NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Speculation, how AT&T can implement "copyright filtering"
Traffic shaping is a nice term for retrofitting some theory onto the network. This is the insidious face of NNN (NonNetworkNeutrality). One can argue that Comcast is merely shaping the traffic. We also have other euphemisms like level 4 routing. We also see well-meaning protocols like MPLS that attempt to bring circuits back into the Internet because to a telephone company everything is a telephone call. If you read through the terms of service you'll found them extremely problematic. IANAL so I can't classify them in terms of enforceability but to a larger extent they are ignored and unenforceable. I'm not allowed to say bad things about Verizon on Usenet for example. These are the same conditions that prohibited home networks, web cams etc. I do find terms saying that you promise to use the network only for legal purposes to be require I give up my constitutional right against self-incrimination -- can any lawyer explain why I must plead guilty until proven innocent? Verizon may say good words but the Comcast also said they would not interfere with traffic and argue they don't. This is why I keep pointing out that NN violations are symptoms of deeper problems and not the issue in themselves. -----Original Message----- From: nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of Cliff Sojourner Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 01:04 To: Kevin McArthur Cc: nnsquad@nnsquad.org Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: Speculation, how AT&T can implement "copyright filtering" Kevin McArthur wrote: > Verizon: We don't want to play copyright cop on our network > > http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9861402-7.html > > Apparently not all carriers are so eager to start playing with > intermediary liability. now the conversation here on nnsquad has turned full circle... in the beginning of this list we discussed "common carrier" and "carrier immunity" from liability of content (porn or copyright). again, carriers can't have it both ways: it's really simple, don't mess with my bits, or else you are liable for the content. don't mess with my bits means no packet forgery, and no disruption of payload bits. no packet forgery based on source or destination. no messing with protocol streams. and gawd, no inserting advertisments in web pages. providers can shape the traffic, according to our agreed terms of service, but they must be clearly stated and agreed to. you can not shape by source or destination. pretty simple. tell me again, what is all the discussion about?