AT&T to cut off some customers' service in piracy crackdown • Hacker News Board

Re: AT&T to cut off some customers' service in piracy crackdown

#121

Post by rootusrootus » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 12:06 AM UTC

wuliwong wrote: post #96

rootusrootus wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of platforms to choose from, but my house is only physically connected by one high speed ISP.

I think you are oversimplifying here. The de-platforming often was sweeping across many websites and service providers. So there weren't really any choices left. And in the case of Gab.com they have had a lot of trouble getting running again at all. I think they were completely shutdown for a week or so. Some of these accounts that were de-platformed completely erased followings that they had developed over years of…

That is certainly an interesting question. When your position has become so odious that every provider on the Internet wants nothing to do with you, what is the solution?

In any case it is still much better to have multiple providers to possibly be rejected from, as opposed to a residential broadband subscriber who can be completely shut down by a single company. And Gab.com is not a person, so they can locate their service anywhere someone will allow them to host it. The virtual nature of that arrangement is very convenient, and the relative inconvenience of buying a whole new house (in a different city or state, perhaps, since you have to move far enough to find a different ISP) is off the charts by comparison. It seems disingenuous to even try to compare those.

Re: AT&T to cut off some customers' service in piracy crackdown

#122

Post by AnthonyMouse » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 12:11 AM UTC

clairity wrote: post #119

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> target would be the one laughing in your face, not the customer. Target has a thousand competitors selling substantially identical products for similar prices. Walmart, Amazon, eBay, Kmart, Costco, Staples, J.C. Penney etc. They have no market power. By contrast, if you can't get internet from Comcast you basically have to move to another state.

and yet, target can mark up their products higher on average than the competitors you named (e.g., http://blogs.marketwatch.com/great-columnist/2012/10/15/reta... ). so they really have no market power? why do you think target spends so much on branding? really understanding a firm's market power and the competitive dynamics of it's market requires a bit more depth than noting that products are similar. (there are al…

> and yet, target can mark up their products higher on average than the competitors you named

Costco and Amazon have lower unit margins because they charge annually for memberships or Prime. Walmart has lower nominal markups because they don't use promotions, so all their nominal markups are their actual markups rather than regularly getting eroded by promotions.

When it all shakes out, the thing that costs ~$15 at Target costs ~$15 at Walmart.

> why do you think target spends so much on branding?

That's what companies with no market power do. They can't significantly raise prices so they push to drive sales volume.

> really understanding a firm's market power and the competitive dynamics of it's market requires a bit more depth than noting that products are similar.

On the other hand, when they're independently selling the same product for the same price...

https://www.target.com/p/lego-minecraft-the-zombie-cave-2114...

https://www.walmart.com/ip/LEGO-Minecraft-The-Zombie-Cave-21...

https://www.amazon.com/LEGO-Minecraft-Zombie-21141-Building/...

Re: AT&T to cut off some customers' service in piracy crackdown

#123

Post by rfrey » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 12:16 AM UTC

notyourday wrote: post #112

vorpalhex wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has everything to do with the story because it shows that most copyright claims are done in absolute bad faith and consumers are given no real tools to defend themselves. Right now for the majority of people who get a DMCA, there is nothing they can do. There is no functional appeals process, there is no office in charge of handling bad DMCAs. Shy of actually going to court with a lawyer and attempting a suit, if…

Without defending AT&T: Schwartz was prosecuted by a US Attorney. If anything he is a poster boy of over reach of government.

Government officials seemingly beholden to corporations.

Re: AT&T to cut off some customers' service in piracy crackdown

#124

Post by clairity » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 12:59 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #122

clairity wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and yet, target can mark up their products higher on average than the competitors you named (e.g., http://blogs.marketwatch.com/great-columnist/2012/10/15/reta... ). so they really have no market power? why do you think target spends so much on branding? really understanding a firm's market power and the competitive dynamics of it's market requires a bit more depth than noting that products are similar. (there are al…

> and yet, target can mark up their products higher on average than the competitors you named Costco and Amazon have lower unit margins because they charge annually for memberships or Prime. Walmart has lower nominal markups because they don't use promotions, so all their nominal markups are their actual markups rather than regularly getting eroded by promotions. When it all shakes out, the thing that costs ~$15 at T…

the misconceptions you hold about marketing and unit economics are hard to work through here given the limited time and space.

i'll just note that branding is first and foremost about pricing power. lower cost forms of marketing are employed to encourage volume.

