 |
 | 
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| Re: Telus within their rights said by GOLFnSUN  :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 | |
|
|
Orwell1984
@fdn.com | They may be within their rights but I would really hate to see political censorship in this country.Imagine not being able to access a website because your ISP doesn't agree with the view. | |
|
| | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Telus within their rights said by Orwell1984:
They may be within their rights but I would really hate to see political censorship in this country.Imagine not being able to access a website because your ISP doesn't agree with the view.
Private businesses are under no legal obligation to guarantee free speech. They are, however, in business to make money, so pissing off large numbers of customers isn't in their best interests. So I wouldn't worry about some massive censorship effort. My advice remains the same - don't like it and you're a union member or sympathizer, then switch providers.
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum | |
|
| | |
Orwell1984
@fdn.com
| Re: Telus within their rights Since I am not Canadian this instance is not really my problem. I am concerned about the possibility of this type of action in the U.S. I do not want to have to pick my ISP base on Thier politics.Also it would probably not be good to have opposing view points unavailable.Believe it or not I have occasionally found my opinions to be wrong.If I only have access to opinions which mirror my own how will I ever become wiser?What if your provider is a flaming liberal and wants to block websites that support conservative points of view.Censorship is bad, be it by a government or a corporation.I Hope that this type of thing never happens here but fear that in our current political climate anything is possible. | |
|
| | | | 
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| Re: Telus within their rights said by Orwell1984:
What if your provider is a flaming liberal and wants to block websites that support conservative points of view. For the most part it wouldn't happen (at least to the point where you wouldn't know it was happening because the fact is a selling point, ie: "family friendly ISP's") because businesses don't want to piss off a good portion of their customers. The wise owner keeps politics as far away from their business as possible.
--
Misfits lost in the dryer, take heart
Maybe there's a place up in sock heaven. | |
|
| sirhailstone
join:2001-12-01
Indianapolis, IN
| Something that is equally interesting.
When CNN was/is owned by AOL Time Warner (Has AOL been jettisoned from TW yet?) imagine AOL deciding to block access to competing cable news services, like MSNBC (double whammy - MSN and NBC) and their arch-enemy the right-biased Fox News Channel.
At AOL's heyday, it was by far #1 in online subscribers. | |
|
| Armour
join:2002-01-08
Scarborough, ON
| said by GOLFnSUN :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. But shouldnt a paying subscriber be told of this ? shouldn't they be the one's to make the choice?
If I was a telus customer I would drop them in an istant. I'm all growen up now and can make my own choices of what I belive. But you can't make a choice from only one side of the story. | |
|
| 
peter_m
Premium
join:2005-07-13
Canada, QC
| WOW,
what about us, the small consumer??? Most people dont have too many high speed ISPs to choose from. I know, it's my situation. Only have the cable company or the phone company to choose from. Doesnt seem to be a very open and free market. It borders monopoly, unfair to the consumer if I may say so. Both are large private corporations with union problems of theire own. How what would happen if they both decided to filter internet content?
Peter M | |
|
|
panzerfan
@bcit.ca
| 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.
This is from the Canadian constitution. TELUS is a regional provider within Canada and not the US. As such, the American Constitution is null and void in this instance to be applied in argument.
Subsequently, on 17 May 1999, the The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, 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."
Not even the Federal Canadian government regulating agency will restrict access of the internet.
TELUS does NOT have the ground based on the constitution to censor that information. | |
|
firewire9999
join:2004-07-11
Livonia, MI | Telus Filtering Pro-Union Website One Sentence: THIS IS ALL GEORGE W. BUSH's Fault. | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
grouchy951
join:2000-09-23
Chicago, IL
| Not sure they realize what they have done... Telus with their actions have pretty much said they are tracking and consider themselves responsible for content on their service.
Not something that most ISPs want to have happen. I have heard of them arguing the other way, that they provide the conduit and are not responsible for what passes through. | |
|
| mlundin
join:2001-03-27
Lawrence, KS | Re: Not sure they realize what they have done... Interesting point. Sure could make for one hell of a lawsuit. | |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| This could set a dangerous precedent.... What would happen if the Internet is censored?
Don't like a website that says a bad thing about your ISP? Just block it. What do you care since you could be the only (broadband) service in town.
