In reply to a post by shaneosborne:

Doesn't seem to be blocked for me... Is it still blocked your end?

Nope, unblocked as of now. I'm guessing Sky wanted to avoid that can of worms asap.

"the service you are paying for"

Is access to the internet in general, NOT access to specific sites. More rubbish!

You seem to hate O2/Be and now slagging off Sky.

Edited by broadband66 (Thu 08-Aug-13 12:58:05)

No we all pay for internet access, that is suposed to mean access to all legal web sites and that are not part of a court order, what they are providing is a limited access (walled garden)internet conection, therefore the services provided are not as described ,
so a refund or part refund is due, this is i think a good stratergy for customers if this proposed censorship that the tories see as an election winner ever get's implemented, because there will be lots of sites like torrentfreak getting blocked intentionally or otherwise as a result , but if ISP's are forced to pay out each time they get it wrong maybe they will take more care as to how they implement filtering of sites, or maybe they will announce that they only want to provide a full uncensored internet service, basically telling camercon to take a long walk of a short pier at low water

I haven't read the Sky contract - I am assuming you have and can confirm that there are no potential terms in there that would allow them to block sites as they see fit?

Net neutrality as far as I am aware doesn't exist yet (at least enshrined in law) and as long as an ISP includes in their contract/Ts&Cs that they may block access to some things then you would have agreed to that on signup.

Saying what it is supposed to mean is irrelevant if the contract says otherwise unless you can take them to court and get a net neutrality clause enshrined in case law (which then presumably would also have to be signed off by Parliament - the same Parliament that are potentially looking at blocking more sites).

Customers don't need to take their isp to court, they make threats to leave and see what they do then, if still no refund carry out the threat and leave them ,ad go to an isp who doesn't block half of the interenet I think most isp's don't give any info regarding blocking apart from making reference that they subscibe to the IWF and will block websites if they are required to block as per court order, in which case they shouldn't be blocking legit web sites and if they do it could represent a breech of contract maybe

Edited by tommy45 (Thu 08-Aug-13 13:35:29)

Unfortunatly this is a problem which we will all have to get use to...

only if the people voters accept this nonsense from government who have no clue about anything apart from how they can line their own pockets (noses firmly in the trough) we can stop things like this we are said to live in a democratic society , but no it's a case of well that web site being blocked bothers me non i never use it, ect ect, but if you sleepwalk into this censorship plan it one day could be your own web site that gets blocked for no good reason and if youre a buisness think of all the lost trade . or it maybe a news web site that gets blocked because camercon doesn't want you to know the truth about something that may affect how many votes he gets at the next election (which he ain't going to win)

You specifically state earlier forcing ISPs to pay out. The only way I know of to do that is legal action - they aren't going to pay our regularly to users without something legally binding making them do it.

If people left them in their droves then they would stand to loose more than if they refunded part of the monthly subs, enough to cover the cost of a cheap VPN would sufice i'm sure, And it wouldn't take long before they stopped blocking incorrectly

Edited by tommy45 (Thu 08-Aug-13 15:37:54)

I fully agree, we shouldn't have to put up with it but the problem with the people of this country is that they do nothing... We rant and race but don't stick to our guns. Of course a few will stand ground but not enough unfortunatly....