|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Transit politics (Telus blocking sites it does not like)
On Jul 25, 2005, at 10:23 AM, Mike Tancsa wrote: Does your contract actually say "infrastructure reasons"?At 10:05 AM 25/07/2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:Infrastructure reasons yes. This is not an infrastructure issue. As to whether or not an ISP is or is not a common carrier is still up for debate especially here in Canada.ISPs are not common carriers. Look at your contract, I think you will find they are allowed to filter specific things if they feel necessary for a wide variety of reasons. And I bow to your greater knowledge of Canadian law. That said, I personally do not believe ISPs should be common carriers. There are a lot of responsibilities that go along with all those perks. Maybe you want to deal with them, I certainly would not. I agree that filtering this site is much different than filtering attacks. However, I have long believed the "my network, my equipment, my decision" argument for filtering spam, and think it holds for more than just spam.Yes. I dont want them deciding that for me at the network layer. Besides, SPAM is more on the fence as to whether or not its an infrastructure issue. A spambot/zombie, yes thats infrastructure. If they want to drop the advertisement, thats fine. If they want to put in their contract that they will filter content they do not like politically, OK, I will vote with my feet. If the material on those websites are illegal, there are established laws for dealing with it.(I have not read the Telus contract, but such language is pretty standard.) Put another way: If the /32 in question was a spam source, would you feel the same? If you believe the ISP should be a common carrier, that changes things. But until they are, I think you still need to vote with your feet. -- TTFN, patrick P.S. It's "spam", "SPAM" is a meat product from Hormel. :) <http:// www.spam.com/ci/ci_in.htm> Since Hormel was nice enough not to push their trademark, we should be nice enough to spell it properly.
|