On 21-4-2009 11:06, scott wrote:
>>  I'm pretty sure that if ISPs started selling their bandwidth to the
>> highest bidders and blocking the rest, that would break at least a dozen
>> of fair commerce statutes. That's completely akin to boycotting.
> 
> Happens already, here at work we pay extra to get guaranteed bandwidth, 
> we have priority over people who pay the "cheap" residential rate.
> 
>>  Because of basic human rights of freedom of information, and fair
>> commerce principles?
> 
> How about the human right to run a company in a way to maximise profits?

There is no such human right.

>>  An ISP has no right to start censoring information
> 
> You are talking like there is some basic human right that you should 
> have access to every single website in existance?  Why on Earth should 
> that be the case?


1) because that is how the internet started and has been run for almost 
it's entire existence. "I'll pass on you packages because I know someone 
else will pass on mine if and only if everybody does that".

2) because you can not know which sites you can not see.

3) insert your slippery slope argument of your choice.

>>  No, it's not like that. It's like your local newagent using technical
>> measures to stop you from accessing competitor publications.
> 
> "Sorry, we don't sell that publication" is a perfectly valid and legal 
> phrase.  Same as how in pubs that sell Coke they don't sell Pepsi.  Why 
> should you be able to force companies to offer everything, if they don't 
> want to that's their choice.

We don't sell is valid, but I think Warp was more thinking along the 
lines of not selling and making sure nobody else can sell it. More like 
Coke buying all the countries main distributors, and forcing them not to 
transport Pepsi. Possibly legal in the US but definitely illegal in the EU.
Imagine also that it is not for something irrelevant like drinks but for 
political relevant information.

Post a reply to this message