July 27th, 2005

Filed under:
Politics
7 Comments »

My Letter to Hedy on Telus’s Dirty Pool

I recently sent this letter to my local member of parliament, Hedy Fry. I’ve CC’d somebody at Telus media relations, Telus’s president (we’re thinking his email address is darren.entwhistle@telus.com) and the president of the TWU, Bruce Bell.

I encourage you to express your dismay to your provincial and federal representatives, as well as the company itself. This letter liberally lifts from Michael Geist’s excellent analysis of the situation. It also borrows from comments posted to an earlier entry on Telus.

And what’s with this nutty Telus Idol nonsense? Very peculiar. The letter itself is after the jump.

Dear Ms. Fry:
I’m sure that by now you’re aware of Telus’s recent actions
in blocking their subscriber base from accessing several anti-Telus websites.
Telus not only has violated the trust placed in them by the public, but they’re
in breach of the Telecommunications Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.

Section 36 of the Telecommunications Act states:

“except where the Commission approves otherwise, a Canadian carrier
shall not control the content or influence the meaning or purpose of telecommunications
carried by it for the public."

There can be no doubt that Telus is currently controlling the content “carried
by it for the public”.

Section 2(b) of the Charter states that everyone has:

"freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom
of the press and other media of communication."

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Ford v. Attorney General (Quebec) that
freedom of expression extends beyond the speaker to the listener, who also has
an interest in freedom of expression. Clearly freedom of expression must be
extended the publishers of the blocked websites, and to Telus’s subscribers
who may want to read this expression.

Telus’s argument that they blocked the sites for their workers’
protection is utterly wrong-minded. They should have sought a court injunction
like any other organization whose safety was threatened.

I’m no friend of unions, but Telus has shamefully abused its power and
the public’s trust. I hope you’ll join me in publically criticizing
Telus’s actions.

Comments: 7 Responses so far

Brian Jones
July 28th, 2005
7:18 am

What about blocking sites, or server for technical reasons, such as spamming, hacking, or launching denial of service attacks?

I just want to point out that we should be careful when advocating to our MPs regarding censoring and content filtering. In some instances, an ISP must block a site, or IP to maintain the health of their networks. ISPs should not loose this right, since doing so would mean poor quality of service for their customers.

Of course, what Telus is doing is completely different. But I just wanted to point out that I think there’s a difference between freedom of expression, and wreaking havoc on a network.

Brian.

[Reply]

Nick
July 28th, 2005
8:01 am

My understanding is that Telus blocked the two sites in question because one was posting photos of management as they crossed the picket lines and the second site was blocked because it was providing instructions on how to flood Telus customer service phone lines so that legitimate calls would not get through.

[Reply]

Derek
July 28th, 2005
8:26 am

That may be so (although I couldn’t find that material when I looked at the site in question [mirror if you're a Telus customer]). However, there are a lot of websites advocating much nastier things out there, and Telus hasn’t blocked them.

Telus is apparently within its rights by its terms of service and acceptable use policy to block the sites—although those policies may run afoul of the law in this case; that has not been tested—but it is customers like me who’ll tell the company that we won’t accept it. Money talks, especially when it walks.

Also, what if Bell Canada started blocking its customers from viewing Telus Mobility’s cell phone pricing websites, which might cast a bad light on Bell’s own mobile service? Or if Telus blocked news websites that showed photos of workers who cross picket lines? (Not far fetched: news images of non-striking containers truckers moving goods may have identified their company to the vandals who shot up trucks in the same company’s works yard that same day. That’s real danger, but no one suggests that the news channels should be blocked.)

More crucially, the Internet, and Telus’s business in it, was built on essentially unfettered access. If the company thinks there’s something illegal on those sites, it should involve the police or courts to get that stuff removed. Otherwise it’s just blocking sites it doesn’t like, and is no longer acting as a common carrier. Telus therefore risks not only losing customers, but its ability to carry other traffic unmolested by government, the courts, or its competitors—which has been the basis of its entire business since it was founded.

[Reply]

Andrea
July 28th, 2005
5:12 pm

Derek: I think the photos were around image 61 and 66. They show managers who had crossed the picket line. Although this might not seem like a big deal, I know managers who have crossed other picket lines and been targeted for abuse. (I am not an anti-union person, but I am realistic.)

[Reply]

Darren
July 28th, 2005
5:24 pm

Andrea: I’m not defending the website owners’ rights–I’m criticizing Telus’s actions and abuse of power. If Telus sought a court injunction against particular content on another site, I’d still call it hypocritical (see Michael Geist’s posting with regards to Telus’s use of section 36 in 2001 to defend their content-agnostic stance) but would understand their reasoning and respect their approach.

Instead, as others have pointed out, Telus is setting a worrying precedent.

Ironically, Telus’s actions have drawn a far greater number of visitors and potential wrong-doers to the offending websites.

[Reply]

Andrea
July 28th, 2005
10:33 pm

No, no…I just meant I know what it is like to have a family member targeted after being photographed/videoed behind a picket line. TV clips are fleeting, but websites can be forwarded to a lot of people quickly. I’m not defending Telus. I’m just saying that they might be trying to protect their managers. My dad had to take scabs across a picket line when I was in high school and it was awful for us. The particular union was really infamous for its tactics and our “local” was probably the most political one in the country. A lot of people had seen the TV clips. I can’t imagine what it would be like if everyone I knew had access to a website with the photos. (And my dad was a former union shop steward turned manager, so he was in a very precarious position.) It seems that Telus was not thinking about the potential PR blow up. I don’t agree with what they did — they’re abusing their common carrier position. However, I think I can sort of understand where the move came from.

[Reply]

Derek
July 29th, 2005
4:55 pm

Well, I finally spoke the Telus Executive Customer Relations Advisor (a fine title), and here’s my rant/report.

Summary: the site is no longer blocked, after discussions with the site admin, who will be removing some of the more objectionable stuff. But I’m still not sure Telus gets it.

[Reply]

Add a comment