Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Telco Admits to Blocking Union's Website
Nogami_Saeko writes "Canadian telephone company and ISP "Telus" has admitted that they are blocking all attempts to access a website set up by the employee's union (who is currently "on-strike" or "locked-out", depending on your point of view). Currently no customers of the Telco's ADSL service (or any other ADSL service provider who leases lines) can access the union's webpage. Is it reasonable for an ISP to censor webpages they don't agree with during contract negotiations?"
They are a private ISP and can provide access or block access to whomever they please.
--The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
1) "based on what the article says, I agree with Telus's decision to ban access to the site."
:)
Telus is full of shit. The union's site doesn't appear to contain pictures of scabs. I went through all the photos on the 'On the Line' site, and there were many pictures of smiling pickets, one picture had a picture of two managers watching smiling pickets, and none were of scabs crossing picket lines.
2) "think it's wrong to publicly post someones picture just because they crossed a picket line to support their family"
The people on the picket lines are trying to support their family too. Scabs are the fucking traitors who side with the bosses to make life more difficult for everyone.
A burglar only attacks you and your property once. A scab helps make each and every working day of your life worse than it was before.
Hope this helps.
Mod me -1 Flamebait if you like, I've karma to burn
Its Al-Qanada.
Citizens don't have rights as we know them.
They have privileges subject to the whim of the
gummint.
And the whim of gummint is usually that of the
Liberal Party, who, unless you've been living in a
cave these last few months have revealed themselves
to be venal and corrupt on a banana republic level.
Regulated businesses in Al-Qanada are often monopolies.
Tyese monopolies are awarded to friends of gummint and hang the public interest.
Satellite TV is a good case in point. It took the
gummint two or three years to decide which of
the competing monopolists would get the nod.
In the meantime, the citizenry found a number of
inventive ways around the lack of service which
the gummint then proceeded to try and shutdown.
Not having to worry about elections every two years, the Liberals basically ignored public anger
figuring it would blow over by the time of the
next election.
Such is life in Al-Qanada...
Wow. From your attitide, it looks like you're about two sentences away from Godwinning. There's a difference between 'should' and 'should be able to.' Comcast should be able to block whatever they want, unless there's a prior agreement with customers or the government. If they choose to do so, their customers can express their dissatisfaction by either complaining or changing services. I know it's heresy to be pro free-market on slashdot, but the system has (mostly) worked in this country for the last two centuries. In the Telus example, they're benefitting from blocking the union site, but Comcast blocking other ISPs would be a horribly bad business decision. This probably violates the licensing contract, so they would liable to be sued if they did so. I am not familiar with the laws regarding telephony, but if it's not illegal, they should be allowed to do so. Again, their customers would probably catch on after a few weeks and they'd be losing hundreds of thousands of customers in not too much time. Again, another HORRIBLE business decision. Well then, you'd probably want to move to China. They're good at telling people what to think. Seriously, Telus has the right (unless given a monopoly or forbidden by prior contract) to block whatever they want. It's their network. They built it. They maintain it. They OWN it. Does your (nonexistant) RIGHT to have access to everything on the net override their right to their own property?
I love peoples' sense of entitlement to others' property. It's always good for a laughdot.
Wal-Mart prides itself on its "family values" (while ironically keeping many families firmly in the category of the "working poor").
Wal-Mart prides itself on keeping many people firmly in the category of "employed at all", as well as in the category of "Providing less expensive goods for the poor." We just had a walmart super center open up here. The groceries at Wal-Mart are cheaper than the groceries at the other grocery stores in town - and not 5% cheaper, often 20% cheaper. That means the working poor just had their food bills go down 20%.
If someone is making minimum wage working at Wal-Mart, it's because they never developed any job skills worth more than the minimum wage. That's not Wal-Mart's problem. Wal-Mart shouldn't have to pay more money for employees than the employees are worth (as dictated by supply of labor with the requisite skill set), and more importantly, I shouldn't have to pay more for groceries because people feel like they're entitled to more of my money 'just because', as it's ultimately me, the consumer, who pays for higher labor costs.
I earned good grades in high school, went to collee, and now have a real job. Some of my classmates screwed around in high school, didn't go to college, and now work at Wal-Mart. We live in a society where you have the freedom of choice. Consequences are the price you pay for choice.
paintball
Oh yeah about that contract. What contract? I'd like to see a show of hands who's signed a contract with their ISP (seriously - not sarcasm). I never have, with either Comcast or Verizon. They tend to go for the 'Terms of Service' approach which often includes a clause allowing them to change the ToS whenever they want without notifying anyone.
Anyway, I hope they lose their common carrier status for pulling this crap on their customers. I like the approach listed here about their increased responsibility since they've forfeited their CC status. From reading some posts written by those familiar with Canadian law, it looks like it might be illegal/unconstitutional for them to do this simply on the 'restriction of free speech' approach. Do Canadians have a right to be heard? I know not. Time will tell.
Just because I agree with one side of the argument doesn't mean that I'll ignore evidence to the contrary. I don't like censorship, but I recognize an organization's right to property, and that has to be weighed against the fact that they're a common carrier, and (maybe) Canadians' right to be heard. We should let the (non-armchair) lawyers sort this one out.
So about that
They have one. It's called the ToS.But then, you know all this already... you're just angry and hostile.
Silly Canadian. You think you're a country even though your laws have to approved by a foreign sovereign. (The Queen of England, by way of her Governor General.) Now, either become truly independent and replace that silly foreign welfare queen on your money with John A. Macdonald or some other Canadian of historical significance. You're half way there. You've already got your own flag, which is more I can say about Australia and New Zealand. Soon you'll be free of your colonial oppressors like India and your neighbors to the south.