OpEd:
The Fall of AT&T Began on 7/26/2009
July 27, 2009 by Kyle BradyTags: 4chan, Anonymous, AT&T, Corporate Lies, Net Neturality, Telcos, Traffic Shaping
As required by the FTC, a Full Disclosure is available - this piece adheres to the Code of Ethics
On Sunday, July 26th, 2009, AT&T made a grave miscalculation in their attempt to garner ever more customers to their internet-related plans (DSL, ADSL, U-verse, etc.) , as they moved from merely traffic-shaping and lying about their packages to actually blocking sections of the internet. The target, in this instance, was a highly visited dark corner of the nerd world known as 4chan, specifically the portions of the site dependent on the “img” subdomain such as the /b/ image board. - at a time when the FCC is moving towards further telco regulation in the vein of Net Neutrality.
The quickest way to explain /b/ is this: “a mostly-anonymous, no-archives message board with only light moderation that ranges from intelligent topics to highly NSFW imagery, while managing to spawn most Internet ‘memes’ and serve as an organizational method for the anti-Scientology movement known as ‘Anonymous’ and other such truth-minded endeavors”. The caveat to the prior statement is that the activity on /b/ is occasionally legally questionable, and usually ethically murky at best – unless the /b/rothers are targeting lying salesmen, cat killers, or being otherwise noble.
AT&T has apparently admitted to blocking traffic to “portions of the internet site 4chan.org”, which is easily tested by comparison of a user’s connection+response to the results of a site like downforeveryoneorjustme – the question is no longer “are they really?”, but “why?” and “what happens next?”. The “why” will probably never be satisfactorily answered, since there are entire legions of people and organizations that would love to see /b/ blocked, and would pay for it to happen, but the current excuse is that DDoS attacks were originating from AT&T’s internet services – obviously it’s a better solution to block the endpoint of an attack than to deal with the hassle of monitoring your own customers for highly illegal and destructive activities.
The “what happens next?” is a considerably easier question to answer: the estimated 1.5 million people who call themselves /b/tards or /b/rothers will be very angry, if they aren’t already. Anon already has a considerable history of viciously taking down anyone that opposes it or its interests, and blocking access to their most beloved of websites qualifies as an opposition of interest. AT&T can expect many lost customers, even if this issue is “resolved” quickly, complaints to the FCC, and any number of other attacks on both the company’s integrity and profits.
However, the supporters of AT&T's ethically ambiguous behavior are already beginning to make their voices heard, such as Bill Belew of the “Christian Worldview Examiner”. These people are the same that have always lauded the shutdown of 4chan or the arrest of "moot" (the owner/administrator) as a solution to their problems – free speech is free speech, and Net Neutrality has no caveats. Censorship in any form, whether it’s traffic-shaping or an outright ban, is not only uncalled for, but illegal. Especially in America.
Regardless of the reasons for AT&T's banning of portions of 4chan to their customers, the important point is that they took such an action, and not whether such sites should exist - it is not the place of network administrators to decide what is and is not appropriate, if anyone at all. Many individuals and organizations, usually religious in nature, don’t like the numerous porn sites that exist across the Internet, but until now they have merely had to bite their tongues. Banning any data endpoint, for any reason, sets a dangerous precedent, especially in the lobby- and interest-driven society of the modern world.
7/26/2009 could mark a turning point in the life of AT&T, when the future looks back on history, as the day that the shady practices of an ethically challenged company finally caught up with them: traffic filtering, site banning, and lying about service packages can only continue for so long before the FCC, along with the bill-paying public, takes a stand.
Update (7/27/2009 12:50pm PST): AT&T has made an official statement that the blocking of 4chan was due to a DDoS - which could very easily be a lie. However, it doesn't matter for "why" - the blocking of access to content is the exact definition of censorship, and that doesn't change the nature of this offense. The block has also apparently been removed.
GigaOm, you disappoint me by yet again siding with the people that pay your bills.
Update (7/27/2009 1:20pm PST): 'moot' has weighed in that some of their hardware caused AT&T to think there was a DDoS going on, and that AT&T had a "disproportionate response". While I'm inclined to believe this account of the story, AT&T's reaction was still shady at best, not to mention ethically questionable.
Kyle can be found on Twitter and MySpace, or reached via email.
