The European Union is being lobbied into passing the so-called "Telecoms
Package" directives, which essentially would give all European ISPs full
powers to choose what they offer their clients from the internet (in other
words, to offer their clients only what they pay for, and completely block
and hide everything else).

  Never mind the questions about basic human rights, what really baffles
my mind is that these directives are being promoted as *increasing* the
amount of choices people will have.

  I can't even begin to comprehend the Orwellian madness behind this logic.
Something which causes effect X is promoted as causing the exact opposite
of X. Limiting people's choice about what they can retrieve from the internet
is promoted as *increasing* people's choice about what they can retrieve
from the internet.

  And it's not like this would be the first thing ever that has been
promoted with its exact opposite.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  The European Union is being lobbied into passing the so-called "Telecoms
> Package" directives, which essentially would give all European ISPs full
> powers to choose what they offer their clients from the internet (in other
> words, to offer their clients only what they pay for, and completely block
> and hide everything else).

I wasn't aware there was anything to prevent them doing that already...

Why shouldn't they be allowed to choose what they offer?  It's a bit like 
expecting your local newsagents to deliver any possible publication you ask 
for, why should they be forced to?

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> I wasn't aware there was anything to prevent them doing that already...

Probably not.

> Why shouldn't they be allowed to choose what they offer?  It's a bit 
> like expecting your local newsagents to deliver any possible publication 
> you ask for, why should they be forced to?

Because it's no extra cost to them?

Not allowing you to access specific Internet services costs *more* 
because you now have to pay for filtering technologies.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   The European Union is being lobbied into passing the so-called "Telecoms
> Package" directives, which essentially would give all European ISPs full
> powers to choose what they offer their clients from the internet (in other
> words, to offer their clients only what they pay for, and completely block
> and hide everything else).
> 
>   Never mind the questions about basic human rights, what really baffles
> my mind is that these directives are being promoted as *increasing* the
> amount of choices people will have.

Sure, it gives you lots of new choices:

- Package 1 only allows you to access item A.
- Package 2 only allows you to access item B.
- Package 3 only allows you to access item C.
- Package 4 only allows you to access items A and B.
- Package 5 allows you to access items A, B and D, but not C.
...

Of course, these are stupid, stupid choices, but hey, it'll allow ISPs 
to charge you way more money for exactly the same thing, which can only 
be good, right? (For the ISPs, that is.)

>   I can't even begin to comprehend the Orwellian madness behind this logic.

It's quite simple. This allows ISPs to make more money. ISPs like this. 
Where's the problem?

> Something which causes effect X is promoted as causing the exact opposite
> of X. Limiting people's choice about what they can retrieve from the internet
> is promoted as *increasing* people's choice about what they can retrieve
> from the internet.
> 
>   And it's not like this would be the first thing ever that has been
> promoted with its exact opposite.

Oh, right, that.

This is basic politics. Do something for reason A (which is 
reprehensible), and then claim you're doing it for reason B (which 
sounds good).



Personally, I can see two ways for this to play out. If some ISPs 
continue to offer access to everything for a reasonable price while 
other ISPs try to stop you accessing things without paying extra fees, 
the unlimited ISPs will suddenly become rather popular, and the other 
ISPs will be forced to either close or start behaving sensibly again.

Alternatively, if *all* the ISPs go down the route of limited access... 
well limited access is better than no access. It's not like people are 
going to cancel their subscriptions in protest. (Especially since ISPs 
will likely keep very quiet about this fact until after the event, once 
you have no choice but to accept their demands.) In that case, we're all 
stuffed.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >  The European Union is being lobbied into passing the so-called "Telecoms
> > Package" directives, which essentially would give all European ISPs full
> > powers to choose what they offer their clients from the internet (in other
> > words, to offer their clients only what they pay for, and completely block
> > and hide everything else).

> I wasn't aware there was anything to prevent them doing that already...

  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.

