MPAA gets a town to shut off it's WIFI over one illegal download
zeez
(illegal under the Geneva conventions) or the spineless moron
officials who kow tow'd to the MPAA http://consumerist.com/5403592
Thanatos
<df133519-d731-4ce6...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
zeez <blinking...@gmail.com> wrote:
Since when does the MPAA have law enforcement powers?
The proper response to the MPAA should have been, "Someone downloaded on
of your movies? Sorry to hear about it. Sounds like a civil matter
between you and whoever downloaded the movie. Good luck with that."
We don't shut down the entire phone system because one person calls in
an anonymous bomb threat. Not sure why these bozos allowed a movie
industry trade group to suggest the town's internet service is somehow
different.
Mark Nobles
The MPAA has more lawyers working full-time on these nuisance lawsuits
than a local cable company has customers, and even when the cable
company eventually wins they'll have been put out of business by their
legal bills. This is terrorism, pure and simple, and the terrorists win
again.
elmer
World Government or Merchant Feudalism.
When did we surrender our Constiution?
Thanatos
Mark Nobles <cmn-n...@comcast.net> wrote:
Well, if the law isn't on the side of the MPAA and their lawyers are
knowingly pursuing the case anyway, merely to harass and extort, then it
seems to me that filing an ethics complaint against every attorney of
record would be a good counter-tactic. It would cost the city nothing,
but would force the lawyers involved to spend their time and money
defending themselves before the state bar and in this case probably
lose, since their conduct is clearly unethical on its face. They'd come
out of it with a disciplinary record at a minimum (no small thing in
this age where every attorney's bar record is a mouse click away), and a
possible suspension of their license for a period of time.
Rod Speed
> I don't know what's worse, the MPAA for performing a group punishment
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys, child.
> (illegal under the Geneva conventions)
The US govt isnt even a signatory to that, child.
> or the spineless moronofficials who kow tow'd
> to the MPAA http://consumerist.com/5403592
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys, child.
David Johnston
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>zeez wrote:
>
>> I don't know what's worse, the MPAA for performing a group punishment
>
>Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys, child.
>
>> (illegal under the Geneva conventions)
>
>The US govt isnt even a signatory to that, child.
Wrong.
Motion Picture Asshole Association
5eb110...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> I don't know what's worse, the MPAA for performing a group punishment
> (illegal under the Geneva conventions) or the spineless moron
> officials who kow tow'd to the MPAA http://consumerist.com/5403592
>
A nice 2000lb IED outside their headquarters would be nice.
Dave C.
> amateurs. There should be some sort of authentication method before
> anyone can hop onto it. If they were using authentication, the wi-fi
> network's administrators would know who the culprit is.
How would you set up the authentication for that? The whole point of
the town wi-fi is that it's open to the public. You aren't going to
have a list of users *in advance*, by definition. So there is no way
to implement authentication. I mean, you can ask people to register,
but that's not a guarantee that the information on the registration
form is going to be good. -Dave
aemeijers
> In article
> <df133519-d731-4ce6...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> zeez <blinking...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> amateurs. There should be some sort of authentication method before
> anyone can hop onto it. If they were using authentication, the wi-fi
> network's administrators would know who the culprit is.
An electronic record of log-on would be unlikely to stand on it's own,
unless they were also logging MAC addresses and such.
Look up 'common carrier'. That has been telco and ISP defense against
criminal conspiracy (Mafia, porn, music/movie bootlegging, whatever) for
years. It would likely apply to a starbucks public hot spot as well as a
town-wide hot spot.
That town was just wetting their collective pants over lawyers falling
out of the sky on them. Fear is a recognized and cheap legal tactic.
Don't even have to say anything overt and actionable, just show up en
masse with a stack of paperwork.
--
aem sends...
