Orwell1984
@fdn.com
| reply to oliphant
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
| 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. |
|
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! |
|
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?.... |
|
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! |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| 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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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
1 edit | 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. |
|
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. |
|
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). |
|
