Spark. ISP or media-streaming company?

Forums › Spark New Zealand (including Skinny and BigPipe) › Spark. ISP or media-streaming company?

1 | 2 | 3

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1282902 14-Apr-2015 13:04

dafman:
NonprayingMantis:
dafman:
1101:
dafman: .......We’ve discussed Lightbox’s great content

Id have to disagree with that. :-)

but back on topic,
Spark/lightbox would be stupid not to try & do something to protect content that they paid for .
Why would anyone be surprised by this?

Because Spark are also in the business of providing ISP services that many of their customers use to circumvent geo blocking around the world.

On one hand they are complaining about geo-dodgers circumventing their Lightbox copyright, on the other hand they are providing a ISP service that allows customers to geo-dodge.

their service doesn't include global mode, so it's not really contradictory at all.
Sparks broadband doesn't 'allow' people to geododge. People can use it for geo dodging in conjunction with other products but that is a byproduct.

While Spark are not directly providing the geo-dodge service, they are fully aware that a significant number of their customers are using their ISP product for geo-dodging and that their product offering facilitates this. It would be very easy for Spark to change their terms of service to block their customer access to geo-dodging sites such as UnoTelly, UnblockUS etc.

For Spark to not block customer access to geo-dodging site is somewhat hypocritical (in my eyes).

To do so, however, would damage their ISP brand and cost them customers.

Therein lies the conflict.

Spark are not asking call plus to block customers using unblock-us, only to stop selling global mode. No contradiction here.

There is an enormous difference between selling a product that *can* be used for illegal purposes, and selling a product specifically designed and promoted to be
used for illegal purposes.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

1101

3120 posts

Uber Geek

#1282970 14-Apr-2015 14:39

NonprayingMantis:

There is an enormous difference between selling a product that *can* be used for illegal purposes, and selling a product specifically designed and promoted to be
used for illegal purposes.

Not really, thats the old "I'll look the other way & pretend it doesnt happen" arguement

Sideface

9207 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1282973 14-Apr-2015 14:45

1101:
NonprayingMantis:

There is an enormous difference between selling a product that *can* be used for illegal purposes, and selling a product specifically designed and promoted to be
used for illegal purposes.

Not really, thats the old "I'll look the other way & pretend it doesnt happen" arguement

Like software promoted to show passwords that you've "forgotten".

Sideface

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1283000 14-Apr-2015 15:34

1101:
NonprayingMantis:

There is an enormous difference between selling a product that *can* be used for illegal purposes, and selling a product specifically designed and promoted to be
used for illegal purposes.

Not really, thats the old "I'll look the other way & pretend it doesnt happen" arguement

It's called willful blindness.

Whether or not the product is illegal hasn't been established in a Court of law. At the moment it's simply a term the media companies want the public to view Global Mode in.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1283006 14-Apr-2015 15:42

1101:
NonprayingMantis:

There is an enormous difference between selling a product that *can* be used for illegal purposes, and selling a product specifically designed and promoted to be
used for illegal purposes.

Not really, thats the old "I'll look the other way & pretend it doesnt happen" arguement

there is a massive difference.

Virtually any product can be used for illegal purposes somehow, some things have some very obvious illegal uses alongside their legal alternative.
But we can't be expected to restrict all products just based on the possibility of them being used. Even Bittorrent has legitimate uses, despite (arguably) the vast majority of it's real world usage being copyright infringement.
But we don't ban bittorrent for that reason.

However business designing and promoting their products for specific illegal uses is very different. That is something we can, and should, stop.

Take knives, for example. Knives can be (and often are) used for illegal purposes (murder, assault, robbery etc), but we don't ban all knives simply because of the possibility. That would be ridiculous.

However, if a knife manufacturer started selling a knife that had special 'no fingerprint' technology, and advertised it as "Easily concealed, and perfect for murdering old ladies." I think we most people would agree that should be illegal.

Apply this to virtually any legitimate product you can think of that has potential illegal uses. (including VPNs)

This is why I think if global mode had been created and promoted as a more general thing "e.g. access geoblocked websites" without specifying which ones (Netflix, BBC etc,) they might be better placed to argue a defence. They could claim that it was designed for non-infringing purposes and if people happened to use it for infringing purposes then that's not their fault. Accessing geoblocked websites in and of itself is not illegal. Copyright infringement is.

But, because they have promoted it as being specifically for those things, then, if Sky etc can show that it is copyright infringement (yet to be determined) then they will have a good case against Callplus.

(Incidentally, Slingshot actually did start it this way, saying it was "for when your overseas relatives come over on holiday and want to watch their Netflix subscription".
The fact they did this means they must have had some fear of legal action, but then they got greedy and decided to go further.)

Glassboy

850 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1283008 14-Apr-2015 15:48

I think you've all missed the point. The companies involved need to be seen to be protecting their content "rights". If a case can be made they have abandoned those rights then future legal actions could be compromised.

dafman

3898 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1283011 14-Apr-2015 15:50

NonprayingMantis:
1101:
NonprayingMantis:

There is an enormous difference between selling a product that *can* be used for illegal purposes, and selling a product specifically designed and promoted to be
used for illegal purposes.

Not really, thats the old "I'll look the other way & pretend it doesnt happen" arguement

there is a massive difference.

Virtually any product can be used for illegal purposes somehow, some things have some very obvious illegal uses alongside their legal alternative.
But we can't be expected to restrict all products just based on the possibility of them being used. Even Bittorrent has legitimate uses, despite (arguably) the vast majority of it's real world usage being copyright infringement.
But we don't ban bittorrent for that reason.

However business designing and promoting their products for specific illegal uses is very different. That is something we can, and should, stop.

Take knives, for example. Knives can be (and often are) used for illegal purposes (murder, assault, robbery etc), but we don't ban all knives simply because of the possibility. That would be ridiculous.

However, if a knife manufacturer started selling a knife that had special 'no fingerprint' technology, and advertised it as "Easily concealed, and perfect for murdering old ladies." I think we most people would agree that should be illegal.

Apply this to virtually any legitimate product you can think of that has potential illegal uses. (including VPNs)

This is why I think if global mode had been created and promoted as a more general thing "e.g. access geoblocked websites" without specifying which ones (Netflix, BBC etc,) they might be better placed to argue a defence. They could claim that it was designed for non-infringing purposes and if people happened to use it for infringing purposes then that's not their fault. Accessing geoblocked websites in and of itself is not illegal. Copyright infringement is.

But, because they have promoted it as being specifically for those things, then, if Sky etc can show that it is copyright infringement (yet to be determined) then they will have a good case against Callplus.

(Incidentally, Slingshot actually did start it this way, saying it was "for when your overseas relatives come over on holiday and want to watch their Netflix subscription".
The fact they did this means they must have had some fear of legal action, but then they got greedy and decided to go further.)

Take knives for example. If a knife manufacturer knew which customers were using its products for illegal purposes, it would probably stop selling knives to those particular customers.

Spark knows which the sites set up deliberately and solely to circumvent geo-restrictions and it allows its customers to directly access these sites through its product, while at the same time threatening direct legal action against a competitor for providing this service directly. Hair-splitting to argue otherwise, IMHO

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1283025 14-Apr-2015 15:57

dafman:
NonprayingMantis:
1101:
NonprayingMantis:

There is an enormous difference between selling a product that *can* be used for illegal purposes, and selling a product specifically designed and promoted to be
used for illegal purposes.

Not really, thats the old "I'll look the other way & pretend it doesnt happen" arguement

there is a massive difference.

Virtually any product can be used for illegal purposes somehow, some things have some very obvious illegal uses alongside their legal alternative.
But we can't be expected to restrict all products just based on the possibility of them being used. Even Bittorrent has legitimate uses, despite (arguably) the vast majority of it's real world usage being copyright infringement.
But we don't ban bittorrent for that reason.

However business designing and promoting their products for specific illegal uses is very different. That is something we can, and should, stop.

Take knives, for example. Knives can be (and often are) used for illegal purposes (murder, assault, robbery etc), but we don't ban all knives simply because of the possibility. That would be ridiculous.

However, if a knife manufacturer started selling a knife that had special 'no fingerprint' technology, and advertised it as "Easily concealed, and perfect for murdering old ladies." I think we most people would agree that should be illegal.

Apply this to virtually any legitimate product you can think of that has potential illegal uses. (including VPNs)

This is why I think if global mode had been created and promoted as a more general thing "e.g. access geoblocked websites" without specifying which ones (Netflix, BBC etc,) they might be better placed to argue a defence. They could claim that it was designed for non-infringing purposes and if people happened to use it for infringing purposes then that's not their fault. Accessing geoblocked websites in and of itself is not illegal. Copyright infringement is.

But, because they have promoted it as being specifically for those things, then, if Sky etc can show that it is copyright infringement (yet to be determined) then they will have a good case against Callplus.

(Incidentally, Slingshot actually did start it this way, saying it was "for when your overseas relatives come over on holiday and want to watch their Netflix subscription".
The fact they did this means they must have had some fear of legal action, but then they got greedy and decided to go further.)

Take knives for example. If a knife manufacturer knew which customers were using its products for illegal purposes, it would probably stop selling knives to those particular customers.

Spark knows which the sites set up deliberately and solely to circumvent geo-restrictions and it allows its customers to directly access these sites through its product, while at the same time threatening direct legal action against a competitor for providing this service directly. Hair-splitting to argue otherwise, IMHO

blocking websites (without a court order or other legal requirement) is something no ISP should ever do - regardless of whether they may or may not be illegal.
Also, accessing the site for, say, unblock-us would not be illegal in any case, even if it were determined that the product itself was illegal.

ISPs are not the police, and nor should they be allowed to be. What you are suggesting is frankly, absolutely ridiculous.

BUT if ISPs started doing stuff to actively encourage illegal activity and designing their networks to optimise for specific illegal stuff
e.g. "Our unlimited plan is perfect for downloading as much illegal content as you want, we even cache all the best illegal content so you get it quicker"
"use our internet plans for researching bomb making methods"
"our broadband is ideal for buying and selling drugs online!"

then the courts could (and arguably should) find them accountable for that activity.

dafman

3898 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1283045 14-Apr-2015 16:36

NonprayingMantis:
dafman:
NonprayingMantis:
1101:
NonprayingMantis:

There is an enormous difference between selling a product that *can* be used for illegal purposes, and selling a product specifically designed and promoted to be
used for illegal purposes.

Not really, thats the old "I'll look the other way & pretend it doesnt happen" arguement

there is a massive difference.

Virtually any product can be used for illegal purposes somehow, some things have some very obvious illegal uses alongside their legal alternative.
But we can't be expected to restrict all products just based on the possibility of them being used. Even Bittorrent has legitimate uses, despite (arguably) the vast majority of it's real world usage being copyright infringement.
But we don't ban bittorrent for that reason.

However business designing and promoting their products for specific illegal uses is very different. That is something we can, and should, stop.

Take knives, for example. Knives can be (and often are) used for illegal purposes (murder, assault, robbery etc), but we don't ban all knives simply because of the possibility. That would be ridiculous.

However, if a knife manufacturer started selling a knife that had special 'no fingerprint' technology, and advertised it as "Easily concealed, and perfect for murdering old ladies." I think we most people would agree that should be illegal.

Apply this to virtually any legitimate product you can think of that has potential illegal uses. (including VPNs)

This is why I think if global mode had been created and promoted as a more general thing "e.g. access geoblocked websites" without specifying which ones (Netflix, BBC etc,) they might be better placed to argue a defence. They could claim that it was designed for non-infringing purposes and if people happened to use it for infringing purposes then that's not their fault. Accessing geoblocked websites in and of itself is not illegal. Copyright infringement is.

But, because they have promoted it as being specifically for those things, then, if Sky etc can show that it is copyright infringement (yet to be determined) then they will have a good case against Callplus.

(Incidentally, Slingshot actually did start it this way, saying it was "for when your overseas relatives come over on holiday and want to watch their Netflix subscription".
The fact they did this means they must have had some fear of legal action, but then they got greedy and decided to go further.)

Take knives for example. If a knife manufacturer knew which customers were using its products for illegal purposes, it would probably stop selling knives to those particular customers.

Spark knows which the sites set up deliberately and solely to circumvent geo-restrictions and it allows its customers to directly access these sites through its product, while at the same time threatening direct legal action against a competitor for providing this service directly. Hair-splitting to argue otherwise, IMHO

blocking websites (without a court order or other legal requirement) is something no ISP should ever do - regardless of whether they may or may not be illegal.
Also, accessing the site for, say, unblock-us would not be illegal in any case, even if it were determined that the product itself was illegal.

ISPs are not the police, and nor should they be allowed to be. What you are suggesting is frankly, absolutely ridiculous.

BUT if ISPs started doing stuff to actively encourage illegal activity and designing their networks to optimise for specific illegal stuff
e.g. "Our unlimited plan is perfect for downloading as much illegal content as you want, we even cache all the best illegal content so you get it quicker"
"use our internet plans for researching bomb making methods"
"our broadband is ideal for buying and selling drugs online!"

then the courts could (and arguably should) find them accountable for that activity.

If blocking websites (without a court order or other legal requirement) is something no ISP should ever do, maybe you should alert watchdog.net.nz?

As per Watchdog, Spark are free to set their own terms and conditions. Watchdog offers a ISP services that blocks adult sites, nothing preventing Spark from offering a service that blocks geo-dodging sites.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1283068 14-Apr-2015 17:06

dafman:
NonprayingMantis:
dafman:
NonprayingMantis:
1101:
NonprayingMantis:

There is an enormous difference between selling a product that *can* be used for illegal purposes, and selling a product specifically designed and promoted to be
used for illegal purposes.

Not really, thats the old "I'll look the other way & pretend it doesnt happen" arguement

there is a massive difference.

Virtually any product can be used for illegal purposes somehow, some things have some very obvious illegal uses alongside their legal alternative.
But we can't be expected to restrict all products just based on the possibility of them being used. Even Bittorrent has legitimate uses, despite (arguably) the vast majority of it's real world usage being copyright infringement.
But we don't ban bittorrent for that reason.

However business designing and promoting their products for specific illegal uses is very different. That is something we can, and should, stop.

Take knives, for example. Knives can be (and often are) used for illegal purposes (murder, assault, robbery etc), but we don't ban all knives simply because of the possibility. That would be ridiculous.

However, if a knife manufacturer started selling a knife that had special 'no fingerprint' technology, and advertised it as "Easily concealed, and perfect for murdering old ladies." I think we most people would agree that should be illegal.

Apply this to virtually any legitimate product you can think of that has potential illegal uses. (including VPNs)

This is why I think if global mode had been created and promoted as a more general thing "e.g. access geoblocked websites" without specifying which ones (Netflix, BBC etc,) they might be better placed to argue a defence. They could claim that it was designed for non-infringing purposes and if people happened to use it for infringing purposes then that's not their fault. Accessing geoblocked websites in and of itself is not illegal. Copyright infringement is.

But, because they have promoted it as being specifically for those things, then, if Sky etc can show that it is copyright infringement (yet to be determined) then they will have a good case against Callplus.

(Incidentally, Slingshot actually did start it this way, saying it was "for when your overseas relatives come over on holiday and want to watch their Netflix subscription".
The fact they did this means they must have had some fear of legal action, but then they got greedy and decided to go further.)

Take knives for example. If a knife manufacturer knew which customers were using its products for illegal purposes, it would probably stop selling knives to those particular customers.

Spark knows which the sites set up deliberately and solely to circumvent geo-restrictions and it allows its customers to directly access these sites through its product, while at the same time threatening direct legal action against a competitor for providing this service directly. Hair-splitting to argue otherwise, IMHO

blocking websites (without a court order or other legal requirement) is something no ISP should ever do - regardless of whether they may or may not be illegal.
Also, accessing the site for, say, unblock-us would not be illegal in any case, even if it were determined that the product itself was illegal.

ISPs are not the police, and nor should they be allowed to be. What you are suggesting is frankly, absolutely ridiculous.

BUT if ISPs started doing stuff to actively encourage illegal activity and designing their networks to optimise for specific illegal stuff
e.g. "Our unlimited plan is perfect for downloading as much illegal content as you want, we even cache all the best illegal content so you get it quicker"
"use our internet plans for researching bomb making methods"
"our broadband is ideal for buying and selling drugs online!"

then the courts could (and arguably should) find them accountable for that activity.

If blocking websites (without a court order or other legal requirement) is something no ISP should ever do, maybe you should alert watchdog.net.nz?

As per Watchdog, Spark are free to set their own terms and conditions. Watchdog offers a ISP services that blocks adult sites, nothing preventing Spark from offering a service that blocks geo-dodging sites.

You are being facetious now.

I'm obviously talking about intentionally blocking websites against customer wishes, not upon the request of a customer which is what Watchdog does.

I'm sure if there was actually demand for a service that offered the "amazing feature" of blocking all geododging sites' spark could offer it as an option,but I really doubt there is that demand.

how about this:

"No ISP should be blocking websites without either a court order, legal requirement or request from a customer"

even the DIA filter is going too far IMHO.

dafman

3898 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1283072 14-Apr-2015 17:10

Ultimately, I’m not arguing that Spark should or should not block geo-blocking sites. All I’m raising is the inherent conflict with Spark (the ISP) being part of the group publicly threatening legal action against other ISPs. I think this puts Spark in a difficult public position.

Personally, I think Spark should quietly withdraw support for the legal action and let Lightbox stand or fall on its own merits – ie, content/price/quality and ease of delivery – in whatever environment prevails. After all, the geo-dodging world was there when they made the decision to sink $30+ million into this venture.

Maybe, in future, Spark could manage costs by steering Lightbox away from expensive new content (ie. Saul) and look to establish a less-expensive niche streaming service (maybe showcasing NZ content and 'much-loved' older series). After all, the infrastructure to build LB is now a sunk cost, so ongoing costs would be primarily content-based. And they could bundle Lightbox free for Spark ISP customers as part of their point of product differentiation from other ISPs, with non-Spark customers able to subscribe for a monthly fee.

Anyway, that said, time to move on.

dafman

3898 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1283076 14-Apr-2015 17:14

NonprayingMantis:
dafman:
NonprayingMantis:
dafman:
NonprayingMantis:
1101:
NonprayingMantis:

There is an enormous difference between selling a product that *can* be used for illegal purposes, and selling a product specifically designed and promoted to be
used for illegal purposes.

Not really, thats the old "I'll look the other way & pretend it doesnt happen" arguement

there is a massive difference.

Virtually any product can be used for illegal purposes somehow, some things have some very obvious illegal uses alongside their legal alternative.
But we can't be expected to restrict all products just based on the possibility of them being used. Even Bittorrent has legitimate uses, despite (arguably) the vast majority of it's real world usage being copyright infringement.
But we don't ban bittorrent for that reason.

However business designing and promoting their products for specific illegal uses is very different. That is something we can, and should, stop.

Take knives, for example. Knives can be (and often are) used for illegal purposes (murder, assault, robbery etc), but we don't ban all knives simply because of the possibility. That would be ridiculous.

However, if a knife manufacturer started selling a knife that had special 'no fingerprint' technology, and advertised it as "Easily concealed, and perfect for murdering old ladies." I think we most people would agree that should be illegal.

Apply this to virtually any legitimate product you can think of that has potential illegal uses. (including VPNs)

This is why I think if global mode had been created and promoted as a more general thing "e.g. access geoblocked websites" without specifying which ones (Netflix, BBC etc,) they might be better placed to argue a defence. They could claim that it was designed for non-infringing purposes and if people happened to use it for infringing purposes then that's not their fault. Accessing geoblocked websites in and of itself is not illegal. Copyright infringement is.

But, because they have promoted it as being specifically for those things, then, if Sky etc can show that it is copyright infringement (yet to be determined) then they will have a good case against Callplus.

(Incidentally, Slingshot actually did start it this way, saying it was "for when your overseas relatives come over on holiday and want to watch their Netflix subscription".
The fact they did this means they must have had some fear of legal action, but then they got greedy and decided to go further.)

Take knives for example. If a knife manufacturer knew which customers were using its products for illegal purposes, it would probably stop selling knives to those particular customers.

Spark knows which the sites set up deliberately and solely to circumvent geo-restrictions and it allows its customers to directly access these sites through its product, while at the same time threatening direct legal action against a competitor for providing this service directly. Hair-splitting to argue otherwise, IMHO

blocking websites (without a court order or other legal requirement) is something no ISP should ever do - regardless of whether they may or may not be illegal.
Also, accessing the site for, say, unblock-us would not be illegal in any case, even if it were determined that the product itself was illegal.

ISPs are not the police, and nor should they be allowed to be. What you are suggesting is frankly, absolutely ridiculous.

BUT if ISPs started doing stuff to actively encourage illegal activity and designing their networks to optimise for specific illegal stuff
e.g. "Our unlimited plan is perfect for downloading as much illegal content as you want, we even cache all the best illegal content so you get it quicker"
"use our internet plans for researching bomb making methods"
"our broadband is ideal for buying and selling drugs online!"

then the courts could (and arguably should) find them accountable for that activity.

If blocking websites (without a court order or other legal requirement) is something no ISP should ever do, maybe you should alert watchdog.net.nz?

As per Watchdog, Spark are free to set their own terms and conditions. Watchdog offers a ISP services that blocks adult sites, nothing preventing Spark from offering a service that blocks geo-dodging sites.

You are being facetious now.

Not my intention to be facetious, so apology if this was the inference.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1283083 14-Apr-2015 17:24

dafman:
NonprayingMantis:
dafman:
NonprayingMantis:
dafman:
NonprayingMantis:
1101:
NonprayingMantis:

There is an enormous difference between selling a product that *can* be used for illegal purposes, and selling a product specifically designed and promoted to be
used for illegal purposes.

Not really, thats the old "I'll look the other way & pretend it doesnt happen" arguement

there is a massive difference.

Virtually any product can be used for illegal purposes somehow, some things have some very obvious illegal uses alongside their legal alternative.
But we can't be expected to restrict all products just based on the possibility of them being used. Even Bittorrent has legitimate uses, despite (arguably) the vast majority of it's real world usage being copyright infringement.
But we don't ban bittorrent for that reason.

However business designing and promoting their products for specific illegal uses is very different. That is something we can, and should, stop.

Take knives, for example. Knives can be (and often are) used for illegal purposes (murder, assault, robbery etc), but we don't ban all knives simply because of the possibility. That would be ridiculous.

However, if a knife manufacturer started selling a knife that had special 'no fingerprint' technology, and advertised it as "Easily concealed, and perfect for murdering old ladies." I think we most people would agree that should be illegal.

Apply this to virtually any legitimate product you can think of that has potential illegal uses. (including VPNs)

This is why I think if global mode had been created and promoted as a more general thing "e.g. access geoblocked websites" without specifying which ones (Netflix, BBC etc,) they might be better placed to argue a defence. They could claim that it was designed for non-infringing purposes and if people happened to use it for infringing purposes then that's not their fault. Accessing geoblocked websites in and of itself is not illegal. Copyright infringement is.

But, because they have promoted it as being specifically for those things, then, if Sky etc can show that it is copyright infringement (yet to be determined) then they will have a good case against Callplus.

(Incidentally, Slingshot actually did start it this way, saying it was "for when your overseas relatives come over on holiday and want to watch their Netflix subscription".
The fact they did this means they must have had some fear of legal action, but then they got greedy and decided to go further.)

Take knives for example. If a knife manufacturer knew which customers were using its products for illegal purposes, it would probably stop selling knives to those particular customers.

Spark knows which the sites set up deliberately and solely to circumvent geo-restrictions and it allows its customers to directly access these sites through its product, while at the same time threatening direct legal action against a competitor for providing this service directly. Hair-splitting to argue otherwise, IMHO

blocking websites (without a court order or other legal requirement) is something no ISP should ever do - regardless of whether they may or may not be illegal.
Also, accessing the site for, say, unblock-us would not be illegal in any case, even if it were determined that the product itself was illegal.

ISPs are not the police, and nor should they be allowed to be. What you are suggesting is frankly, absolutely ridiculous.

BUT if ISPs started doing stuff to actively encourage illegal activity and designing their networks to optimise for specific illegal stuff
e.g. "Our unlimited plan is perfect for downloading as much illegal content as you want, we even cache all the best illegal content so you get it quicker"
"use our internet plans for researching bomb making methods"
"our broadband is ideal for buying and selling drugs online!"

then the courts could (and arguably should) find them accountable for that activity.

If blocking websites (without a court order or other legal requirement) is something no ISP should ever do, maybe you should alert watchdog.net.nz?

As per Watchdog, Spark are free to set their own terms and conditions. Watchdog offers a ISP services that blocks adult sites, nothing preventing Spark from offering a service that blocks geo-dodging sites.

You are being facetious now.

Not my intention to be facetious, so apology if this was the inference.

no worries :)

The part that is actually contradictory is when Spark say "We don't care what you do with your connection" but then they still implement the DIA filter, which is not mandatory. If they actually beleive that (and, IMHO, they SHOULD believe that, since it's a fundamental part of net neutrality and the basis of the safe harbour provisions) then they should withdraw from the optional DIA filter

SparkNZ

31 posts

Geek

Trusted

Spark NZ

#1284775 15-Apr-2015 14:46

Kind of been done a wee bit to death here, you can read a great post from Lightbox CEO Kym Nibilock here - http://publicaddress.net/speaker/we-dont-make-the-rules-were-just-trying-to/ - that really cuts through a lot of the straw men that have popped up around this. You can also see Kym talking to Russell Brown and NRB's Chris Keall on Media Take here: https://www.maoritelevision.com/tv/shows/media-take/S02E004/media-take-series-2-episode-4

The salient point there is that this has only ever been about clarifying the rules of the game in NZ, the ability for other NZ companies to promote a particular service, and therefore the value of the rights that Sky, TVNZ, Mediaworks and Lightbox have all paid for. It's not about overseas companies or protecting old business models (there's nothing old about SVOD), and its certainly not about what people do with their internet connections.

All that's been said elsewhere, the only thing i can really add is an earlier poster said that this is all being driven by Spark because our social media team is answering questions (paraphrasing) - we'll do our best to answer and respond to anything directed at us, regardless. Just as this thread was posted in our forum, the tweets were sent to us and its good customer service to reply to them as best as we can, nothing more to it than that. At the end of the day, Lightbox is a completely separate entity, and they're the ones whose name appears on the paperwork.

Hope this helps

Sam

We are Spark. We're about delivering what our customers want: Mobility, data, music, internet TV, cloud services, and much more.

Web: spark.co.nz | sparknz.co.nz
Facebook: fb.com/spark4nz
Twitter: @sparknz | @sparknzltd
Broadband: 0800 22 55 98
Mobile: 0800 800 163 | *123
General: 0800 800 123 | 123
Media enquiries: 0800 222 412

shk292

2824 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1284784 15-Apr-2015 14:58

SparkNZ:

The salient point there is that this has only ever been about clarifying the rules of the game in NZ, the ability for other NZ companies to promote a particular service, and therefore the value of the rights that Sky, TVNZ, Mediaworks and Lightbox have all paid for. It's not about overseas companies or protecting old business models (there's nothing old about SVOD), and its certainly not about what people do with their internet connections.
Sam

Sorry, but I don't buy that. You're trying to say that you're just trying to clarify the rules, and you'll be quite happy if, after a 5-6 figure legal bill, the rules are clarified to show that NZ consumers are free to use the best value service available and the business model for Lightbox has disappeared? /Tui-ad

1 | 2 | 3