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?"

Comments

No.

[Max Romantschuk]

These companies are providing what is essentially a public service, Internet access. They should not interfere with the content/data itself. Period.

Re:No.

[aussie_a]

Actually, I hope they keep this up, so they can then be sued, have charges pressed for minors being able to gain access to porn via their service. By blocking out a certain website, they show an inclination to censor access to the internet, so they should be forced to censor porn, at least upon request. They can no longer say "we can't do that" because they've shown that actually, they can and are willing (in certain circumstances) to censor access.

Re:No.

[Total_Wimp]

This is the exact reason it was so important to force the guys with the fat pipes to be forced to sublease their pips to other ISPs. If This were Verizon DSL, I could switch to Covad, but if this were Cox cable, (my current provider) I'd just be stuck.

Letting these guys run their businesses this way is tantamount to letting the guys who run the toll roads just not allow vans from their competing companies run on their roads. We'd never allow this on other critical infrastructure, why the heck should we allow it on the internet, THE crictical infrastructure for the 21st century.

TW

Re:No.

[typical]

These companies are providing what is essentially a public service, Internet access. They should not interfere with the content/data itself. Period.

Unless it is more profitable to do so.

For example, cell providers could simply provide a data service instead of application service. $N for x MB of data (and maybe $M for y MB of real-time data), and the rest is up to you. That would produce a market in which many companies are trying to figure out how to build and sell the applications that consume the least amount of data. Instead, though, cell providers would prefer to be able to price discriminate based on application usage. So instead of being a data transport service, they retain their vertical monpoly.

I mean, if I could get away with it, I'd do it too. It's profitable.

Re:No.

[Super Nicko]

I have to agree. The internet is a public service, and should not be controlled by private or public entities except as provided under law (eg kiddyporn).

In Australia at the moment, Telstra is one of the biggest ISPs and is 51% owned by the government. Most other retails resell Testra products or use Telstra datapipes in one way or another.

Imagine if Telstra, under the direction of the Government, were told to stop access to any sites of opposition parties, unions who didn't agree with their stance, etc. It would be outragious.

It might be that the situation in Canada is different; however, if one company can stop at this, then why not bigger companies and even governments?

Re:No.

[BVis]

This raises a point regarding objectionable content. IMHO once you've taken it upon yourself to say "We filter some content" you've taken on a responsibility to filter it all; the problem is, you're never going to completely match all of your customers' expectations of your filtering. This concept goes far beyond the realm of telecommunications; the analogy is Wal-Mart refusing to carry music with parental warning labels on it. By taking a stand against "immoral" (or whatever) content, they've created a perception that whatever is bought from their store will not have any objectionable content. ISTR that they were sued recently over a CD bought by a minor that had the F-Bomb on it. While I disagree with Wal-Mart on this topic (as well as most other topics), I cannot argue that they have a right to stock whatever items they want, as a private company. The trouble is now they're dealing with the consequences of their actions. (I found it kind of funny that when I had a contract to replace some parts in their cash registers, I noticed that every store I worked in had no trouble stocking M-rated video games, such as the now-infamous Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Yay for hypocrisy.)

Lots of people thought that lawsuit was frivolous; I think that it served an important purpose. Wal-Mart prides itself on its "family values" (while ironically keeping many families firmly in the category of the "working poor"). The suit reminds them that there are consequences for taking on the role of moral arbiter, and they may get more trouble than they bargained for.

Of course, if anyone can afford to take the hit, it's the biggest retailer in the world.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't be sued for shutting down a site that is defamatory towards you, IF you own the network servers etc. Especially if the customer doesn't pay -- give me a break -- some people, the moment they don't like the decision or it doesn't jive with them - SUE!!!

Have you ever been to a Union's Web site and seen what takes place? It's no wonder they didn't shut the server down the moment they broke off talks.

First off, Union's suck. I know all you "liberal socialist" folks out there will hoot and yell about how I'm spouting off, but if you track how Union's work and how they take advantage of big businesses by holding them hostage or if you've ever owned a business (like I have) that dealt with Union's, you'll start to see the seedy and dark side of how Union's work -- ALL of them.

Union's are basically nothing but a bunch of crooks who get paid a lot of money to make sure the "pack" gets just enough to be happy. Mostly they negotiate contracts that better the Union management and mainly throw a bone to the union members so they can get free health care, better benefits and basically lots of pay for otherwise menial work that anyone can do.

Let's face it, Union's were important 100 years ago, now they are costing businesses big money and it all boils down to the cost of goods -- which we end up paying.

I have experience with this first hand and I'll tell you what, the moment my executive team started talking about "replacements" was the moment of clarity for the company when they realized that they would not pushed around by a mob that was trying to make them pay OUTRAGOUS benefits to people who were lazy and living the good life getting paid $34 an hour to basically stand around. The sad reality? Over time, these "workers" were replaced with college kids, immigrants and people that looked at the job as a "stepping stone", not a frigging career with Union benefits that they could stay for 20 years and cost the company millions. Basically, the company went non-union and hasn't looked back. Sure, it pissed off a lot of people and there were Union threats, bottles and rocks being thrown, death threats and anything you'd imagine from a bully Union.

Some people reading this would start down the path of "maybe people like those jobs". Bullshit, nobody likes to stand there for 8 hours and put a cap on a jar, or move something along an assembly line. But hell, if they were being paid $34 an hour plus full medical, you'd have a line waiting for people to grab the job. The problem is, the product price has to go up, and the profits go down. The job was never built for someone to make that kind of money and the company (which is family owned) got forced into accepting the union into their business back in the 50's and it up until the end, the Union was costing them millions and millions of dollars.

Is it their network?

[one_who_uses_unix]

People complain frequently of censorship, however let's remember that corporations "own" assets in ways similar to individuals. I am in the US, however I suspect that Canada can't be too different.

The bottom line here is, if a consumer does not like the actions that a corporation is taking, then they can vote with their money by using a competing service.

When the government is behind censorship that is different - if something is publicly funded then it should publicly available (generally speaking and within reason of course).

Re:Is it their network?

[adamjaskie]

Competing service? IS there one? I know that the only way I can get broadband where I live is through Comcast. I don't have a choice. If I want broadband, I get Comcast.

Re:Is it their network?

[QuantumG]

If you enter into a contract with someone to supply a service and they stop providing that service or inhibit it, you don't just "go somewhere else" you sue the bastards for breach of contract, and/or recommend to others that they don't use that service.

Re:Is it their network?

[$1uck]

If Canada is not that much different than the US. The telco here is going to get itself in serious trouble. If they are going to selectively censor web sites, they are taking on a lot more responsibility than they are probably wanting. Suddenly (at least in the US) they could be held liable for whatever transmitted across their lines(kiddie porn, warez, pirated mp3's etc).

Lastly it is highly likely they are breaking contracts with the people who lease their lines to provide their own interenet service.

Honestly free speech should carry over to communcation channels regardless of who owns them.

How would you like it if the phone company monitored your conversations and censored what they thought was inappropriate (it'd be illegal). But are you honestly advocating that you should just switch phone companies? //is the parent modded insightful, for the mere hint of libertarianism?

