the US, what are your choices?

Verizon: $60/mo on top of voice plan, 5 GB/mo limit, service explicitly limited to "internet browsing and e-mail only".
AT&T: $60/mo on top of voice plan, 5 GB/mo limit, poor access unless you live in a major city, can have your contract terminated for violation of service whenever they feel like it.
Sprint: $50/mo on top of voice plan. Apparently no bandwidth or usage limits.
T-Mobile: No 3g service.
Alltel: $25/mo on top of voice plan (or $10/mo on top of PDA plan), no bandwidth or service limits.

Since Alltel was bought by Verizon, it seems like Sprint is the only way to go for cellular internet. I currently have Alltel, and am considering extending my data contract for 2 years to at least enjoy it while it lasts.

Re:Cellular Interwebs (3, Informative)

ptbarnett (159784) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416063)

Sprint has a $60/month unlimited plan, with no dependency on a voice plan. I'm using it now.

Re:Cellular Interwebs (1)

chaboud (231590) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416083)

As a Sprint EV-DO modem user who has just watched the policy change from Unlimited to "use more than 5GB in any two of three months and we'll stop service," it seems like we're all just out of luck.

I still love my Sprint modem, but I'm certainly wary of it going out on me in the future.

Note that I'm talking about a modem, rather than tethering.

Re:Cellular Interwebs (1)

Southpaw018 (793465) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416123)

ATT's data access isn't as widespread as Verizon's, but they're building it out at a furious pace, and both their network and Verizon's are FAR larger than Sprint's. Here, 10 miles out of the city in any direction and your Sprint voice connection, not to mention data, is barely alive. And forget it if you're indoors anywhere.

I recommend ATT or Verizon, both equally, and no one else.

Re:Cellular Interwebs (2, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416631)

I recommend ATT or Verizon, both equally, and no one else.

I disagree. If you live in a major city both T-Mobile and Sprint are valid options. Both of them are focused on covering the areas where 90% of the population spends 90% of it's time. If you live in a decent sized city and rarely venture out into the countryside then why the hell should you pay half again as much (or more) for service with Verizon or AT&T?

Re:Cellular Interwebs (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416151)

Try PDANet if you have a WM or PalmOS device such as a Treo:

http:\\www.junefabrics.com

It violates the TOS, but everyone I know that uses it has had no problems; but they use it mostly for light web surfing and VPN/Outlook email, no P2P or streaming video.

Re:Cellular Interwebs (1)

Jon_S (15368) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416277)

Sorry, you just lost all your nerd cred for putting backslashes in a URL.

Daylight robbery... (1)

Fallen Andy (795676) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416223)

If you think *those* plans are bad, then consider the case here in Greece, where a while ago (and probably now) there were plans which were 5MB (yes I did say that) and 50MB per month with effectively 1 euro per MB over that. One week after I warned a friend of mine about "reading the small print" he got slapped with a 500 euro bill. Cellular internet is a real no-no unless you're just checking your email - consider the traffic watching a few youtube videos per day...

The FSM only knows how big the bill would be if you torrent (or more likely run Limewire or Bearshare)

Andy

Re:Cellular Interwebs (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416581)

Sprint: $50/mo on top of voice plan. Apparently no bandwidth or usage limits.

My Sprint terms of service (for a laptop cellular connection) say, roughly, "Web browsing and email only, definitely no streaming VOIP; if you use over 5 gigs we'll assume you're breaking the rules and kick you off."

Clear enough; no deal. (4, Interesting)

PMuse (320639) | more than 6 years ago | (#24415989)

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.)

Re:Clear enough; no deal. (2, Funny)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416389)

This sounds like an excellent way to get out of an ATT contract without early cancellation fees.

Buy an iPhone for $300; get ATT contract. Tether the iPhone to your laptop and install a fresh copy of WoW.

They drop you and you don't have to pay for the rest of the contract.

p2p via http and ftp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24416005)

Why are there no P2P apps that disguise themselves as "legitimate" traffic eg FTP/SMTP/POP3/HTTP/HTTPS/VOIP
Just wrap the packets in the appropriate container and it should be more or less undetectable no ?

