again sorta not
 

refer to line #2 on the tracer route 2 ##-##-##-
#.lightspeed.rcsntx.sbcglobal

sbcglobal dude?

Heh, no argument there. Though the old AT&T was rather notorious too. Lily Tomlin's skits where she played an obnoxious, overbearing telephone operator became famous for the phrase, "We don't have to care. We're the phone company."

Like I said, SBC bought AT&T and took their name.

again sorta not
 

relax - The point of the tracer route posted from LA Metblogs
included the sbc global net not AT&T and believe it or not
a lot of people already knew that AT&T was purchased by SBC
back in 05'.

/b/ was responsible for the raid on Scientology's servers, and for the IRL protest. They caused Google to redirect to Scientology if you search for 'dangerous cult'. /b/ does good indeed. Another time, a guy who tortured cats was found by som Anon who read the source code of the images that guy posted. The cops caught the cat maniac thanks to Anon.

If you see a guy in a Fawke's mask, then it is Anonymous a.k.a a /b/tard.

The reason AT&T might be blocking /b/ is because there are childp0rn thread sometimes (with images). /b/ itself removes all such threads. But if you've been to /b/ for once, you'd notice replies come like 100 per second, and it's very hard for moderators themselves ro remove them.

The owner of 4chan can't do much.

again sorta not
 

AT&T is a subsidiary of its parent company which was purchased in 05' called
SBC Research reportedly for ( $ 16.5 Billion USD )and also assumed over 6.4 billion in debt. WSJ 04'- AT&T in In April 2004, AT&T was dropped from the Dow Jones industrial average, signifying its lessening importance to the nation's economy. It was replaced by another so-called "Baby Bell," Verizon Communications (Research).

Companies often use terms of service (TOS) or end-user license agreements (EULAs) to bind customers to terms they might not otherwise have agreed to, gambling that the average person won't understand the complex legal language, or have time to dig deep enough to cite objectionable elements of the agreement.

Verizon & AT&T, SBC etc., for example, inserts into its terms of service the right to "change, limit, terminate, modify at any time, temporarily or permanently cease to provide the Service or any part thereof to any user or group of users, without prior notice and for any reason or no reason.

Long story short if your a AT&T customer trying to reach 4chan / b etc NSFW
your tracerroute will look like this as posted by LA Metblogs:

What traceroute looks like to 4chan on AT&T note, line# 2 sbcglobal.net (parent company)

flouride:$ traceroute img.4chan.org
traceroute: Warning: img.4chan.org has multiple addresses; using 207.126.64.181
traceroute to img.4chan.org (207.126.64.181), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 192.168.1.254 (192.168.1.254) 1.094 ms 0.540 ms 0.646 ms
2 ##-##-##-
#.lightspeed.rcsntx.sbcglobal.
net (##.##.##.#) 22.565 ms 22.093 ms 22.719 ms
3 70.143.229.18 (70.143.229.18) 27.973 ms 23.127 ms 24.098 ms
4 * * *
5 * * *
6 * * *
7 * * *

again sorta not
 

well now you will be able to reach 4chan / b
and download more cp, dude.

So few pictures are so true as this..

I sense a strong fail in this comment.

get over it dude
 

actually,..

The whole news is crap. AT&T definitely censored content, then blamed the DDoS issue. DDoS has been going on for ages there.

Also, 4chan IS moderated and also moderators edit a lot of stuff and block certain content.

That news is pure crap. They don't know 4chan and talk rubbish.

So AT&T actually was doing the right thing in blocking 4Chan? They were protecting their customers? Fascinating.

It's all bollocks. AT&T didn't contact 4chan at all and they claim they did. 'M00t', 4chan's admin said they never did.

AT&T blocks image-sharing site, sparks net neutrality row

Read from better sources.

OR better 4chan Status read there

So considering that AT&T is a business that wants to make money, and people pay them to provided Internet access, what would be AT&T's purpose in blocking parts of 4Chan to it's customers, from a business standpoint?

Did you read 4chan's blog? 4chan was being DDoSed and they used some sort of way to get around it. This affected several AT&T customers. AT&T did something that f***ed up their entire network and nobody could access 4chan. Also they did not contact 4chan for the issue. Not to mention their lies.

What kind of business works that way?

That's what I am asking you. What kind of business would act that way knowing it will be a PR disaster and they will lose not gain customers unless they are doing it for the sake of protecting customers rather than harm them?

Who said AT&T wanted to harm their customers? Also they did not protect anybody, their filter blocked access of the entire network to 4chan. It's their fault, and they admitted it.

In the end, this wasn't a sinister act of censorship, but rather a bit of a mistake and a poorly executed, disproportionate response on AT&T's part.

This is what I was looking for...This is from 4chan.

If it was a mistake, then I understand. It makes no business sense for AT&T to censor 4chan, as they are a service "provider".