Of course, for my first post on this awesome mailing list, I had to do such a silly mistake to invert opt-in and opt-out.
To sum up : Acceptable with opt-out : No. Acceptable with passive opt-in : No. Acceptable with active opt-in : Yes. By the way, I take a moment to introduce myself : I'm participating in a non-profit and local DIY ISP [1] and we are several organizations in France doing the same thing, some of them grouped in a federation called FFDN [2]. Promoting Net neutrality, citizen's control over the Internet infrastructure and so on. Julien [1] http://www.ilico.org/ (only in french) [2] http://www.ffdn.org/en Le 03 janv. à 19:30, Julien Rabier a écrit : > Hello everybody, > > Just want to add some precisions : > > - Not all web based advertisements are blocked. Blocking is done with a > blacklist of IP addresses. > - It is done on the CPE level, not in the core network of Free. > > This story is quite shaking the french interwebs and i was like Bernard at > first and the more I think about it, the more my position is confused. > > My current state of mind is : > - Is it an acceptable net neutrality violation if it's done on an opt-out > basis ? Yes. > - Is it acceptable in the current, opt-in, case ? No. > > One funny thing is that the ad-company of lemonde.fr (biggest online > journal in France) owned by X. Niel who also owns Free, is still accessible. > It's not in Free's blacklist. > > There is a fight between Free and Google about Youtube for some months now. > So, is it a google trolling move ? > > At least, it's a good way to show how ad-dependent the commercial web is > currently is. > > Julien > > Le 03 janv. à 17:41, Bernard Tyers - ei8fdb a écrit : > > Free ISP a French ISP with approx. 5M subs has blocked, by default, all web > > based advertisements being served to their fixed-line Internet subscribers. > > [1, 2] > > > > As a consumer, I would be very happy about it. As a "Internet neutrality" > > (whatever you want to call it) supporter I disagree with what they are > > doing. > > > > If they want to offer this as a service, then it should be opt-in, as > > opposed to opt-out (subscribers can turn it off via their Internet router). > > > > While it's not life-threatening Internet censorship, in my opinion it is > > still censorship. From a network infrastructure POV, it would be a > > reasonably large job to carry this out successfully, without issues, but > > nothing a modern ISP with a budget could not build. > > > > On the Twitters there are various reasons being discussed (the ISP is > > blocking companies, who are not paying them anything, from making money). > > > > Will we see some websites blocking access for Free ISP subs? Will they > > offer a second-class service? > > > > An interesting, but slightly disturbing development. > > > > > > [1] > > http://www.rudebaguette.com/2013/01/03/new-update-to-freebox-censors-internet-ads-by-default-for-5-5m-users/ > > > > [2] (Google translated) > > http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.numerama.com%2Fmagazine%2F24665-blocage-des-pubs-free-pete-un-cable.html&act=url > > > > regards, Bernard > -- > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
-- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
