3UK treats political satire as porn and blocks it
techdirt.com
techdirt.com
Eagerly anticipating the end of my contract next month.
Orange makes you give them your credit card number. GiffGaff made me give them my drivers licence number.
I like that with GiffGaff I didn't need to talk to a person, just do it online, but in general you'll have to deal with this no matter who you sign up with.
I think even Imgur (Reddit's image host) was blocked at one stage.
http://help.ee.co.uk/system/selfservice.controller?CONFIGURA...
EE is branding confusion hell. They're a result of the merger between Orange and T-Mobile, but depending on situation you'll either have them treat you as an "EE customer" or as a T-Mobile/Orange customer. The only ones who are "only" EE customers in their eyes appear to be 4G users.
My contract was entered into with T-Mobile, and is a personal account, and I have never seen a block, including testing just now with obvious candidates.
[Edit: thanks to everyone who has replied, I think I will give them a go!]
If you then subsequently leave them for another network, you will get more SMS spam than you can possibly imagine.
http://zingongle.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/o2-selling-my-deta... for more details.
I mentioned before the weirdly broken system they use for this too - 1.2.3.9; 1.2.3.11; etc are all annoying IPs to use.
I too am on an "unlimited" account. Unlimited being the normal definition of "has limits" - they'll insert interstitial warnings about fair use limits and they'll stop flash working.
T Mobile insert <script src="http://1.2.3.8/bmi-int-js/bmi.js language="javascript"></script> after the opening <html> on every page. Pretty lousy behaviour.
I don't often tether but I do like the ability to do it.
"Tethering is permitted on £10 goodybag and will work on all smartphones with an inbuilt tethering feature, except for the iPhone." [1].
Not sure what the deal is with iPhone (I'm on their £12 option). All the other plans expressly say "Tethering is not permitted ..."
Hence it doesn't really address the "too good to be true" comment about GiffGaff in the GP.
£12 looks like surprisingly cheaper.
Also the coverage in this area is better than Orange. But your mileage will vary.
If I had to come up with a moan about GiffGaff, my only one would be that they send too many SMS notifications that I wish I could disable (i.e. they send me three each month as my package expires and then auto renews).
Orange sent me even more annoying SMS about things like "magic numbers" and other nonsense. So GiffGaff aren't terrible even in that area.
I've never dealt directly with their CS. Everything is online. So I cannot comment on how good they are when things go wrong.
They don't have customer support, it's community based (with rewards for those who help). They do have account agents for dealing only with account/billing problems (the only thing you wouldn't want to deal with on a public forum).
Not sure what the deal is with iPhone (I'm on their £12 option). All the other plans expressly say "Tethering is not permitted ..."
So they might need to pay Apple some £££ to get the ability to simply unlock tethering for GiffGaff's users.
I suspect that an jail-broken iPhone could tether on GiffGaff just fine.
Apple obviously provide the infrastructure for enabling/disabling tethering but I cannot see how it is in their interest to discourage it, except to keep the carriers happy.
But for the saving compared with most networks, those pains are almost irrelevant and you can get even more money off by referring people - it's £5 back for everyone who you get to sign up.
When I was buying my phone, I realized how much money I could save going with them. I could either go with a 24 month contract for 35 pounds per month and get the phone "free", on a contract which included 500mb of data, 1000 minutes and 1000 texts - spending 840 pounds in total, or just buy the phone outright for 500 pounds and go with giff gaff, spending 740 pounds over the course of 24 months, saving myself a nice 100 pounds and getting a better deal.
To their credit though when I made a formal complaint about the issue it got fixed within minutes. Plus its very cheap so I can put up with a little crap support (had much worse from other companies I paid a lot more for)
I was at a music festival last summer and wanted to lookup the program on the festival website to see what was on in the afternoon. Blocked as adult content. They block all sorts of weird stuff.
I have no qualms about requesting 'adult content' when 'adult content' includes political satire and festival websites. It renders the whole idea of people being shamed into not requesting 'porn' access moot, because everyone knows it's really not just porn, it's all sorts of content someone has arbitrarily added to a list.
These are good examples to bring up when someone makes the (dumb) suggestion that we should all have mandatory or opt-out blocking on our home connections.
The end of my little story is that to find out what bands were on that afternoon, I had to install Tor (orbot).
