NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad

NNSquad Home Page

NNSquad Mailing List Information


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ NNSquad ] Re: Mall's Wi-Fi blocks "adult" content

On Nov 30, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Dave Kristol wrote:

>   [ 900 calls have an extra charge associated with them.  Blocking
>     them would be entirely reasonable.  The topic under discussion
>     is the blocking of destinations based largely on the "moral"
>     determinations of the party providing the service.  Again, would
>     such phone call blocking of the sort I described above be
>     considered acceptable in any public contexts?  My bet is that most
>     people would be outraged.  So why is this any different than
>     blocking particular Wi-Fi sites that are engaged in legal
>     operations?  I'd like a "pro-blocking" reader to address this
>     comparision directly, if you can.
>          -- Lauren Weinstein
>             NNSquad Moderator ]

I'm sure if someone provided an easy way for public free phone service operators (as if such a thing existed) to filter what kinds of calls could be made, there would be many customers for such a service.  You might argue that I'm not answering your question, but I've already made it clear that I don't think there is anything wrong with people deciding how their infrastructure is used.  

If I had 10 ISPs to pick from at my home, the way I do at the datacenter, I would have no problem with ISPs implementing whatever policies they see fit for their infrastructure.  Unfortunately, because of great local tax subsidies offered to telco/cableco's along with  many other incentives, there are only one or maybe two broadband options for most people at the last mile and as a consequence, those last mile providers need to be treated differently.  They need to be treated much more like a public utility.  Not media companies, not simple service providers, etc.