> Why shouldn't they be allowed to choose what they offer?

  Because of basic human rights of freedom of information, and fair
commerce principles?

  An ISP has no right to start censoring information, especially not for
commercial reasons.

>  It's a bit like 
> expecting your local newsagents to deliver any possible publication you ask 
> for, why should they be forced to?

  No, it's not like that. It's like your local newagent using technical
measures to stop you from accessing competitor publications.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Why shouldn't they be allowed to choose what they offer?  It's a bit like 
>> expecting your local newsagents to deliver any possible publication you 
>> ask for, why should they be forced to?
>
> Because it's no extra cost to them?

So every company should be forced to do things that are no extra cost to 
them?

What next, BMW being forced to give you the 180 horsepower engine for the 
price of the 140 horsepower version, because it's no extra cost for them? 
(they are the same engine)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >   I can't even begin to comprehend the Orwellian madness behind this logic.

> It's quite simple. This allows ISPs to make more money. ISPs like this. 
> Where's the problem?

  I was not talking about the logic if ISPs wanting these directives to be
passed.

  I was talking about the logic of argumenting that limiting choice is
increasing choice.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> Sure, it gives you lots of new choices:
>
> - Package 1 only allows you to access item A.
> - Package 2 only allows you to access item B.
> - Package 3 only allows you to access item C.
> - Package 4 only allows you to access items A and B.
> - Package 5 allows you to access items A, B and D, but not C.
> ...
>
> Of course, these are stupid, stupid choices, but hey, it'll allow ISPs to 
> charge you way more money for exactly the same thing, which can only be 
> good, right? (For the ISPs, that is.)

That will only happen if all ISPs work together to fix the prices, which is 
strictly illegal under EU law.  And even if it did happen, there would be an 
irresistable opportunity for a new ISP to start up offering cheaper access 
to everything, taking all the customers and making a huge profit.

> Personally, I can see two ways for this to play out. If some ISPs continue 
> to offer access to everything for a reasonable price while other ISPs try 
> to stop you accessing things without paying extra fees, the unlimited ISPs 
> will suddenly become rather popular, and the other ISPs will be forced to 
> either close or start behaving sensibly again.

Exactly.

> Alternatively, if *all* the ISPs go down the route of limited access... 
> well limited access is better than no access. It's not like people are 
> going to cancel their subscriptions in protest. (Especially since ISPs 
> will likely keep very quiet about this fact until after the event, once 
> you have no choice but to accept their demands.) In that case, we're all 
> stuffed.

As I said, there would then be an irresistable opportunity for some company 
to make a shed-load of profit.

Being an ISP is not like, say, providing live coverage of a sporting event, 
there is no restriction to how many companies can offer it.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> So every company should be forced to do things that are no extra cost to 
> them?

  Every company should be (and is) forced to submit to basic human rights
which include, among others, freedom of information. No company has the
right to actively censor information from its clients.

  An ISP blocking part of the internet would be active censorship. They
are creating measures to deliberately block certain IP packets and not
others.

> What next, BMW being forced to give you the 180 horsepower engine for the 
> price of the 140 horsepower version, because it's no extra cost for them? 
> (they are the same engine)

  Your slippery slope argument is rather hilarious.

  What do car engines have to do with freedom of information and censorship?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  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?

>  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?

>  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.

Post a reply to this message

> No company has the
> right to actively censor information from its clients.

What utter rubbish, if the company I work for was forced to give all 
information to our clients we would be out of business!  A company has a 
right to decide what information is passed on to its clients.

>> What next, BMW being forced to give you the 180 horsepower engine for the
>> price of the 140 horsepower version, because it's no extra cost for them?
>> (they are the same engine)
>
>  Your slippery slope argument is rather hilarious.
>
>  What do car engines have to do with freedom of information and 
> censorship?

I was replying to Andrew's point, which you conveniently deleted before 
replying...

