AT&T is about to cut internet service to customers accused of piracy

[fktech]

Too much power with no oversight!!!

 

[cuerdc]

Can someone start crowd funding of deep sea server or satellite server which pirates everything and is out of any sort of legal repercussions just to end this war they will never win. Or keep ploughing time and money into this punishing everyone with the higher costs incurred to the legal ways.
Only reason at&t probably like this as gives them reason to remove their highest data customers reliving utilisation on their network.

 

[HyPeroxya]

MAn who's 69 launches lawsuit to be 49 so he can get more 69 . offtopic.

 

[mailpup]

MAn who's 69 launches lawsuit to be 49 so he can get more 69 . offtopic.

TechSpot already has an article on this here: https://www.techspot.com/community/...rease-his-tinder-matches.250354/#post-1712878

 

[fps4ever]

So much for innocent until proven guilty.

LOL yeah sure. I bet those six warning letters were lost in the mail. Innocent lambs they are.

 

[tipstir]

Better anchor your PC at harbor as AT&T will take your account away.

 

[AceMore]

The thing about pirating that really gets me is how so many people make excuses such as "it costs too much" or "I can't get it in my country." Nobody owes anyone entertainment. It's not a right. It's a privilege. Regardless of how easy it is to just download anything you want, it is still a product that is owned by someone or some company. We don't get to decide how much someone charges for their product. Entertainment is not a life-saving drug, food or water. It's just entertainment. We can live without it.

If you're going to steal then just own up to your choice. It's stealing and no amount of excuses will change that fact.

 

[wiyosaya]

Why is it NN always seems to come up? With or without NN, I've never witnessed any changes to our crappy ISP services. You can blame it on NN and you can blame it on the lack of NN. The way I see it NN is irrelevant. And to keep this on topic NN was in effect and people was still getting their service disconnected. So once again NN is irrelevant even on this topic.

My apologies, and I am sorry to hear of your crappy internet service. I forgot that corporate greed and lack of competition could not possibly have anything to do with your situation. Let us know when Pai's new rules result in an improvement to your internet service.

When people question the legality of what AT&T is doing (with respect to cutting off the internet service to these customers) because of the fact that the internet is seen as a necessity to modern life, it is perfectly on topic to reply.

Whether anyone likes it or not, all one needs to do is look to Pai's rules, now, for the legality of the policy. Pai's rules simply require ISPs to post those rules publicly, then the "legality" of the policy, and people getting disconnected from their service, is legal based on what it says in Pai's new rules.

Besides that, "Illegal activity" has always been a mainstay in ISP policy as a violation of their terms of service. I expect it will always be a mainstay of ISP TOS. And like I said, there is usually a clause in those terms of service that an ISP can cut anyone off for any reason.

If those getting disconnected are doing nothing illegal, then they have the "Right to petition for redress". Even if they are engaging in illegal activity, they have the right to petition for redress; however, IMO, they would be unwise to do so.

 

[jason lee]

Sorry bro, but Suspected Internet Pirate is not a protected class in the USA.

This has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with companies blocking citizens from a vital utility based on unproven claims. Last I checked, it was innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal matters, I.e. jail-time.
This is a private company cutting off its service agreement with the user, per the terms of the contract that you agree to when signing up.

I don't think the internet is considered a "public utility", although whether it should be is a whole different discussion.

 

[jason lee]

So in other words, they can ban whoever they wish with zero evidence of deprive them of a service that is necessary to daily life including applying for a job and paying bills.

Seems illegal.

I think they have evidence. That's the whole reason they receive a warning notice??

 

[OutlawCecil]

The thing about pirating that really gets me is how so many people make excuses such as "it costs too much" or "I can't get it in my country." Nobody owes anyone entertainment. It's not a right. It's a privilege. Regardless of how easy it is to just download anything you want, it is still a product that is owned by someone or some company. We don't get to decide how much someone charges for their product. Entertainment is not a life-saving drug, food or water. It's just entertainment. We can live without it.

If you're going to steal then just own up to your choice. It's stealing and no amount of excuses will change that fact.

Have you ever bought a movie and taken it to a friends house to watch? Why you little pirate you... The current laws on this stuff are a joke. Multi-million dollar companies go after individuals. Courts assume the damage is catastrophic and give the multi-million dollar companies way more than that one individual even "stole". Well he downloaded this movie so we need to assume he then gave it to 100 of his friends so this $20 dvd is now worth $2,000. We need to make an example out of him so we'll make it $5,000. Oh, and add court and legal fees. Lets just say this man downloaded this movie worth $10,000 shall we? Now we'll give this money to the people who deserve it. The actors who have ran out of things to buy and have turned to drugs (again) as well as the studios who are top 1% grossing companies. That will teach that lower-class individual not to seek entertainment without paying us to stream it from one of 6 different websites.

