Will ISPs Be Driven To Spy On Their Customers? 133
bs0d3 writes "In regards to the new 'voluntary' graduated response deal (where no one really knows how ISPs will track and accuse customers of copyright infringement), according to CNN, it may be the ISP directly spying on their customers. 'But now that they're free from individual blame, there's also the strong possibility that the ISPs will be doing the data monitoring directly. That's a much bigger deal. So instead of reaching out to the Internet to track down illegally flowing bits of their movies, the studios will sit back while ISP's "sniff" the packets of data coming to and from their customers' computers.' This could be a problem for people who use U.S.-based internet services. If the U.S. wants to be an internet savvy country, they still need the competition in the marketplace that's always been missing, and a digital bill of rights that isn't a sneaky anti-piracy measure."
short answer (Score:5, Informative)
yes
Re:short answer (Score:4, Interesting)
Though it seems like an exception to that headline law [wikipedia.org], it doesn't count because we already knew they already spy on us or allow direct use of their facilities to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
yes
Will ISPs Be Driven To Spy On Their Customers?
That's not a drive, that's a putt.
Just use SSL for everything (Score:2, Insightful)
Computers are fast enough... there's barely any CPU overhead anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
there are a few problems with saying isps have to monitor everything non politicians transmit. because of course the law won't apply to them or their corporate buddies. first off is encryption. encryption is only vulnerable on the host when it is about to encrypt data, except in the bizzare case where two computers use the same encryption keys, and access to both streams encrypting the same data, and then it is like a lucky shot to correlate the data and bring it to the attention of users looking for that
Re:Just use SSL for everything (Score:4, Insightful)
In any sane world this would be sarcasm, but you never know these days.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the onion router, virtual private networks... there are ways of getting access to computer your isp has blocked with a firewall.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is precisely why we must not allow ISPs to monitor.
DNSCrypt (Score:1)
"That's quite true. However, your traffic is STILL going through your ISP. There literally isn't any way around that."
Tor, or:
DNSCrypt
"In the same way the SSL turns HTTP web traffic into HTTPS encrypted Web traffic, DNSCrypt turns regular DNS traffic into encrypted DNS traffic that is secure from eavesdropping and man-in-the-middle attacks. It doesnâ(TM)t require any changes to domain names or how they work, it simply provides a method for securely encrypting communication between our customers and our
Re: (Score:2)
You're not getting it: with SSL-encrypted traffic the route is irrelevant. None of the transit nodes can see anything but impenetrable noise. Encrypted sessions aren't suspicious, they're ordinary. Encrypted http is widespread already; google defaults to it for anything that could conceivably be private. It defaults to it for news, maps, play, (gmail/docs/calendar of course,) probably more. There's nothing in the least remarkable about any site using https. DNS doesn't just serve IP addresses, it can and
Re: (Score:2)
You're not getting it: with SSL-encrypted traffic the route is irrelevant.
no, i think you don't get it. the route is not irrelevant. spying doesn't necessarily have to be understanding what two parties are saying. you can follow someone, and regardless of what a person is doing or saying at their destination, you can infer a relationship between the person you're following and their destination, as well as others who share that destination.
e.g., you could follow someone you think is cheating on you and discover that they are going to the hospital every thursday. what are they
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just use SSL for everything (Score:5, Insightful)
I think most ISP have enough common sense not to try that. All it would take is for some 3rd party DNS provider to stuff a NAT statement into their iptables such that 80 -> 53. Doing DNS on TCP is not to much overhead for modern hardware.
At that point they'd have to start doing inspection to make sure all 80 traffic looks like http. That would even get somewhat more complicated if the SSL port were used. Its game over once people implement local stub DNS resolvers that actually call a web service somewhere over https to do queries.
Unless ISP are prepared to essentially deploy Websense or something like it with SSL intercept and block any protocol including VPNs etc, that is not http, https, possibly ftp, and does not appear to some other protocol implemented on top of those its impossible. I don't think consumers would stand for it.
*What do mean I can't connect to my companies VPN?
*WOW and all my old games wont work any more, I have to buy new ones that use webservices and have shit latency thru your proxy!
*No more VOIP
That dog won't hunt.
Re: (Score:1)
The only thing(s) I'm not encrypting anymore is DNS queries and some assorted web traffic, including /. Now I suppose I could go ahead and encrypt and proxy those 2, just to make it even more difficult.
