backbones filtering unsanctioned sites
Ken Chase
math at sizone.org
Tue Feb 14 18:45:38 UTC 2017
They exist:
http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=26878307
http://canadabizdb.com/company/3264874/cogent-canada-inc
http://www.contracts-contrats.hc-sc.gc.ca/cfob/mssid/contractdisc.nsf/WEBbypurpose/A35BA8F8DB21C5E98525787E0066931A?OpenDocument&lang=eng&
http://listings.ftb-companies-ca.com/l/112540553/Cogent-Canada-Inc-in-Toronto-ON
My cogent invoice:
Cogent Canada, Inc.
P.O.Box 46067
Postal Station A
Toronto, Ontario M5W 4K9
[ Dont visit the Cogent Canada facebook page. Not quite the same industry. Or
the @CogentCanada twitter feed. (Something about semen vouchers.) ]
Anyway, they exist as a Canadian entity (and have even made submissions to
the CRTC bitching about rulings favouring Bell), so they're certainly
operating in Canada.
Anyone wanna file a complaint to the CCTS in Canada? https://www.ccts-cprst.ca/
/kc
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 01:19:41PM -0500, Christopher Morrow said:
>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objectionable sites' law (since repealed I believe) though.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?
Ken Chase - math at sizone.org Guelph/Toronto Canada
More information about the NANOG
mailing list