*sigh* rant done

 

[Evernessince]

Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal matters, I.e. jail-time.
This is a private company cutting off its service agreement with the user, per the terms of the contract that you agree to when signing up.

I don't think the internet is considered a "public utility", although whether it should be is a whole different discussion.

The ISPs certainly think the Internet is a utility, given they have all applied for and taken public utility funds to expand and improve their networks. The Internet is essential for many people and therefore a utility. In any case, no ISP should be able to cut anyone from such an essential service without due process. We do not live in a banana republic.

I think they have evidence. That's the whole reason they receive a warning notice??

Given that most ISPs will send those notices with only a simple IP address, no they don't have evidence. IP address alone isn't nearly enough, especially given the majority of people have dynamic IP addresses.

My apologies, and I am sorry to hear of your crappy internet service. I forgot that corporate greed and lack of competition could not possibly have anything to do with your situation. Let us know when Pai's new rules result in an improvement to your internet service.

When people question the legality of what AT&T is doing (with respect to cutting off the internet service to these customers) because of the fact that the internet is seen as a necessity to modern life, it is perfectly on topic to reply.

Whether anyone likes it or not, all one needs to do is look to Pai's rules, now, for the legality of the policy. Pai's rules simply require ISPs to post those rules publicly, then the "legality" of the policy, and people getting disconnected from their service, is legal based on what it says in Pai's new rules.

Besides that, "Illegal activity" has always been a mainstay in ISP policy as a violation of their terms of service. I expect it will always be a mainstay of ISP TOS. And like I said, there is usually a clause in those terms of service that an ISP can cut anyone off for any reason.

If those getting disconnected are doing nothing illegal, then they have the "Right to petition for redress". Even if they are engaging in illegal activity, they have the right to petition for redress; however, IMO, they would be unwise to do so.

Everyone has the right to petition for redress, it's called taking them to court. It's not an option for a majority of people as the cost and time involved is heavy. Did you know that ford stole the idea of the automatic windshield wiper and kept the original inventor in court for 35 years? Yeah, I'm sure that's a viable alternative for the average American citizen.

 

[fps4ever]

The ISPs certainly think the Internet is a utility, given they have all applied for and taken public utility funds to expand and improve their networks. The Internet is essential for many people and therefore a utility. In any case, no ISP should be able to cut anyone from such an essential service without due process. We do not live in a banana republic.



Given that most ISPs will send those notices with only a simple IP address, no they don't have evidence. IP address alone isn't nearly enough, especially given the majority of people have dynamic IP addresses.



Everyone has the right to petition for redress, it's called taking them to court. It's not an option for a majority of people as the cost and time involved is heavy. Did you know that ford stole the idea of the automatic windshield wiper and kept the original inventor in court for 35 years? Yeah, I'm sure that's a viable alternative for the average American citizen.

I work for an ISP. You have no clue what you are talking about. We find out who the account holder and address is for that IP at the time the infraction occurred. Yes that includes dynamic IP's so specific date/time of infraction is critical. If we are sure about the details the cease and desist letter is emailed and sent via regular mail to the billing address. They are more then welcome to call and dispute. We'll even help check for viruses or open wifi security issues since we have our own tech support. Some times it's a grandkid, child or whatever and its one and done.No further issues. We've never had a false hit with any desist letters we researched but I suppose it's possible. I don't know how AT&T does it but I bet they have their ducks in a row if it gets this bad and knows exactly who it is.

I tend not to listen to pirates or pirate defenders anymore as their arguments get old and stale. All that's left at the end is "yur breaking mu freedumz" excuse. Sorry but this isn't a legal or criminal issue. You have no right to their private service. That being said as an ISP we've stopped forwarding letters (not doing somebody else's work for no compensation) but have heard horror stories of the bandwidth used by the most egregious pirates. These are the ones they are going after.

PS: If you don't have the money to go to small claims court you probably have other things to worry about than Internet access.

 

[jason lee]

Have you ever bought a movie and taken it to a friends house to watch? Why you little pirate you... The current laws on this stuff are a joke. Multi-million dollar companies go after individuals. Courts assume the damage is catastrophic and give the multi-million dollar companies way more than that one individual even "stole". Well he downloaded this movie so we need to assume he then gave it to 100 of his friends so this $20 dvd is now worth $2,000. We need to make an example out of him so we'll make it $5,000. Oh, and add court and legal fees. Lets just say this man downloaded this movie worth $10,000 shall we? Now we'll give this money to the people who deserve it. The actors who have ran out of things to buy and have turned to drugs (again) as well as the studios who are top 1% grossing companies. That will teach that lower-class individual not to seek entertainment without paying us to stream it from one of 6 different websites.