This could get very interesting, very quickly. | |
|
drakkkar
join:2003-02-07
Houston, TX
| Since they want to be responsible... Well, Since they want to be responsible for the content on their networks huh? In that case they should be liable for any copyright violations, or kiddie porn right? After all, they are saying they are responsible for the content.
If I were a customer of theirs, I would cancel.
--
~Age and Treachery will always overcome Youth and Skill.~ | |
|
| 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Since they want to be responsible... said by drakkkar :Well, Since they want to be responsible for the content on their networks huh? In that case they should be liable for any copyright violations, or kiddie porn right? After all, they are saying they are responsible for the content. I don't know what the law is in Canada, but any deliberate blocking of content by an ISP in the USA would definitely throw that company into the situation you describe. See the court case Stratton-Oakmont & Porush v. Prodigy for more info. Most ISPs in the USA clearly state that they have no control over online content for this very reason.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! | |
|
| 
Kardinal
We will remember them
Premium
join:2001-02-04
N of 49th
clubs:
| said by drakkkar :Well, Since they want to be responsible for the content on their networks huh? What's worse is the site isn't on their network at all. From what I can tell, it's somewhere in Florida:
Tracing route to www.voices-for-change.com [204.14.106.29] over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 9 ms 10 ms 10 ms 64.230.xxx.xxx
3 8 ms 8 ms 7 ms 64.230.228.10
4 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms 64.230.241.213
5 10 ms 10 ms 11 ms rtp627384rts [64.230.204.169]
6 18 ms 17 ms 18 ms 64.230.240.14
7 18 ms 19 ms 18 ms 64.230.223.122
8 18 ms 18 ms 18 ms so7-0-0-2488M.ar2.NYC1.gblx.net [208.50.13.129]
9 51 ms 51 ms 51 ms so7-0-0-2488M.ar2.MIA1.gblx.net [67.17.67.142]
10 52 ms 52 ms 51 ms 69.28.191.90
11 52 ms 51 ms 52 ms win5.myhsphere.biz [204.14.106.29]
For those who don't know: Telus isn't just an Internet provider -- they're an ILEC who deal in voice, data, wireless and Internet who's territory covers all of British Columbia, Alberta and certain small parts of Quebec, in addition to being a CLEC in parts of eastern Canada. The analogy of AOL/TW blocking Fox or MSNBC isn't far off, but it would be more like Verizon or SBC doing it.
--
"I'd sure look like a fool, dead in a ditch somewhere with a mind full of chemicals like some cheese-eating highschool boy" - TPOH
Join Team Helix | |
|
Derfel
join:2004-06-06
Winnipeg, MB
·MTS
| ??? Well, Telus' claim that there are pictures of people crossing the lines is bogus - I just went through the entire site and saw no such thing. So unless they were taken down, Telus has no case here in that respect.
However, it is their company and their right to block the content they wish to block, AS LONG as it doesn't conflict with their user agreements. TELUS users - I would be reading the fine print right now to see what you can do about it.
From what I've read, though... TELUS might actually not be the bad organization in this struggle. I took a look at their package offer to the employees, and it seems to me that the employee bargaining team is the one that's been holding up the process. | |
|
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| Re: ??? said by Derfel :Well, Telus' claim that there are pictures of people crossing the lines is bogus - I just went through the entire site and saw no such thing. Didja check their forums? I bet ya there are some pictures there.
--
Misfits lost in the dryer, take heart
Maybe there's a place up in sock heaven. | |
|
| | Derfel
join:2004-06-06
Winnipeg, MB | Re: ??? Yes I did, and no there are no pics... | |
|
Plasticman
Will Work For Bandwidth
Premium
join:2002-09-06
Harrisville, RI
clubs: | I was curious so I tried to take a peak at the dirrect site address and it did not respond at all. I am in the US and on a edu connection. I was able to view it thru the proxy though | |
|
Kardinal
We will remember them
Premium
join:2001-02-04
N of 49th
clubs:
| Imagine for a moment that they decided to block access to DSLR because there were a lot of people posting in the Telus forum about problems they were having with the service. Would that be considered okay too?
I'm paying my ISP for access to the 'Net, not access to what they consider it okay for me to see. I seem to recall Google or MS (can't recall which) catching some flack over the fact that their search engine in China was not displaying certain sites that the government had deemed undesirable. Where's the difference?
