@airtel_presence DoT has not ordered you to block any website so what the hell is going on?

[Sushubh]

We have received a response today from the DOT which states that "As per available information no blocking instruction to block websites like Pirate-bay and Vimeo etc. has been issued by the Department of Telecommunications to Internet Service Providers (sic)".

Vimeo block not ordered by DOT | Software Freedom Law Center Copy of Response

Embedded Version



====

Dear Airtel

If DoT has not instructed you to block any websites, why are these websites blocked? What court ordered you to block a specific group of websites? Why don't you publish that court order on your website? Why are you still quiet about this issue? Please answer.

https://twitter.com/intent/retweet?tweet_id=212413335868678144&related=broadbandforum

 

[princepurple1979]

Times like this makes you think why the RTI act is not extended to private companies also, at least the ones like ISP's which has a great deal of direct interaction with public.Dont think Airtel is going to reply, but still thanks for the effort

 

[moindear]

Atleast we can send the message to everyone that some sites were illegally blocked by the ISPs

 

[naveen_reloaded]

https://twitter.com/siva_nm/status/212435696286306304

 

[Crazysah]

This is just outrageous. Vimeo should just not be banned on any network.

 

[aviral sangal]

Why not file RTI to DOT asking the documents where they have ordered to block websites to ISPs.Also providing reference to the sites blocked and displaying message that website is blocked by dot orders

 

---

[Sushubh]

mmm. DoT has just confirmed that they have NOT ordered any block.

 

[aviral sangal]

But if someone ask thru RTI and mentioned the blocked websites they might get compelled to take action against airtel or other isps

 

[Sushubh]

from what i understand RTI is to seek information not to ask for action. and i guess considering we do not really have anything like network neutrality laws, i do not think DoT can force ISPs to remove the blocks legally.

 

[princepurple1979]

from what i understand RTI is to seek information not to ask for action. and i guess considering we do not really have anything like network neutrality laws, i do not think DoT can force ISPs to remove the blocks legally.

You are right. RTI will not help us to make an organisation act.

The only thing possible is to use the reply received from DOT and to proceed against Airtel in court. Unless we have a practising advocate in this forum, who else has the time and energy to do all this?

Not to mention the snail speed at which out justice system works!

 

[Sushubh]

plus airtel probably reserves the right to do whatever they want to do to preserve the sanctity of their network based on their terms and conditions.

 

[kooldude]

Looks like a clear case of lobbying by the music industry as well as certain Film studios.ISPs like Airtel and Reliance should be sued for providing misleading Info to the customer.The earlier block messages clearly mentioned that DOT has ordered the block.

 

[mgcarley]

The message I currently get on blocked sites is "This website/URL has been blocked until further notice either pursuant to Court orders or on the Directions issued by the Department of Telecommunications"As such, since the DoT has confirmed that they didn't order a block, now you probably need to file something to find out if the court itself did.

 

[Sushubh]

well the court order from march states that isps have to prevent piracy. no document has been released that talks about specific domains. in any case, block on domains like sedo and buydomains has NOTHING to do with piracy etc. so the entire block is a ****ing joke on the internet users in the country.

 

[mgcarley]

well the court order from march states that isps have to prevent piracy. no document has been released that talks about specific domains. in any case, block on domains like sedo and buydomains has NOTHING to do with piracy etc. so the entire block is a ****ing joke on the internet users in the country.

No, the existing *law* says that we have to prevent piracy of desi content.

While I'm not disputing the confirmation that nothing was ordered from the DoT, I am saying that it's entirely possible that these blockages were NOT ordered by the DoT and were in fact issued by *a* court (I seem to remember the supreme court's name being thrown around), which would mean that we now have to find out if the court did in fact issue such an order AND what domains that order covers (and in the cases of sedo.co.uk etc why those domains are there). I assume the RTI covers such information?