3 ms·

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that ISPs in the US won't go above and beyond the "call of duty" now, or in the near future. ISPs in the UK [1] and Denmark [2]

by rmxt 12y ago

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that ISPs in the US won't go above and beyond the "call of duty" now, or in the near future. ISPs in the UK [1] and Denmark [2] have already shown willingness to do more than what is legally required of them in order to appease the government or copyright interest groups. What makes Verizon or Comcast different from those ISPs? [1] http://torrentfreak.com/sky-broadband-starts-blocking-pirate-bay-proxies-130603/ http://torrentfreak.com/sky-broadband-starts-blocking-pirate... [2] https://torrentfreak.com/isps-agree-voluntary-pirate-site-blocks-141011/ https://torrentfreak.com/isps-agree-voluntary-pirate-site-bl...

vertex-four 12y ago
If you have broadband from Sky, you are knowingly using a content company for your Internet provider, rather than a company that actually makes its money on providing Internet access. You don't have to do that here, unlike the US. It's very much your own fault for using such a service.
- rmxt 12y ago
  I agree that that seems like a bad choice, or at a minimum, one is choosing to do business with a company that has to internally negotiate an apparent conflict of interest. (Or, vertical integration if one has a generous take on the situation.) I am not so familiar with the layout of ISPs in the UK, but if other choices than Sky are present in a given locale, then, yes, the choice (I would make) is clear. However, how does the Sky situation differ from the Comcast (content delivery) / NBCUniversal (content production) relationship? Verizon, AT&T, and TWC, as far as I can tell, are only content delivery services. I don't have specific statistics on hand, but I assume that for some people in the United States, Comcast is (unfortunately) the only viable broadband service provider.
- djrogers 12y ago
  What are you smoking, and will you share? Most people in the US can chose from one or two of the handful of large ISPs - Comcast, TWC, AT&T, and Verizon. The Lucky ones can choose between two or three of them, many only have one real option. All four of those ISPs are content providers - hell, you the Triple-Play is a thing precisely because they all sell subscription TV services as well as internet and voice...
dragonwriter 12y ago
> I wouldn't be so quick to assume that ISPs in the US won't go above and beyond the "call of duty" now, or in the near future. An exception to a new non-blocking rule is not the same thing as a new rule requiring blocking. Particularly, in the absence of the new rules, there was no prohibition on ISPs blocking content (lawful or unlawful), and anything done with the excuse of blocking unlawful content (e.g., blocking all BitTorrent traffic) which also blocked lawful content was allowed. But now, even if blocking unlawful content is the excuse, if a policy blocks lawful content, there will be a basis for challenging it. This increases the legal risk to ISPs of policies for which they might deploy the excuse of "blocking unlawful content" beyond what the legal risk was (practically zero) before the Order was adopted. So, I'd say it decreases the risk of ISPs trying to appease anyone, government or otherwise, blocking.

by rmxt 12y ago

vertex-four 12y ago

If you have broadband from Sky, you are knowingly using a content company for your Internet provider, rather than a company that actually makes its money on providing Internet access. You don't have to do that here, unlike the US. It's very much your own fault for using such a service.

rmxt 12y ago
I agree that that seems like a bad choice, or at a minimum, one is choosing to do business with a company that has to internally negotiate an apparent conflict of interest. (Or, vertical integration if one has a generous take on the situation.) I am not so familiar with the layout of ISPs in the UK, but if other choices than Sky are present in a given locale, then, yes, the choice (I would make) is clear. However, how does the Sky situation differ from the Comcast (content delivery) / NBCUniversal (content production) relationship? Verizon, AT&T, and TWC, as far as I can tell, are only content delivery services. I don't have specific statistics on hand, but I assume that for some people in the United States, Comcast is (unfortunately) the only viable broadband service provider.
djrogers 12y ago
What are you smoking, and will you share? Most people in the US can chose from one or two of the handful of large ISPs - Comcast, TWC, AT&T, and Verizon. The Lucky ones can choose between two or three of them, many only have one real option. All four of those ISPs are content providers - hell, you the Triple-Play is a thing precisely because they all sell subscription TV services as well as internet and voice...

dragonwriter 12y ago

> I wouldn't be so quick to assume that ISPs in the US won't go above and beyond the "call of duty" now, or in the near future. An exception to a new non-blocking rule is not the same thing as a new rule requiring blocking. Particularly, in the absence of the new rules, there was no prohibition on ISPs blocking content (lawful or unlawful), and anything done with the excuse of blocking unlawful content (e.g., blocking all BitTorrent traffic) which also blocked lawful content was allowed. But now, even if blocking unlawful content is the excuse, if a policy blocks lawful content, there will be a basis for challenging it. This increases the legal risk to ISPs of policies for which they might deploy the excuse of "blocking unlawful content" beyond what the legal risk was (practically zero) before the Order was adopted. So, I'd say it decreases the risk of ISPs trying to appease anyone, government or otherwise, blocking.