Re:Is it their network?

[aussie_a]

Has Comcast been granted a monopoly by the government (as in, people except Comcast aren't legally able to offer broadband in your area)? If so, then they should be held to the same standards as the government, if not, then it's not their problem. If there's truly enough demand for something, then a competitor will eventually appear, otherwise they won't.

You don't have a right to broadband, just because you can't get what you want, doesn't mean Comcast should be forced to give it to you.

Re:Is it their network?

[Qzukk]

The bottom line here is, if a consumer does not like the actions that a corporation is taking, then they can vote with their money by using a competing service.

Bullshit. Did the contract these people agreed to in order to get service mention "oh by the way, we censor websites that we don't like?

Your "vote with your wallet" crap requires an informed marketplace, which is anathema to today's megacorporations which thrive on lies and greed. This is one of the reasons I pay extra to not get a yearly contract for my ISP: I can't trust them to not pull shit on me with their vaguely worded "bandwidth limits" which they can't just tell me what they are, and other trash like that.

Re:Is it their network?

[budgenator]

Comcast owns the nice fancy fiberoptic cables and repeaters that is tacked up on the electric company owned poles, that are planted in the publicly owned property paid for by my tax dollars; all of this is controlled by laws, regulations, and contracts between the companies. Not every company can get access to the pole's and public right-of-ways, so yes it is an effective monopoly. Not everybody can get competing services, I live in a city that has DSL service in it, but can't get DSL because of the distance to the central office, and probably never will.

Re:Is it their network?

[rednip]

Has Comcast been granted a monopoly by the government... if not, then it's not their problem

A monopoly doesn't need to be government sponsored. Think Microsoft, or better yet Standard Oil.

You don't have a right to broadband, just because you can't get what you want, doesn't mean Comcast should be forced to give it to you.

No, it's not a right, but broadband is a service which the government considers a strategic move for a healthy economy, thus an 'inconsiderate' monopoly can be considered to be a threat to the nations economy.

In all fairness, while being a little higher cost than I'd like Comcast has been fairly decent to me, even though they are the only reasonable broadband service available to me. Of course, a big part of keeping the irresponsible elements in Comcast in check are the anti-trust laws. (there are no evil companies, just bad people who have too much influence in those companies.)

Re:Is it their network?

[GeckoX]

Actually, your last statement is not exactly correct.

The Canadian government has a mandate to make broadband available to all Canadians. The ISP's have been slowly being forced to expand into areas they wouldn't normally. (IE: Low population centres)

At least in Ontario, almost every small town has a couple of broadband choices. I'm in a town of 1400 people, and I have 4 choices. 2 cable, 2 dsl.

They basically say: Hey, you want to expand your business in this are? OK, well you're going to have to cover this area too. Don't like it? No expansion for you.

Re:Is it their network?

[sillybilly]

The consumer can't always vote with his money. Unfortunately, the world isn't perfect, and there are such things as 'natural monopolies', where the cost of establishing a competition is just too enormous for society. For instance, back at the advent of telephone companies, you had, say, 50 competitors in a city, each having to pull their own lines through each neighbourhood, resulting in an ugly zoo of wires, and abandoned wires hanging off poles when a company went bankrupt, and you, as the customer, had to buy 50 telephone sets, one connected to each supplier, and whenever you wanted to contact your customers, you had to know who their phone supplier was. (There were no phone numbers back then, but switchboard operator ladies, which was a standard job for a girl until she got married.) When it comes to electricity, water, sewage, phone, or anything that runs on conduits, you have a natural monopoly, because the cost of pulling 2 or 50 conduit systems through the neighbourhood is just too great, when everyone can already use what's there. The solution so far has been that they are regulated by the government. Now if there were some way to get wireless technology anywhere close in speed to what fiber to the home can provide, you could have full competition, because the costs of competitors erecting 50 antenna poles on top of the hills in your neighborhood is not great. But nothing beats fiber to the home. With electromagnetic signals, or any kind of waves, the higher the datadensity gets, the straighter the path of propagation - i.e. while the low bandwidth longwave radio can penetrate a mountain and oceans to submarines, and FM radio can bend around buildings and trees, but satellite signals can't, they need a somewhat clear line-of-sight (it won't work in an underground garage.) Light simply casts a shadow, it won't go around obstacles at all, like the sound of your voice will bend around the corner or your door to the next room, but ultrasound won't. The path of light in a fiber is straight, it just gets bounced correctly. But it's hard to imagine a wireless system, where you communicate with light or infrared, and whichever way you drive your car, there is a rotating antenna/mirror system to convey your light-signal to a central telephone pole, rotating like a compass according to the path you take. It's just not feasible, for instance, trying to collect and lead out the light signal from underground garages or tunnels, reamplify them, then send them off to the antennas.

Re:Is it their network?

[eeyore-on-thorazine]

Claims of censorship aside, this is really very little different than a DDOS attack. It is an organized and intentional effort to prevent content from being distributed to interested parties by the union web site. They are an infrastructure provider that is actively disrupting the flow of information across their network for the sole and single purpose of denying voice to opponents in a political and legal dispute. Even if that is, somehow, legal in Canada - it is ethically reprehensible, and utterly inappropriate.

Regardless of whether or not they forfeit their 'common carrier' designation by doing so, their 'rights' as a company are, in this case, clearly superceded by their responsibilities as a carrier. The Union is no more an asset or product of Telus than is Slashdot, and as such, Telus' right to limit presence/distribution are EXTREMELY limited. More they are a party actively involved in litigation/arbitration, and Telus did not engage in such filtering before the dispute. That places the action squarely in the punitive arena - which is a very dangerous place for any carrier - common or otherwise - to be.

Re:Is it their network?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The bottom line here is, if a consumer does not like the actions that a corporation is taking, then they can vote with their money by using a competing service.

Great idea, in fact I think I'll string up some cable lines and start a competing service so others can... wait what do you mean I can't? The government has granted them a monopoly on the use of those poles, underground conduits, and publicly owned right of ways to prevent there from being too many lines up? Well now. That's different isn't it? Since they are a government sponsored monopoly I guess the free market can't effectively decide now can it?

Please in future actually to make sure that when you are rabidly espousing unfettered free market economics that situation you are talking about is a free market, not a government sponsored monopoly. They don't have to compete thanks to the government, thus they have to work in the public interest as much as needed. Censoring their competitors or unions is obviously not in the public interest.

I can't see this lasting

[Tinfoil]

Telus is pretty heavy handed at times, but I can see them getting slapped pretty quickly by the authorities. *If* there is illegal activity going on on the website, then they should have followed the proper channels to get it removed properly. Given Telus' attitude towards the ongoing contract negotiation process, it is not at all surprising that they would do something like this.

I do hope it doesn't last. Dirty pool indeed.

Huh?

[eyegone]

Is it reasonable for an ISP to censor webpages they don't agree with during contract negotiations?

Is this a trick question?

They're screwed

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that they have demonstrated that they can block a website, they'll be liable for every kiddie-porn and copyright infringement site on the net that they don't block. Brilliant move, Telus.

