BT mobile blocking internet access

[Tarantella]

I might be wrong but this seems to have slipped past the forums


http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/251609/bt-blocks-off-pirate-bay.html


I dont personally use my mobile for internet access and I don't condone any particular usage of it but it was my understanding (correct me if Im wrong) that people under the age of 18 couldn't enter into a contract with a mobile phone company.

If this is the case then then this is an act of pure censorship by the mobile providers of internet access and a slippery slope as far as I'm concerned.

If people under the age of 18 are entering contracts with the mobile phone companies then that surely is the time surely to impose terms and conditions on the user and not go down the path of a general restrictions on the adult mobile phone using population.

[Raistlin]

1. Nothing to do with minors entering into contracts, they're trying to protect all minors who are using phones/laptops with their Mobile Broadband service.

2. Nothing to do with censorship, if it were censorship you wouldn't be able to have the block removed:

BT customers who wish to have access to particular sites reactivated can do so by calling 150.

Vodafone have blocked adult content on their mobile services by default for as long as I can remember, every time I've signed up to a contract with mobile Internet access I've always been told that I will need to specifically enable adult content if it's required.

[Stuart]

Vodafone (who provide BT's Mobile broadband) had a similar system in place even when I was a customer. It's easy to switch off, just call BT..

It is true that a minor cannot legally enter into a contract. However there is nothing stopping an adult giving their phone to a minor.

Is it censorship? Yes. Is it the start of a slippery slope? Only if you call banning the sale of adult videos to kids (which is essentially the same) bad.


Is the fact that they banned Pirate Bay bad for the customer? No. Not because I think PB itself is bad, I don't. It is good because with any mobile broadband provider, it's easy to build up huge (>£20000) phone bills through downloading lots of data. Anything that stops a parent getting a huge bill because the kid they gave a mobile broadband dongle to and the kid downloaded a season of friends is a good thing is it not?

After all, those who are adult can switch this "censorship" off.

[Tarantella]

...After all, those who are adult can switch this "censorship" off.


Ah, but an opt in or opt out system drives a coach and horses through the right to privacy.


Does the BT keep a publicly available list of censored websites? Restricting access would mean in most cases a particular website would 'fall off' the search engines. How would you then know what an isp is restricting you from seeing?

[Raistlin]

Ah, but an opt in or opt out system drives a coach and horses through the right to privacy.

What? Seriously.....what?

On what planet, in which parallel dimension, does allowing adults to decide whether or not their mobile service provider provides them adult content drive a 'coach and horses' through privacy? How are the two even linked?

Does the BT keep a publicly available list of censored websites?

Again, not censorship.

Restricting access would mean in most cases a particular website would 'fall off' the search engines.

Hold on a second.....what?

How does blocking a web site from being accessible via a mobile service stop search engines (for example Google) from spidering the site and therefore from it being listed in the search engines?

How would you then know what an isp is restricting you from seeing?

One would assume you would either a) be able to visit it from a normal Internet connection (ie. non-mobile), or that b) you would previously know the existence of the site that you want to visit and would notice when your mobile provider blocked it.

[Tarantella]

What? Seriously.....what?

On what planet, in which parallel dimension, does allowing adults to decide whether or not their mobile service provider provides them adult content drive a 'coach and horses' through privacy? How are the two even linked?.


I'm sorry, I may have an unreasonable desire to view what legal websites I like when I like without having to log my choice with the ISP, local council, UK government, the EU, and any one else who thinks they should be party to the way I choose to do the things I do online.That is the nature of privacy. :)



Hold on a second.....what?

How does blocking a web site from being accessible via a mobile service stop search engines (for example Google) from spidering the site and therefore from it being listed in the search engines?.


Restricting access reduces numbers accessing a website and less popular websites end up on page 97 or thereabouts of a search engines listings and whose to say isps wont stop search engines spiders accessing those websites in future?

[Stuart]

Ah, but an opt in or opt out system drives a coach and horses through the right to privacy.

No, it doesn't. Anymore than any other restriction on what you can view.

Does the BT keep a publicly available list of censored websites? Restricting access would mean in most cases a particular website would 'fall off' the search engines. How would you then know what an isp is restricting you from seeing?

No one is restricting you from seeing ANY legal websites. All they are saying is that you need to ask for access to certain ones. This is no different to a shop asking for proof of ID when selling alcohol or age restricted videos.

You need to get some perspective.

---------- Post added at 16:27 ---------- Previous post was at 16:21 ----------


Restricting access reduces numbers accessing a website and less popular websites end up on page 97 or thereabouts of a search engines listings and whose to say isps wont stop search engines spiders accessing those websites in future?

Do you *really* think that the *users* ISPs have any bearing on whether Google can access a site or not? The only ISPs involved when Google do that are Google themselves and the hosting ISP. Google may (and do) block some offensive sites, but do you seriously think that any hosting ISP would voluntarily block Google?

Also, I don't think Google's page rank system works the way you descibe. How could it (unless the site is secrketly reporting how many visits it gets to Google)?

[BenMcr]

I'm sorry, I may have an unreasonable desire to view what legal websites I like when I like without having to log my choice with the ISP, local council, UK government, the EU, and any one else who thinks they should be party to the way I choose to do the things I do online.That is the nature of privacy. :)
And you can - all you have to do is prove that you are old enough to view the sites in question - usually by giving them Credit Card details where they then authorise £1 and then refund it (IIRC)

Just as you have to prove you are old enough to drink, smoke, buy knives, drive, get married and many many other things

The restricted sites list is a switch. It is either on or off. It isn't tracked.

Restricting access reduces numbers accessing a website and less popular websites end up on page 97 or thereabouts of a search engines listings and whose to say isps wont stop search engines spiders accessing those websites in future?
I thought ranking pages purely on hits went out the window with search engines years ago!