Post a reply to this message

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

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > No company has the
> > right to actively censor information from its clients.

> What utter rubbish, if the company I work for was forced to give all 
> information to our clients we would be out of business!  A company has a 
> right to decide what information is passed on to its clients.

  You really like to taunt, don't you? I do honestly think that you
understood what I meant.

  I have to admit that you are really good at nitpicking.

> I was replying to Andrew's point, which you conveniently deleted before 
> replying...

  In the same way you ignored what he *meant* with is point and nitpicked
about the *literal* meaning of whatever he said, sidetracking to some
completely ridiculous slippery slope.

  The only way you could nitpick any worse is if you took a dictionary and
started looking for the most obscure meanings of individual words written
by people and started using that as your counter-arguments.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Where's the problem?
> 
>   I was talking about the logic of argumenting that limiting choice is
> increasing choice.

And, as I said, this is basic politics. Claim to be doing something for 
reason X when in fact you're doing it for reason Y.

I'm sure that at least one or two of these "green initiatives" are 
actually being implemented because they make somebody quite a lot of 
money, nothing to do with saving the plannet. Indeed, if it's making 
somebody money, it's probably _harming_ the planet...

And besides, in the strictest sense of the word, you are increasing the 
cardinality of the set of available products. You're removing the option 
everybody wants so you can replace it with lots of more expensive 
options that nobody wants. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

>> 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".

Sure, but that doesn't mean it's illegal not to.

> 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.

But they are not doing that.  If the directive is passed through, there is 
nothing to stop an ISP deciding to "sell" or pass-on every single website - 
it's the individual ISP's choice.

> 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.

I didn't get the impression that this was what the directive was going to do 
at all.  It seemed to me like (in your analogy) the directive would be 
giving the distributors the right to decide what they transported, and if 
they didn't want to transport (say) Pepsi they couldn't be forced to.  It 
just seems silly to me that something forcing that exists already.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> 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.

  You really are the king of nitpicking, don't you?

  Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough. Is there something in the
word "to block" that I'm missing and could cause different interpretations?
Because I can't believe you are saying that your ISP is blocking access
to your competitors' websites from its clients.

> >  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?

  Have you ever heard of the concept of fair commerce? Fair competition?
Monopoly laws? Ring a bell?

> >  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?

  So you are saying that active censorship is perfectly fine from the
point of view of basic human rights?

> >  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.

  You really like nitpicking, don't you? You do understand what I'm
writing, but you are deliberately nitpicking, just for the sake of
argument.

>  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.

  Clearly you don't want to discuss, you only want to argue. You don't
want to aknowledge you understand what I'm saying, you only want to
nitpick and split hairs.

  Do you understand the concept of censorship?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  I have to admit that you are really good at nitpicking.

I have a great teacher :-)

>> I was replying to Andrew's point, which you conveniently deleted before
>> replying...
>
>  In the same way you ignored what he *meant* with is point and nitpicked
> about the *literal* meaning of whatever he said, sidetracking to some
> completely ridiculous slippery slope.

Actually, I was just using an example to point out that his argument was 
invalid.  Without using the example, I would just say that there is no 
reason why a company should have to do something just because it doesn't 
cost them anything.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> I didn't get the impression that this was what the directive was going to do 
> at all.  It seemed to me like (in your analogy) the directive would be 
> giving the distributors the right to decide what they transported, and if 
> they didn't want to transport (say) Pepsi they couldn't be forced to.  It 
> just seems silly to me that something forcing that exists already.

  Yet it's nothing like that.

  There's a very fundamental difference between choosing whose physcial
goods you transport and actively blocking information which would otherwise
be available (at no additional cost to the company).

  If an ISP started censoring all websites related to a political party,
should they be allowed to do that? What if all the ISPs started blocking
all political parties except one? Should they be allowed to do that?

  No, they don't have the right to actively censor information which would
otherwise be available.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  Do you understand the concept of censorship?

