AT&T tells the FCC it'll cut off wireless P2P users

It looks like the FCC's investigation into Comcast's questionable traffic management is turning up a number of interesting details, the latest of which comes from AT&T's Robert Quinn, who told FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell that, "use of a P2P file sharing application would constitute a material breach of contract for which the user's service could be terminated." Quinn was apparently quick to add, however, that AT&T hasn't yet kicked anyone off the network for using P2P. Still, Commissioner McDowell apparently intends to use AT&T's statement to argue against the FCC's forthcoming order that contends Comcast secretly downgraded P2P traffic, saying that Comcast's throttling of traffic isn't as bad as AT&T blocking it all together. The merits of that argument aside, as TechDirt points out, given that AT&T's beef with P2P is that it makes use of "continuous (rather than bursty) transmissions at high data rates," their position does open up a number of interesting questions about streaming apps like Pandora, which are similarly data-intensive but, last we checked, still working just fine on AT&T's network.

[Via Tech Dirt]

[Lowest Ranked @ Jul 30th 2008 12:45PM]

Can someone explain to me how using bandwidth that you've paid for constitutes as breach of contract?

[Dillon @ Jul 30th 2008 12:53PM]

Now you know how all of Canada feels...

[quomen @ Jul 30th 2008 1:06PM]

It's possible when there's no net neutrality.

[Y3k-Bug @ Jul 30th 2008 1:07PM]

Because the way you are using the data isn't in line with what is in your contract.

Why would you need P2P functionality on a cell phone anyway?

[kjb434 @ Jul 30th 2008 1:13PM]

Have you read your contract idiot?

Lets say your contract says torrent files say you can't use P2P, they can block it legally,

Net Neutrality is not the answer. It will cause the internet to slow down and prevent any upgrade to the the internet bandwidth.

The best solution is to charge based on data usage.

[Frank Furter @ Jul 30th 2008 1:16PM]

I know there's an iPhone-free feed, do you think we could make a 'We get screwed in Canada'-free feed?

[Scythe @ Jul 30th 2008 1:24PM]

Again, wireless broadband cards from AT&T are specifically the things in discussion here. However, people DO tether their cell phones to laptops, ITT's, and more these days.

[Dave @ Jul 30th 2008 1:44PM]

kjb434 sounds like someone ATT hired to be a troll on here...

Although I don't think that restricting the TYPE of traffic is very fair, we have to look at it this way - with the large amounts of WinMo phones being thrown out to the general public and more and more teenagers using them, the congestion factor is going to come into play...what I always find to be ironic is how AT&T charges business users more for their data use than personal users, although the personal users are almost always the ones who strain the network to death (read: iPhone users), just like home internet services.

At this point a 5GB cap a month is relatively fair...unless you flush the cache on your phone/computer everyday. I still don't understand how this is all of a sudden pissing people off...

AT&T has ALWAYS billed users differently for different types of data (BES, Exchange, Tethering, Etc), and now that they are restricting P2P it seems there is some kind of revolt against them? cmon. Pay per data use at home for cable internet (like with Time Warner, cough) is ridiculous, but on heavily congested cell networks I have some understanding.

[Crash Gordon @ Jul 30th 2008 1:46PM]

I think there is a bit of misunderstanding here. AT&T DOES offer more than mobile internet on cellphones. they do have a full range of home based services, including internet access.

[Dave @ Jul 30th 2008 2:04PM]

@Crash

Yes but this article deals specifically with AT&T saying they will block wireless P2P traffic, not home service. You need to read man.

[kal326 @ Jul 30th 2008 2:13PM]

Its quite simple really, you signed a contract and in that contract there is some legalize that states that can not use P2P networks over said connection. When you do said action, you breach the contract that you signed.

The better question is, if you breach your contract in such a manner do you still have to pay the ETF? Sounds like a good way out of an ATT contract if you don't have to pay it. Of course this only makes sense if any other wireless carrier doesn't have similar legalize in their TOS.

[Bob @ Jul 30th 2008 3:14PM]

Um... P2P is "peer to peer" stuff guys, this has nothing to do with the cellular network, read it again. They are talking about peer to peer traffic on their wired network. If it meant anything about cell phones they 1) wouldn't have mentioned anything about Comcast and 2) they would have said AT&T ***Wireless***. They are 2 completely different areas of AT&T, even though they share the same name. It's like Verizon and Verizon Wireless, 2 different companies.

Either way, it's the phone and internet companies ways of being cheap and not having to put money into their network(s) to make the speeds faster. Have you checked out broadband speeds in Europe and surrounding areas lately? Check out the link below, the broadband companies in the US are cheap a$$e$...

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070529-survey-average-broadband-speed-in-us-is-1-9mbps.html

[Bob @ Jul 30th 2008 3:17PM]

Ok, my bad, I'm a moron. I re-read the article, maybe they are talking about AT&T Wireless. You should specify AT&T or AT&T Wireless Engadget, that would resolve any confusion. They *are* different companies, they don't share in each others' revenue.

