Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 14:42 UTC
./fistbump.sh. We're honoured to follow in your footsteps!
Thread beginning with comment 478316
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-01-28
Berend de Boer,
"These are companies providing filtering services for their customers (i.e. porn filters), so customers get so called 'safe' internet. That just became illegal."
I doubt the validity of this statement. If you can cite the relevant piece of legislation then we can debate it.
In principal, I see no reason an ISP couldn't offer add-on services to customers, but these services should be completely elective (as in explicit opt-in) and should not preclude customers from signing up to competing services.
If the ISP wants to offer these services in such a way that discriminates against competing services, then that should be illegal.