Yes, but when it costs a company money to provide the information, IMO the 
company should not be forced to provide everything in existence for a fixed 
price.  That is not censorship, that is just business.  If an ISP wants to 
charge more for bittorrent than http, or more to access BBC iPlayer because 
it generates 10x the bandwidth, they should be allowed to, and that has 
*nothing* to do with censorship.

Post a reply to this message

>  If an ISP started censoring all websites related to a political party,
> should they be allowed to do that? What if all the ISPs started blocking
> all political parties except one? Should they be allowed to do that?

It wouldn't be very popular, but IMO it shouldn't be illegal.  An ISP is 
just providing you a service for money, they should be legally allowed to 
offer whatever service they want, whether they only give you access to 1 
website, 1000, half, 99% or 100% of them.  The ISP business is open and 
follows market demands, they will provide for whatever the customers want.

>  No, they don't have the right to actively censor information which would
> otherwise be available.

The point is it *wouldn't* otherwise be available, the ISP is providing you 
a service which you are paying for, if you don't pay for it you don't get 
access to the information at all.  How does your "human right for all 
information" work with half the population who can't even afford a computer, 
yet alone an internet connection?  Access to the entire internet is a costly 
privilege, not a human right.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   If an ISP started censoring all websites related to a political party,
> should they be allowed to do that? What if all the ISPs started blocking
> all political parties except one? Should they be allowed to do that?
> 
>   No, they don't have the right to actively censor information which would
> otherwise be available.

Right now, I'm wondering about newspapers. I mean, they very selectively 
report only certain news stories. And some newspapers seem to definitely 
only report information that makes their favoured political party look 
good, or the opposition look bad. Now I'm curios to know whether this is 
actually legal.

(Of course, it's not the same thing as ISP censorship at all. Somebody 
has to *write* the news, after all. And it can be very difficult indeed 
to write in a way which is truly objective and unbaised. But some 
publishers don't even attempt to be objective. Is that legal?)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>>  Do you understand the concept of censorship?
> 
> Yes, but when it costs a company money to provide the information, IMO 
> the company should not be forced to provide everything in existence for 
> a fixed price.  That is not censorship, that is just business.  If an 
> ISP wants to charge more for bittorrent than http, or more to access BBC 
> iPlayer because it generates 10x the bandwidth, they should be allowed 
> to, and that has *nothing* to do with censorship.

...until ISPs start deciding to charge content producers in order to 
allow access to their content. Hell, ISPs are *already* trying to charge 
the BBC for access to iPlayer because it hurts their profits.

Post a reply to this message

>> Sure, it gives you lots of new choices:
>>
>> Of course, these are stupid, stupid choices, but hey, it'll allow ISPs 
>> to charge you way more money for exactly the same thing, which can 
>> only be good, right? (For the ISPs, that is.)
> 
> That will only happen if all ISPs work together to fix the prices, which 
> is strictly illegal under EU law.

Only if you can prove it.

Besides, ISPs have so far successfully convinced people that things like 
YouTube and iPlayer are "hogging" all the bandwidth. (Er, no, it's just 
that people are actually using *all* of what they've paid for, when your 
entire business model is based on the assumption that they won't do 
this, and now you're pissed about it.) They manage to make it sound like 
it's YouTube's "fault" that their networks can't cope - when really the 
problem is that they've sold more product than they physically have.

Given the above, how hard can it be to convince a court of law that it 
"really does" cost more to allow access to more websites?

> And even if it did happen, there 
> would be an irresistable opportunity for a new ISP to start up offering 
> cheaper access to everything, taking all the customers and making a huge 
> profit.
> 
>> Personally, I can see two ways for this to play out. If some ISPs 
>> continue to offer access to everything for a reasonable price while 
>> other ISPs try to stop you accessing things without paying extra fees, 
>> the unlimited ISPs will suddenly become rather popular, and the other 
>> ISPs will be forced to either close or start behaving sensibly again.
> 
> Exactly.