I agree with you on the other points, though - ISPs won't be able to shift traffic to a specific protocol - VOIP, VPNs, and games are too prevalent at this point for that switch to be acceptable.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps, ( not a TW customer ) but that isn't really what the subject was about. Encryption would prevent spying on arbitrary data transmission.
Preventing access to 'unauthorized addresses', that is a different discussion.
Fantasy (Score:2)
"a digital bill of rights that isn't a sneaky anti-piracy measure."
Dream on.
I regularly dream of leaving this industry because of nonsense like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't I know the feeling. I am saving up, hopefully a few years from now I can move to Maine and run a Christmas tree farm. I am getting tired of even thinking about this nonsense.
Finally, (Score:3)
You mean they don't do it already? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:You mean they don't do it already? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think anyone believed that many (if any) ISPs were fighting the good fight, as it were. The assumption was more that ISPs are typical businesses, which do not incur costs unless required to do so. Setting up infrastructure and staff to monitor subscriber traffic costs money and effort. Without some well-defined, monetary gain in doing so, ISPs simply won't bother.
So to answer your title - no, most ISPs probably haven't monitored traffic already, because it was a waste of time and resources to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, at the last local industry expo I went to, the Sonicwall rep told me about their really new, really expensive, ISP grade router that came complete with deep packet inspection, white and black lists, and real-time data stream analysis. So I could push it to my clients to "stop those pirates downloading warez and movies".
Companies don't spend any more than they have to, true. But smart companies plan for shifts in the market, and having to spy on their users definitely is a market shift. Buy the equ
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
With claws and fangs?
Get the holy hand grenade!
Re:You mean they don't do it already? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Anyone? Really believes that the ISP are protecting you? Your privacy? With claws and fangs?
No, I think they're covering their own asses by making sure they know absolutely nothing about anything I do or don't do. If they start flagging copyright infringements for one company I'm sure they'll get sued by a bunch of other companies for secondary infringement or criminal negligence or being co-conspirators as they let all the other infringements pass. And not just copyright infringement but everything else too, the user is sending SPAM and they let it pass? Sue the ISP. Internet fraud? Sue the ISP. Hacking? Sue the ISP. If anyone can show the ISP "knew" the customer was doing something illegal but continued the subscription to turn a profit, they could get in all sorts of legal shit. Either you're reading the bits or you're not, you can't both do that and claim ignorance at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if it means they will lose all their customers by not acting would they do something to protect us.
Re: (Score:1)
Really? Anyone? Really believes that the ISP are protecting you? Your privacy? With claws and fangs?
Well can't speak for all ISP's but i for one work for small local ISP (cca 50k customers) and we try to protect our customers as much as possible. Often police try to get some info about our users without proper court order and we reject them regulary. Also, i made a decision when i started to work there that i would not support any censorship attempts if they are not required by law and would quit the job if the management ever tried to introduce such practises
Also at least in europe and australia, there a
wow, cool way to advertise your web site (Score:2, Troll)
On port 82, too! Hopefully you'll get some comments over there...
"anti-piracy" (Score:1)
more like anti-privacy
Are you fucking serious? (Score:1, Interesting)
This is the most blatantly sensationalist piece of shit article I've seen in recent memory. The time article they source pretty much explains it all:
An Internet user downloading media illegally gets flagged by the copyright holder
Implying that nothing is changing, the media companies will continue outsourcing the scraping of public bittorrent swarms and notify ISP's that one of their IP's was sharing x content at y time and ISP's will send a letter based on who was addressed that IP at the time informing you why it's wrong.
The only thing that might change is that they'll probably give y
Why? (Score:3, Informative)
would cost a lot of money (Score:5, Insightful)
That just gets passed along to the consumer.
Credit where credit is due (Score:2)
Your bill has increased by $xx due to purchasing infrastructure required for the government monitoring of all your online activities and communications. Have a nice day.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. I work for a company that sells solutions to ISPs (and others) for detailed analysis of the traffic on their network, right down to the application level. Unless you're subscribed to some local mom-and-pop DSL provider, your ISP alrea
Short answer: No (the correct answer) (Score:5, Informative)
Fact:
First, there is no law requiring any action on the part of any ISP.
