arstechnica.com — Mysteriously, AT&T seems bound and determined to turn the fight for net neutrality into a fight for the first amendment. Now even an FCC Commissioner is making the connection between Pearl Jam's plight and a neutral 'net.
Aug 17, 2007 View in Crawl 4
fanclerksAug 18, 2007
Try ever since the Ma Bell era. The scary part is it has come again. The Bells were split up to provide competition and this administration has allowed them to scoop them all up again.
tabrisAug 18, 2007
I'm making MrBabyMan my friend just to spite you.
nakaniAug 18, 2007
Ever hear of Woodstock? I don't suppose you think that was a failure.
dasbootAug 19, 2007
I believe the controversy here is political censorship by a government subsidized corporation, not the credibility of Eddie Vedder's opinions, or his music. the band is named after cum after all.
shampoovtaAug 19, 2007
AT&T is rotten to the core.
mittopAug 20, 2007
Rocketdog7 is right from a purely technical standpoint, they own the broadcast, and can do what they want. However, AT&T is wrong from a moral/politcal/marketing/business standpoint. AT&T is in the middle of a battle to avoid governemnt regulation, so perception is everything. What they want is a "Trust us to handle it ourselves model" while their actions would seem to point towards a requirement for governement oversight. AT&T currently enjoys certain protections from liability for the traffic that goes across their network. By taking actions to remove content they find questionable, they are demonstrating a capability to monitor a censor the traffic on their network. This means that by taking this action, it could be argued that their liability protection should be removed. Afterall, if you are monitoring the network, then you can't claim ignorance of what is going across it. Besides, what AT&T is doing is just wrong. :)