Shawn Hirn
aemeijers <aeme...@att.net> wrote:
I work at a large university where our number of wi-fi users is probably
bigger than the population of some small towns. They can easily
authenticate and at the very least, send a warning to the owner of a
given wi-fi account if a user of that account is accused of a legal
infraction. It won't pin point the specific individual behind the
infraction, but it can at least make the owner of the account aware that
a problem has occurred and for that person to change his or her password
and stop sharing it (assuming that's what happened).
Shawn Hirn
"Dave C." <no...@nohow.never> wrote:
You have people sign up in advance by presenting positive ID a public
library, school, postoffice, etc. It sure isn't perfect, but at least
there is some human being to point at if an account is used illegally.
Free access public wi-fi is a great idea on the surface, but
unfortunately, there are too many people who would abuse it.
Thanatos
<srhi-B1BE44.0...@host81-136-209-74.in-addr.btopenworld.com>,
Shawn Hirn <sr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article
> <df133519-d731-4ce6...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> zeez <blinking...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am not fan of the MPAA, but this wi-fi network is clearly run by
> amateurs. There should be some sort of authentication method before
> anyone can hop onto it. If they were using authentication, the wi-fi
> network's administrators would know who the culprit is.
True, but it's not the wi-fi administrator's job or legal obligation to
be the enforcement arm of the MPAA. The fact that they *could* secure
it, doesn't mean they're required to do so in order to keep the MPAA
happy.
Goro
THere was a /. article on it. Some fo the comments are very
insightful and give some much needed details on this situatino.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/11/12/2025201/MPAA-Shuts-Down-Towns-Municipal-WiFi-Over-1-Download
-goro-
Rod Speed
>>> I don't know what's worse, the MPAA for performing a group punishment
>> Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys, child.
>>> (illegal under the Geneva conventions)
>> The US govt isnt even a signatory to that, child.
> Wrong.
Nope.
Thanatos
Azz Pizz <pena...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote:
> At least they don't harass minors like Texas Instruments does:
Since when?
Dave C.
>
> I work at a large university where our number of wi-fi users is
> probably bigger than the population of some small towns. They can
> easily authenticate and at the very least, send a warning to the
> owner of a given wi-fi account if a user of that account is accused
> of a legal infraction. It won't pin point the specific individual
> behind the infraction, but it can at least make the owner of the
> account aware that a problem has occurred and for that person to
> change his or her password and stop sharing it (assuming that's what
> happened).
This wasn't private wi-fi, like at a university. It was specifically
set up for public use. How are you going to authenticate that? Ask
people to register before they use it?
Last Name: Mouse
First Name: Mickey
Address: Mainstreet USA, Orlando, Florida
User Name: M O U S E
Password: otoodles
Password verify: otoodles
(submit)
Thanks, you are verified, you may now access...
Dave C.
>
> You have people sign up in advance by presenting positive ID a public
> library, school, postoffice, etc. It sure isn't perfect, but at least
> there is some human being to point at if an account is used illegally.
From my understanding, it was specifically set up for travelers just
passing through. So you pull over around 10PM to check your e-mail,
then stop into the public library to register...oh, wait...
>
> Free access public wi-fi is a great idea on the surface, but
> unfortunately, there are too many people who would abuse it.
OK, I've got the "killer app" idea. There are services (like boingo)
that allow you to access hotspots all over the U.S. with one user name
and password. You pay for the service, so essentially it is an ISP
service, paid. We need to create a free service along the same lines.
That way, if you want to use public wi-fi, you just enter your user
name and password. -Dave
Bob F
"May I see your identification?" might be a good start.
That's so dificult to figure out.
Dave C.
>
> "May I see your identification?" might be a good start.
>
> That's so dificult to figure out.
>
The average user of the system was in a car parked outside somewhere.
The town going to hire car-hops to serve burgers and authenticate
users? -Dave
Mark Nobles
You surrendered your rights when you laid back and let others speak for
you.
>
> We did that when we sat by and let the big companies lobby congress for
> their interests rather than ours.
Yep, there's your problem. "They" succeed because you are not doing
your part to support your own interests, not because they are doing
anything illegal or immoral. Then there's that creepy belief that
government is supposed to solve everybody's problems. Government never
solves any problems-it just imposes them on other people.
