Reply With QuoteIf the contract (ISP - user) allows to block some sites, why not?Originally Posted by Firetxmi
If the contract doesn't allow, then it isn't right to block some sites.
Net Neutrality
So I was reading an article on "Net Neutrality" recently and thought it would be an interesting topic to pose here.
Here is my brief (and certainly not difinitive) explaination on the basic premis of net neutrality:
If an internet provider so chooses they can block certain websites (such as their competitors) or slow them down to a snails pace. One might not even know that this is happening (you could get an "Error 404" message).
The idea of Net Neutrality says that no entity should be allowed to deny their paying subscribers certain areas of the internet.
Now, this of course is only one aspect of the net neutrality argument.
My question is this: should internet providers be allowed to block (censor) certain areas of the internet, or should everyone, regardless of their ISP, have equal access to all the information?
Should lawmakers enact a bill to stop this loophole censorship, or are there other solutions. What other solutions are there?
Let me know what you guys think.
Last edited by Firetxmi; 12-05-2007 at 12:00 PM.
If the contract (ISP - user) allows to block some sites, why not?
If the contract doesn't allow, then it isn't right to block some sites.
I could be wrong, but I have never seen it in an ISP contract that they are allowed to block some sites. At least not in the ones I've signed.
Yes, they have the right because they pay the bill and a lot of reasons that I donīt care to mention.
But to put it differently DW58 runs this site, so it isn`t a question of neutrality
instead of what the owner wants.
If a owner of a company sees mp.net violating his interest he can ban his employees to access mp.net.
And if DW58 sees posters to act against interest of mp.net DW58 can ban them.
Simple and fair. Internet isn`t a democracy
I'm not sure you got it right. The ISPs don't only block access to certain sites for their employees. That is widespread (ie. no access to certain forums or myspace from work) and different altogether.
The point here is ISPs blocking sites to their paying customers. For instance, ISP-1 doesn't allow me to browse ISP-2's website, for fear I might find them more appealing and take my business to them. It's corporate censorship. If you pay for full access to the Internet, you shouldn't be censored unknowingly.
The parallel with DW doesn't work either. Provided they respect simple rules, anyone can come here. Your analogy would work if the mods blocked entire IP ranges, say based on their geographic location or ISP.
Using your analogy:
It is perfect ok for a country (China is a good example) to block access to certain sites because it acts against the interest of said nation?
You won't technically be censored unknowingly, it will be stated in one form or another in the Terms of Service you agree to, but it will be defined in an open-ended way, to allow them to dynamically block/allow what site, provider, protocol, application traffic, etc that they want, whenever they want.
And legality won't play much of a role, many ISPs, credit card companies, etc have rules in their ToS that specifically violate consumer rights and state/federal laws. The only time those are changed is usually when they are settled via a class-action lawsuit or goverment intervention, the former having a much greater chance of happening.
What really angers me is that the ISPs in the USA want to do this with "their lines", when the majority of those lines were paid for via government subsidies. After that point was brought up, the ISPs then argued they would be making restrictions at the "last mile" meaning the inner boundary of each respective ISPs backbone, which they paid for.
Actually, they can and do ban people for no reason other than dislike of said person (which they can legally do), or if that person even tries to direct members to a disliked site. This can be seen in the fact that the "bad word" filter also removes links to the old 0-grich (intentionally misspelled) or it's current incarnation.
Last edited by hell; 12-04-2007 at 12:25 PM. Reason: grammar of a three year old
That is a asinine statement, Suppose I prick my finger with a pin and you use a chain saw, Yes, both draw blood. Business control of the internet is not anywhere the same as governmental control.
Have you even been employed, have you ever been a employer, do you understand what it means to be paid to do a job???????
I am sure you would be up and arms if a Police officer while on duty was drinking beer and watching the pole dancers at a certain bar when he was suppose to be working traffic. If a book keeper is paid to manage the books, how is being on MySpace considered managing the books?
So if your ISP decides to block MP.net you will be ok with that?
Yes I am employed. If I told someone I didn't want to put out their burning house because I felt they shouldn't have it put out I would be out of a job.Have you even been employed, have you ever been a employer, do you understand what it means to be paid to do a job???????
Don't see how that has anything to do with me viewing websites on my free time at home...I am sure you would be up and arms if a Police officer while on duty was drinking beer and watching the pole dancers at a certain bar when he was suppose to be working traffic. If a book keeper is paid to manage the books, how is being on MySpace considered managing the books?
Great topic - one that's been on my mind a lot lately.
Comcast = massive a-holes. They've put a cap on the bandwidth they'll allow for certain types of traffic. Mostly it's torrent, FTP, file sharing. It's a huge pain in the ass for me, since I move a lot of large files over the web, and I get about 15 seconds worth of decent speed before it throttles back to about 90k...and I get to wait...and wait....and wait...
So in that way, they're able to shape my online activity. It really chaps my ass that they can advertise massive bandwidth - but in reality when you attempt to actually use it for what it's there for - it's not available.
As far as blocking sites - I view ISPs as I view a bookseller. If a bookseller knows a book is not legal to sell in a particular jurisdiction, then they should not sell it there. Because if they do, they become an enabling factor in an illegal act. They shouldn't however be able to block anything that is not illegal.
Private companies and firewalls - hey they can knock themselves out as far as I'm concerned. There's nothing written in stone that says an employee is entitled to jack squat online.
My post was about the employer's right to block, Nothing about ISP or Government's interfering with the interweb.
If I am paying for a service, I would like to besure that I am getting what I am paying for. Also that means I need to read the service agreement.
Fear not, oh **** perusing one: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/14/2330202
I expected they would cover their a** in the small prints, I simply wanted to illustrate that, unlike workplace browsers, which explicitly lock out certain non-productivity-related web sites, ISP "censorship"(for lack of better word, it's not exactly that, but whatever) is "sneaky" (ie. they don't advertise it openly, not that they should or have to).
I never doubted there ain't much legal ground at present time.
Good point.What really angers me is that the ISPs in the USA want to do this with "their lines", when the majority of those lines were paid for via government subsidies. After that point was brought up, the ISPs then argued they would be making restrictions at the "last mile" meaning the inner boundary of each respective ISPs backbone, which they paid for.
Heh, it's a matter of perspective I guess. Mods aren't always paragons of objectivity (they are after all humans) but I've never seen anyone banned for absolutely no good reason or barred from joining up altogether. They always somehow broke a rule (which are publicly available, like any end-user agreement) or acted like tossers.Actually, they can and do ban people for no reason other than dislike of said person (which they can legally do), or if that person even tries to direct members to a disliked site. This can be seen in the fact that the "bad word" filter also removes links to the old 0-grich (intentionally misspelled) or it's current incarnation.
The only exception I can think of is during times of exacerbated flame wars between defined national groups, new accounts openly taking sides were suspended automatically to curb the number of banned wankers signing up over and over again under the new names to keep on flaming.
As for the disliked site, it's part of the rules, like racial slurs or spamming, it's verboten. It's not a mod's whim. Well, that's how i see it at least.
EDIT: I didn't realize you were specifically talking about companies and employee access, so my post is no longer relevant.
Don't worry, thats not at all what we were talking about. Hollis took the thread in that direction for some reason. Please post what you had.
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with employers and employees.
Posting Permissions