Disclosure: I participate in running an ISP, but not one of the ones involved in this.
Fact:
Some large national carriers have agreed to do some things. "Agreed" and "partnership" have no legal meaning. "An agreement is yet to be signed." is in the OP's link and that gives us an idea that in the future there MAY be an agreement. For now, should it happen, it's voluntary.
Fact:
No law of any jurisdiction in the United States currently requires any ISP to provide any content monitoring. The only requirements close to that are to allow Law Enforcement access should they have the right to it -- CALEA [askcalea.net].
Opinion:
It would be counter to the AOL decision [aol.com] (Zeran v AOL) that an ISP is responsible for either monitoring content, taking action based on content, or being liable for content or failing to take action based on content. That's a fourth-circuit decision that makes it likely that any ISP that doesn't want to join the "partnership" with the MPAA/RIAA can easily not opt-in to their program. Note that I didn't say "opt-out" because that would beg the question of whether there's a requirement to join.
Looking forward, I can guess that our "friends" in the MPAA/RIAA will continue their program to CHANGE THE LAW through spending lots of money, lobbying, using the influence of former senator Dodd, etc. If they can get the law to require ISPs to do so, and thereby trump the 4th circuit's AOL decision, then there will be a concern.
However, as Sonic.net's CEO Dane Jasper said [tinyurl.com] ISPs should keep as little logs as possible, preferably under two weeks. That would make it difficult unless they are doing real-time DPI, analysis, investigation, and sending out C&D letters for any of this to have meaning.
While the resources necessary for ISPs to provide access under CALEA are minimal ("Here's your Ethernet port, have a nice day, Feds") the requirement to do DPI for hundreds of gigabits-per-second of data is beyond onerous -- if even achievable. Consider -- it's not just that an ISP has to monitor their "upstream" pipes, but also customer-to-customer. The amount of bandwidth inside each ISP's core is immense.
Sorry to be long-winded, but having read the other responses, I see a lot of D&G and nay-saying. I agree that the landscape is pretty harsh, and the earth is getting scorched. I see hope because I see that we have defeated SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, (and yes I know the TPP is still alive) and we can likely continue to teach our congressional non-representatives that when the majority of the country doesn't want something ... it's likely not something they should support in our name.
Ehud
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I had any point, I would have given them all to you in some form or fashion. Thanks for your input, and you clearly have insight as to what this 'agreement' really means.
I have heard random opinions about this situation, and most of them resemble your opinion as well. ISP will not be directly monitoring User's traffic, do so, violates a few other laws in palce. the AOL case, is a prime example WHY we will not have ISPs jumping onto the bandwagon to help MPAA/RIAA prosecute customers. From
Re: (Score:2)
"No law of any jurisdiction in the United States currently requires any ISP to provide any content monitoring. The only requirements close to that are to allow Law Enforcement access should they have the right to it -- CALEA."
Fact: CALEA applies only to telephony; to date, it does not apply to the internet at all.
Congress has introduced some bills that would make CALEA -- or something very like it -- apply to the Internet. So far without success.
CALEA DOES apply to ISPs and Internet Comm. (Score:5, Informative)
CALEA applies to Internet communication.
Pen/Trace - asking for email headers and IP headers but not content.
Full detail - asking for actual dump of bidirectional communication from a specific IP address or address-range.
See ISPs can be requested to forward all traffic... [harvard.edu]
or a company that helps ISPs comply... [netequalizer.com]
or this has been a law since 2007... [dslreports.com]
To find these things check out this link [tinyurl.com].
Fact: I appreciate your copying my style. However, when doing so, please ensure that after the word "Fact:" comes a fact.
Ehud
Re: (Score:3)
However, my comment assumed the CONTEXT that you used in your own comment; your reply abandoned that context.
Fact:
No law of any jurisdiction in the United States currently requires any ISP to provide any content monitoring. The only requirements close to that are to allow Law Enforcement access should they have the right to it -- CALEA [askcalea.net].
According to the EFF (which has actually been involved in litigation of this matter, and is a source I trust far more than your liberal University professors or journalists), CALEA does NOT require monitoring of content, which was the matter under discussion. CALEA only requires recording of header data: times of activity, etc.