I want to believe this is what will happen, but... I have a sinking 
feeling that it won't be.

> As I said, there would then be an irresistable opportunity for some 
> company to make a shed-load of profit.
> 
> Being an ISP is not like, say, providing live coverage of a sporting 
> event, there is no restriction to how many companies can offer it.

True. But to provide access to "the Internet", you have to peer with 
somebody. If they start deciding they don't want you to access stuff 
without exhorbitant fees, you have a problem.

Post a reply to this message

On 21-4-2009 11:46, scott wrote:
>>> 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".
> 
> Sure, but that doesn't mean it's illegal not to.

I didn't mean to imply that. Merely that it was fundamental to the 
internet and that tampering with it may result in unwanted effects. 
Until now you can add a link between two existing networks and the 
internet will adept to that. What happens if you add a connection to 
your neighbour that has another ISP? Will that be illegal because you 
now have access to sites your ISP does not want you to see?

> 
>> 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.
> 
> But they are not doing that.  If the directive is passed through, there 
> is nothing to stop an ISP deciding to "sell" or pass-on every single 
> website - it's the individual ISP's choice.

That assumes a model where every ISP has access to all information and 
is free to make there own policy. Imagine a layered structure. Imagine 
that someone owns the point where the internet connects to the country. 
Imagine big companies buying shares in ISP companies.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >  If an ISP started censoring all websites related to a political party,
> > should they be allowed to do that? What if all the ISPs started blocking
> > all political parties except one? Should they be allowed to do that?

> It wouldn't be very popular, but IMO it shouldn't be illegal.

  I suppose you are entitled to your opinion. However, I would at least
hope that that kind of behavior from the part of ISPs would be highly
illegal in most civilized countries.

>  An ISP is 
> just providing you a service for money, they should be legally allowed to 
> offer whatever service they want, whether they only give you access to 1 
> website, 1000, half, 99% or 100% of them.  The ISP business is open and 
> follows market demands, they will provide for whatever the customers want.

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

  If an ISP started silently "offering" its clients a rootkit adware, that
would likely be highly illegal in most countries. This even if their
client contract specifically stated that the client allows the ISP to do
so. Even signed contracts do not overrule law.

  There's a limit of what a company can do, even if it's completely with
their own property.

> >  No, they don't have the right to actively censor information which would
> > otherwise be available.

> The point is it *wouldn't* otherwise be available, the ISP is providing you 
> a service which you are paying for, if you don't pay for it you don't get 
> access to the information at all.

  You are still nitpicking rather than discussing what I said.

>  How does your "human right for all 
> information" work with half the population who can't even afford a computer, 
> yet alone an internet connection?

  Is someone actively censoring information from them? Is someone actually
spending money to stop those people from getting the information?

  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.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Warp wrote:

> >   If an ISP started censoring all websites related to a political party,
> > should they be allowed to do that? What if all the ISPs started blocking
> > all political parties except one? Should they be allowed to do that?
> > 
> >   No, they don't have the right to actively censor information which would
> > otherwise be available.

> Right now, I'm wondering about newspapers. I mean, they very selectively 
> report only certain news stories. And some newspapers seem to definitely 
> only report information that makes their favoured political party look 
> good, or the opposition look bad. Now I'm curios to know whether this is 
> actually legal.

  I suppose there's a decisive line when offering information actually
costs money, vs. active censorship.

  If the newspaper would actively censor something which would otherwise
be available (if they did nothing), *that* would probably be highly
illegal.

  Of course biased newscasting is morally quite dubious and against
journalism ethics (which are actually real written texts in most
countries which, while not enforced by law, breaking them is frowned
upon, usually).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Right now, I'm wondering about newspapers. I mean, they very selectively 
>> report only certain news stories. And some newspapers seem to definitely 
>> only report information that makes their favoured political party look 
>> good, or the opposition look bad. Now I'm curios to know whether this is 
>> actually legal.
> 
>   I suppose there's a decisive line when offering information actually
> costs money, vs. active censorship.
> 
>   If the newspaper would actively censor something which would otherwise
> be available (if they did nothing), *that* would probably be highly
> illegal.

