Canadian Telco Admits to Blocking Union's Website 689
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?"
Easy answer - No (Score:1, Informative)
No.
Reasonable? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
stupid move (Score:4, Informative)
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
Re:Is it their network? (Score:1, Informative)
Let's be accurate here (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Backfire (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Now down for the rest of it (Score:5, Informative)
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:
Seems pretty open and shut - Telus is going to get its ass wupped.Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Go to CRTC - lodge complaint (Score:3, Informative)
I have lodged a complaint with them at:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/ [crtc.gc.ca]
Feel free to do the same.
gus
Re:Is it their network? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Now down for the rest of it (Score:2, Informative)
Re:They should simply.. (Score:5, Informative)
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:Sure (Score:2, Informative)
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.
A common carrier (Score:5, Informative)
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:Let's be accurate here (Score:1, Informative)
To view forums, you must be a registered member.
To the average casual visitor, there is nothing at all even close to your allegations.
How you got modded to a 5-Informative is beyond me. Perhaps the modders should actually RTFA before handing out these mod points. What a complete sham!
America is a Continent, not a country (Score:0, Informative)
Re:Backfire (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:2, Informative)
If this were happening in the U.S., I would expect the ACLU to be all over them like mockingbirds on a cat.
Re:Halfwit troll (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Let's be accurate here (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:fill us in... (Score:3, Informative)
Telus cuts subscriber access to pro-union website [www.cbc.ca]
Telus to implement most recent offer to union (NB: this was a unilateral move) [www.cbc.ca]
Telus wins injunction against striking workers [www.cbc.ca]
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:Sure (Score:5, Informative)
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:Onion Routing (Score:2, Informative)
However, I think you meant moot point.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=moot [reference.com]
I hope you don't think I am being pedantic.
Re:Is it their network? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
correction: link to union web page, and others (Score:3, Informative)
site blocked to telus isp customers by telus [voices-for-change.com] (this is seen directly, not through proxy)
blocked site seen through the proxy that they recommend [pfak.org]
Telus corporate home page [mytelus.com] (this is the isp home page)
Telus fair use policy [mytelus.com] (part of agreement with telus isp customers)
Re:Go to CRTC - lodge complaint (Score:3, Informative)
Sounds like Canada's Godfrey vs. Demon (Score:5, Informative)
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:Not common carrier in US (Score:3, Informative)
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:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:3, Informative)
Actually it was a claim by the company (Score:3, Informative)
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:Point 1. (Score:1, Informative)
Well, sort of correct. It is not called "freedom of speech", it is called "freedom of expression", see point b) C&P from the Charter.
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; and
d) freedom of association.
Now the part that the idiot poster mentions about "hate speech" is in place to protect those on the receiving end of hate. Although the poster makes it sound as if a Pastor who disagrees with same sex marriage can be sent to jail, he/she is blatently full of shit. The Pastor could be arrested for suggesting the entire parish should go out "Fag hunting", as that is what god would want. Big difference. You can not promote hatred or violence. So, no Rabbi's demanding the extermination of Palestinians, no Imans demanding the murder of Jews.
As far as civil liberties this is a truly backwards quasi-socialst country. There is no right to bare arms
WOW, you are an interesting sort. Why not Google up how many countries have a provision that equates to "the right to bear arms". I'll give you a hint, if you take the majority position as the correct one, the US is on the wrong side of that "right". Besides, how does it affect you? I have many firearms, so do many people that I know. Despite not having a "right" to do so, does not limit my ability to do so. I also do not have the "right" to own a car, or to drive, yet everyone I know has a car, and drives.
Also another minor point of how different we are and how canadians 'respect' freedom like unlike the US if you were a canadian army reservist and were called to fight, your employer can basically just fire you
Great point! Now go google up the last time a Canadian Reservist was "called up". Find it yet? How about now? Still looking? Dolt. Our reservists, are what reservists should be. A part time, ready force. We do not send them overseas, unless we have to, and I don't think we have done that, well, ever. Like what the US used to do, when they were a democracy.
Well that was fun, nothing easier than poking a bunch of holes in an argument based entirely on ignorance. I can't tell if your American (the ignorance points in that direction), or just a good ole Canadian redneck. If your American, no biggie. Most of you do not understand our culture, and you have no reason to understand it, and that is understandable.
If you are Canadian then I see a great picture based on what irks you about our country. You have almost no education. You have a past that makes geting an FAC (license to buy/own guns) impossible (criminal record, history of mental illness, or a spouse/family member fears you owning a gun). You are a racist, concerned that your views on minority X may get you arrested.
If I had to peg it, I would say southern Alberta, small town, maybe Brooks? Nothing against Alberta, lived there, loved it. But no one grows rednecks like Alberta.
Re:Not common carrier in US (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not common carrier in US (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Breach of Contract to Internet customers (Score:2, Informative)
1:TELUS reserves the right to amend this Agreement at its sole discretion, at any time.
http://www.mytelus.com/internet/policies/TISAA.do [mytelus.com]
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?
No, I'm quite right, my good Canadian friend. (Score:3, Informative)
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:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/ [justice.gc.ca]
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.
Get the facts (Score:2, Informative)
Telus went to the BC Supreme Court before blocking the website and asked for an injunction against it. It was approved and thus the site was blocked. (to telus customers only, of course).
Most of the Alberta side of the bargaining unit is crossing picket lines, it's only BC that seems to have a problem with a very nice new contract.
The union refuses to have a vote on the new contract because they'd lose, badly.
PLEASE CONTACT TELUS EXECUTIVE OFFICES (Score:3, Informative)
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:Sure (Score:3, Informative)
Kjella
Re:There's no monopoly (Score:3, Informative)
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:No, I'm quite right, my good Canadian friend. (Score:3, Informative)
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").
Re:Now down for the rest of it (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Forced membership (Score:1, Informative)
> realize that if you are forced to pay dues to something, you are
> being forced to be a member?
I'm forced to pay taxes to the US government - does that mean I'm a member of the US government? Or a member of the US, even? (I'm not - I'm a legal resident alien.)
Being forced to pay dues does not mean you're de facto a member; what it does mean is that the company has decided to negotiate salaries and benefits with a designated representative of its employees, and all employees must pay their share of what it costs to run that representative. Since all workers benefit from that representative's negotiating, all workers pay for that service.
As for the rest of your complaints, well, this is the internet, remember; nobody believes a rant unless it's backed up by evidence. Unions have certainly been known to do bad things, so the evidence may well be out there, but without that evidence, you're not convincing anyone.
Not even someone who actively resisted being unionized, like me.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:1, Informative)
They posted pictures of Telus employees crossing the picket line, and put insulting remarks below.
'posting describing an East Indian man as a terrorist, along with his name, address, photo, and other personal information. Also carry threat of serious assault. He has gone on stress leave and left Edmonton with his family.'
That's illegal and it's dangerous, Telus blocked the website because they had the right to, as its host, and at the same time they took the webmaster to court, and forced him to take down the pictures. When he did, they unblocked the site.
Seems fair to me.