vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| Re: Telus within their rights said by TKJunkMail  :Being an independent business, Telus is under no obligation to provide access to all internet web sites, including the union one. If the union sympathizers don't like it, they can switch to another internet provider. That is true, which is why I'm glad BBR is posting the story here so that more people, especially Telus subscribers, can decide for themselves whether they want to do business with such a company. Ahh, free North America. | |
|
 
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| Re: Telus within their rights I agree, technically Telus has the right to do this but it scares the hell out of me to think US ISPs might do the same in the future. I for one don't want a private company decided what information I can and cannot get online. And for that reason, to say nothing of this just being underhanded on their part, I'd drop kick them and go back to dial up if I had to.
--
AMD A64 3200+/ MSI K8N Neo Platinum/ 2x 512Mb Kingston HyperX PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ PNY 6800GT/Gainward 5200PCI/ Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
|
 | 
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | Re: Telus within their rights "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. | |
|
| |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| Re: Telus within their rights 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. Hey, at least make an honest argument. Telus isn't doing this for employees' safety, they're doing it to deny access to information that may be harmful to the company. | |
|
| | |
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
1 edit | Re: Telus within their rights said by vpoko :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. Hey, at least make an honest argument. Telus isn't doing this for employees' safety, they're doing it to deny access to information that may be harmful to the company. It's irrelevant. The fact that this would "scare the hell" out of anyone is simply amazing. Masked gunmen entering your home in the middle of the night would scare the hell out of someone. Being on a plane as it goes down in flames would scare the hell out of someone. A private company blocking a single site shouldn't scare anyone. I'm surprised someone so fragile would be able to function normally in society.
People simply over-dramatize these things to the point people just laugh rather than listen to the genuine concern.
This isn't the end of the world. This isn't even a 'slippery slope'. You think it's lame that they blocked a union site...then sure, it's lame. But that it would "scare" someone is simply ludicrous. | |
|
| | | | 
Orwell1984
@fdn.com
| Re: Telus within their rights The potential harm of censorship scares a lot of people.It scared our forefathers enough to write the first amendment to the constitution.I do not know what protections Canadians have on free speech but if this ever happens here I hope there are legal avenues to redress the issue. | |
|
| | | | |
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
4 edits | Re: Telus within their rights Read the 1st Amendment again please. The 1st Amendment only applies to Government as in "Congress shall make no law..."
Private companies can "censor" whoever they want so long as it doesn't violate the anti-trust or Civil Rights act or similar Federal or State laws. It's (as in the service is) their property, they can determine how it's run. You as a subscriber have only ONE choice. To subscribe or not to subscribe. Every other choice belongs to the company as it should.
It's not censorship but rather their own private property rights they are exercising when blocking a site. | |
|
| | | | | |
Orwell1984
@fdn.com | Re: Telus within their rights My point was that they thought it was important enough to make it an amendment. Not that the amendment applies. My original statement stands. Censorship is bad no matter who is doing it. | |
|
| | | | | | | 
bamboox
join:2000-12-15
Renton, WA | Re: Telus within their rights said by Orwell1984:
Censorship is bad no matter who is doing it.
Is all censorship bad? Is censoring child porn bad? Is it bad if I prevent my child from view pornography? | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Orwell1984
@fdn.com
| Re: Telus within their rights If you limit what your child sees then that is good parenting.If you try to limit what my child sees then you are a censor.I won't argue the merits of censoring child porn it is too emotional of an issue, but it is already being used to further harass legal adult porn sites. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | 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 | 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 | Re: Telus within their rights No, I am saying being a good parent is not censorship. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
bamboox
join:2000-12-15
Renton, WA
| Re: Telus within their rights 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". | |
|
| | | | | | |
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| said by Orwell1984:
My point was that they thought it was important enough to make it an amendment. Not that the amendment applies. My original statement stands. Censorship is bad no matter who is doing it.
In your opinion maybe but the Founders also saw personal property rights important too. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Orwell1984
@fdn.com
| Re: Telus within their rights 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
| Re: Telus within their rights 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
| 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
 ·Digizip
| Re: Telus within their rights 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! | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| Re: Telus within their rights 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! | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| Re: Telus within their rights 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 | Re: Telus within their rights 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
smuck
@shawcable.net | Re: Telus within their rights Telus will soon be getting into the Television market, so when the start to block news stories that are critical of Telus , will you agree with this as well? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| 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
| Re: Telus within their rights 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
| Re: Telus within their rights 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| Re: Telus within their rights said by vpoko :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. 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. Show us the law then. The only circumstance I could see this enforced would be in the limited cases of anti-trust where saw an ISP like Verizon who has a VOIP product blocks Vonage's VOIP product. But of course this still wouldn't be about the content or censorship in the least. It would be about anti-competitive behaviors in terms of the Antitrust Act. In all other cases I can think of personal property rights trump unrestricted access to content. The ISP is free to filter whatever they want whether it's websites, spam or whatever. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
1 edit | Re: Telus within their rights You're missing some legal priniples. For one thing, ISP's are generally immune from liability for the activies of users. This limited liability comes under a "common carriage" doctrine. ISP's could lose that designation and be treated as publishers if they begin to have a hand in controling the CONTENT of their network. That would make them liable for everything every user does.