Indeed, if the newspaper did *nothing*, there would be no information 
available at all... And it would be perfectly impossible for them to 
offer *everything*. (And nobody would buy it anyway.)

>   Of course biased newscasting is morally quite dubious and against
> journalism ethics (which are actually real written texts in most
> countries which, while not enforced by law, breaking them is frowned
> upon, usually).

I bet somebody does it now and then to make a crok of money though...

Post a reply to this message

>  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

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >  Do you understand the concept of censorship?

> Yes, but when it costs a company money to provide the information, IMO the 
> company should not be forced to provide everything in existence for a fixed 
> price.

  In this particular case it would cost the company money to implement the
censorship. Letting all IP packets through without filtering costs them
nothing extra.

>  That is not censorship, that is just business.

  Also business has to obey the law.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> ...until ISPs start deciding to charge content producers in order to allow 
> access to their content. Hell, ISPs are *already* trying to charge the BBC 
> for access to iPlayer because it hurts their profits.

Sure, but that's a standard commercial matter to sort out, not legal.  If 
they wanted the ISP could block iPlayer and save the bandwidth, but there is 
no way they would do that because they would lose a load of customers. 
Basically the ISPs have no commercial leverage against the BBC, the same way 
as they can't tell YouTube to pay them money.

Post a reply to this message

On 21-4-2009 12:35, scott wrote:

> 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.  

Which would very soon be referred to by the record companies as the 
'family package' and the 'illegal download package'.

Post a reply to this message

>> 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.  
> 
> Which would very soon be referred to by the record companies as the 
> 'family package' and the 'illegal download package'.

Yes - because BitTorrent is *only* used by people trying to steal stuff, 
right? I mean, it's not like people like me use it to download open 
source software or anything like that...

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> 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.

More like, instead of $10/month for access to everything, they get to 
charge $10/month for access to almost nothing at all, $20/month for 
access to slightly more, $40/month for access to everything except 
high-bandwidth systems, $80/month for limited access to some 
high-bandwidth systems, and maybe $400/month for access to everything 
like you have now.

As you can see, they make vastly more profit this way. And if they 
introduce the tiers gradually and jiggle them around from time to time, 
they can gradually extort more and more money out of people without them 
noticing a sudden price hike.

Post a reply to this message

> More like, instead of $10/month for access to everything, they get to 
> charge $10/month for access to almost nothing at all, $20/month for access 
> to slightly more, $40/month for access to everything except high-bandwidth 
> systems, $80/month for limited access to some high-bandwidth systems, and 
> maybe $400/month for access to everything like you have now.

And under your scheme for some reason no ISP decides to use the extra 
profits to make the basic package cheaper and take a big chunk of customers? 
That would be very surprising.

Post a reply to this message

>> Yes, but when it costs a company money to provide the information, IMO 
>> the
>> company should not be forced to provide everything in existence for a 
>> fixed
>> price.
>
>  In this particular case it would cost the company money to implement the
> censorship. Letting all IP packets through without filtering costs them
> nothing extra.

If they censor YouTube (for example) it would save them a huge amount of 
money.

Post a reply to this message

Le 21.04.2009 12:51, Invisible nous fit lire :
>>> 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.  
>>
>> Which would very soon be referred to by the record companies as the
>> 'family package' and the 'illegal download package'.
> 
> Yes - because BitTorrent is *only* used by people trying to steal stuff,
> right? I mean, it's not like people like me use it to download open
> source software or anything like that...

Correct!

Like cars is only used, we are in 1910, by the anarchist Bonnot (Jules) and his gang.
The rightful police is using the bicycle.
Therefore, all cars owner are only a band of anarchists or supporting anarchists.

