Canadian telephone company and ISP "Telus" has admitted that they are <http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2005/07/24/1145417-sun.html>blocking all attempts to access a website set up by the employee's union (who is currently "on-strike" or "locked-out", depending on your point of view). Currently no customers of the Telco's ADSL service (or any other ADSL service provider who leases lines) can access the <http://www.voices-for-change.com/>union's webpage. Is it reasonable for an ISP to censor webpages they don't agree with during contract negotiations?"
As Telus is one of my transit providers, they are still advertising the path to me, but are blackholing the /32s in question. Kind of sets a bad precedent for a common carrier argument I like BGP blackholing to protect internet infrastructure, but what exactly is this protecting ?
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. (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?
All that said, there may very well be Canadian law about union busting or some such which could apply. But Telus is a phone company, and one thing phone companies have is lawyers.
Besides, since they are not a common carrier, you are probably able to move to a new transit provider - i.e. vote with your [wallet|feet|whatever]. This might be true even if you are in a long term contract, since they are filtering access to a site you want to view. Check with your lawyer.
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.
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.
(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?
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.
A nice succinct analysis (by an actual lawyer (law prof) who specializes in Canadian Internet law) can be found at
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/
<start of quote>
Telus Blocks Subscriber Access to Union Website
Reports today indicate that Telus is currently blocking access to Voices for Change, a website run by the Telecommunications Workers Union. The company has confirmed that its nearly one million subscribers are blocked from accessing the site, though it is obviously available to just about everyone else (and presumably to Telus subscribers that engage in some creative Internet surfing). The company argues that the site contains confidential proprietary information and that photographs on the site raise privacy and security issues for certain of its employees.
I can't comment on the contents of the site. Unless the site features content that is unlawful (as found by a Canadian court), however, Telus should not be coming anywhere near blocking access. Internet service providers have long argued (Telus being among the most vocal) that they should be treated much like common carriers with no discrimination or distinction between the bits transferred on their networks. I've previously argued that packet preferencing for VoIP is a growing concern. Content specific blocking is an entirely different and even more troubling matter. ISPs have persuaded the Supreme Court of Canada, Canadian policy makers, and government officials that the content blocking, whether copyright or child pornography related, is out of their control and bad policy.
To block a specific website that leaves the company uncomfortable is more than just bad policy as well as completely ineffective. It is dangerous. Dangerous for free speech in this country, dangerous for those who believe that the law, not private parties, should determine what remains accessible on ISP networks, and dangerous for the ISPs themselves, who risk seeing this blow up in their face as part of the ongoing telecommunications policy review that is considering the appropriate regulatory framework for those same ISPs.
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.
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.
Does your contract actually say "infrastructure 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 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?
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 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.
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.
If Telus has argued such, and the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld its arguments, then ... well, then I have no clue WTF Telus thinks they are doing.
I like BGP blackholing to protect internet infrastructure, but what exactly is this protecting ?