Canadian Telco Admits to Blocking Union's Website

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?"

Re:Is it their network?

[adamjaskie]

Competing service? IS there one? I know that the only way I can get broadband where I live is through Comcast. I don't have a choice. If I want broadband, I get Comcast.

Reasonable? No. But that doesn't matter

[Mr. Underbridge]

The question isn't whether it's reasonable, it's whether it's *legal.* The first question is whether there's any restrictions in CA on what ISP's can censor. If not, the question is whether there's any provision in labor law regarding obstruction of communication - as rare as a case like this would be, I'd imagine not.

Otherwise, I imagine this is dirty, a bad idea, but legal.

Re:No.

[aussie_a]

Actually, I hope they keep this up, so they can then be sued, have charges pressed for minors being able to gain access to porn via their service. By blocking out a certain website, they show an inclination to censor access to the internet, so they should be forced to censor porn, at least upon request. They can no longer say "we can't do that" because they've shown that actually, they can and are willing (in certain circumstances) to censor access.

Re:Is it their network?

[aussie_a]

If you enter into a contract with someone to supply a service and they stop providing that service or inhibit it, you don't just "go somewhere else" you sue the bastards for breach of contract

Aaah yes. The American way. Now most people would just ask for a refund for what they paid for the compromised service. But no, in America you sue the bastard for whatever you can get. It might not be right, but it's legal, so they'll do it. It's the American dream.

Re:No.

[Super Nicko]

I have to agree. The internet is a public service, and should not be controlled by private or public entities except as provided under law (eg kiddyporn).

In Australia at the moment, Telstra is one of the biggest ISPs and is 51% owned by the government. Most other retails resell Testra products or use Telstra datapipes in one way or another.

Imagine if Telstra, under the direction of the Government, were told to stop access to any sites of opposition parties, unions who didn't agree with their stance, etc. It would be outragious.

It might be that the situation in Canada is different; however, if one company can stop at this, then why not bigger companies and even governments?

Re:Now down for the rest of it

[XTbushwakko]

Well, if you are a bookstore you shouldn't be able to sell a book, except a few pages of it that you don't agree with!

It only applies to the government.

[CyricZ]

Even as a Brit I know that the Canadian Charter applies only to interactions between the government and the citizens of Canada. Telus is not part of the government, and is hence not held to the standards contained within the Charter.

It is much like how sites like GameFAQs.com can get away with what would be considered by most intellectuals to be a complete absence of free speech. They are not held to the terms of the American Constitution, nor the Canadian Charter.

Before you defend them

[fulldecent]

Before you make the argument:

They are a private company, and can handle internet protocol requests however they want.

Defend the actions of the company that re-routes request from pepsi.com to coke.com and msn.com to google.com

Re:No.

[BVis]

This raises a point regarding objectionable content. IMHO once you've taken it upon yourself to say "We filter some content" you've taken on a responsibility to filter it all; the problem is, you're never going to completely match all of your customers' expectations of your filtering. This concept goes far beyond the realm of telecommunications; the analogy is Wal-Mart refusing to carry music with parental warning labels on it. By taking a stand against "immoral" (or whatever) content, they've created a perception that whatever is bought from their store will not have any objectionable content. ISTR that they were sued recently over a CD bought by a minor that had the F-Bomb on it. While I disagree with Wal-Mart on this topic (as well as most other topics), I cannot argue that they have a right to stock whatever items they want, as a private company. The trouble is now they're dealing with the consequences of their actions. (I found it kind of funny that when I had a contract to replace some parts in their cash registers, I noticed that every store I worked in had no trouble stocking M-rated video games, such as the now-infamous Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Yay for hypocrisy.)

Lots of people thought that lawsuit was frivolous; I think that it served an important purpose. Wal-Mart prides itself on its "family values" (while ironically keeping many families firmly in the category of the "working poor"). The suit reminds them that there are consequences for taking on the role of moral arbiter, and they may get more trouble than they bargained for.

Of course, if anyone can afford to take the hit, it's the biggest retailer in the world.

