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objectionable sites' law (since repealed I believe) though.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