Re:They're screwed

[khrtt]

No. All they have demonstrated is that they can block access to one, well-known web site. As if we didn't know they could. There is a long way between blocking this and blocking "every porn site" or such like.

Reasonable?

[Savage-Rabbit]

Is it reasonable for an ISP to censor webpages they don't agree with during contract negotiations?

On this side of the Atlantic the answer is a big fat NO. The only exception I could imagine is if the the Union is publishing libelous statements about them. Of course Canadian law may differ.

Sure

[Ingolfke]

Is it reasonable for an ISP to censor webpages they don't agree with during contract negotiations?

It's their infrastructure, they can do what they want with it, unless they have contracts saying they will not. If they want to point every request to zombo.com they can. That said, if I was one of their customers and found out about this type of censorship I'd consider switching. It seems like a pretty underhanded practice.

Re:Sure

[tomstdenis]

Actually they can't because at the point where they take responsibility for the content they're no longer a common carrier.

It's like if I fly American Airlines to Chicago then go murder 800 people. Did AA "aid a criminal"? No they're a common carrier who flies anyone who is eligible.

Similarly if Telus takes up the job of filtering and re-routing specific traffic then they're responsible for [say] viruses or other malware I may stumble upon. They're no longer a common carrier if they deny access to legitimate eligible traffic.

I'm not taking any sides in the strike/business issue. Personally I think quite a few "big corps" are getting away with too much b.s. these days. That said I also think having no job is worse than having a job that doesn't pay fairly.

Though I guess at some point you have to take a stand and demand your share of the proverbial pie.

Tom

Re:Sure

[torqer]

They can't do what they want in Canada.

Sure they could have all traffic route to /dev/null, However, any attempt to block or hinder a union and/or the creation of a union is unlawful. If there was content that held trade secrets, as they claim, then they should have sought other means to remove the content. Two wrongs don't make a right. Expect a lawsuit from the union in a hurry.

Re:Sure

[rhsanborn]

But, AA does have the right to refuse anyone a flight, for no reason. It does not rescind their common carrier status. The CEO of AA could block his uncle Sal from ever flying on that airline, just because.

I'm not sure blocking access to a website neccessarily takes away their common carrier status. Just because they are blocking a website they don't like, does not mean they have taken responsibility for filtering anything other than this group. It would be an interesting lawsuit.

Re:Sure

[Holi]

I don't know about canada but in the US ISP's are NOT common carriers.

I have said this far to often and I am not sure where everyone gets this idea from but they are wrong.

ISP's are considered customers in the telecom industry and are classified ESP's (that's enhanced service providers).

Re:Sure

[Kjella]

No, they are not common carriers, actually ISPs have been given their own "safe harbor" in section 512 of the DMCA. This is often mistaken for being a common carrier under the Telecommunications Act, as the result is quite similiar. Basicly, either censor nothing or censor all.

Kjella

No it's not reasonable

[DataCannibal]

If I have a contract with an ISP that promises me Internet Access then I expect to receive access to the whole Internet, nto for them to hide bits that they didn't want me to see. If I was a customer of this ISP I'd now be thinking "legal action".

Mirror

[Freexe]

Does anyone have a mirror, I can't see the site for some reason ;)

But really, I thought that was what anonymous proxies are for, although they shouldn't be needed!

They should simply..

[bcore]

..lose their common carrier designation, since they obviously aren't trying to be one, and immediately become responsible for evey bit of kiddie porn and other illegal activity that goes on on their network.

Re:They should simply..

[empaler]

That one, I like. That's a really good one.
You want control? Sure, you've got it. But you get responsibility (liability), too...

Re:They should simply..

[laurensv]

Does anybody if it's that black'n white, recently the organisation of ISPs in Belgiul struck a deal with IFPI (local branch of RIAA) that they will remove access to any newsgroup with illegal music. Are they now liable for all content that passes through?

Re:They should simply..

[ThePilgrim]

I think news groups could be handeled diffrently.
To access a news group you have to connecet to a server that hosts the group.

NNTP allows servers to request only the parts of the USENET hierarchy that they wish to carry.

Hence the content of a news article is stored on the server you connect to.

The content of a web page is not stored on the ISP's servers, caching asside, and as such the ISP is only acting as a carrier not as a host.

Re:They should simply..

[JudicatorX]

I didn't know union websites were illegal.

Re:They should simply..

[thuh Freak]

How dare you imply a story about a non-american country isn't going to apply american laws/customs! where am i?

Re:They should simply..

[LuSiDe]

That said, on a newsserver they aren't only passing on the data, but also actively storing it (from what I've read it can only be considered caching if it's retained for no more than 48 hours).

In the Netherlands there's jurisprudence on this one and what matters is that the data is automagically deleted after X time instead of manually in order to be considered a cache. The amount of X does not matter in that regard. Unfortunately i can't find the relevant link...

Correct me if I'm wrong

[Council]

Wait, I thought this was a website hosted by the company itself. Certainly they can decide what they do or don't want to host. They can absolutely tell the union to move to union.com [example] or Tripod or whatever.

Now, if they were blocking the independently-hosted union.com, they'd be where they had no business to be, and that would obviously be wrong. That's what this story implies is going on. But from TFAs I've been looking at, it's that they're deciding what can be hosted on their own servers. Absolutely their right.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong

[KDR_11k]

The union site is independently hosted, they're blocking the site for their own users. The article doesn't suggest that Telus is hosting the site and Telus even claims the contract with their users says that Telus can block any site for whatever reason they like. They also say the information on the union's site is somehow damaging to Telus and endangers their employees. Also the always loved claim of "they're distributing our proprietary information!" without elaborating on what that information is SCO-style.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong

[OhHellWithIt]

It appears the union website is hosted on a server in Miami, FL. Network Solutions' whois doesn't list the IP address as being in a block assigned to Telus. The employee photos I saw on the site were all union employees picketing -- which would be intimidating only if they were on an anti-union website.

If this were happening in the U.S., I would expect the ACLU to be all over them like mockingbirds on a cat.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong

[phcrack]

The big problem is that the site purportedly hosted pictures of people crossing picket lines. From my experience with union people, this could be endangering people's safety. Personally, I think Telus should have had the courts force the union to take the pics down, but then they've been having problems there too.

Reasonable? No. But that doesn't matter

[Mr. Underbridge]

The question isn't whether it's reasonable, it's whether it's *legal.* The first question is whether there's any restrictions in CA on what ISP's can censor. If not, the question is whether there's any provision in labor law regarding obstruction of communication - as rare as a case like this would be, I'd imagine not.

Otherwise, I imagine this is dirty, a bad idea, but legal.

stupid move

[laurensv]

In any case it's a stupid move to lie to your customers.
From the union site: "Customers who use telus.net as their Internet Service Provider are unable to access this website due to censorship by TELUS. When support is called they claim not to be blocking access. Television station BCTV Global did a story on the 6:00 o'clock news on this issue. Radio station CKNW also had as story on censoring TELUS customers, after receiving calls from numerous TWU members. Both media outlets are in British Columbia. In both cases, the company admitted to censoring TWU members and their customers." emphasis mine
From the site of telus: "Throughout this time, we will work hard to minimize the service impacts of the TWU's activities. We apologize for any inconvenience you may experience and thank you for your patience." emphasis mine

The customers, not the union

[bcore]

The problem isn't that Telus is hosting the union's website, it's that Telus customers (as in, the public at large who chose to use telus as an ISP) are being blocked from the union's website.

