backbones filtering unsanctioned sites

Tue Feb 14 18:19:41 UTC 2017

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei <
jfmezei_nanog at vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 2017-02-14 08:27, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > So risk avoidance on the part of the 100k other sites hosted by CF is
> now a conspiracy?
>
>
> Cogent is a backbone network that is international in scope.  When China
> tells a network to block the BBC that block happens only in China.
>
>
'when possible' (also, PRC is a special case...)

you might make the analogy here to the singaporian 'block these 100
objectionable sites' law (since repealed I believe) though.

> If the USA wants to be like China and start blocking web sites it
> doesn't like, then it should only affect traffic in the USA.
>
>
yes, because of course the networks in question here are built around
national borders... and of course also on internal (to the nation)
boundaries.. and of course even more granularly on the internal, internal
national boundaries (country -> state -> county -. city -> burrough ->
apt-building -> floor - door -> room -> person -> device clearly cogent did
this as well)

> Google is a content company. Removing a company from its search results
> is a content issue, not a telecom issue.
>
> Cogent blocking an IP is a telecom issue and at least in canada should
> this be brought up at CRTC, would raise a Section 36 violation.
>
>
excellent, goodluck fellow traveler.

> And if transit providers start to block content, especially if they do
> not warn their ISP customers (so thei can warn their retail customers),
> then this is really not correct.
>
>
sure, but...

what about dhs/ice revocation of domains in com/net/org/etc? :)

>
> In Canada, the supreme court has ruled, from different slants all
> reaching tghe conclusion that a neutral carrier is not responsible for
> the content that travels through its pipes. The second that carrier
> starts to exert control over content, it loses that immunity.
>
>
good thing cogent isn't a canadian company I suppose?

> Cogent blocking content affects traffic outside of the USA.
>

it sure does, you might have luck bringing this up with your equivalent to
the US State Department, no?