--
"I'd sure look like a fool, dead in a ditch somewhere with a mind full of chemicals like some cheese-eating highschool boy" - TPOH
Join Team Helix | |
|
| 
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| Re: ISP-playing nanny is okay? NOT! We are getting a free glimpse of the future under the Patriot Act II. Remember, The government knows whats best for us, it's not for us to question what is right and wrong. They new anti-piracy czar will be BANNING any sites that offer DECSS or other 'pirate tools'. And the new P5 satellite card hack won't be allowed, since the gubment has decided that it's illegal. Remember, the key to stopping crime is to control the information. The former soviet union had a ZERO crime rate, since they controlled the media. We in the US can look forward to a similar model in the near future, because it will 'protect the children and teddy bears from the big bad world'.
Only terrorist need information that the government deems illegal, thus anyone who has that information must be a terrorist.
--
Grand Poobah | |
|
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: ISP-playing nanny is okay? NOT! said by G_Poobah :We are getting a free glimpse of the future under the Patriot Act II. Remember, The government knows whats best for us, it's not for us to question what is right and wrong. The sky is falling... the sky is falling!!
Gimme a break. What does the United States Patriot act have to do with a private company and it's workers stiking in Canada? huh?!
I may not be a big fan of G.W. myself, but at the same time, I will continue to put two and two together to make 4 rather than blame everything wrong in this world on G.W. - this way I will continue to stay credible, more than people like you that have the '7 degrees of separation between your cat's diahrea and Bush' syndrome... | |
|
| moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Kardinal :Imagine for a moment that they decided to block access to DSLR because there were a lot of people posting in the Telus forum about problems they were having with the service. Would that be considered okay too? I'm paying my ISP for access to the 'Net, not access to what they consider it okay for me to see. I seem to recall Google or MS (can't recall which) catching some flack over the fact that their search engine in China was not displaying certain sites that the government had deemed undesirable. Where's the difference? Lets take it a bit further.
Say Verizon doesn't like all the bads things being said here about their lack of deployment (PA is a good example.) What if Verizon were to block BBR?
How about Adelphia (when it was still under the Rigas family control) blocking all the bad talk about their operations?
Like I said earlier, it might get real bad, real quick. | |
|
| | sirhailstone
join:2001-12-01
Indianapolis, IN | Re: ISP-playing nanny is okay? NOT! Read up a few - how about AOL blocking all news services other than their CNN ... very slippery slope this is.... | |
|
yac898
join:2002-12-06
Stony Plain, AB
| a company spokeman ( i think in edmonton )said that they will go beyond telus.net and ask other isp's to block it as well. i'm no telus fan and agree that they can do what they want with their network, but it sound to me that other isp's that use their backbone will also be pressured into doing the same.
if they are sucessful, do any of you still agree with this particular telus decision? | |
|
| lawrence171
Evilly Yours - Evilness
join:2001-12-24
Canada
·Acanac
| Re: more than just telus.net said by yac898 :a company spokeman ( i think in edmonton )said that they will go beyond telus.net and ask other isp's to block it as well. i'm no telus fan and agree that they can do what they want with their network, but it sound to me that other isp's that use their backbone will also be pressured into doing the same. if they are sucessful, do any of you still agree with this particular telus decision? Do you have the article with regards to this?
I don't see how they could... I'm quite sure that Bell Sympatico wouldn't give a damn rat's ass about Telus' request.
--
What I used to be I no longer am... God, why can't you freeze time for my sake? | |
|
| | yac898
join:2002-12-06
Stony Plain, AB
| Re: more than just telus.net it was on tv news last night 6pm local time. either cfrn tv or global tv (edmonton). to bad i didnt have the dvr remote handy. while i doubt they would, they could shut thier backbone to any resellers or "partners" they may have. bell would probably not care, but primus might. | |
|
| kanu
join:2005-06-12
Calgary, AB | was that the same one that said that telus has always blocked web sites with content they feel is dangerous or unsuitable like certain porn sites and sites with "viruses" on them, and they will continue to block the union site and those sites. | |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC | ... you might want to run ideas like this past your PR folks first.
Dumb. Just plain dumb. | |
|
Freezone
join:2000-09-29
Southfield, MI
| BBR. All the information on ISP here and not always good. During all the cap scandal I am sure comcast would not mind if BBR dropped off the earth.
by blocking the site they have made me interested in seeing it. Also if someone really wants to see it there are ways. Google stores pages and friends can e-mail them.
