Printable View
1) I’m trying to understand why Usenet hasn’t been targeted by the MPAA and other groups?
2) I’m using UserNetServers along with their SSL encryption login for accessing their servers. How safe am I and if possible, what more can I do to protect myself?
3) Do you think I will grab attention to my ISP by capping my downloads speeds with SSL?
Usenet servers are (and have been for many many years), in the U.S., come under 'common carrier' laws and regulations, like the phone company. The telcos cannot be sued for what they 'carry' (i.e., like a bomb threat for instance), or satellite companies (like 'Playboy' or Howard Stern) as they come under 'common carrier' laws. In fact, they are 'required' to carry any and all paid traffic, going back to 1934; very settled law.Quote:
Originally Posted by start
Depends on how much 'trust' you have in your carrier. For instance, the cablecos, being a 'party line' type system where your bitspace is 'shared' among your neighbors and you, are very 'proactive' in maintaining 'fair use' of those bits among their subscribers. (Satellite Internet, or wireless systems, are the same way). Read your 'user agreement' for the 'fine print'.Quote:
Originally Posted by start
The telcos, with DSL for example, with their almost unlimited bandwidth at the central office where your line attaches (with multi-Gigabit speeds), has little if any incentive to do the same; you're limited only by the actual 'link' speed of the direct line from the C.O. to your home/business.
Again, depends on the type of network you are physically on.Quote:
Originally Posted by start
I've been using SBC's (now AT&T) DSL plans and now that I'm hearing news about AT&T developing "new anti-piracy technology". Just makes me wonder if I should switch ISPs when my contract ends... I understand they are targeting offshore uploaders but still makes you uneasy about your privacy, am I wrong here?
Here is that article too; http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/06/15/a...?eref=rss_tech
I would be very wary of AT&T from the get go, no matter what 'pronouncements' they make 'in passing'.
The recent debacle over the 'iPhone' is instructive; the big question from the beginning (and now painfully obvious to all who ran out and actually bought into it) is that AT&T's wireless network (you know, the one they sold to Bell South/Cingular just 2 years ago, then bought back a few months ago!) is by far the slowest, clunky, data throughput of any carrier in the U.S., being hampered by GSM EDGE 'technology'. Apple said upon launch the 'reason' they went with AT&T was 'coverage', yet apparently that didn't include the western U.S. (where Apple itself is located!), because the coverage west of the rockies is indeed, rocky at best, with both Sprint and Verizon (both running a large percentage of their networks on CDMA 2000 varients at 5-10 times faster than EDGE). But I digress; AT&T is being sued over the 'warrentless wiretapping' rollover, and like virtually all the telcos (except Qwest) have multi-year prison sentences for the CEO's to look forward to as soon as the dictator Bush and friends get kicked out of 'offfice'.
But, I guess that maybe that's why the servers are offering SSL, but the big attention is still the P2P crowd.