Transportation fee, to offer more choice to the citizen:
 plan A: train & bicycle : £3
 plan B: cars : £5000

Plan A is of course the "family package" (in 1910, for the nobility, not the basic
workers, no fancy holidays for the workers!).
And Plan B is for the "anarchist package".

As a consequence, in 2010, GM should be closed and seized for a century of supporting
bank's robbers.

That's a perfect demonstration, isn't it ?

(ps: if you do not get the irony of the allegory, get lost)

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   The European Union is being lobbied into passing the so-called "Telecoms
> Package" directives, which essentially would give all European ISPs full
> powers to choose what they offer their clients from the internet (in other
> words, to offer their clients only what they pay for, and completely block
> and hide everything else).
> 
>   Never mind the questions about basic human rights,

Questions such as, "Since when is Internet service a human right?"

> what really baffles
> my mind is that these directives are being promoted as *increasing* the
> amount of choices people will have.

My answers to your post assume that the term "ISP" refers to a business 
that provides Internet services to paying customers, and does not refer 
to government agencies that are empowered to regulate the Internet, or 
government agencies that are empower to provide Internet service at no 
cost to the customer.

That being said:

If the bill in question reduces the costs of operating an ISP, then it 
will enable the ISPs to offer their services at a lower price, enabling 
some consumers to afford Internet service.

Or let us say that some people can only afford Internet service if it 
costs 10 Euro per month, and they only want it for e-mail, but because a 
local ordinance requires the ISP to provide VOIP, Usenet, and other 
stuff, in addition to e-mail, the ISP must provide services the customer 
does not want, and the ISP will charge a higher price, perhaps a price 
the customer cannot afford.

>   I can't even begin to comprehend the Orwellian madness behind this logic.
> Something which causes effect X is promoted as causing the exact opposite
> of X. Limiting people's choice about what they can retrieve from the internet
> is promoted as *increasing* people's choice about what they can retrieve
> from the internet.

It is about increasing the ISPs freedom to offer different services to 
different people, and to offer these people the option of declining 
services for which they have no use.  I see no call for the government 
to shut down certain services.

Given that this is Europe we're talking about, it may be that the 
authorities in certain locales have placed so many roadblocks in the way 
of new businesses that the existing ISPs are effectively insulated from 
competition, and can cut the least profitable services without great 
risk of losing customers to a competitor.  Then this bill could lead to 
a problem, but it must be pointed out that the real cause of the problem 
is the government-imposed difficulty in starting a new business.

> And it's not like this would be the first thing ever that has been
> promoted with its exact opposite.

Well, it's not the first instance of such a thing, because it isn't an 
instance of such a thing at all.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

> If they censor YouTube (for example) it would save them a huge amount of 
> money.

Assuming this doesn't cause a mass userbase migration, of course...

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> If they censor YouTube (for example) it would save them a huge amount of 
> money.

  That wouldn't really be filtering by content, but by volume.

  They would get the exact same savings by lowering their customers'
bandwidth.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> If they censor YouTube (for example) it would save them a huge amount of 
>> money.
> 
>   That wouldn't really be filtering by content, but by volume.
> 
>   They would get the exact same savings by lowering their customers'
> bandwidth.

Or charging by bandwidth used...

(This would, in my opinion, be perfectly acceptable. I mean, you get 
charged for the amount of water or electricity you use, why not bandwidth?)

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >   Never mind the questions about basic human rights,

> Questions such as, "Since when is Internet service a human right?"

  Great, another nitpicker.

  - "Hey, country X does not allow women to express their opinion on the
internet. This is a violation of human rights!"
  - "Since when is internet access a human right?"

  - "Hey, the government is allowing the press to censor political parties.
This is a violation of basic human rights!"
  - "Since when is access to paper and ink a human right?"