*sigh* rant done

I think they are going after the egregious offenders, who share these pirated productions out in the open, ignore several warnings, etc.
And your logic appealing to moral socialism is flawed. If a thief gets caught looting items for $$ thousands from Walmart, should the authorities just let him go? I mean after all, the owners of Walmart are already rich, so what does it matter?

 

[Evernessince]

I work for an ISP. You have no clue what you are talking about. We find out who the account holder and address is for that IP at the time the infraction occurred. Yes that includes dynamic IP's so specific date/time of infraction is critical. If we are sure about the details the cease and desist letter is emailed and sent via regular mail to the billing address. They are more then welcome to call and dispute. We'll even help check for viruses or open wifi security issues since we have our own tech support. Some times it's a grandkid, child or whatever and its one and done.No further issues. We've never had a false hit with any desist letters we researched but I suppose it's possible. I don't know how AT&T does it but I bet they have their ducks in a row if it gets this bad and knows exactly who it is.

I tend not to listen to pirates or pirate defenders anymore as their arguments get old and stale. All that's left at the end is "yur breaking mu freedumz" excuse. Sorry but this isn't a legal or criminal issue. You have no right to their private service. That being said as an ISP we've stopped forwarding letters (not doing somebody else's work for no compensation) but have heard horror stories of the bandwidth used by the most egregious pirates. These are the ones they are going after.

PS: If you don't have the money to go to small claims court you probably have other things to worry about than Internet access.

No point in reading a comment that hurls insults right off the bat. Clean your language up and maybe I'll read your comment.

 

[fps4ever]

No point in reading a comment that hurls insults right off the bat. Clean your language up and maybe I'll read your comment.

It's not an insult it's a fact if you bothered to read the rest. If you knew what you were talking about I'd have been more hospitable. I have no issue not conversing with you at all. Your loss.

 

[OutlawCecil]

I think they are going after the egregious offenders, who share these pirated productions out in the open, ignore several warnings, etc.
And your logic appealing to moral socialism is flawed. If a thief gets caught looting items for $$ thousands from Walmart, should the authorities just let him go? I mean after all, the owners of Walmart are already rich, so what does it matter?

Since that copy literally cost the studio nothing, stealing from Walmart wouldn't be the best example. These companies go after pirates based on "possible" income lost, although it's impossible to prove it would have otherwise been paid for.

 

[Evernessince]

It's not an insult it's a fact if you bothered to read the rest. If you knew what you were talking about I'd have been more hospitable. I have no issue not conversing with you at all. Your loss.

I get it, you aren't here to discuss. You are here to force your opinion down other's throats and insult them.

First, no your account is not fact. Your opinion is but a single perspective. You speak for yourself and no one else. You most certainly don't speak for every ISP or their employees (without proof might I add).

All you've done is shown your extreme hubris. You insulted any voice with which you don't agree with. Your confidence so great in your own mind that you believe no other's is valid.

Second, I'd expect someone open to discussion willing to at least listen to another opinion without throwing insults. You haven't even afforded me that.

So I'll pass on your perspective until you learn to respect others.

 

[fps4ever]

I get it, you aren't here to discuss. You are here to force your opinion down other's throats and insult them.

As someone in the know I laid out the facts as to how it works. There really were no opinions offered so to speak. You were not even right about Internet being classified as a utility (for two years it was but not the same as power and traditional telecommunications) but I left that one alone in the post. If you think that was an actual insult you need a way thicker skin for your wrong opinions .

 

[OutlawCecil]

As someone in the know I laid out the facts as to how it works. There really were no opinions offered so to speak. You were not even right about Internet being classified as a utility (for two years it was but not the same as power and traditional telecommunications) but I left that one alone in the post. If you think that was an actual insult you need a way thicker skin for your wrong opinions .

I don't always agree with Evernessince but in this matter, I would. From a tech standpoint, open wifi is not uncommon and what it's used for is not your responsibility any more than somebody who gets some water from your house's garden hose, then throws it at a neighbors house. (not the best example but you get the idea) I also have worked in the criminal law field for a few years and can tell you matching an IP to a BUILDING is not cause to charge an individual unless you have more proof than that. It may be enough cause to check the person's computer, but ISPs should NOT be involved either way.