I just do not see how censorship can work today. | |
|
telusisacensor
| Here is a torrent showing what telus management is really like
»jaysonic.freeshell.org/bt/
I am a telus customer and am pissed about this, I complained yesterday and they lied to me telling me it is a routing issue and they are working in it (yet every ip on the same subnet would ping and traceroute just fine). Now they claim safety of there employees, well i perused the forum/pages (through a proxy) and the mods there are very good about deleting stuff that is promoting violence or anything like that.
This is telus censoring so others can't see info from the union side. If this was a safety issue they could have got a legal injunction against the site. Well its blowing up in their face and i hope it just keeps going till they lose common carrier status. If they want to be resposible for content they better shut there newsservers down right this minute cause they are distibuting __tons__ of illegal and objectionable content. Maybe a call to the police regarding telus hosting illegal content on there news servers should happen. | |
|
|
bettyboop111
| Re: torrent and comment Are u serious?? Telus has every right to do this..isn't it censorship from teh union if the union does not show their employees the offer?...Lied to or not, what type of conversation were you looking to have when you called in? Do you really think that they want to openly say, that the union is bad?..the TWU site has not been blocked..why don't you read up on that. | |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| I read about the first fifty posts and see a wide range of opinions on Telus' actions from "not a big deal, subscribe to another ISP" or "scary as hell -- they shouldn't be allowed to censor!".
I'm going to show my ignorance but if we consider the Internet a "utility" (and I know we probably don't yet under law consider it a utility but...), are the water, electric and phone companies allowed to terminate service with companies or people that they are "disruptive" to their business? | |
|
| 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Perspective? In the US, the question would be phrased as to whether the ISP is a "common carrier". "Common carriers", a term which includes shippers as well as telecom utilities, is a legal concept which says that the provider accepts and transmits all "shipments" without knowledge of or regard to content--meaning that the concept both prevents discrimination AND protects the provider against criminal liability in the event that the shipment contains, say, cocaine or child porn.
DSL, provided by regulated utilities, pretty clearly comes under US "common carrier" concepts. Cable, on the other hand, having chosen to play the unregulated side, may not.
None of this necessarily relates to the Canadian situation unless their laws parallel ours--and I confess ignorance on that point.
This continues to highlight the importance of maintaining some basic "regulation" of the provision of Internet access--not to control content, but to ensure that someone else doesn't.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | theMule
join:2003-05-01
| Re: Perspective? Look, telecom companies providing communications/information services have an obligation to provide unrestricted access to the medium they purport to provide access to. If this is not required by law, then it should be. Imagine if a cable company blacked out a channel whenever it ran DSL or Satellite advertisements. Or if a telco blocked phone calls to a competitor's number. Internet access means access to the Internet, the whole internet, it is neither the responsibility nor the right of ISPs to pick and choose what they provide access to. If they want to provide access only to content they deem acceptable, let them advertise access to "the following list of websites" rather than "internet access". | |
|
| | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Perspective? Agreed.
ISPs should provide access to the entire Internet, unless the subscriber voluntarily chooses some form of optional blocking. Unfortunately, we'll probably have to require that by law or regulation--it wouldn't be the first time that legal restraint was required to provide nondiscriminatory access, despite the obvious sense and good business strategy of the approach.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
|
batwing
@batlabs.com
| Telus has claimed in court against the recording industry that they are a "common carrier" and hence, not responsible for what goes on in their network.
Well... with this, now they are judge, jury, and executioner! Don't like it? Ban it!
Hmmm... wonder how long until the recording industry goes after Telus for all that lost revenue for file sharing, since Telus obviously now is upstanding enough to be internet cops.
This is an infringement on our Charter Rights under freedom of expression and association. | |
|
| 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
2 edits | Real Nice Canada If this was done in the United States Telus would be hauled into court and slammed dunked. Trying suppress Union websites because they are taking a labor action against you because of fears of a DOS attack. Who are these poop for brains trying to kid, since when do you need a website to launch a DOS attack. Telus is acting like a 14 year old girl trying to do a DOS (Denial Of Sweetie) attack on a rival.
--
Low voltage Tech's are wimps, Real tech's use 45 pound filament transformers, plate voltages no less then 2400 volts with at least 10 amp's lighting 8877 triodes...BPL I'm coming to get you.
| |
|
| | |
jazziman
join:2003-07-05
| These union people are idots. They do almost nothing and they expect more money. Their jobs are all very easy. People in unions usually screw around and do shitty jobs just because they know they are in a union and can't get fired. If I was telus I would fire all of their lazy asses and hire new people. There are pleny of people looking for jobs today. | |
|
| ryandoehle
join:2005-08-03
| Re: lazy cows You are typical of all the people out there who blast of their mouths without knowing all the facts.