  The medium and the information are at completely different categorical
levels. You are arguing about the medium, which is inconsequential.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> If they censor YouTube (for example) it would save them a huge amount of 
>> money.
> 
>  That wouldn't really be filtering by content, but by volume.

Filter all streaming video content then...

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >> If they censor YouTube (for example) it would save them a huge amount of 
> >> money.
> > 
> >  That wouldn't really be filtering by content, but by volume.

> Filter all streaming video content then...

  How does that change the veracity of what I said?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  Great, another nitpicker.
>
>  - "Hey, country X does not allow women to express their opinion on the
> internet. This is a violation of human rights!"
>  - "Since when is internet access a human right?"
>
>  - "Hey, the government is allowing the press to censor political parties.
> This is a violation of basic human rights!"
>  - "Since when is access to paper and ink a human right?"
>
>  The medium and the information are at completely different categorical
> levels. You are arguing about the medium, which is inconsequential.

Warp, where does it say anything about censorship of Women's rights or 
censoring political parties?  This directive is totally about the ISPs 
wanting to make more money by blocking traffic-heavy data like torrents, 
YouTube videos, BBC iPlayer etc.

You are usually the one going on about how things shouldn't be illegal just 
because they can be used for illegal purposes, so why the sudden 
change-around on this particular issue?

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Warp, where does it say anything about censorship of Women's rights or 
> censoring political parties?

  Don't you understand the concept of a simile? Unless you are nitpicking,
of course.

> You are usually the one going on about how things shouldn't be illegal just 
> because they can be used for illegal purposes, so why the sudden 
> change-around on this particular issue?

  Something like bittorrent does not break against human rights regarding
freedom of expression and information.

  Government-sanctioned censorship does.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> You are usually the one going on about how things shouldn't be illegal 
>> just
>> because they can be used for illegal purposes, so why the sudden
>> change-around on this particular issue?
>
>  Something like bittorrent does not break against human rights regarding
> freedom of expression and information.

What's your problem with the directive then?

>  Government-sanctioned censorship does.

If this is your understanding, then please can you quote the part of the 
proposed directive that says it includes government-sanctioned censorship.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >> You are usually the one going on about how things shouldn't be illegal 
> >> just
> >> because they can be used for illegal purposes, so why the sudden
> >> change-around on this particular issue?
> >
> >  Something like bittorrent does not break against human rights regarding
> > freedom of expression and information.

> What's your problem with the directive then?

  ???

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> >  Something like bittorrent does not break against human rights 
>> > regarding
>> > freedom of expression and information.
>
>> What's your problem with the directive then?
>
>  ???

Just because the directive *could* be used for "government-sanctioned 
censorship", you don't think it should be allowed?  In reality it will be 
used to charge people more for high-bandwidth content, a perfectly legal and 
sound business model.

My point is, that this is at odds with your usual stance on such matters (eg 
bittorrent, just because it can be used for illegal purposes doesn't mean it 
should be made illegal).

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:49ed8491@news.povray.org...

>   The European Union is being lobbied into passing the so-called "Telecoms
> Package" directives, which essentially would give all European ISPs full
> powers to choose what they offer their clients from the internet (in other
> words, to offer their clients only what they pay for, and completely block
> and hide everything else).
>
>   Never mind the questions about basic human rights,

How is it basic human right for a *customer* to dictate the goods? Telecoms
are selling you services which *they* alone should be able to define. You,
as a customer, can chose to buy it or not.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:49ed8afd@news.povray.org...
> scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:

> > So every company should be forced to do things that are no extra cost to
> > them?

>   Every company should be (and is) forced to submit to basic human rights
> which include, among others, freedom of information. No company has the
> right to actively censor information from its clients.

In this context, information is a commodity, the very thing being sold. They
can chose what to sell and what not to sell, or how to bundle them and what
pricing levels they use.

>   What do car engines have to do with freedom of information and
censorship?

I don't see how it has anything to do with freedom of information.

Post a reply to this message