But the context here was
Re: (Score:1)
"This is the most straw-grabbingly pathetic rationalisation I've seen you come out with in the face of being demonstrably wrong on slashdot to date, and you do that very regularly. "
Haha. Go ahead. ASK the EFF if this is "straw-grabbing". They've used it -- successfully -- in court.
And if you say "I do it regularly", why are you posting as Anonymous Coward, you sockpuppet asshole? No balls?
Re: (Score:1)
Do you really think that deserves any respect?
Enough Please (Score:3)
This so off-topic as to be absurd.
Jane Q Public: You wrote "Fact: CALEA applies only to telephony; to date, it does not apply to the internet at all. "
Note: You didn't say "content" but later you clarified you meant it in context to imply content.
That's fine. Now go back and read my response where I pointed out that Federal agencies HAVE and DO request
[with court orders] pen/trace on email headers and IP packets.
I also appreciate that you labeled the three links I gave and a google search result (which ha
Re: (Score:2)
Note: You didn't say "content" but later you clarified you meant it in context to imply content."
YOU first mentioned "content". YOU set the context and topic, not me, and it is ridiculous for you to come back and try to chastise me for discussing the very topic you mentioned. Your reasoning here seems to be a bit skewed.
Now go back and read my response where I pointed out that Federal agencies HAVE and DO request [with court orders] pen/trace on email headers and IP packets.
Of course they do. That is not even remotely any kind of evidence that these are covered by CALEA. Court decisions, in fact, contradict the idea that they are.
"I also appreciate that you labeled the three links I gave and a google search result (which has many more) as "liberal University[sic] professors and journalists" but your ad-hominem attack only detracts from any claim you might have."
I will concede that the one comment could have been considered "ad hominem" (and it wasn't intentionally meant that way), but ne
When you stoop to make fun of names... (Score:2)
"Ehhhhhh... (sound of an obnoxious buzzer)"
When you make fun of my name, you drop yourself even lower than ad-hominem attacks.
Please take your spewage elsewhere. This thread doesn't need more of your misinformation,
and your attacks on my name are at best below the belt.
Best regards,
Ehud (sound of someone who has no tolerance for idiots)
Re: (Score:2)
"When you make fun of my name, you drop yourself even lower than ad-hominem attacks."
I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. Does "gavron" have something to do with "buzzer"? I neither know nor care. In any case, I wasn't mocking anyone's name. I don't do that kind of crap.
Re: (Score:2)
I repeat that I do not do that kind of crap. But at the same time, it's a pretty big leap to conclusions on your part, to think that some random bit of onomatopoeia was some kind of personal attack. Paranoid much, are we?
As for "misinformation": I cited my source, and not only does it have solidity and reputation, what it stated
Re: (Score:2)
"An agreement is yet to be signed." is in the OP's link and that gives us an idea that in the future there MAY be an agreement.
That article is from June 23, 2011. A final agreement called the Momorandum of Understanding [copyrightinformation.org] (PDF) was written on July 6, 2011. It's an agreement between MPAA, RIAA, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Cablevision, and Time Warner Cable. I don't know if it was actually signed on the lines, and I haven't heard of anyone leaving or entering the agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
MoUs are nonbinding and have no force of law.
Nobody can "leave" or "enter" an agreement. They are either "bound by it" by executing it, or they are not.
Something that hasn't been signed by the parties can hardly be called a "final agremenet".
Cheers,
Ehud
Re: (Score:2)
UK has beaten USA to it (Score:2)
The UK is leading the charge once again in destroying freedom and democracy http://www.channel4.com/news/black-boxes-to-monitor-all-internet-and-phone-data [channel4.com] , with their plan to install "black boxes" in all internet providers.. it's for your protection you see, so many nasty terrorists out there http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134333/Why-allowed-spy-Facebook-Twitter-Whitehall-intelligence-chief.html [dailymail.co.uk] If you don't allow your internet connection to be spied up, you'll be killed....do you want that? htt [dailymail.co.uk]
Hmm (Score:1)
What is this future tense bullshit? They already do. If they didn't spy on you, how would they know what you were browsing/downloading to issue the 'strikes' now available to them?
Re: (Score:2)
1. Copyright holder hires investigator company.
2. Investigator company finds some infringers (Easily done)
3. Investigator company contacts infringer's ISP on copyright holder's behalf.
4. ISP looks through their logs to see who had the specified IP at the specified time.
5. Strike.
Re: (Score:2)
Wheres the beef? (Score:3, Interesting)
The CNN link is an opinion piece where the author dreams up a scenario of ISP content inspection not supported by any external evidence.