This is news? (2, Interesting)

Genocaust (1031046) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416011)

Who would want to try and P2P anything over 3G, anyhow? I regularly end up using my cell as a tethered modem for EDGE when I have no other service available, and even if I had 3G, I don't see any situation where I'd be forced to rely on my cell for internet that I would just absolutely have to get on some P2P network. I'd rather just surf and check email with a connection less than DSL/Cable.

Re:This is news? (1)

Wiarumas (919682) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416117)

I agree. If anything, I would remotely connect to a home pc or something and handle P2P there. I'm never really in that much of a bind to have to use a 3G device for rather large downloads then and there.

Re:This is news? (1)

chaboud (231590) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416155)

Try EVDO-RevA or HSDPA. EDGE is awful by comparison.

If you want to pull down the latest Fedora ISO and run it in a VM on your laptop, using the Torrent over your cellular modem can be the best way to go. I've done it.

(And, yes, I've switched to Ubuntu.)

Sigh are people buying internet access (1)

RichMan (8097) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416033)

So are people buying internet access or the ability to shop only at approved media interface sites.

We need to take back the NET before we lose any more of it.

Re:Sigh are people buying internet access (1)

ericdewey (167132) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416433)

_We_ never had the 'net. It was a government project turned public and offered as a paid for service to the general populace, internet access is a product not a right. The 'net is far more accessible now than it was 15 years ago when I first started using it. If you don't like the TOS of a particular provider, find another one or have a T1 pulled to your house.

Re:Sigh are people buying internet access (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416669)

internet access is a product not a right

Bullshit. The internet is the electric or telephone company of the 21st century. You need it to do everything from communications to research to banking. It should be treated as a utility and held to the same standards that the local electric company is.

Haha... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24416037)

I'll use P2P, even if they don't want me to! They can't st..#$^%$^#$%$#%#$%![NO CARRIER]

Class action suit brought by WoW players.... (-1, Offtopic)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416067)

Poor AT&T didn't realize they were going to piss off over 40 million WoW players....

40 million 3G only WOW players????!?!? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416231)

Poor AT&T didn't realize they were going to piss off over 40 million WoW players....

How many people ONLY play WOW over a 3G connection...

Re:Class action suit brought by WoW players.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24416287)

For once I'm actually happy wow exists. But in reality, those clowns would never do anything about it. Sheeple just keeps on rolling over the cliff indefinitely.

Re:Class action suit brought by WoW players.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24416295)

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:Class action suit brought by WoW players.... (1)

jak10900 (1144239) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416415)

Poor AT&T didn't realize they were going to piss off over 40 million WoW players....

Someone's missing the point of TFA... Christ you didn't even have to read TFA to get it! How many people do you know that play WoW on their iPhone, chief? 40 million? Shit! And all this time I've been staying locked up in my bedroom! And who modded parent +3 Interesting? Are you serious?

Good News (1)

ponraul (1233704) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416069)

Step 1) Buy 3G iPhone.

Step 2) Violate the TOS by using a p2p application.

Step 3) AT&T terminates the contract.

Step 4) Find a way to unlock the phone.

Step 5) Buy the plan that you want.

Re:Good News (1)

Higaran (835598) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416229)

Step 6) ??? Step 7) Profit.

Re:Good News (2, Informative)

hyperz69 (1226464) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416401)

Except when you violate the TOS they charge you an Early Term Fee or you can keep paying monthly for no access. It's in the legalize you signed. Sorry no free subsidized Iphone for you ;P

QoS (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416075)

FTFA : "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."

Hey AT&T, it's called QoS, look it up!

And if their problem is with "continuous" transmissions, let's just make a new P2P protocol that instead uses lots of "bursty" transmissions to lots of different other P2P users. There, problem solved!

It Won't Work, /. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24416079)

Nice try, censoring my AC posting. But AT&T is quite right to do this - they don't want music and video thieves on their networks and they're finally taking action to boot these parasites off their bandwidth. Good for them.

dont post anonymously (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416121)

unless you want to be taken as an RIAA lapdog.

No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24416363)

unless you want to be taken as an RIAA lapdog.