The people at Telus (I happen to know many of them), have been working for just about 5 years without a contract. The company claims it has no money and needs to be able to compete. Well why then did the CEO just get a raise to double his wage, and the CFO got a 300% raise. Ever since Telus from Alberta merged with BC Tel from British Columbia they have been trying to bust the union and get people to work for nothing! How good would you feel working hard at a company for 30+ years, then a simple change of management are you are suddenly the enemy?
As for the latest contract offer, as with any non dictator jerk water country, there are labour laws that you have to follow! That means when people are in a union, that you deal with the union, not make over 2 seperate offers directly to its members (that strip all of the benifits they ever worked for, for a simple 2% raise, and a couple 1000 dollars??!?!) It is the law you must deal with the union, and not surpase them. ALSO a year ago TELUS WAS ORDERED to go to binding arbitration by the labour board in Canada. They posted on their web site to investors that they were going, and never went! The union did not want a strike, they wanted binding arbitration where they stood to loose as much as the company did. And for that matter they are locked out, not on strike, as the company tried to impose a contract without negotiations. Who in their right mind whou have gone to work that Friday and accepted that new illegal contract.
What is the management (that is making millions more this year) afraid of? Why are they not going to neutral 3rd party binding arbitration? They are trying to bust the union, and lord over the people who have worked the majority of their lives there.
If people like you who think they should fire everyone and hire other people? Are morons like you going to line up to work your ass off so you can get dumped on, while the big wigs keep getting more and more? Unless you are real dumb, you would want something to show for your hard work!!
I run a small business and have some staff. They all make good money, and get benifits for working hard. If I treated them like Telus does their staff, my company would be nothing.
BTW, I looked at every picture in the voices for change website, NOT ONE showed any managers crossing the line! Legal or not, who cares. Telus is doing this to stop the union from getting its side of the story out. It is that simple.
Ryan Doehle
Canada | |
|
|
Stupefied by your ig
@telus.net
| Unless you work for the company, you would have no idea what these union people do or do not do in order to earn their pay. How do you know that these jobs are easy? Are you speaking from experience when you state that "people in unions screw around and do shitty jobs because they know that they are in a union and can't get fired"? FYI: union employees CAN get fired. Judging from your arrogant, uneducated opinion, I can foresee that you would be one of the folk rejected by the company because you would not even pass the aptitude tests. A potential hiree must pass the aptitude tests because stupid, unskilled people could not perform most of the work. If you did some research prior to gracing us with your words, you would realize that the employees are not fighting for more pay. The issue is job security. | |
|
BeeCeeCanuck
@shawcable.net
| I have family members who have worked for most of their careers with first AGT and now Telus. When Telus took over there was a lot of uncertainty and stress for employees at that time, and it's never quit in the five years since.
Many people were forced into early retirement (in other words, lost their jobs) with less than wonderful settlements. One family member was in this category.
Another is still with the company, in lower management.
Because of the strike he's being sent, against his will and that of his manager, to the northern boonies to do installation. At nearly 60 years old, coming from behind a desk, he'll be doing 12-hour days, 18 days on, 3 off, until the strike is over.
Two other family members, including this man's son, are with the company and are union members, so are not working.It's fortunate that they are a strong family, because can you even begin to imagine the pressures, both physical and emotional, that this situation creates?
Don't tell me this company cares about anything but profits and covering its own ass. | |
|
CHE GUEVARA
@telus.net
| Telus, and any other ISP attempting to restrict or censor information on the internet are typically working against the common good. Organizations or companies that advocate such behaviour ultimately contribute towards establishment of authoritarian style regimes, in which full access to information is deliberately impeded or shaped for purposes of manipulating public opinion, and achieving absolute power. Such actions represent a credible danger to all persons who value genuine freedom and democracy...
As for the issue of private property, the obligation to protect and promote freedom supersedes all other rights, in my opinion. If this isn't the case, then you're being screwed - yell about it, protest, and stand up for your rights!!!
Cheers.
Ps.) I am currently looking for a new ISP... | |
|
|
|
|
Telus Filtering Pro-Union Website
Telus within their rights
·
·
·