Let's be accurate here

[dogsbreath]

OK --- TELUS has blackholed VFC and I don't agree with it but let us be accurate.

The union web site www.twu-canada.ca is NOT blocked.

The totally unsanctioned site www.voices-for-change.com is blackholed. You can get to it quite easily using a proxy such as guardster. On VFC there are numerous comments promoting physical violence and doing the "nod-nod wink-wink" with respect to vandalism. They are also acting as a kangaroo-court for union members who do not follow the line prescribed by union militants. This is not a black and white issue of intolerance and censorship.

TELUS still should not block it but I would not condemn them for their actions. The union has done nothing to curb extreme comments and has to some degree encouraged them. When it comes to information Caveat Emptor.

Re:Let's be accurate here

[arkanes]

This is not a black and white issue of intolerance and censorship.

Actually, yes it is. Regardless of the merit or lack thereof of the website. Is the content of the website within the bounds of CA law? Then it's black & white censorship and Telus should fuck off. Is the content of the website beyond whats acceptable to CA law? Then Telus should follow the guidelines established by CA law, instead of taking it upon themselves to censor the content.

When it comes to information Caveat Emptor.

Pretty fucking hard to take your information with a grain of salt when your ISP won't let you look at it , is it?

Telus is clearly outside the bounds of reasonable behavior. If the website is dangerous, or libelous, or any of those other things they claim, then there are clear and effective legal channels to follow. Cutting off access because they don't like it is ridiculous. Moreover, it's stupid, because assuming CA law is similiar to US in this regard (which I believe it is), they just lost common carrier status.

Re:Let's be accurate here

[Peter Desnoyers]

The totally unsanctioned site www.voices-for-change.com - it's not quite clear what "unsanctioned" means here. Clearly they're paying their bills to the ISP and otherwise complying with the terms of service. As to whether they're officially endorsed by the TWU, that seems to have nothing to do with the dispute here. Certainly the TWU hasn't weighed in to condemn the site, and they're the only people who can reasonably make this accusation.

A quick check of the pictures online doesn't show any comments regarding picket line crossers, and I don't see any at a cursory examination. (I wouldn't doubt I'd find some if I looked real hard, though) The public message forums don't have any comments about vandalism or violence; I didn't register to see what the closed forums said. As for "proprietary information" - if this was real - i.e. trade secrets, rather than e.g. the color of the suit the VP was wearing yesterday - they'd pursue legal action and take the website down for good.

A final point to keep in mind is that Telus is also blocking downstream ISPs from accessing this site - Telus customers may have restrictive user agreements which basically say the company can do whatever they want and the user has no recourse, but I doubt that agreements with other ISPs are written that way.

As other posters have mentioned, they've probably done something really dumb, as although there may not be any law in Canada (or the US?) requiring an ISP to be a common carrier, there are lots of legal reasons for them to be very afraid of losing common carrier status.

Backfire

[mmarlett]

Well, regardless of whether it should have been able to block the website, in doing so it has drawn far more people to it than would have ever seen it before. Raise your hand if you would've cared about a union website five minutes ago. Stupid, stupid telco.

Re:Backfire

[maxwell demon]

More importantly: Many people who wouldn't have gone to that web page anyway will now read that their provider censors their net access. And even if they continue to not show any interest in the union's web site, the mere fact of censorship in one case immediatly raises the question what else it might have censored. Note that for this it is completely irrelevant if it actually has censored another web site or not, the mere fact that the idea it might do so goes into the user's brains already may have a damaging effect to them.

This may backfire

[yogi]

It's a dangerous move by the telco. Up until now, telecoms companies have tried to argue ( quite rightly IMHO ) that they merely provide the infrastructure, and are not directly responsible for the content of websites that they host.

Here, we have a telecoms company deciding unilateraly to filter a website because they feel like it. If they can filter one, they may find themselves liable to filter all of the others. Imagine the court case

Lawyer: You must block goatse.ca because it is offensive to all mankind

Telco: We can't be expected proactively police and block websites: too much information, freedom of speech, etc, etc,

Lawyer: But what about that time you blocked your union website? You can block "offensive" material when you want to.

Telco: Um...

Censorship

[JWSmythe]

The simple answer is "no".

My opinion is "no".

The truth is, even though they're an ISP, they're still a private company (as opposed to say a government entity), and can do anything they want. It's understandable that while involved in a conflict, they'd want to suppress the opposing side. Is it right? Not in the least.

I don't know Canadian law, and IANAL, but in America I know your Constitutional right to freedom of speech applies to the government supressing your speech. Plenty of people will reference the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" scenerio, but I'll go with this one instead. If you were to go into a Christian church, and draw a circle of protection on the floor (in a non-permanent way, of course), and start a [insert pagan tradition of your chioce here] ceremony, you'd be told to stop, probably not in the nicest terms.

Is it right for the telco to block the union's site from customers using that telco? No. Can they? Sure. Just like they can arbitrarly block "bad" web sites, spammers email or networks, or even potentially exploitable ports on user machines. They can do anything they'd like with their own equipment, they're under no obligation to provide service to "everything". Of course, when the word gets out that they've blocked something like this, which isn't in the best interest of their customers, it looks very bad for them.

As I work for an Internet Provider (hosting provider), I consider it unacceptable to block any particular network, and I won't do it. As a journalist and an advocate of free speech, I consider it very wrong. People do wrong things every day, it's up to the customers to make the decision of if they want to patronize a company who behaves this way.

Re:Censorship

[dasdrewid]

I think you need to go back and look at the common carrier arguments.

Yes, as a private company, they should be allowed to do whatever they want within the law (like, they can't murder people), and this certainly fits within that margin (assuming U.S. law were to apply, I'm not sure what if any differences there might be in Canada. Sorry, I'm just not that worldly...)

However, once they're allowed to do things like run on telephone poles placed in people's backyards through laws like emminent domain (which is how it works in the States, at least), they lose some of those rights. They are no long a purely private company. They are in the same situation as, say, a municipal bus service, like Metro (I live in Houston, that's our bus/light rail authority). By using government powers to provide a public service (which is what they claimed they were providing when the put those poles up) they must submit to the rules governing government, as well.

At the very least, though, what they are doing is fraud. They told the government and the public, oftentimes in court, that they could not be held responsible for what is carried through their network because they could not control it. They are now proving that they can, in fact, control and censor it. When people signed up and signed contracts to give them "access to the internet", they were expecting, as the company had said, that they would be getting access to an uncesored network, the internet, because the company was unable to censor it. This changed, and the company began giving them access to a censored network, which is fundamentally different than what they signed up for. They either lied about being able to censor the internet at first or are no longer supplying the same service as required by their contract.

