[82632] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Transit politics (Telus blocking sites it does not like)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Mon Jul 25 10:51:37 2005
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050725101511.073b6368@64.7.153.2>
Cc: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:50:52 -0400
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Jul 25, 2005, at 10:23 AM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> At 10:05 AM 25/07/2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
>> ISPs are not common carriers. Look at your contract, I think you
>> will find they are allowed to filter specific things if they feel
>> necessary for a wide variety of reasons.
>
> Infrastructure reasons yes. This is not an infrastructure issue.
> As to whether or not an ISP is or is not a common carrier is still
> up for debate especially here in Canada.
Does your contract actually say "infrastructure reasons"?
And I bow to your greater knowledge of Canadian law. That said, I
personally do not believe ISPs should be common carriers. There are
a lot of responsibilities that go along with all those perks. Maybe
you want to deal with them, I certainly would not.
>> (I have not read the Telus
>> contract, but such language is pretty standard.)
>>
>> Put another way: If the /32 in question was a spam source, would you
>> feel the same?
>
> Yes. I dont want them deciding that for me at the network layer.
> Besides, SPAM is more on the fence as to whether or not its an
> infrastructure issue. A spambot/zombie, yes thats infrastructure.
> If they want to drop the advertisement, thats fine. If they want
> to put in their contract that they will filter content they do not
> like politically, OK, I will vote with my feet. If the material on
> those websites are illegal, there are established laws for dealing
> with it.
I agree that filtering this site is much different than filtering
attacks. However, I have long believed the "my network, my
equipment, my decision" argument for filtering spam, and think it
holds for more than just spam.
If you believe the ISP should be a common carrier, that changes
things. But until they are, I think you still need to vote with your
feet.
--
TTFN,
patrick
P.S. It's "spam", "SPAM" is a meat product from Hormel. :) <http://
www.spam.com/ci/ci_in.htm> Since Hormel was nice enough not to push
their trademark, we should be nice enough to spell it properly.
