[193714] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jean-Francois Mezei)
Tue Feb 14 13:11:03 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 13:10:59 -0500
In-Reply-To: <3DA078BE-34CF-4E67-A72F-B5FEE33C557A@puck.nether.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cogent blocking content affects traffic outside of the USA.
