NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ 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. -David