>  Just because an ISP is providing a service for money does not mean they
> can break the law.

I never said they could, my argument is that an ISP shouldn't be forced by 
law to provide access to the entire internet or nothing at all.  It should 
be able to decide what it wants to provide.

>  Maybe the word "active censorship" is incorrect, as I'm not a native
> speaker. Can you suggest a better expression? (Because I'm certain you
> really understand what I'm talking about.)

I think "active filtering" is better, because censorship to me (and the 
dictionary agrees) means only for political or moral reasons.  It seems 
likely to me that the "active filtering" could also be used to block 
torrents, BBC iPlayer, YouTube, or other high-bandwidth content (this would 
make more financial sense for the ISPs).

I suspect the ISPs really want to change their eg $10/month plan into two 
separate plans.  Where plan A is $5/month without access to (eg) any 
streaming video or torrents, and then a plan B that is $20/month and has 
access to everything.  That is a proven business model that is more 
profitable, and if they are prevented from doing that at the moment then I 
can see why they want it changed.

Post a reply to this message