Harold Burton
<df133519-d731-4ce6...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
zeez <blinking...@gmail.com> wrote:
I vote for "spineless morons". Bet they're registered DemocRATs.
Snicker.
Thanatos
Harold Burton <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <df133519-d731-4ce6...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> zeez <blinking...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't know what's worse, the MPAA for performing a group punishment
> > (illegal under the Geneva conventions) or the spineless moron
> > officials who kow tow'd to the MPAA http://consumerist.com/5403592
Part two of the story:
MPAA/Sony Pictures Realizes That Shutting Down Muni-WiFi Over Single
Download Was A Bad Thing
Last week, we wrote about the ridiculous situation, whereby the MPAA had
an entire muni-WiFi network shut down because one person using that
system had downloaded a single film. The story ended up getting a fair
amount of press, and it looks like the MPAA and Sony Pictures in
particular, quickly realized that this was really, really bad publicity
for the company. After the company got bombarded by complaints, Sony
Pictures contacted the town and asked them to turn the WiFi back on,
while also claiming it could help the town set up tools to block such
things in the future. Of course, as Broadband Reports notes in the above
link: "Of course if the MPAA and Sony had approached the network owners
like human beings in the first place -- instead of engaging in the kind
of scorched earth tactics they've employed for several years now -- they
probably wouldn't have gotten the bad press to begin with." But, acting
like human beings in the first place isn't the sort of thing the
industry does well.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091114/1835486934.shtml#comments
Smokie Darling (Annie)
> >> zeez wrote
> >>> I don't know what's worse, the MPAA for performing a group punishment
> >> Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys, child.
> >>> (illegal under the Geneva conventions)
> >> The US govt isnt even a signatory to that, child.
> > Wrong.
>
> Nope.
http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=P
signed August 12, 1945, ratified February 8, 1955. With reservation:
http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/NORM/D6B53F5B5D14F35AC1256402003F9920?OpenDocument
excerpt quoted:
"The Government of the United States fully supports the objectives of
this Convention.
"I am instructed by my Government to sign, making the following
reservation to Article 68:
"The United States reserve the right to impose the death penalty in
accordance with the provisions of Article 68, paragraph 2, without
regard to whether the offences referred to therein are punishable by
death under the law of the occupied territory at the time the
occupation begins
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> In article
> <df133519-d731-4ce6-a831-5eb110b76...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> zeez <blinkingblyth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't know what's worse, the MPAA for performing a group punishment
>
> Since when does the MPAA have law enforcement powers?
It doesn't.
> The proper response to the MPAA should have been, "Someone downloaded on
> of your movies? Sorry to hear about it. Sounds like a civil matter
> between you and whoever downloaded the movie. Good luck with that."
Host ISPs do have responsibilities. Playing dumb is not an excuse.
> We don't shut down the entire phone system because one person calls in
> an anonymous bomb threat. Not sure why these bozos allowed a movie
> industry trade group to suggest the town's internet service is somehow
> different.
No, but a single company will face some grief if a fake bomb threat is
phoned in from their switchboard. Likewise, a homeowner will face
grief if the call is placed out of his house.
There is a difference between "group punishment" and security. If a
store installs onerous shoplifting protection as result of heavy
thefts, that is not 'group punishment', rather it is security.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> The MPAA has more lawyers working full-time on these nuisance lawsuits
> than a local cable company has customers,
Exactly how many lawers are there? Exactly how many customers are
there in the cable company?
> and even when the cable
> company eventually wins they'll have been put out of business by their
> legal bills. This is terrorism, pure and simple, and the terrorists win
> again.
Of course the cable company could install proper protective measures
to prevent its subscribers from abusing the system.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> True, but it's not the wi-fi administrator's job or legal obligation to
> be the enforcement arm of the MPAA. The fact that they *could* secure
> it, doesn't mean they're required to do so in order to keep the MPAA
> happy.
