It is the result of the government allowing providers to fudge what the concept of what the 'Internet' is. All your service provider does is to allow a process running on your computer to make contact with another computer over the TCP/IP protocol. If they interfere with that they are technically in breach of contract.
The use of the word 'Internet' should be strictly defined. If by 'Internet' they mean going through restricted gateways in accord with their criteria, that is fine, but if they mean allowing processes to connect as described above they are in breach. The public needs to understand that.
There was a case some time ago when BT wanted to cut of the phone lines to prostitutes who had their ads plastered in phone booths and the courts stopped them from doing this.
Restrictions should be done with customers informed consent or at least they should be notified when the subscribe to the service
"if they interfere with that they are technically in breach of contract."
Which clause of the O2 service contract are they in breach of? You said 'technically', so you must think they really are in breach rather than just morally in breach.
It depends on what the 'Internet' means to customers. The man in the street considers being able to get Email, Facebook and Google as being connected to the Internet, and doesn't understand that the provider doesn't even have the right to obstruct or interfere with their connectivity for any reason, whilst a tech guy considers it to be the ability to connect to a port on an IP address.
They are morally in breach if you are inclined to see it that way, based on promoting a restricted concept of what an Internet is.
These restrictions are only done with the customers informed consent. The only blocks without consent is for child porn and other specific court mandated content - such as pirate bay
Comments
It is the result of the government allowing providers to fudge what the concept of what the 'Internet' is. All your service provider does is to allow a process running on your computer to make contact with another computer over the TCP/IP protocol. If they interfere with that they are technically in breach of contract.
The use of the word 'Internet' should be strictly defined. If by 'Internet' they mean going through restricted gateways in accord with their criteria, that is fine, but if they mean allowing processes to connect as described above they are in breach. The public needs to understand that.
There was a case some time ago when BT wanted to cut of the phone lines to prostitutes who had their ads plastered in phone booths and the courts stopped them from doing this.
Restrictions should be done with customers informed consent or at least they should be notified when the subscribe to the service
"if they interfere with that they are technically in breach of contract."
Which clause of the O2 service contract are they in breach of? You said 'technically', so you must think they really are in breach rather than just morally in breach.
It depends on what the 'Internet' means to customers. The man in the street considers being able to get Email, Facebook and Google as being connected to the Internet, and doesn't understand that the provider doesn't even have the right to obstruct or interfere with their connectivity for any reason, whilst a tech guy considers it to be the ability to connect to a port on an IP address.
They are morally in breach if you are inclined to see it that way, based on promoting a restricted concept of what an Internet is.
These restrictions are only done with the customers informed consent. The only blocks without consent is for child porn and other specific court mandated content - such as pirate bay