Basically, any way you look at it, this company is doing something very illegal on one level or another, and the government has the obligation to step in and do something. If nothing else, by granting public use and monopoly powers to companies like these, the government has the responsibility to step in and punish the company as they have taken that ability away from the consumer.

No... but...

[mjh]

No. It's not reasonable for them to restrict access to web pages during contract negotiations. But (as has been previously mentioned) this is not censorship. The issue here may very well be breach of contract. If I were a customer of this ISP and I was arbitrarily blocked from any website by ISP policy, I would be looking at my Terms of Service to determine when and where it said they could do that. If it wasn't there, I'd be demanding my money back for every day that they were in breach of the agreement which I paid for. And then there's always small claims court.

But, this is not censorship. This is a service that you pay for and you expect to be delivered to you. Additionally, the union has absolutely no expectation of delivery to customers of that telco. If they did, then services like safeaccess couldn't exist. Every pornographer in the world could run around and demand that parents allow thier children to view porn.

Is this unreasonable? Yes. And it will likely cost them (lost customers, time fighting with annoyed customers, small claims court).

Re:No... but...

[argent]

But, this is not censorship.

Yes it is. You can argue that this is censorship that the Telco has the right to impose (and in fact you seem to be making that argument) but it is in fact censorship.

Every pornographer in the world could run around and demand that parents allow thier children to view porn.

Parents have broad rights to censor the information their children have access to. There's nothing inherently wrong with censorship in appropriate circumstances, such as in the parent-child relationship, or when a publisher produces a work in different versions to satisfy different ratings in different countries.

Re:Now down for the rest of it

[tomhudson]

No, its working fine - (you may be on a line leased by Telus to a 3rd party, but Videotron (another Canadian ISP) customers can see it no problemo ...

Of course, Telus just opened up a big can of worms: The Canadian Constitution (1982) guarantees freedom of expression (including on the internet) as a fundamental right:

Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
c) freedom of peaceful assembly
d) freedom of asociaton

Seems pretty open and shut - Telus is going to get its ass wupped.

How very super capitalist of you...

[cnelzie]

...the problem is that they are considered a "Common Carrier", as such they are simply providing access to what is essentially a public network and as such should not be blocking out anything, unless they want to take on the responsibility of also blocking truly illegal content, like Kiddie Porn.

Would you expect the phone company to block your home phone from being able to call up a competing phone company to discuss changing service? Essentially, this is the kind of thing that is going on via blocking the web-site of something that doesn't directly benefit this telecommunications provider.

strike vs. lock-out

[carmaggedon]

from the introduction: "(who is currently "on-strike" or "locked-out", depending on your point of view)"
grammar aside, a strike vs. a lock-out is not simply a matter of opinion, although in some cases both can happen at the same time. (a strike is when the workers walk out, and a lock-out is when workers aren't allowed to work.) it's hard to tell which is which in this case, although the article made reference to both. clearly it started with workers going on strike. since the union is saying that management was trying to push through a non-negotiated contract, and since one of the accusations from management is that the website they're blocking was putting up pictures of scabs for the purpose of harrassment, it seems more likely that this is a strike only, and not a lock-out.

Re:Now down for the rest of it

[tomhudson]

Look at the differences between a book store and Telus:

1. Your book store isn't a regional monopoly. Telus is.
2. Your book store isn't a common carrier - Telus is (but may have just jeopardized that status)
3. Telus isn't hosting the site - its blocking its paying customers from seeing a site critical of it - this would be like the book store physically preventing its customers from shopping elsewhere for books "because it can"

Telus - their motto is "The future is friendly" - my guess it should be changed to "Telus - The future is Telus-friendly, citizen!" T

There is a difference

[Peyna]

between being on strike and being locked-out. A lock-out is the situation where the workers are ready to negotiate a deal, but management refuses to talk to them at all, and refuses to allow them work in the meantime under the old contract.

A strike is where management is ready to negotiate a deal, but the workers refuse to talk, and refuse to work in the meantime under the old contract.

It is wrong to suggest that the choice of phrase is made to influence public opinion about the situation. A "lock-out" and a "strike" represent two very different situations.

Re:Now down for the rest of it

[XTbushwakko]

Well, if you are a bookstore you shouldn't be able to sell a book, except a few pages of it that you don't agree with!

Go to CRTC - lodge complaint

[gus goose]

I believe the regulatory body that would be concerned about this is the CRTC (Canada Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission).

I have lodged a complaint with them at:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/

Feel free to do the same.

gus

Re:Go to CRTC - lodge complaint

[Lukey Boy]

According to this page, they don't deal with ISPs.

Re:Now down for the rest of it

[mr.mighty]

It's even worse than that for Telus. Telus is a regional monopoly and public carrier that is regulated by a fairly activist body - the Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission. The CRTC is likely to take this pretty seriously if a complaint is made, and has the power to enforce any decision they make.

I call BS

[SIGBUS]

Got any examples of your claims?

Re:Unions are old and broken..

[Peyna]

then find another gawd damn job!

I think I hate trolls almost as much as you hate unions, but I'll still feed you.

The problem is the the other "gawd damn job" is probably no better than the original one. Do you honestly expect someone who is qualified to work at Wal-Mart to have the skills necessary to be able to obtain good enough employment to secure a living wage and proper healthcare benefits without the help of a union to use the strength of numbers to force management to provide such things? Of course not. It just won't happen.

Sure, you'll read about how "gracious" some employers are and give all these great things to their employees, but it remains that Wal-Mart's execs have some of the deepest pockets in the country. They go on and on about how much they give to the communities they destroy, and yet, they can't afford to give their own employees enough money to stay off of government healthcare. The simple fact is that most employers do not care about employees. They care about the bottom line.

It's not as easy as "going somewhere else." Without unions, your taxes would have to be double to pay for all the poor and sick people we'd have in this country.

The problem with unions today isn't that they've ran out of their usefulness. The problem is that they're still suffering from corruption of the past and mismanagement.

The arguments you make in your post are the same arguments that have been made for hundreds of years, and they were proven wrong then as well.

Also, I recall quite clearly a report that out of grocers in my area (Southwest Ohio), those with unions actually had lower average prices on the same products compared to those without unions. So much for that theory.

A common carrier

[Anonymous Coward]

The concept of common carrier goes back at least to the early days of railroads. The idea is that a common carrier must take the traffic of anyone who has the money to pay the fare. A common carrier cannot discriminate between customers.

An early example of a common carrier case would be where a railroad refused to carry wheat for farmers. It would only carry wheat for grain companies. The court declared that the railway, being a common carrier, must carry wheat for the farmers. Before that, the grain companies could dictate the price of grain to the farmers. The concept of 'common carrier' can be very powerful.

'Common carrier' has been extended to the telephone companies. That means that the telco cannot refuse you phone service if it is available in your area.

The designation was not sought by the common carriers. It was thrust on them by legislation and common law. The fact that ISPs find it useful is an just lucky for them. In any event, they may not have the choice of whether they are or are not common carriers.