First the network allowed everything. Then ISPs started with forbidding child porn as the one and only one exceptional rule. Then it was everything except "illegal content", being everything before with the added inclusion of copyright infringements. Then extreme porn was added, because anti-porn can always be advertised to end-users as a mechanism for protecting children. Then it is "mature content", including anything an ISP might get a letter of complain about, but which does not hurt any business partners. This meant that they can cut cost on support, but at the same time protect any revenue from advertisements. That mean items such as tor, political satire, all form of porn, unpopular religious sites and (anti)social hangouts get listed, but things like alcohol, commercials directed to children, political advertizements, violence and sexual hinting content will be left alone. After that, they start to add items to the list which competes with the ISPs' own products, such as VoIP, but also products that put a strain on their network such as video streaming. The last bans tend to be less severe, as to show how slow competing products are with their low quality of service. This also allow for a mechanism to extract levies from larger companies such as Google without going with a full blown ban that might create outcry from ones consumers.
The market won't regulate itself. There are too few options of consumers, and there exist a clear asymmetrical information gap between buyer and seller. Lemon laws for services could help here, but it would be the same effort or even more effort than to create industry regulations for ISPs.
Even now, as we gracelessly tumble down the well-greased-incline, they will merrily argue that there is no slippery slope.
As to regulation, there already is, and it actively encourages ISPs to censor.
as for the linked content-code, it is true that its is not a industry regulation but a rather a industry practice code written by large ISP themselves.
The Internet Watch Foundation provides a list of sites that are involved in images of child sexual abuse. While they're an industry group, they are a bit more serious about their mission than other filter providers.
(http://www.iwf.org.uk/about-iwf)
I guess they were formed to avoid the need for legally mandated filters.
I emailed IT with the reply and said the same thing to them. "That's not our decision, it's Management's".
Ah, the life of a drone. Can't say I miss it. The same place had an email quota so strict that I couldn't keep more than 2-3 weeks worth of emails. It also made me a lot more forgiving of callcentre drones.
I've always wanted to hear the voiceover in a cinema say "This film is rated for mature audiences", and have the film be a political thriller of which juveniles wouldn't understand the politics...
Edit: I just checked, and it looks like it was removed again at some point, possibly when I renewed the contract? Ah well.
It's also opt-out, and although this can be done through their mobile app, it has the annoying habit of occasionally re-enabling itself. Very annoying.
It's baffling to me to see this described as censorship. The content is still there. People can still get the content, they just need to say that they want to get the content. Sometimes they need to prove their age. (In the UK we have some legally mandated minimum ages; when a cinema says '15' it means you're not allowed in if you're under 15.)
As I've said, there's a problem with the filter being opt-out rather than opt-in; and there's a problem with the filter being too broad and blocking things that it shouldn't.
So far (nearly two years) no ill effects with billing, I'm on the one plan which allows tethering YMMV.
The only gotcha I'm aware of is that bits of three infrastructure such as the MMS server and I think the "mythree" stuff don't recognise the phone anymore but thats no big deal for me. So the couple of times I've received an MMS I've changed the APN back.
You get a huge interstitial page telling you that the site is being blocked and telling you what you need to do to have it turned off.
I agree that the block should be off by default. Sellers could ask the customer if they wanted the block turned on when the phone is bought. I agree that the blocks are too broad.
T-Mobile didn't ask for any ID. I guess I'm pretty obviously over 18. They did ask for my name and address.
Just like the crappy filters you had to fight constantly at school these are extremely broad, badly curated lists of sites that they get from a third party. Three hasn't gone "let's block political and sex education sites", they just subscribe to a list made by another organisation, and often that list will mark a site as adult content purely because it has swear words on it.
It's a real issue that this stuff is blocked by default, especially when you sign up to a contract where I expect you have to be over 18 anyway!
I would like it very much if you'd block any malware sites. I don't even mind if there's a reasonable number of false positives caught in the mix when a new exploit is found and I might not have updated my software yet.
Apart from that, please don't block anything. I am an adult and the sole user of the account.
I always viewed these filers as being in place for actual children (age 1 to 11), teenagers (12+) should have them removed. If I had kids I would have no issue with them watching porn (aside from 3G data usage) and I wouldn't want to accidentally stop them from accessing information on sexuality.
I think a lot of parents have this strange idea that if you stop kids getting at the information (or condoms) that that will somehow stop them from having sex (or doing other stuff). But the research and statistics are contrary to that.
Frankly my biggest concern would be so called "sexting" (i.e. sending erotic pictures or video to their teenage love-interest). Which unfortunately only education can combat, there are no workable technological solutions that I am aware of.