 

[Evernessince]

As someone in the know I laid out the facts as to how it works. There really were no opinions offered so to speak. You were not even right about Internet being classified as a utility (for two years it was but not the same as power and telecommunications) but I left that one alone in the post. If you think that was an actual insult you need a way thicker skin for your wrong opinions .

opinion

"You were not even right about Internet being classified as a utility (for two years it was but not the same as power and telecommunications)"

fact

"Title II gives the Federal Communications Commission power to regulate telecommunications providers as utilities or "common carriers.""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

No, you laid out your supposed account of how it works. We have to trust you actually work at an ISP and even if we did that is still only a single ISP. Your are only internet expert number 299 trillion to claim they work as such and such. Like anyone is going to believe that without proof. Big surprise, you are greeted with skepticism when you throw insults and make outlandish claims with zero proof. All you've done in additional comments is double down instead of providing anything of substance. Making snide remarks like a teenager isn't going to make anyone believe your claim is more legitimate, like the one quoted below.

If you think that was an actual insult you need a way thicker skin for your wrong opinions

This sentence is more telling of your own psyche then anything else.

 

[fps4ever]

I don't always agree with Evernessince but in this matter, I would. From a tech standpoint, open wifi is not uncommon and what it's used for is not your responsibility any more than somebody who gets some water from your house's garden hose, then throws it at a neighbors house. (not the best example but you get the idea) I also have worked in the criminal law field for a few years and can tell you matching an IP to a BUILDING is not cause to charge an individual unless you have more proof than that.

I don't disagree with that. My point was we don't just do that as I imagine most ISP's don't do it that way either. No matter how much the content providers want us to just spam forward letters from the IP's to an email address willy nilly. We research and only if we connect it with a single residence or apt. etc., will we send out emails/letters to the billing customer. And we never assume they are guilty even if we send them notices, that is why we ask about extenuating circumstances if/when they call in. Trust me as an ISP we do not want to shut off customers. If it gets that bad like AT&T said they did their homework. To assume lack of due process on an ISP is quite frankly ignorant.

 

[fps4ever]

opinion

"You were not even right about Internet being classified as a utility (for two years it was but not the same as power and telecommunications)"

fact

"Title II gives the Federal Communications Commission power to regulate telecommunications providers as utilities or "common carriers.""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

No, you laid out your supposed account of how it works. We have to trust you actually work at an ISP and even if we did that is still only a single ISP. Your are only internet expert number 299 trillion to claim they work as such and such. Like anyone is going to believe that without proof. Big surprise, you are greeted with skepticism when you throw insults and make outlandish claims with zero proof. All you've done in additional comments is double down instead of providing anything of substance. Making snide remarks like a teenager isn't going to make anyone believe your claim is more legitimate, like the one quoted below.



This sentence is more telling of your own psyche then anything else.

Dear lord you are doubling down on this LOL. Nobody said they didn't have the power, by the way they (FCC) reversed that and when it was implemented the regulations were never as strict as power and old school telecommunications. Since I'm in management and even have had to deal with the legalities this is getting much better. Bravo!

PS: We have two separate companies due to the different regulations between the old POTS line telecommunication and IP based everything else. All under one umbrella company. The regulations were and still are separated. Believe me or not, I don't care.

 

[OutlawCecil]

I don't disagree with that. My point was we don't just do that as I imagine most ISP's don't do it that way either. No matter how much the content providers want us to just spam forward letters from the IP's to an email address willy nilly. We research and only if we connect it with a single residence or apt. etc., will we send out emails/letters to the billing customer. And we never assume they are guilty even if we send them notices, that is why we ask about extenuating circumstances if/when they call in. Trust me as an ISP we do not want to shut off customers. If it gets that bad like AT&T said they did their homework. To assume lack of due process on an ISP is quite frankly ignorant.

But this whole situation is like turning off the water supply to a house because the water company has reason to believe he's a terrorist. Umm... what? First of all, the utility should have nothing to do with it. If you think he's a terrorist, call the police and give them evidence. That is their job. Your job as an ISP is to provide internet in exchange for money. Not to monitor or police the usage in any fashion.

 

[fps4ever]

But this whole situation is like turning off the water supply to a house because the water company has reason to believe he's a terrorist. Umm... what? First of all, the utility should have nothing to do with it. If you think he's a terrorist, call the police and give them evidence. That is their job. Your job as an ISP is to provide internet in exchange for money. Not to monitor or police the usage in any fashion.

Personally I and my ISP agree with you but as a private company many do not. Especially the bigger ones that are also content providers. I'm just letting you know if it's come this far they know who is doing what and will take those measures sometimes. We just want to sell you a fat pipe, we are not in the policing business.