Re:Halfwit troll

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

People always say that as if we live in some nation where justice rules all and the good guy gets what he deserves in the end. In reality, they could do whatever the hell they want and be whatever they want because they're worth more to those in power than some measley civillians. How much money did these people contribute to campaign funds, or even just taxes? how about any public service to show them as good in the eyes of the public?

Re:Now down for the rest of it

[khendron]

Your analogy doesn't work. What Telus is doing is like a book store owner selling you a book, and then refusing to give it to you because they don't like it.

I think Telus is clearly in the wrong here. If they think the site is that bad, they should get a take-down order from the courts. Then I would have no problem with them blocking the site, and perhaps forcing the hosting ISP to take down the site.

Re:fill us in...

[Tinfoil]

Oops, sorry. Links:

Telus cuts subscriber access to pro-union website

Telus to implement most recent offer to union (NB: this was a unilateral move)

Telus wins injunction against striking workers

That second link is the kicker. This little spat has been going on for quite a long time and is, quite frankly, getting tiresome. Between Telus and the ongoing Bell Canada strike, it's amazing that we here in Canada still have a working telephone network. And by working, I mean one that hasn't fallen into a complete state of misrepair, though I am having a hell of a time in getting a repair guy to come out and fix the extensions upstairs in my house. (I pay a couple bucks a month in insurance, so they can bloody well fix it.)

NB: I am a less than please Telus cellular customer.

Re:Onion Routing

[Ricardo]

I agree with you.

However, I think you meant moot point.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=moot

I hope you don't think I am being pedantic.

Before you defend them

[fulldecent]

Before you make the argument:

They are a private company, and can handle internet protocol requests however they want.

Defend the actions of the company that re-routes request from pepsi.com to coke.com and msn.com to google.com

correction: link to union web page, and others

[scotty777]

Telecommunications Workers Union (this is the official union site)

site blocked to telus isp customers by telus (this is seen directly, not through proxy)

blocked site seen through the proxy that they recommend

Telus corporate home page (this is the isp home page)

Telus fair use policy (part of agreement with telus isp customers)

Sounds like Canada's Godfrey vs. Demon

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Hmm... This is looking like the UK's infamous Godfrey vs. Demon case all over again, but now with the ISP giving up the should-have-been-common-sense defence Demon tried.

For those who don't know, this was a landmark UK legal ruling from the mid-90s. Godfrey was defamed in newsgroup postings, and sued Demon, a major UK ISP, for hosting those postings. Demon's defence was basically that the postings were made by an unknown individual who wasn't a Demon customer, and they were simply providing access to content accessible to anyone on the Internet, and so shouldn't be held responsible. Essentially, though I don't know whether UK law uses the same term, they were arguing that it was unreasonable for a common carrier to be held responsible for the information they carry.

Demon famously lost, but they lost on the basis that having been told about the defamatory content they should have removed it from their systems, not on the basis that they shouldn't have been hosting it in the first place. This opened up a huge legal can of worms, because it put all ISPs within the jurisdiction in a position of having to remove any offensive content in the face of any complaint or risk being sued, yet then acting as courts and censoring material without giving the source so much as a right to reply. AFAIK, the resulting legal minefield remains unsafe to this day, and ISPs get shaky at the very mention of the case. On the flip side, the case also seems to confirm that ISPs are not to be treated as publishers, with publishers' liabilities for content, just for providing access to material: the "common carrier" principle appears to be respected here.

In today's Canadian version, however, it seems the ISP has already given up any pretense of being a mere provider of access to globally available information. If an active decision was made to kill access to a particular web site, it's hard to see how they didn't just make themselves liable by default for every site they allow access to that contains defamation, kiddie porn, or any other $OFFENSIVE_CONTENT.

How this move was approved by their lawyers, I can't imagine...

Re:Unions are old and broken..

[xappax]

Unions have a lot in common with corporations, which is why they each have good and bad sides to them.

Corporations tend to have a huge, centralized pile of resources like money and property, which allows them to absorb minor losses without even blinking.

For example, if a worker quits in protest of working conditions, or even sabatoges work equipment, it has almost zero effect on the bottom line of the corporation, but a huge effect on the worker's livelihood.

Clearly, most advocates of free enterprise acknowledge the right of businesses to merge and centralize their money and property for the purpose of getting a competitive advantage.

Why, then, are so many opposed to the centralization of labor in a similar "corporation" called a union? Is forming a union not equally as capitalist as forming a corporation?

I really don't get it, but I come from a totally different perspective. If someone can explain, please do.

Re:Now down for the rest of it

[tomhudson]

... and of course, any Telus union member who uses Telus as their ISP can ask for an investigation because Telus is interfering with communications between the union and its' members. Gotta wonder who was the mensa member who ordered the bits twiddled to block the site in the first place ...

nice work, slashdot

[Chris Snook]

It would seem that posting a link on slashdot is a far more effective method of censorship than anything this ISP is capable of.

Re:Not common carrier in US

[isdnip]

You're describing what Verizon, SBC and BellSouth want, not what exists.

In the US, DSL consists of two distinct entities. At the bottom is common carriage, provided to an ISP by a telephone company under FCC tariff. When you buy Verizon Online DSL, you're buying from the FCC, but under current FCC rules, Verizon Online, a separate accounting entity, pays your state's Verizon Telephone Company a price for raw DSL common carriage. This create an opportunity for other ISPs to provide the same ISP service, buying the raw DSL from the same tariff. The price may vary, however, based on volume discounts.

Cable companies, WiFi ISPs, and ISPs who string cable around office parks are not common carriers. The latest Supreme Court ruling simply upheld that with regard to cable. So ISPs can't turn to them for serice; they turn to common carriers instead. Phone companies.

The Bells have asked the FCC to change the law, so that they will no longer be common carriers. Then they can cut off service to all independent ISPs, and impose their own censorship across their wire. Of course they insist that this is okay, since there's usually also cable, and two competitors is all they can stand.

This has not happened yet. So Verizon (Telus' parent company) still has to let other ISPs use its wire. But Verizon Online can censor to its little heart's content (not that it has one).

Re:Unions are old and broken..

[Anonymous Coward]

' Why, then, are so many opposed to the centralization of labor in a similar "corporation" called a union? '

So many of us are opposed to it since it is forced on the workers against their will. At least in the US it is: most union members are part of "closed shops" where it is "join this organization or you will be fired". Much of my opposition to unions as such would vanish if they became legitimate organizations, and only took money from individuals who wanted to contribute it. I detest organizations that operate largely on stolen/extorted money.

This is very different from the capitalists forming a corporation: an operation that requires complete consent of those pooling the resources and signing the documents.

'Clearly, most advocates of free enterprise...'

That is the important thing. Free enterprise. It certainly is not very free if, as a condition of working, you are forced to join an organization that has absolutely nothing to do with your ability or qualifications to do the job.

Both sides are out of hand

[msobkow]

Telus has some notorious issues with how they run the business, service customers, and pay their subcontractors.

The union is, however, living in a fantasy world. Rates for telecom services have dropped over the past several years. There is competition from broadband phone services (including vonage.ca), alternative cellular providers, and alternative ISPs. The days of the near monopoly by the big provincial telcos are over, as are the obscene profits they used to generate.

