Internet service providers (ISPs) serve as a gateway to the Internet. There are sites that contain illegal content that people access. When you access this information through the Internet it travels through your providers servers. They have a right to block your access to sites that provide illegal content they do not wish to travel through their servers.
Providers also have the same right traditional business enjoys to not promote the competition. When you go to KFC do they have the McDonald's menu available? How about when you go to Best buy, do they keep the Fry’s ad on hand for you? The answer of course to both these questions is… NO!
Why then should the rules be different for your ISP? If they choose not to provide access to sites offered by their competition then that is their right. Why are they different than any other business? They are not.
Finally, if your ISP decides it simply wants to block access to a site for any other reason, such as bandwidth, you are free to change providers. They have the right to control their business. If an Internet service provider wants structure what sites they offer access to that is their right.
Time Warner has stopped carrying CBS and now has blocked it's website from TWCNY internet users. I do not think this should be legal. If Time Warner does not want to pay CBS, we are still paying for our internet and should be allowed to access shows on the web. I would understand if it was pornography but it is not. We pay for the web, we should get the web. BTW, what else are they blocking?
It is very simple: If an ISP chooses not to deliver access to part of the Internet, then they should not be allowed to advertise themselves as an Internet Service Provider. It doesn't matter if another part of their business is selling TV, movies or phones and they don't want to provide access to the competition - they have said, implicitly, that they are providing Internet Access.
The analogy is a supermarket having a public footpath through their land and them choosing to block it as it leads to a competitor.
And as for censorship... Well who gets to choose.
"Save the Kiddies" is a spurious argument at best. If there is evidence that parents (who are the legally responsible ones here) are allowing their kids access to dodgy material, then prosecute the parents. This will rapidly ensure that those irresponsible parents get off their backside and learn something about computers.
It seems it is ok to show how to make illegal guns even using a 3D printer but not to be able to download information that is quite legal but it unavailable elsewhere.
It is also quite legal to be able to find how to build bombs with nails inserted, and such like to be able to kill and maim people but again not to be able to get legal bits and pieces -- what a despicable government we have been lumbered with.
Who decides what they block? Sure, they start out with saying sites are illegal but why should they stop there? Then maybe the next time it will be a site a rival pays for them to block; or a site that espouses governmental wrongdoing. Any way you look at it, it's censorship and the internet should be free!
This is an infringement of our human rights - you can be a terrorist and still abuse the internet but if anyone wants to download anything that is not available elsewhere.
Just another typical TORY 'put down' and restriction of the people.
Get rid of Cameron and then re-instate the web usage.
When someone is paying for a service then they deserve what they are paying for. If it is at a public library or coffee house where other people can see the computer screen, then yes there should be a blocker. However, in the privacy of one's own home the internet should be completely open to anything. Blocking websites isn't just conservative it is also insane.
Internet providers shouldn't be allowed to block anyone's access to sites on the internet. If I am paying for your service I should not be restricted. People should be allowed to surf freely and view whatever they want to. If companies are allowed to do this they will start blocking stuff from competitors.
I believe that Internet Service Providers should only stand as an access point for users. I do understand that there are websites out there that could break laws, but I believe that the onus should be on the individual, not the internet provider to make sure they abide by the law. Freedom of speech is paramount to a successful internet and any form of censorship would get in the way.
The "Yes" argument posits that you can just "change providers" if you don't like what the ISP offers. But many people who live in rural areas only have one choice (if that) of ISP providers, so they cannot just "change providers." ISP's will have WAY too much control, which is antithetical to the American way of life.
This would be like the book 1984. Who is watching and why? We have to right to decide what is inappropriate and to access the sites that we choose. If they are going to determine what we see, we need to determine what we pay them for the censorship. Right?