[Crash Gordon @ Jul 30th 2008 3:24PM]

@Dave

Yeah my bad, I didn't read the article till after I posted.

[Alan @ Jul 30th 2008 6:53PM]

Honestly the best way to deal with P2P traffic is to take an approach similar to what Verizon does and their P4P traffic management, instead of just throttling down on P2P connections, they cache the most popular torrents - (they don't discriminate) and once the traffic is in-network it costs them nothing from the backbone/peering providers.

Throttling is data discrimination and is illegal. I hope the FCC takes both AT&T and Comcast to task for any of their data discrimination practices.

[derX @ Jul 30th 2008 7:54PM]

They didn't call it AT&T Wireless because that's now defunct.

AT&T Wireless jumped in bed with Cingular Wireless and became Cingular.
Then Cingular had some "alone time" and decided to change its name to AT&T. They do call refer to it as the Mobile or Wireless sector, but, yeah, AT&T Wireless is no longer.

[loosely_coupled @ Jul 31st 2008 3:11AM]

DATA IS DATA!!!!!!! NET NEUTRALITY FTW!

[Josh @ Jul 31st 2008 11:33AM]

In a recent article by Lawrence G. Roberts (Father of the Internet) at http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=499&doc_id=160047&f_src=flffour he is suggesting using 'flow control' as a technique to provide what he calls the "equal capacity for equal payment" system instead of 'equal capacity per flow' since applications that use P2P use multiple flows.

[Crash Gordon @ Jul 30th 2008 12:48PM]

I hate that nobody ever considers the legitimate reasons to use P2P. It kills me that my studies require the occasional use of torrents and my school has completely blocked the ports for torrent clients and have even blocked the ability to download any files with the extension .torrent

This stuff is getting out of control, I for one was considering switching to AT&T, but not anymore.

[Scythe @ Jul 30th 2008 1:00PM]

Yeah...so when I go to get the newest Ubuntu release via Torrent -- I might get my service cut? Very logical...

[Josh @ Jul 30th 2008 1:08PM]

Torrents aren't always illegal...

Besides, how can they legally restrict or limit service when customers are paying for it? AT&T shouldn't claim high speed capabilities if their network isn't built to handle a maximum load. That is just a load of bullshit and "creative" numbers not unlike Enron. I know that they technically say that it can "achieve" speeds of xxxxx but to get anything other than broadband when that is what you are paying for is a crock of lies.

Sorry - it just doesn't seem right that someone should tell users how they should go about using the internet in the first place, but blocking them for just using a specific form of accessing information that happens to require a tax on bandwidth that the customer is paying for is just out of line.

Just my .02

[phreaker @ Jul 30th 2008 1:11PM]

you can try acanac.com, they have issue to bypass the throttling.

[CosterMonger @ Jul 30th 2008 2:00PM]

@kjb434

obviously people aren't agreeing with you.
corporate vs consumer
law vs justice
everything in shades of grey

"torrent files say you can't use P2P"
you Sir, win an internet!

[ishism @ Jul 30th 2008 4:18PM]

Fuk ATT

[GatgetMan @ Aug 8th 2008 11:00PM]

Well, I can see how AT&T would want to kick those users off... They would be screaming along at 5kbits/s hogging all the bandwidth.... That is if they were standing directly beneath an AT&T tower so they could get an effing signal...

[RB @ Jul 30th 2008 12:49PM]

Maybe AT&T is afraid that the continuous P2P transmission speed rates would contradict advertised bandwidth speeds and would then cause them to justify their rates/price scales to the general public. It's a thought.

[Bob @ Jul 30th 2008 3:19PM]

Then the cheap$kates should upgrade their network... Come on, 3G coverage in the US sucks... They aren't even being very truthful when they say they have a 3G network, check out the map, there's barely any 3G coverage outside the big areas where they make the money...

[fanman @ Jul 30th 2008 12:49PM]

If they won't provide all of the internet, someone else will.

[Dave @ Jul 30th 2008 1:53PM]

Unfortunately, that someone else might come in the form of shit service like Sprint...

You have to remember that since there are only 3-4 big cell phone companies (and 2 REALLY big ones) the only thing they actually compete on is price, everything else they just "comply with industry standards", meaning it's since they can't price fix they fix their policies instead (example: the 5GB cap on "unlimited" internet data for phones).

[max.karpiak @ Jul 30th 2008 12:51PM]

The difference here, of course, is that AT&T explains upfront that this is not permitted (RTFA) and markets the service as "broadband-like", with the major technical limitation that all users are sharing the very limited bandwidth available to that cellsite and permitting P2P or anything else truly bulk will destroy the experience of many users simultaneously. AT&T does a lot of unreasonable things, but this is not one of them.

On the other hand Comcrap marketed their service as super high speed (faster than DSL!), super high capacity internet service, and then snuck around behind their users' back, altering the experience in a way that no one was informed of.

[kjb434 @ Jul 30th 2008 1:16PM]

Hey idiot, you need get a brain and realized marketing does not equal promise.

It's your own fault for not reading your EULA you signed up for.

