oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | reply to Orwell1984
Re: Telus within their rights
Good. Private individuals or companies exercising their Constitutionally granted private property rights is a great thing. |
|
bamboox
join:2000-12-15
Renton, WA
1 edit | reply to Orwell1984
said by Orwell1984:
If you limit what your child sees then that is good parenting.
So you're saying censorship can be good in this one case? |
|
Orwell1984
@fdn.com | No, I am saying being a good parent is not censorship. |
|
Orwell1984
@fdn.com
| reply to oliphant
But the information being censored is not Telus's property.This is not like a newspaper deciding editorial policies.This is a company interfering with the ability of one group to express an opinion and another group to listen.The network may belong to Telus but the information carried on does not. |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| said by Orwell1984:
But the information being censored is not Telus's property.This is not like a newspaper deciding editorial policies.This is a company interfering with the ability of one group to express an opinion and another group to listen.The network may belong to Telus but the information carried on does not.
I agree, but the proper way to enforce this would be to convince the other backbone providers to revoke backbone access to ISP's who do not provide content-neutral access to the network. Hell, what if the union site is making money off of banner ads and Telus is costing the union (who is a customer of another ISP) ad-revenue. Of course in areas where there is no competition (a monopoly or duopoly) the government might have an interest in forcing ISP's to comply, but I think that the free market IS equipped to handle this kind of problem where a free-market exists. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| reply to Orwell1984
said by Orwell1984:
But the information being censored is not Telus's property.This is not like a newspaper deciding editorial policies.This is a company interfering with the ability of one group to express an opinion and another group to listen.The network may belong to Telus but the information carried on does not.
They own the service as such they determine which data crosses their privately owned service. In addition you don't subscribe to the data, only the service. Thus your only choice is to subscribe to the service or not. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| reply to Orwell1984
said by Orwell1984:
But the information being censored is not Telus's property.This is not like a newspaper deciding editorial policies.This is a company interfering with the ability of one group to express an opinion and another group to listen.The network may belong to Telus but the information carried on does not.
So what. Both groups are private. Telus as a private enterprise has no obligation to aid another private group in promoting whatever their message is.
If that group wants to get out their message, let them go stand on a street corner. Let them go buy advertising space on radio or TV. Or better yet let them start their own ISP.
Telus in no way shape or form has the obligation to provide the ability of any group to express their opinion or to allow any other group to listen.
The "listener" has only 1 choice. To subscribe or not to subscribe. EVERY other decision belongs to the company or individual that owns the service. |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA | Obviously this would be governed by their contract, but do you think that other backbone providers might have a reason to be pissed? Generally the backbones are supposed to provide unfetered access to each other. |
|
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
 ·epix
| reply to oliphant
said by oliphant  :"Scares the hell" out of you? A private enterprise filtering a website showing it's employees in such a way and situation that harm may come to them? This scares the hell out of you? All I can say is wow. I agree with Oli.Private enterprise filtering a website is within their bounds.Aww one site,pfft get a grip.They're people that work in tech support and CS that the entire web is neutered down to the bone.The only websites allowed is company approved sites.Techs who get around the filters,when they get caught they're history.Security escorts them from the building.What happened I ask.9x out of 10 they get fired for browsin' the web lol.
--
Honk if you've never seen an uzi fired from a car window |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| reply to oliphant
said by oliphant :said by Orwell1984:
But the information being censored is not Telus's property.This is not like a newspaper deciding editorial policies.This is a company interfering with the ability of one group to express an opinion and another group to listen.The network may belong to Telus but the information carried on does not.
They own the service as such they determine which data crosses their privately owned service. In addition you don't subscribe to the data, only the service. Thus your only choice is to subscribe to the service or not. Accepting your argument would mean the telephone company should have the right to censor what can be said over the phone. SBC, and the other Telcos, could cut off service to the CWA, or to other customers who were CWA members, or CWA staff, or any other entity, if they wanted to prevent them from promulgating or disseminating information amongst themselves, or to their membership during times of labor negotiations/strikes. In fact, accepting your argument means that SBC and the Telcos could do it for any reason, to anyone, any time they felt it in their interest.
Simply stunning! |
|
bamboox
join:2000-12-15
Renton, WA
| reply to Orwell1984
said by Orwell1984:
No, I am saying being a good parent is not censorship.
Doesn't that really depend on your definition of censorship? Telus could just as easily argue what they're doing is not censorship. It's protecting "protecting privacy rights". Or "protecting business interests". |
|
yac898
join:2002-12-06
Stony Plain, AB
| reply to oliphant
telus is limiting their users from accessing an outside isp / webhosting company. they can do this anytime they want, for any reason they want. they have just proved that. do YOU, would YOU want to/continue to do business with TELUS knowing you may only be getting the information they deem fit for your consumption?.... |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to oliphant
said by oliphant :In your opinion maybe but the Founders also saw personal property rights important too. I'm sure they did.... but it's certain our corporations don't care about our personal property rights... only their own interests.
