UK ISP and Mobile Networks Snub Net Neutrality Pledge 51
nk497 writes "UK ISP Virgin Media and two of the largest mobile networks, Everything Everywhere and Vodafone, are among the high-profile absentees from a new voluntary code of conduct on net neutrality, set to be unveiled tomorrow. The code requires those who sign it to give users access to all legal content and not to discriminate against content providers on the basis of a commercial rivalry — but Virgin has refused to sign because it isn't tough enough. 'These principles remain open to misinterpretation and potential exploitation so, while we welcome efforts to reach a broad consensus to address potential future issues, we will be seeking greater certainty before we consider signing,' a company spokesman said."
It isn't tough enough because it isn't mandatory. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like asking people to voluntarily ban guns.
Whups (Score:5, Insightful)
The code requires those who sign it to give users access to all legal content...
Yes, because asking them to not block on the basis of ethics or morality would be too much. Fun fact: Everything is illegal somewhere. In Minnesota, driving a red car down Lake street is illegal. Elsewhere, wearing saggy pants is a crime. ISPs can't be expected to police for only "legal" content, because what's legal varies from city to city, state to state, country to country... and then there's interpretations of what's legal, and the fact that entire libraries -- libraries -- are filled with books listing only the laws. And that's just in this country. I suspect you could easily fill a small city's buildings with all the laws ever written. And let's not forget company policies, military, etc. The reason why we ask the police to enforce laws instead of countries is because (a) they're primarily tasked with doing what's in the public interest, and so they tend to focus on crimes that actually hurt people, and (b) the average person is poorly equipped to even know the law, much less the interpretation of the law that's politically popular right now.
Asking companies to monitor all personal communications for signs of illegal activity gives them de facto police powers, and worse, unlike the police, there's no legal recourse if their interpretation is wrong. Because if companies were liable for their enforcement actions, then they'd quickly be sued out of existance or bog down the judicial system with so many lawsuits as to do the same thing. That's why class action lawsuits were outlawed -- it wasn't because they weren't built on solid principles of justice, or that they were useful in maintaining harmony and all that... it was because it was the only real method of making a company pay a large enough penalty to change their behavior.
Companies shouldn't be looking at private communications -- period, end of discussion. That's the job of the police. And if it's inconvenient, well too fucking bad. The alternative is so toxic and dangerous to democracy that anyone who would suggest it should be put on some kind of internet 'no fly' list and barred from connecting to the network.
Re:Whups (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, wonderfully insightful I'm sure, but none of that is relevant here. They'renot being asked to police illegal content, they're being asked NOT to throttle back on legal content. Whether they look for or do anything with illegal content is up to them.
Also, it's worth noting that this is the UK we're talking about, which has a much more homogenous set of rules than the US, so your comment about things being differently legal in different places is also irrelevant.
Re:Whups (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't usually reply to someone twice, but my mind is boggling at the stupidity here. I mean seriously, how the fuck do you not get the difference between signing up for a code that forbids screwing with legit traffic, and the fantasy that you and the OP seem to be living in where this code enforces monitoring of all data and blocking things at will?
Sure, this code does not guarantee real, full net neutrality, but neither does it remove it. It's a step in the right direction.
Re:It isn't tough enough because it isn't mandator (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but we don't have the same problem with lack of competition between ISP's in the UK that they have in the US, so it's less of an issue. If your ISP isn't neutral, and you want one that is, it's extremely easy to change ISP.
Af if someone does want service that's cheaper because it's been subsided by Google and Facebook to give preferential access to those sites, I don't really see why there should be a law against their being offered that service.