SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An increasing number of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) around the world have been blocking more and more access based on accusations of copyright infringement. Those demanding the blocking assert that high standards are followed when making the decision. However, those studying the situation are finding otherwise. Given the scope creep demonstrated by these activities there is legitimate concern for the future availability of Virtual Private Networks (VPN) on those providers.
TorrentFreak covers analysis from University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist on the topic via his personal blog:
A group of prominent Canadian ISPs and movie industry companies are determined to bring pirate site blocking efforts to North America. This plan has triggered a fair amount of opposition, including cautioning analyses from law professor Michael Geist, who warns of potential overblocking and fears that VPN services could become the next target.
Michael Geist's personal blog jumps right in with a discussion of likely expansions to the scope of blocking and other sources of blocking over-reach.
The Bell coalition website blocking proposal downplays concerns about over-blocking that often accompanies site blocking regimes by arguing that it will be limited to "websites and services that are blatantly, overwhelmingly, or structurally engaged in piracy." Having discussed piracy issues in Canada and how the absence of a court order makes the proposal an outlier with virtually every country that has permitted site blocking, the case against the website blocking plan now turns to the inevitability of over-blocking that comes from expanding the block list or from the technical realities of mandating site blocking across hundreds of ISPs for millions of subscribers. This post focuses on the likely expansion of the scope of piracy for the purposes of blocking and the forthcoming posts will discuss other sources of blocking over-reach.
Once a technology or practice is in place, it is usually extended and abused beyond its original purpose. Even in the short history of the World Wide Web as well as the Internet, scope creep has shown itself to be a real problem.
Sources :
Canadian Pirate Site Blocks Could Spread to VPNs, Professor Warns
The Case Against the Bell Coalition's Website Blocking Plan, Part 5: The Inevitable Expansion of the Block List Standard for "Piracy" Sites
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 20 2018, @10:47PM (4 children)
Why not just require ISPs to be "dumb pipes" that pass whatever traffic you generate/receive without modification or interference?
Perhaps there could be some exceptions for *valid* network management and congestion control purposes, to ensure the efficient operation of the ISP's network.
Oh, wait. We used to have that (spottily enforced, but there nonetheless), and now we don't.
This will continue to be an issue unless and until "last mile" network providers are treated like the utilities/natural monopolies that they are. When ISPs are required to actually *compete* for customers, they can either provide the services customers demand or go out of business.
Hmmm...let's see what such a scenario could provide:
1. Liberty -- which means "dumb pipes", as there is no gatekeeper to decide what you can/cannot transmit or receive;
2. Competition -- which means a market-based environment where providers either cater to their customers or lose.
3. Economic stimulus -- elimination of server port blocks and other abusive TOS reduces the barrier-to-entry for many business models
4. More economic stimulus -- new and innovative *decentralized* services can flourish, providing opportunities to compete with anti-competitive, centralized spying conglomerates (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
This seems like a job for those who support liberty, free markets, economic growth and economic freedom. So, who is it that consistently blocks (and in the US, removes) even small attempts at achieving this?
Hmm....It's got to be those left-wing commies who hate America and have wet dreams about instituting sharia law everywhere, right? Not so much. And if that's not the case, how much of the rest of that narrative is fictional?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday February 20 2018, @10:52PM (1 child)
I've said this before.
Dear ISP,
Why don't you try just being the biggest, mostest fastest, bestest dump pipe there is? At a reasonable price. A lot of successful businesses have been built that way. Just be the best at what it is you are supposed to do, and do it at a reasonable price. And people will come.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @02:59AM
Bidness is not about making money. It's about staking out an ideology and getting government handouts to stay afloat while doing so.
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Tuesday February 20 2018, @11:38PM (1 child)
For all the bitching about Comcast, as best I can tell, they do act as dumb pipes, once you get a business connection. (I can't speak to residential connections).
At the office I also have Comcast and it is a business connection. I've had open encrypted connections up and running for months at a time between here and Australia, and never encountering any issues.
At my prior residence, I was operating a service (listening on a port(s) counts as a service in their eyes) and their security people called me, because that was not something they allowed on a residential connection. They wanted me to buy a business connection for that. I said I'd change provider, and told them I needed it for inbound occasional SSH connections, and they went away. (It was an oddball port so they must have been running a port scan just to find it). Now I see them advertising that home connections can run services.
They are bleeding TV subscribers but making just as much money selling fast internet connections these days (no royalty bills).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 21 2018, @12:56AM
For Comcast:
That's (apparently, I'm not a Comcast customer) mostly true for residential connections, although they do block ports [xfinity.com] for "muh securitah!"
Any decently configured firewall should block most of those ports, but I'd prefer to have the choice. And their port 25 blocking ensures that I will never become their customer. They aren't available where I live anyway.
For Spectrum (Formerly Charter/Time Warner):
Spectrum (if I'm reading the TOS correctly), bans NAT, external proxies, and most server ports). I may have incorrectly understood the former two, but the latter is clearly spelled out [spectrum.com]
For AT&T:
They block a more extensive set of ports than Comcast [att.com], including SMTP and NTP. No AT&T for me, thanks!
For Verizon:
It's unclear what Verizon does and doesn't block. Unlike the other three, they (or at least I couldn't find it) don't disclose which ports are blocked for residential users. Perhaps others (if you're interested) figure that out. This http://www.verizon.com/about/terms-conditions/residential-terms-service [verizon.com] migh be a good place to start.
I chose the four above as they are the largest ISPs in the US covering nearly 65,000,000 broadband subscribers. [wikipedia.org]
I'm sure that other ISPs have different TOS (mine, for example, doesn't block any ports) and port blocking profiles.
If you don't have choices other than these guys (often the case), you'll need (as Frojack did) to get a business/commercial connection which is often significantly more expensive.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr