Sky broadband blocking some sites?

Hi

I've had Sky broadband at home (the 'mid' package) for a couple of
weeks now and am very happy with it. However, there are some websites
I am unable to access, for example http://www.cnn.com/ . I can access
the site fine through an external http proxy.

Are there any other Sky broadband subscribers out there who are
experiencing the same difficulties? Sky's tech support people told me
they are not deliberately blocking any sites, and there was no
indication I'd be getting a censored feed when I signed up.

Andrew

On 7 Sep 2006 01:47:49 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>Hi
>
>I've had Sky broadband at home (the 'mid' package) for a couple of
>weeks now and am very happy with it. However, there are some websites
>I am unable to access, for example http://www.cnn.com/ . I can access
>the site fine through an external http proxy.
>
>Are there any other Sky broadband subscribers out there who are
>experiencing the same difficulties? Sky's tech support people told me
>they are not deliberately blocking any sites, and there was no
>indication I'd be getting a censored feed when I signed up.

This is - I'm told - caused by action by CNN. Sky isn't blocking,
but a number of places are refusing access from Sky IP ranges.

Regards,
Harry (writing unofficialy)

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Harry Broomhall wrote:
>
> This is - I'm told - caused by action by CNN. Sky isn't blocking,
> but a number of places are refusing access from Sky IP ranges.
>

Hi Harry,

Interesting theory! Where did you hear this?

Andrew

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 10:08:53 +0100, Harry Broomhall
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


|
| This is - I'm told - caused by action by CNN. Sky isn't blocking,
|but a number of places are refusing access from Sky IP ranges.

That is a great disadvantage to getting $ky.

Has anyone any idea how much censorship occurs?

I am with BT who AFAIK only block, uk illegal, porn sites.
--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 10:08:53 +0100, Harry Broomhall
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
> |
> | This is - I'm told - caused by action by CNN. Sky isn't blocking,
> |but a number of places are refusing access from Sky IP ranges.
>
> That is a great disadvantage to getting $ky.
>
> Has anyone any idea how much censorship occurs?

The poster above has 'been told' that no censorship occurs on Sky's
part, it's all caused by the sites themselves blocking Sky. In which
case I'll try complaining to CNN and see what they have to say.

Andrew

In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
says...
>
> Harry Broomhall wrote:
> >
> > This is - I'm told - caused by action by CNN. Sky isn't blocking,
> > but a number of places are refusing access from Sky IP ranges.
> >
>
> Hi Harry,
>
> Interesting theory! Where did you hear this?
>
It's not the first time this has happened.

Earthlink at the moment are redirecting some DNS requests to sites they
don't approve of.


--
Conor

How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the
stupidity-problem solve itself?

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 10:08:53 +0100, Harry Broomhall
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> This is - I'm told - caused by action by CNN. Sky isn't blocking,
>> but a number of places are refusing access from Sky IP ranges.
>
> That is a great disadvantage to getting $ky.
>
> Has anyone any idea how much censorship occurs?
>
> I am with BT who AFAIK only block, uk illegal, porn sites.

Just out of interest, that's not strictly true. BT block sites on the IWF
list, which are classified as "potentially illegal", an extremely worrying
development indeed. It's continually portrayed as being purely aimed at
child abuse sites, but as the IWF gradually becomes another BBFC, they're
clear that anything that is "potentially illegal" will go on the list, which
means anything generally "obscene" (as defined by the unelected prigs
running the IWF), or "hate speech" etc. With Blair's junta so eagerly
declaring everything they can think of to be illegal, especially in terms of
freedom of speech, a lot of sites could get blocked. Will anti-religious
sites be declared "hate speech"? Could a pro-smoking site be counted as
illegal tobacco advertising and be blocked? It's hard to say. BT's cleanfeed
is effectively our own version of the Great Firewall Of China- we criticise
them for censoring the internet while apparently eager to have it done to
us. Bizarre.

Anyway, the point is, "potentially illegal" is quite different to "illegal".
For something to be illegal, it would have to have been judged so by a judge
and/or jury. The IWF/Cleanfeed blocking policy has no input from our legal
system at all.

It's being done as a way of circumventing the awkwardness of official
government censorship in the same way as the BBFC was created- as a
supposedly non-government censorship system which nonetheless does the
bidding of government (cue sounds of handwashing, off stage left).

I'm reminded of an edition of Question Time a few years ago in which the
historian David Starkey declared in that emphatic way he has, "They want to
censor the internet!" (referring to the government) and the government sock
puppet replied with a sort of weak "don't be silly". Oh hum.


Ian

On 7 Sep 2006 03:12:23 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

|
|Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 10:08:53 +0100, Harry Broomhall
|> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
|>
|>
|> |
|> | This is - I'm told - caused by action by CNN. Sky isn't blocking,
|> |but a number of places are refusing access from Sky IP ranges.
|>
|> That is a great disadvantage to getting $ky.
|>
|> Has anyone any idea how much censorship occurs?
|
|The poster above has 'been told' that no censorship occurs on Sky's
|part, it's all caused by the sites themselves blocking Sky. In which
|case I'll try complaining to CNN and see what they have to say.

I asked about censorship by *any* organisation.

--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 11:31:06 +0100, "Jaxtraw"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

|IWF

Which IWF?

--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 11:31:06 +0100, "Jaxtraw"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> IWF
>
> Which IWF?

The Internet Watch Foundation.