No, they're smart enough to create an account with a throwaway email and phony user information and then accuse others of being RIAA lapdogs. Best way to distract others from your own wrong doing. BTW, why is your IP address from RIAA.org?

Re:It Won't Work, /. (1)

pillageplunder (183475) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416387)

Yeah...question for you there scooter...how many music and especially video thieves are using their FRIGGING CELL PHONES for P2P File-sharing?

I could also ask why, when AT&T first developed and rolled the network out they didn't stop to think AHEAD of time on how to keep scads of music and video thieves off of their precious networks PRIOR to launching this. Hmmm...myopic strategic vision?

YMMV

AT&T, prepare for a huge wave of angry calls (0, Offtopic)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416089)

From World of Warcraft players.

At the next patch/update of the game, you'll receive a boatload of calls from angry customers.

Re:AT&T, prepare for a huge wave of angry call (0, Redundant)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416115)

... WoW players who use their cellphone to connect to the internet. :D

Ok, maybe that will only be a splash instead of a wave.

Re:AT&T, prepare for a huge wave of angry call (2, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416443)

Title should have been "AT&T to cut off P2P users on 3G".

Re:AT&T, prepare for a huge wave of angry call (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24416595)

From all those folks who are playing WoW over the cell network you mean?

ver nice! (1)

eyeareque (454991) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416133)

This sounds like an easy way to get out of your contract lol. Thanks AT&T.

No Safe Harbor (4, Interesting)

scubamage (727538) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416163)

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.

Re:No Safe Harbor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24416381)

I think that's only technical measures, not policy measures. What Comcast is doing is far more likely to inhibit claims of safe harbor.

Re:No Safe Harbor (1)

scubamage (727538) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416435)

I've never read the actual wording so you may be correct. I thought it was basically just, "if you bias against any traffic or filter in any way, you lose status."

Re:No Safe Harbor (1)

hyperz69 (1226464) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416429)

When you own enough of congress, you have all the Safe Harbor you need to do whatever ;P

Re:No Safe Harbor (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416431)

No they haven't. They can have broad reasonable limitations on the type of traffic that's permitted. Unless P2P itself is found to be illegal they're perfectly safe. Just like the US Mail service is permitted to refuse to transport helium yet retain common carrier status.

Re:No Safe Harbor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24416471)

I have a feeling you need to turn in your internet JD, because I'm sure this doesn't cause any problem with their safe harbor. It's a protocol they're banning, not any specific content.

Re:No Safe Harbor (0, Flamebait)

garcia (6573) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416627)

Safe harbor ONLY applies when the ISP doesn't bias network traffic.

They provided a safe harbor for the Bush Administration to conduct wiretaps. I'm sure that the Republicans will let any minor infractions slide.

3G People (3, Insightful)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416209)

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?!?!?

Re:3G People (1)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416407)

I haven't read those comments yet. But I'm pretty sure ATT sells cards and services for computers too, I think those people may do it.

Someone tell AT&T that it is 2008 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24416215)

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/p2p_growth_trend_watch.php [readwriteweb.com]
[...]"Peer-to-Peer (P2P) traffic was 60% (and rising) of Internet traffic in 2004, with BitTorrent accounting for 30% of traffic"[...]

that article is from 2006 (2(!) years(!) ago) and was the first find using google...

Looks like AT&T's shiny product isn't worth shit if they have to bitch about protocols that were already a requirement in 2004...

Other policies under consideration... (5, Funny)

burris (122191) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416275)

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.

Re:Other policies under consideration... (1)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416573)

3. Calling ex-girlfriend after 10 pm will be charged at time-and-a-half.

That might be a great deterrent, actually.

Maybe that is the reason... (2, Insightful)

Bobzibub (20561) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416377)

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.

So this cancels my contract then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24416393)

... and looking over the contract terms, I think this gets me out of paying the early contract termination fee.

Easy way out of contract :) (3, Interesting)

alextheseal (653421) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416489)

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.

So all I have to do is put a p2p app on the iphone (0, Redundant)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#24416493)

So all I have to do is put a p2p app on the iphone and they get cut off to get a iphone 3g without being locked in for 2 years.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?