Unions will simply have to accept that the telco and computer industries of 2005 are being hit by the same kind of competition that destroyed local manufacturing firms 15-20 years ago. Demanding huge salary increases, guaranteed jobs, etc. is completely unrealistic.

Telus, OTOH, needs to realize that pimp-slapping their customers, their staff, and their suppliers is no way to run a business. They're also living in an old fantasy world where the telcos got away with such nonsense because they were a near monopoly.

Re:Yes

[Super Nicko]

If you want to go down this line of thought, you can then say that:

• Microsoft should disallow access to the Firefox/insert other browsers sites from IE in a default Windows Install
• ISP can block your email because you tell a friend not to use them
• ISP can stop you from reading /. because they contain a report about them blocking a site

Sure, you can switch to a different ISP if you aren't on a contract or the like. But what if you just think the site is down, and go "Oh well, the union must have pulled it?" Seems like deception to me...

Re:Yes

[snorklewacker]

Ah, the ghost of Ayn Rand raises her screechy little methadrine-fueled head. It has nothing to do with property rights or common carrier babe, and everything to do with abuse of position during a bargaining agreement. If this were happening any other time, they might have a leg, maybe just a little toe to stand on, but this telco has blown off both legs in its zeal to shoot itself in the foot.

Last I heard, people paid for use of their property, and weren't party to an agreement of "we'll fuck around with the content you access to our heart's content if it might have an impact on our stock prices". You might even say the expectation was somewhat the opposite.

But right, all that "capitalism is about the enlightened freedom of choice" nonsense only applies to the people who actually own the most property, no?

Unlimited access != usage

[Loether]

> vaguely worded "bandwidth limits"

I went through something similar in Houston with a small DSL provider (Symet.net). They wanted me and individual to upgrade to 300 dollar a month corporate account. There argument was that unlimited *access* was not equivalent to unlimited usage. When I asked them how much *usage* I was allowed in a given period of time. They wouldn't give me a number. They just wanted me to leave.

I would've preferred to give my money to a small ISP where I can talk to a human if there is a problem. Since I switched to SBC I haven't had a problem. There support is awful but they never complain about my usage. It's a tradeoff. This is one instance where a mega ISP is better.

Locked out, but not Quickly!

[Petersko]

A lock-out is the situation where the workers are ready to negotiate a deal, but management refuses to talk to them at all, and refuses to allow them work in the meantime under the old contract.

Management has allowed them to continue working without a contract for a number of years now.

What the union wants is guaranteed job security. Problem is, they're clinging to contracts written back when they were working under a government-owned business with 20 year old technology. Now they work for a for-profit company in a truly global technical world. They want to barricade the door and keep out the future.

Alas, I can't see it.

Nor do I care. Telus staff have screwed up everything I've ever asked of them.

The new contract is long on everything else, including a promise to try to relocate within the company if outsourcing occurs. I have no sympathy for these people.

Unions were necessary at one point. I don't believe they are necessary now. Especially at Telus. Non-union workers at Telus are not underpaid and are looked after pretty well. It's the union that is responsible for the stagnant wages.

Re:Yes

[RealTimeFreeAgent]

Fine, telcos aren't public utilities. When can the public expect all the back rent to be paid for allowing the telcos to lay lines all over the public's property?

Re:Now down for the rest of it

[iamhassi]

"Telus should be able to provide or not provide access to websites as they wish, unless they've agreed otherwise with their customers (or have been given a monopoly by the government). So no, I wouldn't say it's open shut.

exactly!!! Comcast should block all access to Yahoo (since they're partners with SBC/Yahoo DSL), Charter, and all the other broadband providers out there. In fact a search of google should just return on links back to Comcast!!

satelite TV providers should block commericals for competitors and cable, instead replaying them with other commercials.

Just like when I pick up my cellphone and call another cellphone service they should interrupt and disconnect the line... or better yet not let the call go thru at all.

This is great!! I hate having the freedom to go to whatever website I want, i'd much rather pay someone tell me what websites I get to go to.

:rollseyes:

Actually it was a claim by the company

[Gallowglass]

The article didn't make the claim that the union was "posting pictures of non-union members crossing picket lines", it was quoting the company's claim/excuse to justify their (rather clumsy) censorship efforts.

And for what it is worth, I went and looked at the pictures on the union site, and there are no pictures of anyone crossing a picket line. The closest to that is simply a couple of photos of two managers at one location lounging outside the door to the workplace, "keeping an eye on the picketers at the front door on 6th Ave.building in Prince George."

And I did not find any examples of Telus phone numbers being listed in my rather perfunctory scan around the site. Frankly, I rather doubt that the Union would be so foolish. Companies often claim that unions are fomenting illegal activities such as sabotage and intimidation. To put such instrcutions up on the website where the world can see it and thus be able to present evidence of these illegal activities postis and intelligence level well below that of most bosses. (And as Dickie used to say to Tommy, "That is not a compliment!")

And you are right. The company is acting childishly. "We're the boss! You gotta do what we say, and shut up." All too common, alas.

Re:Now down for the rest of it

[spikexyz]

The canadian charter only applies to dealings between people and government. For dealings with businesses, you need to look at the provincal human rights codes.

Re:Now down for the rest of it

[Calyth]

Somehow your comparison is also valid between a book store and Chapters/Indigo, well maybe except for number 2.
They had stopped selling magazines like Soldier of Fortune or any of the knife or gun related magazines.
But no one seems to be complaining...

But anyways, when I'm back into Vancouver (they also provide ADSL in Vancouver), I'm either going to see a huge backlash from the left in the population, or I'm going to see that Telus lift their stupid ban. In either case they're making an even bigger stink than they already have. Their customer service is so bad that someone drove by and shot at their building about a year ago.

A modest proposal.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The designation was not sought by the common carriers. It was thrust on them by legislation and common law. The fact that ISPs find it useful is an just lucky for them. In any event, they may not have the choice of whether they are or are not common carriers.

However, the requirement to carry all comers also confers a privilege - a lack of responsibility for refusing to carry some loads. (The responsibility is borne by the government because it forced them to accept the traffic.) An ISP may find that carrying the union's propaganda is less of a burden than being responsible for kiddie porn.

The union should file a suit against the ISP - not for refusing to carry its traffic, but for recovery for all the SPAM it and its members recieved through their connections, using the fact that the ISP refused to carry the union website traffic as proof that they are NOT a common carrier, and thus bear responsibility for content.

IMHO that will turn the ISP around in very short order.

If they don't turn it back on within a few hours of receiving notice of the suit, file another for damage to their kids' mental health due to viewing kiddie porn carried over the ISP's lines. B-)

Re:Not common carrier in US

[billstewart]

Voices For Change, if you can access it, recommends using http://vfc.proxy.pfak.org/. The owner does not-for-profit hosting for a number of organizations. It's a Free-BSD box at an Undisclosed Location.

Re:Now down for the rest of it

[TFGeditor]

True, but courts often do lok to precedents in other countries for guidance. Witness SCOTUS and its recent decision regarding capital punishment of minors.