Contracts are legal agreements, not commercials.....

[Dave @ Jul 30th 2008 2:03PM]

Oh yes Comcast is THE root of all evil...because I live in an area of Florida that does not get FIOS or UVerse (or any 1/2 decent DSL service) yet to compete with Comcast, they jack up the bills relative to any other market and basically everyone here who needs relatively fast internet is hung out to dry...

UVerse is being installed right now in our neighborhood and low and behold allofasudden Comcast is lowering their prices as a "special offer" to "loyal" Comcast customers. Fuck Comcast I am done with them if UVerse is even 1/2 decent.

[CosterMonger @ Jul 30th 2008 2:09PM]

@kjb434

should companies be allowed to change the terms and conditions without notifying their consumers, it is going to come down to the point where us Joe Blow consumers have to get universal contracts to prevent companies from abusing our trust. Companies respond when they stop getting your money, one person is not much damage, but many can effect profits.

you also assume the contracts are legal, which they may or may not be.

[max.karpiak @ Jul 30th 2008 2:42PM]

@kjb434

You need to figure out that (a) advertising != marketing and that the terms of service are part of the marketing of a product, (b) that using the word "idiot" in your posts does not make you seem smart, and (c) if you're going to tell someone to "get a brain," you should at least be able to write decent sentences.

AT&T Wireless put the rules clearly in their contract: no P2P (read the article). Comcast (cable modem) did not. That is a huge difference. It's one thing to call someone dumb for violating the terms of service and acting surprised when the service provider penalizes them, it's a whole other thing when that service provider (Comcast) violates their part of the agreement, and then publicly denies it.

[CUBSWILLWIN @ Jul 30th 2008 12:57PM]

They actually kicked one of my computer's for p2p sharing. Such liars!

[MadMike @ Jul 30th 2008 12:58PM]

Pathetic. Not that I would use P2P on a 3G connection, I'm not a sadist.

If Verizon FiOS started doing that, that's another story. A person might take offense to that. Download a port scanner, search through CERT for open "holes" and flex their assembly & C programming skills. You know, using traceroute could give you subnets worth scanning from 0 to 255.

Of course, that person would be better off finding the instructions on-line for the DIY Pringles can wifi antenna and taking a drive.

Lets see how long they keep up that practice when all their websites point to goatse.cx

[Will @ Jul 30th 2008 6:16PM]

The pringles can antenna design isn't actually that effective. There are some better alternatives for homebrew projects. Check the link below for some performance tests and other information:

http://turnpoint.net/wireless/has.html

[Derek @ Jul 30th 2008 12:58PM]

And this is why I use FIOS...

[quomen @ Jul 30th 2008 1:07PM]

How's carrying around the fiber optic cable for yah?

[makishima @ Jul 30th 2008 1:11PM]

Must be nice to have it available in your area.

[CUBSWILLWIN @ Jul 30th 2008 1:52PM]

Really, it would be nice to have it in my area. I called them before and they said they can't put it at my address. I would love to have FiOS

[tbone @ Jul 30th 2008 1:03PM]

first wiretapping, now this? for shame at&t

[chris fredette @ Jul 30th 2008 1:09PM]

So when the torrents stop wont they just go back to downloading directly? Thus increasing usage?
In other news, why is there no commercial use of torrenting yet?

[Nicky-Larson @ Jul 30th 2008 1:09PM]

Now sit back and watch them lose customers. Because in this day in age, I believe even the average person streams a lot, maybe even downloads a lot. I know I do. P2P is just standard for me, I cant go about without that :( . Anyway, I hate ATT, so it's all good.

[Y3k-Bug @ Jul 30th 2008 1:09PM]

Yay for poor reading comprehension.

Derek, what does FIOS have to do with anything? We're talking about ATT WIRELESS. As in cell phones.

This isn't about ATT DSL. This is about you trying to download ubuntu using the EDGE network on your phone.

[Scythe @ Jul 30th 2008 1:21PM]

Y3k-Bug: Do the wireless "broadband" cards you can buy for around 50 bucks a month from AT&T not magically use satellite and towers anymore?

[markoza @ Jul 30th 2008 1:22PM]

I agree with you, Y3k-Bug. After reading the pdf letter on the original site (ipdemocracy), it clearly states that AT&T is referring to their "mobile wireless broadband customers".

I didn't know that you could use a P2P app on your mobile phone, but I can't imagine why someone would want to do that anyway. How long would it take to download "Forgetting Sarah Marshall"? :)

[John @ Jul 30th 2008 2:45PM]

it's more of a tethering your phone and using a P2P app on your computer thing.

[Steve @ Jul 30th 2008 1:27PM]

Sounds like an excuse to cut off legitimate P2P uses that cost them voice revenue--Skype, Groove, collaboration apps, etc.

[Bassir @ Jul 30th 2008 1:13PM]

All these issues on net neutrality, I'm so glad my ISP doesn't care at all about its internet branch (Time Warner's Road Runner).

We can just wait a few months for Obama to get elected and see how he deals with the net neutrality issues.