Re:It only applies to the government.

[tomhudson]

Even as a Brit I know that the Canadian Charter applies only to interactions between the government and the citizens of Canada.

Boy, are you *SO* wrong!

The Canadian Constitution is the supreme law in Canada. Everyone is subject to it. Everyone benefits from it. Doesn't matter whether its' a civil or criminal matter - all law in Canada must defer to the Constitution.

And, yes, I DO live in Canada.

Re:Is it their network?

[sillybilly]

The consumer can't always vote with his money. Unfortunately, the world isn't perfect, and there are such things as 'natural monopolies', where the cost of establishing a competition is just too enormous for society. For instance, back at the advent of telephone companies, you had, say, 50 competitors in a city, each having to pull their own lines through each neighbourhood, resulting in an ugly zoo of wires, and abandoned wires hanging off poles when a company went bankrupt, and you, as the customer, had to buy 50 telephone sets, one connected to each supplier, and whenever you wanted to contact your customers, you had to know who their phone supplier was. (There were no phone numbers back then, but switchboard operator ladies, which was a standard job for a girl until she got married.) When it comes to electricity, water, sewage, phone, or anything that runs on conduits, you have a natural monopoly, because the cost of pulling 2 or 50 conduit systems through the neighbourhood is just too great, when everyone can already use what's there. The solution so far has been that they are regulated by the government. Now if there were some way to get wireless technology anywhere close in speed to what fiber to the home can provide, you could have full competition, because the costs of competitors erecting 50 antenna poles on top of the hills in your neighborhood is not great. But nothing beats fiber to the home. With electromagnetic signals, or any kind of waves, the higher the datadensity gets, the straighter the path of propagation - i.e. while the low bandwidth longwave radio can penetrate a mountain and oceans to submarines, and FM radio can bend around buildings and trees, but satellite signals can't, they need a somewhat clear line-of-sight (it won't work in an underground garage.) Light simply casts a shadow, it won't go around obstacles at all, like the sound of your voice will bend around the corner or your door to the next room, but ultrasound won't. The path of light in a fiber is straight, it just gets bounced correctly. But it's hard to imagine a wireless system, where you communicate with light or infrared, and whichever way you drive your car, there is a rotating antenna/mirror system to convey your light-signal to a central telephone pole, rotating like a compass according to the path you take. It's just not feasible, for instance, trying to collect and lead out the light signal from underground garages or tunnels, reamplify them, then send them off to the antennas.

Unlimited access != usage

[Loether]

> vaguely worded "bandwidth limits"

I went through something similar in Houston with a small DSL provider (Symet.net). They wanted me and individual to upgrade to 300 dollar a month corporate account. There argument was that unlimited *access* was not equivalent to unlimited usage. When I asked them how much *usage* I was allowed in a given period of time. They wouldn't give me a number. They just wanted me to leave.

I would've preferred to give my money to a small ISP where I can talk to a human if there is a problem. Since I switched to SBC I haven't had a problem. There support is awful but they never complain about my usage. It's a tradeoff. This is one instance where a mega ISP is better.

Re:Now down for the rest of it

[Calyth]

Somehow your comparison is also valid between a book store and Chapters/Indigo, well maybe except for number 2.
They had stopped selling magazines like Soldier of Fortune or any of the knife or gun related magazines.
But no one seems to be complaining...

But anyways, when I'm back into Vancouver (they also provide ADSL in Vancouver), I'm either going to see a huge backlash from the left in the population, or I'm going to see that Telus lift their stupid ban. In either case they're making an even bigger stink than they already have. Their customer service is so bad that someone drove by and shot at their building about a year ago.

A modest proposal.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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.

However, the requirement to carry all comers also confers a privilege - a lack of responsibility for refusing to carry some loads. (The responsibility is borne by the government because it forced them to accept the traffic.) An ISP may find that carrying the union's propaganda is less of a burden than being responsible for kiddie porn.

