Transit politics (Telus blocking sites it does not like)

Mon Jul 25 14:41:57 UTC 2005

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.

<end of quote>