That is not correct. The majority of big UK ISPs subscribe to the IWF lists but that's a self-regulatory choice. Many smaller ISPs don't and some even advertise that as an advantage.
In the UK? Do you know the relevant law and could provide a link?
I briefly looked at the legal side of offering public Wi-Fi (essentially becoming an ISP) and besides debunking a ton of BS (turns out you don’t need to collect traffic data unless explicitly ordered by the government, and sign-in pages/captive portals/ToS aren’t necessary either) I never even heard of the IWF.
Curious how this law would apply to the ISPs providing connectivity to dedicated servers.
You can easily choose your broadband provider, yes. The problem lies in the fact that all of the large ISPs in the UK have now implemented the blocks. Thi leaves only very small (and usually very expensive ISPs) as the only ones not to have some type of filtering.
> mostly because ISPs didn't have the technical capability
The major UK ISPs have been deploying deep-packet inspection since well, well before 2014. And this is in a jurisdiction subject, at least for now, to the EU's NN rules.
They use that to throttle 'bulk' traffic such as P2P in the evenings.
Not all ISPs. Andrews & Arnold are aggressively anti-censorship, for example, and if you sign up asking for a censored feed they tell you to move to North Korea. :)
They're getting my money as soon as the holidays are over. I'm done with BT since they added anonymizers and proxies to the block list: that's massive overreach, and I'm voting with my wallet.
Mea culpa for not reading properly and thanks for explaining it.
It's a shame more ISPs aren't doing it, I for one have not heard of anyone else but BT.
reply