If a network is being used for abusive or illegal purposes--like
stealing--the owner/administrator of that network has the
responsibility to prevent that from happening. That's basic.
Separately posted above were some very reasonable and easy steps to
minimize such abuse.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I don't know what's worse, the MPAA for performing a group punishment
> (illegal under the Geneva conventions) or the spineless moron
> officials who kow tow'd to the MPAAhttp://consumerist.com/5403592
NO GROUP PUNISHMENT OCCURED.
" for the record, the MPAA didn't take down the network. They just
sent their usual infringement notice to the ISP, who then forwarded it
on to Coshocton County. The county then made the decision to shut down
the wifi service, they weren't ordered to by any judge or MPAA
executive/lawyer/asshat."
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > You have people sign up in advance by presenting positive ID a public
> > library, school, postoffice, etc. It sure isn't perfect, but at least
> > there is some human being to point at if an account is used illegally.
>
> From my understanding, it was specifically set up for travelers just
> passing through. So you pull over around 10PM to check your e-mail,
> then stop into the public library to register...oh, wait...
Downloads could be blocked.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Thanks for the clarification, which changes everything:
But, for the record, the MPAA didn't take down the network. They just
Rod Speed
Different convention, stupid.
Rod Speed
> Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote
>> True, but it's not the wi-fi administrator's job or legal obligation
>> to be the enforcement arm of the MPAA. The fact that they *could*
>> secure it, doesn't mean they're required to do so in order to keep
>> the MPAA happy.
> If a network is being used for abusive or illegal purposes--
> like stealing--the owner/administrator of that network has
> the responsibility to prevent that from happening.
Wrong. Most obviously with the phone network.
> That's basic.
That is in fact a lie.
> Separately posted above were some very reasonable
> and easy steps to minimize such abuse.
Not legally required.
Thanatos
<3c424267-d101-4db4...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Nov 15, 10:51�am, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > True, but it's not the wi-fi administrator's job or legal obligation to
> > be the enforcement arm of the MPAA. The fact that they *could* secure
> > it, doesn't mean they're required to do so in order to keep the MPAA
> > happy.
>
> If a network is being used for abusive or illegal purposes--like
> stealing--the owner/administrator of that network has the
> responsibility to prevent that from happening. That's basic.
Not according to Section 230 of the DMCA.
An ISP has no more obligation to police its network for copyright
violations than AT&T has to prevent harassing telephone calls or
phoned-in bomb threats.
Thanatos
<f5dad68c-e7a2-4529...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Nov 14, 4:13�pm, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <df133519-d731-4ce6-a831-5eb110b76...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �zeez <blinkingblyth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I don't know what's worse, the MPAA for performing a group punishment
> > > (illegal under the Geneva conventions) or the spineless moron
> > > officials who kow tow'd to the MPAAhttp://consumerist.com/5403592
> >
> > Since when does the MPAA have law enforcement powers?
>
> It doesn't.
>
> > The proper response to the MPAA should have been, "Someone downloaded on
> > of your movies? Sorry to hear about it. Sounds like a civil matter
> > between you and whoever downloaded the movie. Good luck with that."
>
> Host ISPs do have responsibilities. Playing dumb is not an excuse.
Not according to the safe harbor provisions of Section 230 of the DMCA.
Not Sure
> Last time on misc.consumers, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> said:
>
> >"Of course if the MPAA and Sony had approached the network owners
> >like human beings in the first place -- instead of engaging in the kind
> >of scorched earth tactics they've employed for several years now -- they
> >probably wouldn't have gotten the bad press to begin with." But, acting
> >like human beings in the first place isn't the sort of thing the
> >industry does well.
>
Ha
Smokie Darling (Annie)
> Smokie Darling (Annie) wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 10:35 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> David Johnston wrote
>
> >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>> zeez wrote
> >>>>> I don't know what's worse, the MPAA for performing a group
> >>>>> punishment
> >>>> Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys, child.
> >>>>> (illegal under the Geneva conventions)
> >>>> The US govt isnt even a signatory to that, child.
