Network neutrality article mischaracterizes Canadian incident ( Note: next posting is Barbara response -- Please read it djf_

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat net>
Date: February 18, 2009 10:49:34 PM EST
To: "Dave Farber" <dave () farber net>, "Ip ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Network neutrality article mischaracterizes Canadian incident

Dave, and everyone:

As you may recall from an article referenced on this list not long  
ago, Barbara van Schewick claimed, in a recent CACM article in which  
she claimed that there was an urgent need for "network neutrality"  
regulation, that Telus, a Canadian telephone company and ISP, blocked  
a union Web site during a labor dispute. I've researched this claim,  
and have discovered that Ms. van Schewick was not telling the whole  
story.

The first thing I learned was that the site that was blocked by Telus  
was not that of the union. It was called "Voices for Change," and was  
run by a union member named David DiMaria. Among other things, the  
site contained pictures of non-union employees who were crossing the  
picket lines, together with their home addresses, their phone numbers,  
and threatening language advocating that union members physically harm  
these "scabs." The site also instructed visitors to jam Telus'  
customer support lines, and was thus inciting another illegal activity.

What did Telus do? Seeing that its employees could well be harmed, it  
did what it could to protect their physical safety. It blocked the Web  
site immediately. And since it couldn't block the site completely (it  
could only keep its own customers from going to it), Telus then went  
to court asking for an injunction requiring the threats to be taken  
down.

Ultimately, the case was settled out of court. A copy of the  
settlement between Telus and the owner of the Web site is available on  
Flikr at

http://flickr.com/photos/penmachine/29590389/

(This is a very large GIF file -- not the ideal format for such a  
document. But if you zoom in, it is readable and tells the story.)

A letter from his lawyer (the first two pages) advises Mr. DiMaria  
that there was indeed threatening material on the site that would have  
justified an injunction. (The lawyer describes it as "thoroughly  
reprehensible.") It doesn't enumerate everything that was posted, but  
mentions two examples. One of the employees who was threatened -- a  
dark skinned East Indian -- was described as a "terrorist" and his  
name, address, and phone number were published. Due to the threats, he  
was compelled to pack up his family and leave town.

And this is, as Paul Harvey would say, "the rest of the story." Was  
Telus justified in attempting to prevent its employees from suffering  
physical harm? I believe so, and would have done precisely what Telus  
opted to do were I in the same situation.

Ms. van Schewick's article similarly mischaracterizes two other  
incidents. In one, a Verizon Wireless employee -- in violation of  
company policy -- delayed issuing an SMS "short code" to NARAL.  
Contrary to the assertions in the article, this incident had nothing  
to do with the Internet and was the result of an employee's misconduct  
rather than a problematic company policy. In the other, a Webcast  
carried by AT&T had certain political remarks deleted. However, AT&T  
received the broadcast in this form from a third party and was not  
responsible for the editing.

In short, in none of these cases does it appear that an ISP was  
involved in unwarranted censorship of political content.

In the course of heated debates -- such as the ongoing one regarding  
"network neutrality" (AKA regulation of the Internet) -- we must  
always be skeptical of, and be careful to verify, the assertions made  
by both sides rather than taking them at face value. And in this case,  
it's especially important, because the dangers of getting it wrong --  
in this case, potentially regulating the Internet in a way that will  
harm innovation, competition, and availability -- are so great.

--Brett Glass






-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com