I can sit on my lazy ass all day and dream shit up too. This does not mean I should be expected to be taken seriously.
Where is the actual evidence this is being implemented or even seriously contemplated by any stakeholder?
In the interim I'm just going to sit back and wait for the lawsuits to start flying against ISPs for cutting off their paying customers without due process.
That's only one front (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That is a really cool map! Thanks for posting! :)
Deep Packet Inspection Is Illegal (Score:2)
If it goes that route again, it's just going to get slapped down again.
Re: (Score:2)
Its a different situation, one the feds approve of, due to the mass payoffs ( err, donations ) of the *AAs.
Re: (Score:1)
"Its a different situation, one the feds approve of, due to the mass payoffs ( err, donations ) of the *AAs."
Yes, it's a different situation, but that does not change the law. Deep packet inspection is illegal. It doesn't matter WHY you are doing it, unless it's called for by a judicial warrant.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it's a different situation, but that does not change the law. Deep packet inspection is illegal. It doesn't matter WHY you are doing it, unless it's called for by a judicial warrant.
You misunderstand. It's illegal if You or I do it, it's not illegal if any part of the government does it.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I should have written, "illegal without a warrant or subpoena".
Re: (Score:2)
Hint, guy: You aren't as anonymous as you seem to think.
Sliding scale (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I knew it was all going to turn to shit the first time I saw an advert on the internet.
Should the governments of the world start blocking encrypted connections there will be no choice but to replace the internet with something better. A worldwide mesh net might be possible by then.
CALEA applies to Internet communication. (Score:1)
Tor Discussion Forums (Score:1)
We need an official Tor discussion forum.
I didn't see this issue mentioned in Roger's *latest* notes post, so for now, mature adults should visit and post at one or both of these unofficial tor discussion forums, these tinyurl's will take you to:
** HackBB:
http://www.tinyurl.com/hackbbonion [tinyurl.com]
** Onion Forum 2.0
http://www.tinyurl.com/onionforum2 [tinyurl.com]
Each tinyurl link will take you to a hidden service discussion forum. Tor is required to visit these links, even though they appear to be on the open web, they will lead
Switzerland Network Testing Tool (Score:1)
* https://www.eff.org/pages/switzerland-network-testing-tool [eff.org]
* https://www.eff.org/testyourisp [eff.org]
Switzerland Network Testing Tool
"Is your ISP interfering with your BitTorrent connections? Cutting off your VOIP calls? Undermining the principles of network neutrality? In order to answer those questions, concerned Internet users need tools to test their Internet connections and gather evidence about ISP interference practices. After all, if it weren't for the testing efforts of Rob Topolski, the Associated Press,
Is that a question? (Score:1)
Good Luck (Score:1)
In the UK they already do this (Score:2)
Deep packet inspection is already happening in the UK. Don't believe me? Try a telnet to port 80 on a webserver you control from a domestic UK internet connection. Then enter 'HTTP \nHOST piratebay.org\n' Your connection gets hijacked at that point and the server sees a faked reset from your IP.
Don't have a webserver? Try any website instead but if you use your own you can tcpdump both sides of the connection to see the hijacking happening.
Between this, email and telephone snooping, stop and search without
Suing the ISPs over lost business hours? (Score:1)
I wonder how this would fit in with corporate customers of the participating ISPs and the loss of business hours that could occur, since even if nobody is falsely accused by mistake, a lot of these copyright issues are subjective and are subject to the judicial system.
Could the participating ISPs be held liable if a company's business is disrupted through no fault of their own (or if the company has a case and is willing to take the issue to court)?
Re: (Score:3)
Mycroft
The US is not a free market (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The US is not a free market (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is why the physical infrastructure should be nationalized and leased by the government to private businesses who must then compete with each other. This would lower the barriers to entry and open up competition. And laying all that fiber will create a lot of jobs too.
Re:The US is not a free market (Score:5, Interesting)
"Once one ISP has an area cabled up, it's no longer financially viable for another to move in."
That's why some smart communities have decided to let the city or county build the cable infrastructure, using tax dollars. Then they rent the infrastructure to data providers.