> >>> Wrong.
>
> >> Nope.
>
> >http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=P
>
> > signed August 12, 1945, ratified February 8, 1955. With reservation:
>
>
> > excerpt quoted:
>
> > "The Government of the United States fully supports the objectives of
> > this Convention.
> > "I am instructed by my Government to sign, making the following
> > reservation to Article 68:
> > "The United States reserve the right to impose the death penalty in
> > accordance with the provisions of Article 68, paragraph 2, without
> > regard to whether the offences referred to therein are punishable by
> > death under the law of the occupied territory at the time the
> > occupation begins
>
> Different convention, stupid.
...and you can't be bothered to say which it was supposed to be
referencing? niiiice
Gordon Burditt
>to prevent its subscribers from abusing the system.
I really hope that happens, and that Sony and the MPAA get burned
horribly by that.
At a time far into the future, Sony finally gets it and sets up a
web site to allow downloading movies for a fee, perhaps after all
the bandwidth for over-the-air-TV has been reallocated to cell phone
use, and the plastic for a DVD (or Blue-ray) now costs $100 thanks
to the price of oil.
Three milliseconds later, it gets shut down by Sony's ISP for
providing copyrighted material for download. Sony sues, and promptly
loses because of MPAA-originated legislation that requires Three
Strikes rules. Over the next year, Sony goes through all the ISPs
and gets kicked off of each of them. Now they can't even have a
web site.
Next, they get a call from their studio manager, who is complaining
that they can't transmit unedited movie footage over private satellite
channels. It seems that what they are transmitting is detected as
copyrighted material. Furthermore, someone tipped of the US Postal
service, Federal Express, and UPS that they've been shipping
copyrighted material, and their packages are getting confiscated
and burned.
Next, they get a call from their DVD-duplication facilities overseas.
It seems all of their equipment violates the United Nations DMCA
II and it's been confiscated, along with all their duplicated DVDs
and masters. There is no longer legal way to make equipment that
produces DVDs unless the copyright holder personally builds the
equipment (in the case of electronics, starting with sand for the
silicon), and since in this case the copyright holder is a corporation,
it doesn't have hands required to build duplication equipment.
Sony reluctantly decides that since there's no way to make use of
any of its movies, it's going to burn the masters. One of their
employees finks on them. It seems that burning the masters is
called "making a derivative work", and releasing the smoke into the
air makes it a "public performance", and doing it that way doesn't
have any copy-protection technology. Sony the corporation and its
upper management now face the death penalty.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Smokie Darling (Annie) wrote
>>>>> Wrong.
>>>> Nope.
>>> http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=P
>>> http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/NORM/D6B53F5B5D14F35AC1256402003F9920?Ope...
>>> excerpt quoted:
>> Different convention, stupid.
That fool made the original claim.
That fool gets to do that, stupid.
AND the MPAA isnt a signatory to ANY Geneva convention, fool.
Rod Speed
Been having those pathetic little fantasys long ?
Smokie Darling (Annie)
I never said they were. YOU said the *US Gov't* wasn't a signatory to
the Geneva Convention.
Since you can't make a valid argument, you resort to namecalling? Why
am I not surprised?
Rod Speed
>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>> Different convention, stupid.
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > If a network is being used for abusive or illegal purposes--
> > like stealing--the owner/administrator of that network has
> > the responsibility to prevent that from happening.
>
> Wrong. Most obviously with the phone network.
The telephone network has numerous tools and controls in place, going
back decades, to deter abusive and illegal practices by subscribers.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> An ISP has no more obligation to police its network for copyright
> violations than AT&T has to prevent harassing telephone calls or
> phoned-in bomb threats.
"AT&T" no longer exists. There is an "at&t" is which is today
primarily a regional phone company and one of numerous wireless
providers.
When formally advised of abuse occuring on their networks, telephone
companies and ISP do take steps to deter it (see other post).
Rod Speed
Rod Speed
> Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote
Like hell they do with public phones, it isnt even possible.
