AT&T openly says it may filter Internet content - New England Patriots Forums

***weswelker#83*** · 01-09-2008, 07:52 PM

AT&T openly stated at CES that they may start filtering Internet content. This is a very big announcement because most ISPs (even Comcast) have up until this point claimed to be net neutral.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0...ady-to-filter/

I'm so glad I don't have ATT. Makes Comcast look a little better.

China,where are thou?

***BelichickFan*** · 01-09-2008, 07:53 PM

It's irrelevant, it's a business decision. We all have choices about who our ISP is - for some this will make AT&T more attractive, for others less. Their business, their choice.

***weswelker#83*** · 01-09-2008, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

It's irrelevant, it's a business decision. We all have choices about who our ISP is - for some this will make AT&T more attractive, for others less. Their business, their choice.

Agreed but It is impossible for the free market to work when consumers are not free.

Search results might be biaised .

***BelichickFan*** · 01-09-2008, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by weswelker#83

Agreed but It is impossible for the free market to work when consumers are not free.

How are consumers not free ? Unless a law is passed requiring filters there will always be a company (or many) who make the business decision not to.

***weswelker#83*** · 01-09-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

How are consumers not free ?

They will bring throu their pipes what they want ,not what you want.
Content filtering opens the door to new tiers of service:

1) filtered service $50/mo. 2) Unfiltered service add $50/mo.

***BelichickFan*** · 01-09-2008, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by weswelker#83

They will bring throu their pipes what they want ,not what you want.
Content filtering opens the door to new tiers of service:

1) filtered service $50/mo. 2) Unfiltered service add $50/mo.

Again, it's a non issue to me as I have several potential ISPs (as do most) and if I don't like one I can change to another. It's their business to run.

***weswelker#83*** · 01-09-2008, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

Again, it's a non issue to me as I have several potential ISPs (as do most) and if I don't like one I can change to another. It's their business to run.

Sure , me too , i do have differents options but...i heard Nyc has only one major player, i think att has monopoly in different areas ( midwest,not sure?)

wistahpatsfan · 01-09-2008, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by weswelker#83

Sure , me too , i do have differents options but...i heard Nyc has only one major player, i think att has monopoly in different areas ( midwest,not sure?)

When AT&T does this they will lose their monopoly...garaunteed.

***PressCoverage*** · 01-09-2008, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

Again, it's a non issue to me as I have several potential ISPs (as do most) and if I don't like one I can change to another. It's their business to run.

typical unaccountable capitalist rhetoric... and when all ISPs start doing it, what will your response be then?

something along the lines of:

"go out and start your OWN company"

***BelichickFan*** · 01-09-2008, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PressCoverage

typical unaccountable capitalist rhetoric... and when all ISPs start doing it, what will your response be then?

I realize you'll say "this is the start, where will it go" but the article does say : "could soon start sniffing your digital packets, looking for material that infringes on someone’s copyright".

Whether some of the stuff should be illegal to download is another issue but arguing that companies shouldn't look for illegal activities being conducted on their hardware/software is a difficult argument.