NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Update on ISP Actions Regarding C-Porn and Usenet
|
It is important to remember that Usenet is an application level
service and Verizon can apply its policies vs others in open marketplace.
Whether they will succeed is arguable. I expect the others to follow TWC and
drop NNTP support (AKA, Usenet). What is interesting is that if you read the terms of service
from Verizon, much of it is (was?) about Usenet etiquette -- many of the
concerns date back to the days when it was indeed all about Usenet and there was
no Web. You aren't allowed to say bad things about Verizon and others. The term "bar websites" in the NYT article is
confusing -- if it simply means they won't host certain content that is far
less of a concern than blocking by IP addresses, especially given that Verizon
has, so far, declined to act as the copyright police for bits passing then this
might sharpen the distinction between application layer services and pure bit
transport. Perhaps the next step is to force all controversial (AKA,
interesting, not necessarily just prurient) video content to alternate
distribution. What happens when the companies have to choose between
being in the commodity data transport business with no price floor and the high
value content businesses?
-----Original Message-----
Update on ISP Actions Regarding C-Porn and Usenet
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000390.html Greetings. The related ISPs have been working to
clarify aspects of the New York Times story that I discussed earlier today ( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000389.html ). The upshot is interesting. In contrast to the
implications of the Times piece, it appears that U.S. ISPs (unlike a newly
penned deal in France involving French ISPs) will not for the moment
be actively blocking any "class" of Web content, but rather
will work to remove c-porn sites from their servers (something most people
apparently assumed they'd been doing anyway ... ). So the big to-do from the politicos about this aspect
seems to best be filed under grandstanding. But there is a very disturbing additional element to this
story. Time Warner Cable says that they are cutting off
subscriber access to all Usenet newsgroups (child porn was found in 88 of
the vast number of total newsgroups). Sprint is cutting off
10's of 1000's of alt.* newsgroups (and what a war it was back when
those were created long, long ago!) Verizon plans
"broad" newsgroup cutoffs. While Usenet newsgroups are certainly not the draw that
they were many years ago, they still have an important role to play
in the free exchange of legal information on the Internet today. Using the presence of illicit materials in some portion
of a content stream as an excuse to abolish or decimate the legal
content is inexcusable. In fact, that sort of "guilt by
association" and "we can get away with this because most people don't know
about it" action is the very essence of a particularly insidious
form of censorship. Of course, the ISPs could argue that they're under no
legal obligation to carry Usenet newsgroups in any form.
This is true. But then, most ISPs aren't under a legal mandate to
provide connectivity to any given Web sites, either. So one might wonder, given these ISPs' eagerness to hoist
much or all of the completely legal content of Usenet on the
petard of fettering out c-porn, which aspects of the Internet will
be next to fall into the line-of-sight of their big red cutoff
switch? --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein lauren@vortex.com or lauren@pfir.org Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 http://www.pfir.org/lauren Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility -
http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com |