Here's a good article on Civil Censorship: »www.room17.com/ramblings/civil.shtml | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
1 edit | Re: Telus within their rights Show us all the law that says ISPs must provide equal access to content and I'll buy your arguement 'cause they don't unless they law says they do.
Woulda coulda shoulda isn't the law.
ISPs are private enterprises who can block access whenever they want to whoever they want so long as it doesn't violate antitrust laws which blocking a union site certainly doesn't.
They own their equipment and network. They aren't subject to tariff restrictions like say POTS is. They aren't subject to monopoly supervision. They aren't subject to a franchise agreement.
Gov't can not force them to provide unfiltered service. Otherwise by your logic they can't port block or block spam either which of course they are permitted to. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| Re: Telus within their rights Maybe the government can't force them. But I'll bet if they continue acting like this and at some point in the future they are sued for something one of their users did, the court might just reject their argument that they're a common carrier and hold them liable as a publisher. There is no statute that defines ISP's as common carriers, but it would be subject to judicial interpertation based on the service they provide (which looks & smells like a common carrier network). | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
fkl
@telus.net
| In August 1998, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) called for public discussion on what role - if any - it should have in regulating matters such as online pornography, hate speech, and "Canadian content" on the Web.
... 17 May 1999, the CRTC issued a media release titled "CRTC Won't Regulate the Internet" stating, among other things, that:
"The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) announced today that it will not regulate new media services on the Internet. After conducting an in- depth review under the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act beginning last July, the CRTC has concluded that the new media on the Internet are achieving the goals of the Broadcasting Act and are vibrant, highly competitive and successful without regulation. The CRTC is concerned that any attempt to regulate Canadian new media might put the industry at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace."
For your information, TELUS is regulated under CRTC and any attempt in breaching CRTC guidelines is not acceptable as all telecommunication comprations in Canada have to operate based the CRTC guidelines. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | 
tapeloop
1959. I try to kick the ball. I miss.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
| said by oliphant :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. Yes, but do you think that Telus blocking pro-union sites is right to do?
--
Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| Re: Telus within their rights said by tapeloop :said by oliphant :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. Yes, but do you think that Telus blocking pro-union sites is right to do? If I ran Telus I would do the exact same thing. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
tapeloop
1959. I try to kick the ball. I miss.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
| Re: Telus within their rights said by oliphant :said by tapeloop :said by oliphant :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. Yes, but do you think that Telus blocking pro-union sites is right to do? If I ran Telus I would do the exact same thing. Remind me never to get internet service from you then...:p
On the other hand, I could form my own ISP and block all links to and images of female golden retrievers, as their multiple boobies could be an incitement to bestiality. 
--
Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| 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 | Re: Telus within their rights 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | yac898
join:2002-12-06
Stony Plain, AB
| 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
| 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
1 edit | Re: Telus within their rights 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Damon85
Premium
join:2004-12-25
Louisville, KY
| Re: Telus within their rights It's no point arguing with them... it's the same "I-want-everything-for-free" attitude that comes up with most of the other topics here.
If you want to see the content for free, get off your office chair and go find out -- stop expecting Telus to give you information that's harmful to them.
And no, I didn't just condone what Telus does -- I think it's stupid. That being said, they are perfectly within their right to censor whatever they want. If you don't like it, exercise the checkbook-veto. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | 
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| Just because its legal, doesn't make it any less dubious. You have said you would do the same thing as the telco, that seems a bit dubious of you.
Dish Network lets its customers know they wont get the Anime Network. The consumer is given a list of stations that will be available.
This ISP did not tell all of customers when it was deciding to censor content.
However, there is a fairly simple solution to this ... the union should just make another Web page. And when that is censored, they should make another. And another. And another. And make them have web names that implicate the ISP in some corrupt fashion. Just as the ISP has the legal "right" to censor Web content (frightening, but true apparently), so too does the union have the right to publicize the matter to its fullest and create more and more Web pages until censoring becomes moot.
I bet the censorship of the page drew way more publicity than the page itself was drawing. In almost any instance, censorship tends to work backwards.
Consumers have more than two choices when it comes to service. They can leave the service, sure. But they can also yell and scream until the ISP becomes so irritated that it changes things. Dealing with customer complaints is a waste time for any business and silencing those is sometimes more valuable from a practical standpoint than caring if they left. Afterall, if a handful of consumers leave, that's easy to input into computer systems and adjust for. However, if a handful of customers call you up every twenty five minutes asking that you change something, that's not so easy to document, is incredibly annoying and gets the job done. The elderly figured that out years ago and thus, have quite a disproportionate amount of political and commercial sway in what reps, corporations and just about everybody say and do. Want something changed? Call and have your friends call over and over and over. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| This is a copy of someone else's post and the Canadian constitution, it may be of relevance, as opposed to the U.S. Constitution it does not say "Shall make no law," but that the rights are guaranteed, thus, implicitly, no one may restrict them for whatever reason by whatever means.
"2) Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to
(a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and
(b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services." | |
|
| | | | |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| said by Orwell1984:
The potential harm of censorship scares a lot of people.It scared our forefathers enough to write the first amendment to the constitution.I do not know what protections Canadians have on free speech but if this ever happens here I hope there are legal avenues to redress the issue.
The first amemndment (the entire bill of rights actually) only applies to the government. Private companies are free to censor as long as they aren't violating a specific statute.
I am arguing against the wisdom of the policy rather than its legal basis. | |
|
| | 
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| 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 | |
|
|
|
|