Thanatos
<b7837922-1636-4b6e...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Nov 18, 5:25�pm, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > An ISP has no more obligation to police its network for copyright
> > violations than AT&T has to prevent harassing telephone calls or
> > phoned-in bomb threats.
>
> "AT&T" no longer exists. There is an "at&t" is which is today
> primarily a regional phone company and one of numerous wireless
> providers.
Nice to see you don't mind being sidetracked by irrelevancies.
> When formally advised of abuse occuring on their networks, telephone
> companies and ISP do take steps to deter it (see other post).
But they don't *have* to. There is no legal sanction if they don't.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Like hell they do with public phones, it isnt even possible.
They most certainly do.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > When formally advised of abuse occuring on their networks, telephone
> > companies and ISP do take steps to deter it (see other post).
>
> But they don't *have* to. There is no legal sanction if they don't.
For telephone companies, as regulated carriers they have obligations.
For all network providers, ignoring a subpoena isn't a wise thing to
do.
Thanatos
<f1f966df-6a32-4dec...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Nov 19, 5:54�pm, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > When formally advised of abuse occuring on their
> > > networks, telephone companies and ISP do take steps
> > > to deter it (see other post).
> >
> > But they don't *have* to. There is no legal sanction
> > if they don't.
>
> For telephone companies, as regulated carriers they have
> obligations.
Sure, but keeping people from committing civil violations against other
people isn't one of them.
> For all network providers, ignoring a subpoena isn't a wise
> thing to do.
A subpoena to do what? A judge can't subpoena an ISP to do something
it's not legally required to do.
Thanatos
Shawn Hirn <sr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <atropos-CC1F3D...@news.giganews.com>,
> Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <srhi-B1BE44.0...@host81-136-209-74.in-addr.btopenworld.com>,
> > Shawn Hirn <sr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <df133519-d731-4ce6...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > zeez <blinking...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't know what's worse, the MPAA for performing a group punishment
> > > > (illegal under the Geneva conventions) or the spineless moron
> > > > officials who kow tow'd to the MPAA http://consumerist.com/5403592
> > >
> > > I am not fan of the MPAA, but this wi-fi network is clearly run by
> > > amateurs. There should be some sort of authentication method before
> > > anyone can hop onto it. If they were using authentication, the wi-fi
> > > network's administrators would know who the culprit is.
> >
> > True, but it's not the wi-fi administrator's job or legal obligation to
> > be the enforcement arm of the MPAA. The fact that they *could* secure
> > it, doesn't mean they're required to do so in order to keep the MPAA
> > happy.
>
> Actually, it is. The law says network administrators are responsible for
> closing holes in their network that allow copyrighted material to be
> illegally distributed.
Cite it.
John Gilmer
>"AT&T" no longer exists. There is an "at&t" is which is today
primarily a regional phone company and one of numerous wireless
providers.
The "new AT&T" purchased all the assets of the "old AT&T" which was most in
long distance services.
The purchasing company was SBC (Southwest Bell Corporation).
The "Old AT&T" went broke partly because it spent a LOT of money installing
a national fiber network a few too many years before there was a demand.
But even more it self destructed the "Old AT&T" had been stripped of all the
local telephone companys (including SBC). It's main business was
primarily servicing the old long distance network of the pre 1980 Bell
System, AT&T Long Lines. It had also split off Western Electric and Bell
Labs.
Rod Speed
>>>> An ISP has no more obligation to police its network for copyright
>>>> violations than AT&T has to prevent harassing telephone calls or
>>>> phoned-in bomb threats.
>>> "AT&T" no longer exists. There is an "at&t" is which is today primarily
>>> a regional phone company and one of numerous wireless providers.
>>> When formally advised of abuse occuring on their networks, telephone
>>> companies and ISP do take steps to deter it (see other post).
>> Like hell they do with public phones, it isnt even possible.
> They most certainly do.
Like hell they do with PUBLIC phones, it isnt even possible.
Rod Speed
> Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote
Fat lot of good those are with PUBLIC phones.