Re: AT&T to cut off some customers' service in piracy crackdown

#125

Post by ashleyn » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 1:27 AM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #101

obblekk wrote: post #5

I’m sure many of us believe in following and enforcing laws (even flawed laws like 150yr copyright), but are still made uneasy by this development. I think the source of that discomfort is - what happens if your service is cut in error. Do you trust ATT to have a fair, easy appeals process? Competition in the form of space internet can’t come soon enough, not to enable pirates, but to ensure normal people have reason…

AT&T is not going to be too eager to cut your service. They want your $50 - $150/month (or more) if they can get it. FTA: The bottom line: Very few copyright infringers ever get booted from their broadband provider, pointing to the severity of these cases and the number of steps at which the customer is told they are violating copyright before they are cut off from AT&T's service. Copyright infringers are often illeg…

A lot more incentive now that they're the copyright owner for many TimeWarner productions. It just all becomes part of the big math problem.

Re: AT&T to cut off some customers' service in piracy crackdown

#126

Post by cft » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 1:39 AM UTC

paulcole wrote: post #120

jameskegel wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you won’t be able to do anything but ask because you are not a police officer. ISP isn’t a court and restaurant operators aren’t officers of the law.

I can stop serving you and refuse to take your money. Kind of like AT&T is doing...

You can for any reason, unless the reason is discrimination against a protected class. But do not pretend that it is for breaking the law, because it's only up to the court to determine whether I broke a law or not.

So if AT&T want to disconnect a customer for an arbitrary reason, fine: but they need to make it more clear initially, while considering their utility status.

Re: AT&T to cut off some customers' service in piracy crackdown

#127

Post by amanaplanacanal » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 1:39 AM UTC

autoexec wrote: post #115

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My local phone company continues to serve me no matter how many laws I break using their service. My postal service continues to server me no matter how many laws I break using their service. Internet service providers should just be declared common carriers, and be done with it. When democrats eventually regain control of the congress and executive, I'm guessing this is what will be done.

democrats are huge supporters of the media companies pushing for stronger enforcement of copyrights. Obama was deep in bed with the RIAA and MPAA. Several of his appointments were RIAA lawyers. Don't automatically expect them to lead the way in copyright reform.

I was thinking net neutrality, not copyright reform. I agree, copyright is a huge political mess.

Re: AT&T to cut off some customers' service in piracy crackdown

#128

Post by gcbw2 » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 2:09 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #11

tantalor wrote: post #8

The podcast Reply-All had a good episode about why this is problematic earlier this year. https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/118 Excerpt: ALEX: So finally, I find this website that is called the Center for Copyright information. PJ: And what’s that? ALEX: It’s a website that is run by both the entertainment industry and the ISPs, they’re working together. And the deal is, if you feel that you have wrongly received…

> It’s a website that is run by both the entertainment industry and the ISPs, they’re working together The entertainment industry wants takedowns eagerly enforced. The ISPs don't want to do work. Ignoring complaints is the predictable outcome. (As is AT&T becoming stricter about copyright enforcement after buying a content company.)

"self regulation"

Re: AT&T to cut off some customers' service in piracy crackdown

#129

Post by craftyguy » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 2:17 AM UTC

zdragnar wrote: post #105

craftyguy wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pay $35 And make a quick buck on the side too!

Then get sued for fraudulently taking people's money without fulfilling the advertised service.

Nah, the TOS probably has text buried in it that absolves them from any responsibilities.

Re: AT&T to cut off some customers' service in piracy crackdown

#130

Post by NeedMoreTea » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 2:18 AM UTC

kup0 wrote: post #42

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming I'm parsing the sarcasm correctly, they can't sign on for any other ISP? So you get a choice of one depending on where you happen to live? I'm used to what's called local loop unbundling in the UK and Europe - which is the removal of the last mile monopoly, and all ISPs simply putting a DSLAM in exchanges. Initially this was localised, and there were smaller local players, but they're now effectively all nat…

Yeah the US does not have local loop unbundling. We need to have it, as it's maybe a good way to start fixing the problem. It did exist in some form after the 1996 Telecommunications Act so it happened somewhat with DSL providers, but the laws were narrow, didn't address other issues that arise as a result of the law, and didn't include cable/fiber/etc

Interesting, thanks. Despite much complaint at the state of UK broadband, particularly speed variance from distance to exchange or cabinet, LLU has always included whatever came next from ADSL+ through to the current fibre (mostly FTTC) that's almost complete apart from some rural areas. FTTH is still pretty rare sadly.

So any speed differences between ISPs are mostly down to the quality or not of the ISP's network. Which means roughly Talktalk bad, A&A good, but the sync speed should be the same. :)