This *is* a slippery slope, and should be exposed to public scrutiny and condemned now. Last thing we need is "information providers" deciding to block access to information that they feel threatens them. Imagine if the Telephone company for example refused to connect calls to their competitors, or refused to provide them service in the first place. How about Cable companies that block all information about Satellite companies, or ISP's who block and firewall all competitors products and sites.
This is a bad precedent to allow to take hold.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| reply to ross
said by ross :Accepting your argument would mean the telephone company should have the right to censor what can be said over the phone... -clipped- No because they're governed by tariffs. By being granted the monopoly they AGREED to certain terms laid out by the State government. An ISP is in no way shape or form anything like a telephone company.
So by your argument, Dish Network is censoring The Anime Channel because they choose not to carry it.
Simply stunning! |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
1 edit | reply to KrK
said by KrK :said by oliphant :In your opinion maybe but the Founders also saw personal property rights important too. I'm sure they did.... but it's certain our corporations don't care about our personal property rights... only their own interests. This *is* a slippery slope, and should be exposed to public scrutiny and condemned now. Last thing we need is "information providers" deciding to block access to information that they feel threatens them. Imagine if the Telephone company for example refused to connect calls to their competitors, or refused to provide them service in the first place. How about Cable companies that block all information about Satellite companies, or ISP's who block and firewall all competitors products and sites. This is a bad precedent to allow to take hold. No it's not. Those aren't OUR corporations. They're the stockholder's corporations. They are private industries, private property. And again, the telephone company is in no way shape or form similar to an ISP. The telephone company is a government granted monopoly and as such the telephone companies agree to terms laid out by the government in advance.
Is Dish Network a censor because they don't carry The Anime Network? Of course not. They are a private company and can pick and choose what programming they allow and what they do not allow just as an ISP can determine what traffic to allow and which not to allow so long as it doesn't violate existing law (eg anti-trust laws).
The 1st Amendment does not apply to private industry. Never has and never should. They can do whatever they want. You as a subscriber have a single choice: To subscribe or not to subscribe. EVERY other choice is theirs. You may not like it, but that is the consequence of property rights. The service is THEIR property, THEY determine how it is run and what they permit. |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| reply to oliphant
said by oliphant :Simply stunning! I have to take exeption with your continued use of the words "simply stunning" to describe the poster's thoughts. I wouldn't normally, but since you gave "scares me to death" such a workover I thought it only fitting to point out your stupid hyperboles as well. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
4 edits | Perhaps you should read the entire thread before replying. I was being similarly sarcastic.
»Telus within their rights
Nothing about this is stunning. Nothing about this should scare anyone. The only amazing thing about this is that anyone would think the sky is falling and would make such a big deal about it. It's a concept that even the most simple minded can follow. They own the service, they say how it is run. If you own the service you can say how it is run. Don't like it...cancel.
Viva la Free Enterprise. |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| reply to oliphant
No public or private enterprise that provides access to the internet should be able to censor what content is available to its subscribers, unless the content is explicitly unlawful. Ownership of infrastructure does not in and of itself entitle the owner to censor content. If that were the case, then my example of the phone company only allowing traffic it deemed "fit" might be de rigueur. Voice, or data, doesn't matter much in the application of property rights. Public or private communications doesn't matter either if ownership/property rights are the sole genitor and final arbiter of what's permissible to be discussed or communicated.
Why couldn't the phone company decide to monitor/filter/censor for content it arbitrarily decided was objectionable? After all, they own their infrastructure, it's private property. That is the nut of your argument. The nut of all Republican argument, really. That is, that the rights of property owners always trump the rights of society at large.
Dish Network not purchasing and reselling specific content for it's subscribers is nothing like leasing/renting infrastructure to access the Internet. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| Reread the thread. I've already explained twice why an ISP is not like the phone company.
And ownership of the infrastructure is exactly what entitles the owner to censor content. They own it, they run it however they want. The First Amendment does not apply in any way shape or form to private parties or business...ONLY government and even then it's limited...just look at the FCC.
AGAIN, you as a subscriber have a single choice which is to subscribe to that owner's service or not to subscribe to that owner's service.
Every other decision belongs to the owner of the service. But now I'm just repeating myself. If you don't get it by now, you never will. |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| said by oliphant :Every other decision belongs to the owner of the service. But now I'm just repeating myself. If you don't get it by now, you never will. See, the thing is, just because you say it's so doesn't make it so. True, if we lived in a 100% capitalistic society you would be correct, but people here (in both America and Canada) have made a determination that some government oversight of private business is necessary. Agree with it or not, this semi-socialistic system is what exists, and under this system the ISP could be forced to provide content-neutral access to their network.
I don't agree with it, being a libertarian, but at least I know that America isn't run like my libertarian utopia would be. |
|
