Transit politics (Telus blocking sites it does not like)

Patrick W. Gilmore patrick at ianai.net
Mon Jul 25 14:50:52 UTC 2005


On Jul 25, 2005, at 10:23 AM, Mike Tancsa wrote:

> At 10:05 AM 25/07/2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
>> 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.

-- 
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.



More information about the NANOG mailing list