The union should file a suit against the ISP - not for refusing to carry its traffic, but for recovery for all the SPAM it and its members recieved through their connections, using the fact that the ISP refused to carry the union website traffic as proof that they are NOT a common carrier, and thus bear responsibility for content.

IMHO that will turn the ISP around in very short order.

If they don't turn it back on within a few hours of receiving notice of the suit, file another for damage to their kids' mental health due to viewing kiddie porn carried over the ISP's lines. B-)

Re:Now down for the rest of it

[TFGeditor]

True, but courts often do lok to precedents in other countries for guidance. Witness SCOTUS and its recent decision regarding capital punishment of minors.

Unions vs workers? I side with workers.

[Anonymous Coward]

' Oh really? So...if you don't like the union, then vote with your feet! '

So it follows that the company can force you to join the NRA or the Catholic Church as a condition of employment? Like with a union, none of it has anything to do with your ability to do the job. If you are consistent, you are OK with this, right? Or the company can say if a woman won't sleep with the boss she will be fired? It is the same thing.

' Union security clauses in contracts just prevent free riders: in states where these clauses are illegal (talk about elimination of freedom of contract!) what usually happens is that a bunch of employees decide they want the benefits of the union (much higher wages) without paying the people who work at the union to provide these benefits '

That is an entirely bogus argument. There are no free riders: workers earn what they earn by working. Also, no one is forcing the union to get benefits for non-members. The term "benefits" is also dubious. In many cases, the "benefit" the union gets for the workers is massive layoffs or a relocation of the factory to Mexico.

' Don't want to pay for union representation? That's fine! Go work for a company that is non-union. Don't want to do that because the wages suck? Hmm. '

The wages are better if you go no-union (especially where the unions have wiped out major job sectors), and you get to keep more of your own money. You apparently have no problem with it being a condition of employment to have to pay money to political candidates who go against your interest.

' P.S. All unions in the USA are democratic, by law. So if the majority of people under the contract want to get rid of it, it's gone '

This would not be a problem if the rights of the workers were protected and each individual worker could decide to be a member or not.

' Also, in the USA, there is actually no such thing as a closed shop '

In the USA, most states are closed shop, and most union members are from closed shop. Until American workers have the choice, America works best when it says Union No.

Re:Blame Wal-Mart!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're dumb.

WalMart

• uses Illegal child labor [nytimes.com].
• forces people to work off the clock [freep.com].
• discriminates [wikipedia.org] against women.

Re:They should simply..

[LuSiDe]

That said, on a newsserver they aren't only passing on the data, but also actively storing it (from what I've read it can only be considered caching if it's retained for no more than 48 hours).

In the Netherlands there's jurisprudence on this one and what matters is that the data is automagically deleted after X time instead of manually in order to be considered a cache. The amount of X does not matter in that regard. Unfortunately i can't find the relevant link...

Re:Unions are old and broken..

[Blakey Rat]

Let's say I want to be a school teacher. Show me a teaching position that's non-union. Seriously, I'm waiting... where is it?

You may be right about some unions, but many unions have a monopoly on the field they control. Try to star in a major motion picture without being a member of SAG. Try to be a teacher in Washington State without being in the WEA. It's impossible. In fact, that's the very reason I didn't go into education in college... I want to be a teacher, but I sure as hell don't want to support that union.

Nothing new here...

[abner23]

From http://www.allianceibm.org/ [allianceibm.org]

Attention IBM employees:

IBM is blocking e-mail to and from the Alliance@IBM e-mail address [e-mail] from inside the company. Please send your job cut information and other correspondence from your home e-mail.

Privacy Issues with the website

[Kernel Kurtz]

Not that I agree with Telus' actions, as they are not a judge, but there are questions about the legality of some of the content on the union's website. They are supposedly publishing names, addresses, and pictures of union members crossing the picket lines. I think its pretty likely that this is in violation of both provincial and federal protection of privacy laws.

It will be interesting to see this go to court.

Perhaps protection of workers is not the motive?

[Anonymous Coward]

There seems to be some speculation now as to whether or not this site blocking was meant to protect the employees or just keep people from seeing this video [archive.org].