Their contract w/ their customers "own"ing

[team99parody]

however let's remember that corporations "own" assets in ways similar to individuals

"Own"ing assets does not give you absolute power over what you do with them.

• Just because an airline owns the plane, it doesn't mean they can throw passengers out the windows. (that's illegal)
• Just because a landlord owns an apartment, it doesn't mean he can control his residents setting up wireless networks. (that's the FCC's job)
• Just because a telephone company owns some wires doesn't mean they can re-route calls to their prefered customers (as Sprint was accused of doing in Las Vegas when people called prostitutes)

Ownership is one thing - but when you have a customer you have to abide by the contract with your customer. For an ISP ("internet service provider") that means "providing" "internet" "service" -- something that they're breaching if they block the union site..

Re:Not common carrier in US

[jburroug]

Yup. I have DSL through SpeakEasy that doesn't require that I have dial tone from SBC (my LEC) but it's more expensive since my DSL charge has to cover the full cost of leasing SBC's copper. I think they call that plan "OneLink" or something like that.

Re:Breach of Contract to Internet customers

[arbitraryaardvark]

A contract is a contract, but only between Ferengi. - Rule of acquisition #17.

1:TELUS reserves the right to amend this Agreement at its sole discretion, at any time.
http://www.mytelus.com/internet/policies/TISAA.do

11: You agree to pay all costs incurred by TELUS in the collection of any delinquent charges due under this Agreement or in the enforcement of this Agreement including, without limitation, lawyers' fees.
18: You acknowledge that such general practices and limits may differ for different portions of the TELUS Internet Services and may be set at different levels for different users based upon factors that may be determined in TELUS' sole discretion.
40: You acknowledge and agree that TELUS shall not be responsible or liable to you or any third party for any suspension, restriction or termination of your account.

C'mon, bill, you've worked for a phone company, you've seen the size of their legal budgets.
Did you really think they would leave themselves open to claims?

Re:Unions are old and broken..

[theglassishalf]

Oh really? So...if you don't like the union, then vote with your feet! Take another job. It's absolutely free enterprise: the "closed shop" only exists because the employer signed an agreement that they would fire anyone who doesn't pay the organization that negotiated their contract.

Union security clauses in contracts just prevent free riders: in states where these clauses are illegal (talk about elimination of freedom of contract!) what usually happens is that a bunch of employees decide they want the benefits of the union (much higher wages) without paying the people who work at the union to provide these benefits.

Don't want to pay for union representation? That's fine! Go work for a company that is non-union. Don't want to do that because the wages suck? Hmm.

-Daniel

P.S. All unions in the USA are democratic, by law. So if the majority of people under the contract want to get rid of it, it's gone.
Also, in the USA, there is actually no such thing as a closed shop. Google "Union Agency Fee" for more information.

Re:It only applies to the government.

[arbitraryaardvark]

Parent post is currently modded +4, interesting, for values of interesting that include "wrong" and "completely missed the point."

No, I'm quite right, my good Canadian friend.

[CyricZ]

You do realize that the portion of the Constitution covering such matters as freedom of speech is called the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

The "Fundamental Freedoms" portion you quoted in your earlier post comes from Section 2 of the Charter (which, recall, is a portion of the Constitution). Remember, the purpose of the Charter is to protect Canadian citizens from the various governments.

Indeed, see Section 32 of the Charter:

32. (1)This Charter applies

a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

The Charter applies to the governments: federally, provincially and territorially. The government cannot come along and restrict or eliminiate your fundamental freedoms. But remember, Telus is not part of the government. Therefore they are not bound by the Charter, as you mistakenly think.

Re:No, I'm quite right, my good Canadian friend.

[tomhudson]

Your lawyer relative is out of date. See this post for further commentary, explaining the enabling legislation and the timetable requirements, as well as examples of non-government charter rights guaranteed everyone by the constitution.

Simply put, there is a Charter of Rights, and a Constitution to give them teeth. There was also a timetable in which to enact those rights (agreed to by 9 of the 10 provinces in the "night of the long knives").

PLEASE CONTACT TELUS EXECUTIVE OFFICES

[FFFish]

I have just had a most frustrating conversation with someone in the Executive offices at Telus.

PLEASE SPEND A BUCK TO CALL THEM.

They seem to have no idea that their action is plain stupid. Most of you can access the site: it is only a small subset, those of us with Telus ADSL, that can not access it.

Please help get them on the cluetrain.

The executive claims that Telus is working with other ISPs to block access to the website, instead of using proper legal channels to force the TWU to remove the disputed photographs.

555 Robson Street
Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada V6B 3K9
phone (604) 697-8044
fax (604) 432-9681

It's worth the couple bucks it'll cost to clue these mofo's in that WE WILL NOT CONDONE SUCH ACTIONS.

Re:There's no monopoly

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I think *you* need to understand the difference between a government sponsored monopoly and a government regulated industry. Telcoms is the latter in Canada.

monopoly: the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service

I don't know about where you live, but everywhere in both the U.S. and Canada that I have lived there is only one set of cable lines, phone lines, and power lines on the roadside poles and they are owned by the respective local monopoly. If there is only one legal provider of that service it is a monopoly. If the government is the one that controls who can offer said service, and they only allow one company to do so, it is a government sponsored monopoly. Where do you live that this is not the case?

Re:Unions are old and broken..

[Blakey Rat]

Let's say I want to be a school teacher. Show me a teaching position that's non-union. Seriously, I'm waiting... where is it?

You may be right about some unions, but many unions have a monopoly on the field they control. Try to star in a major motion picture without being a member of SAG. Try to be a teacher in Washington State without being in the WEA. It's impossible. In fact, that's the very reason I didn't go into education in college... I want to be a teacher, but I sure as hell don't want to support that union.

Re:Now down for the rest of it

[MightyMartian]

Well, of course, Telus is free to do as they choose, but if I were a customer of them (it's bad enough that I can't choose a basic phone provider, I won't give them my Internet business), I'd be making a helluva fuss.

Telus has been a crappy company since it gobbled up Alberta and BC's telco companies. Last year their customer relations got so bad that the CRTC actually threatened to order a rollback of their rates. They had doctors and shutins who were waiting weeks to get repairs done, and while things have improved somewhat, Telus is, by and large, a company whose sole concern is the investors, and even their revenue sources (aka the customer) take a distant second place.

In short, Telus sucks, but because it has a monopoly on basic phone service, the consumer is left with no choice.

Nothing new here...

[abner23]

From http://www.allianceibm.org/

Attention IBM employees:

IBM is blocking e-mail to and from the Alliance@IBM e-mail address endicottalliance@stny.rr.com from inside the company. Please send your job cut information and other correspondence from your home e-mail.

Privacy Issues with the website

[Kernel Kurtz]

Not that I agree with Telus' actions, as they are not a judge, but there are questions about the legality of some of the content on the union's website. They are supposedly publishing names, addresses, and pictures of union members crossing the picket lines. I think its pretty likely that this is in violation of both provincial and federal protection of privacy laws.

It will be interesting to see this go to court.