General Discussion
  >> Which ISP? (Residential)


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.


Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | (show all)   Print Thread
Standard User jacko0
(learned) Mon 06-Feb-17 20:15:38
Print Post

Why do small ISPs not have to block banned websites?


[link to this post]
 
Does anyone know why small ISPs don't have to block websites e.g. thepiratebay.org

Seems a bit weird, don't get me wrong I think the internet should not be censored, but how do they get away with it?
Standard User BatBoy
(sensei) Mon 06-Feb-17 20:49:02
Print Post

Re: Why do small ISPs not have to block banned websites?


[re: jacko0] [link to this post]
 
Because they're not mentioned in the court order. Only BT, Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media must all prevent their users from accessing the site.
Standard User professor973
(knowledge is power) Mon 06-Feb-17 22:50:22
Print Post

Re: Why do small ISPs not have to block banned websites?


[re: BatBoy] [link to this post]
 
Waste of time anyway. Something like Opera with free built in VPN bypasses filtering.


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.

Standard User 23Prince
(experienced) Tue 07-Feb-17 10:14:31
Print Post

Re: Why do small ISPs not have to block banned websites?


[re: professor973] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by professor973:
Waste of time anyway. Something like Opera with free built in VPN bypasses filtering.


I used Epic browser which does that too - They are hell bent on privacy protection.

Talk Talk Business only blocks if it you tell it too - with worksafe off it allows it
Standard User farnz
(member) Tue 07-Feb-17 11:14:11
Print Post

Re: Why do small ISPs not have to block banned websites?


[re: jacko0] [link to this post]
 
The surface reason is that the court order doesn't mention them, so they're not affected.

There's a couple of reasons for that, however;

1. They're small - if you cut off access to a website for 90% of UK Internet users, then it's effectively gone, especially since small ISPs are far more likely to attract the type of user who's aware of VPN services that bypass blocks.

2. The general rule for blocking orders so far has been that ISPs are entitled to reasonable compensation for the incremental costs of the extra blocking. For the big ISPs, who all have Cleanfeed-style systems set up to handle these sites in volume for IWF content, the incremental costs are tiny; for those small ISPs who don't yet have a blocking system in place at all, the incremental costs are high (an entire blocking system).

That second point makes going for small ISPs high risk - the basis for the blocks is that they're far cheaper than the damage done to the rightsholders by the third party infringers - ergo, a block is reasonable. If rightsholders then balk at the cost of a block, the ISPs' argument that a block is unreasonably expensive compared to the losses it prevents is strengthened, which the rightsholders don't want - that would permit ISPs to recover part of the costs of their Cleanfeed type systems from rightsholders using them to handle civil infringement instead of criminal activity. Combine that with the first point (you've already got 90%+ of the market covered, and a significant fraction of the small ISP customer base knows how to bypass the blocks anyway), and it's not a risk worth taking, yet.
Standard User 23Prince
(experienced) Tue 07-Feb-17 11:50:35
Print Post

Re: Why do small ISPs not have to block banned websites?


[re: jacko0] [link to this post]
 
Have a look through some of these guys videos.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnHLWB74zulLndGfFKI...

Adrian Kennard, also know as RevK on their IRC chat is the Founder of AAISP - he's got many videos on the snooping charter, on the blocking and censorship and other stuff like Encryption.
Standard User XRaySpeX
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Thu 09-Feb-17 05:18:45
Print Post

Re: Why do small ISPs not have to block banned websites?


[re: jacko0] [link to this post]
 
The root cause is that the copyright holders did not take the small ISPs to court, only the major ones. As a result they could only ask for a Court Order against the ones named in their plaint.

1999: Freeserve 48K Dial-Up => 2005: Wanadoo 1 Meg BB => 2007: Orange 2 Meg BB => 2008: Orange 8 Meg LLU => 2010: Orange 16 Meg LLU => 2011: Orange 20 Meg WBC
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Mon 20-Feb-17 09:10:54
Print Post

Re: Why do small ISPs not have to block banned websites?


[re: jacko0] [link to this post]
 
as the others said its a numbers game.

Block BT, sky, talktalk, VM and EE, thats basically the vast majority of the UK covered.

Sky Fibre Pro BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6
Standard User tommy45
(knowledge is power) Mon 20-Feb-17 11:16:06
Print Post

Re: Why do small ISPs not have to block banned websites?


[re: jacko0] [link to this post]
 
The big pandering ISP's seem to have voluntarily signed up to this, Get It Right from a Genuine Site
Sky customers have 20 days to STOP using torrents

Edited by tommy45 (Mon 20-Feb-17 11:36:37)

Standard User bobble_bob
(knowledge is power) Mon 20-Feb-17 11:32:29
Print Post

Re: Why do small ISPs not have to block banned websites?


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
The email cautions subscribers they have 20 days to stop downloading copyrighted material using peer-to-peer websites.

Should your Internet service provider detect more illegal activity from your IP address during the 20 day grace period another educational email from the Get It Right campaign will be sent.


So nothing happens after 20 days really does it?

In general I think piracy is overstated by the music and film industry anyway. They seem to think 1 illegal download = 1 lost sale. In reality the person downloading the music/film would more than likely not buy it anyway
Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to