Not only do they save money, they are not subject to coercion by monopolies.
Re: (Score:2)
It's simpler than that. Just handle it like the phone lines - the cable owner has to allow others to offer services on their infrastructure.
The howling would be awesome.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a very high correlation (outside the U.S., which hasn't tried it so it's irrelevant) between regions that have required leasing of backbone bandwidth, and those that have not. Those that have mandated sharing deliver remarkably high bandwidth at astoundingly low prices, compared to those that do not.
So, althoug
Re: (Score:2)
Well it is something of a loss in rights to treat it as your exclusive property, so I have some sympathy for the howling.
However that sympathy is well tempered by the abusive treatment that the monopoly cable owners inflict on their customers.
Ultimately the monopoly situation is really just unreasonable.
I happen to be in an area served by a traditional cable company as well as FIOS, so I have personal experience with both a monopoly situation and having competition. Competition is much nicer.
Re: (Score:2)
"Competition is much nicer."
Amen, brother.
(Note: I am not particularly religious; it just seemed a simple way to express my agreement.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Or with other words, the company/entity that holds the physical network (the cable, fiber, whatever) MUST NOT be allowed to hold the virtual one."
I, and a lot of other people in the US, also agree with this. But it wasn't the point I was making.
"And of course in order to avoid hidden monopoly like sharing the fiber only to our guys, that's why the "sharing" principle was implemented."
Fine. But whatever the reasoning behind it, the simple fact is that there is a strong correlation between forced sharing of backbone resources, and actual competition in the market.
I don't know about where you live, but there is also the issue that much of those backbone resources make use of public right-of-way, or government (and therefore taxpayer) grant of the rights to use certain public facilities. Ve
Re: (Score:2)
As a friend of mine, who is in this business, said once to me, all he needs are 1000 customers, and with this user base he could provide them with a fiber cable. To every single home. Literally. In a matter of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For you man, there is this saying: Free as a free beer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Taxes aren't theft homie.
Re: (Score:3)
I have plenty of choices. Let's see... Comcast, Comcast, and Comcast! Oh, and Comcast, too! Unfortunately, AT&T isn't in the area yet, but there are still plenty of choices!
Re:USPS (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact, a guy named Lysander Spooner made a competitor to the US post office called the American Letter Mail Company, it did everything better than the USPS, faster delivery, cheaper rates, less waste, etc. but it was shut down because of the monopoly that the USPS has.
ISPs are not the same. While arguably many have monopoly status due to the fact that the government gave them massive amounts of money to "modernize" the US, there is nothing preventing me from starting a better, more privacy friendly ISP aside from the startup costs.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is the USPS is a government sponsored monopoly where legally you cannot compete with them.
Are you forgetting about UPS, FedEx, DHL, and within large cities, numerous small courier services?
Re: (Score:2)
"The USPS has exclusive access to letter boxes marked "U.S. Mail" and personal letterboxes in the United States, but still competes against private package delivery services, such as UPS and FedEx."
"Due to the postal monopoly, they are not allowed to deliver non-urgent letters and may not directly ship to U.S. Mail boxes at residential and commercial destinations. However both companies have transit agreements with the USPS in which an item can be dr
Re: (Score:2)
So as long as they're not tampering with US Government property (mailboxes) you are allowed to run a competing mail services. The government went through the trouble of setting up and paying for all those mailboxes with taxes, so the government mail system gets exclusive use of them. Seems fair to me.
Re: (Score:2)
However, there is an issue here:
"... there is nothing preventing me from starting a better, more privacy friendly ISP aside from the startup costs."
Yes, there is. In my town, the City Council is required every year to evaluate and vote on service providers. And every year, so far, they have voted to NOT allow competition in the cable business, because (so they say) of problems with overhead cabling (telephone poles, etc.).
Clearly their reasoning is bullshit, and they are just engagi
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is the USPS is a government sponsored monopoly where legally you cannot compete with them.
The U.S. mail box is protected.
It was one way our town was able to fight back against the distribution of poison pen letters and cobbled together tabloid news sheets by a corrupt and vicious faction that taken control of our local school board ---
a faction too clever to be caught paying postage, but not quite clever enough to avoid being spotted on the road.
For a courier service, cherry-picking the big metro markets has always been easy and profitable. Universal postal service --- affordable flat rate de