broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to oliphant
Re: Telus within their rights
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." |
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to oliphant
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. |
|
smuck
@shawcable.net | reply to oliphant
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? |
|
fkl
@telus.net
| reply to vpoko
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. |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| reply to oliphant
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). |
|
tapeloop
1959. I try to kick the ball. I miss.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
| reply to oliphant
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
1 edit | reply to vpoko
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
1 edit | reply to oliphant
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
| reply to tapeloop
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. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| reply to vpoko
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. |
|
Damon85
Premium
join:2004-12-25
Louisville, KY
| reply to oliphant
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. |
|
tapeloop
1959. I try to kick the ball. I miss.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
| reply to oliphant
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. |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| reply to oliphant
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
| reply to ross
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. |
|
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
4 edits | reply to vpoko
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. |
|
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
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. |
|
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! |
|
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!) |
|
