The Internet Access You Buy Is Not The Internet Access You Can Use

from the ISP-knows-best dept

Fri, Dec 9th 2005 9:59am — Mike Masnick

We've mentioned in the past how ISPs, like Shaw and Rogers in Canada use traffic shaping tools to block out P2P traffic, but the companies don't seem to want to admit it. An ISP may have a valid reason for using traffic shaping tools -- but they shouldn't be able to do that without letting users know that their connection has those limitations. The expectation when you sign up for an ISP connection is that you can actually use it. Letting subscribers know gives them the option of not working with that ISP and, instead, signing up with one that actually gives them real internet access... Aha! I think we've figured out why they keep it a secret.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

18 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2005 @ 10:17am

No Subject Given
If it is their networks, they should be able to run them the way they want to run them. Heck, Canada sensors plenty of radical ideas -- to name two, US satellite television/DirectTV and the US Shock Jock, Howard Stern. As long as the company provides information as to what types of activities it allows and disallows, why shouldn't they be able to run their lines any way they want to? They are not forced to live up to US or any other nation's rules & regulations.

Canada is Canada. USA is USA... and China is China, and not the other way around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Somebody, 9 Dec 2005 @ 10:24am
  
  Re: No Subject Given
  They may be sensored from Howard Stern, but they have XM radio and Opie and Anthony.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- oskizzle, 9 Dec 2005 @ 10:25am
  
  Re: No Subject Given
  did you read this story? yes, it is their company and they can do what they want with it. but should they be able to tell you you're getting unlimited access and then limit it? then you're paying for something you're not really getting.
  
  thats the point of this article, is it not? am i missing something?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikko, 9 Dec 2005 @ 10:38am
    
    Re: No Subject Given
    Good 'ol Shaw.
    
    All we do is use a BT client that lets you change the port range... And when they phone me every couple months asking why my bandwidth usage is so high, I apologize and make up some BS excuse about leaving Kazaa open by mistake and say it'll never happen again.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2005 @ 10:38am
    
    Re: No Subject Given
    oskizzle, where is the link to the company's website where it says "unlimited complete internet access" or "unlimited access to the entire internet"? I see links to a public message forum -- a public discussion group where anyone is free to sign up and post whatever they feel like typing about... whether it be fact or assumption or just propaganda.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2005 @ 2:11pm
    
    Re: No Subject Given
    Do you still have access??
    
    Nuff said.
    
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Tom, 15 Dec 2005 @ 3:07pm
      
      Re: Canada sucks
      So, now that I have your blood boiling:
      
      This brings up a better point- censorship. Sure, the company doesn't want their entire bandwidth bill to pay for p2p traffic (legal or illegal). I can understand that.
      
      I was looking into starting an ISP here in rural areas where I live a few years ago. We had lots of killer ideas, and our service would have really been top notch. Problem was, 2 our of 3 investors wanted to censor what people could browse/surf/download. That did not jive with most others, and so the idea fell flat. Sad, that.
      
      But to the point of censorship, it's complete BS. Howard Stern isn't allowed in Canada. That makes me laugh every time I hear it. What, does that mean all canadians are more moral because of that? They're better global citizens? No. It means HS said something to make canadian officials pissy, and so the made a rule: "No Stern".
      
      Granted, I am going my my standard of living, but if some government official said, "Sorry, you can't read Al Jezira ever"...well...there wouldn't even be a question of impeachment...there would simply be a lynch mob.
      
      As to standards and bein biased, I once had a friend (Canadian girl) that wore this shirt- her favorite. It had a picture of N. America on it, and the text around the pic said, "We're bigger and on top- If this were prison you'd be our bitch". Well, sadly for Canada...this is not prison. Nobody is anybody's bitch. and frankly, I find that more racey than anything Howard has ever said on-air.
      
      Oh, and Canada sucks...just ask Peter Griffin.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Adam, 9 Mar 2007 @ 1:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Canada sucks
        Canada sucks eh? ya and so does your mother bitch. USA sucks! Canada Kicks ASS!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 9 Dec 2005 @ 11:20am
  
  Re: No Subject Given
  If it is their networks, they should be able to run them the way they want to run them
  
  Did I say anything different? I said they might have perfectly good reasons for doing what they do -- but they shouldn't sell things in a way that implies you get full internet access and then not actually offer it.
  
  If they're going to block certain types of traffic, they need to make that clear.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2005 @ 11:28am
    
    Re: No Subject Given
    Mike, I completely agree with you. This is why I also wrote in my first reply, that "As long as the company provides information as to what types of activities it allows and disallows".
    
    As always though, I enjoy reading your articles. Very stimulating, compared to articles written by other websites.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
drummer, 9 Dec 2005 @ 10:43am

No Subject Given
The first two may NOT actually fully understand. After all they have a different dictionary.
Guys, the word is censor, as in censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris H, 9 Dec 2005 @ 10:45am

No Subject Given
Canada sensors Howard Stern? Meanwhile their radio DJ's curse up a storm on air... that makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ZOMG CENSORED, 9 Dec 2005 @ 11:16am

Not all of canada...
...has this problem. I'm actually quite satisfied with my current service from Manitoba Telephone Systems (MTS). Their DSL is a lot better than Shaw's cable, and we don't have caps... so I usually download a couple hard drives worth of data (surprisingly most of it is pdf's) temporarily, and I've never had a single complaint. In fact, the only thing ever said regarding that transfer amount is "Whether I was getting enough bandwith this month".

I, guess what I'm saying is that this really only applies to the conglomerates (and don't even get me started on Bell).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Funny Guy / The Poison Pen, 15 Mar 2006 @ 11:32am

I find it very intersting that people are actually standing up for a company that is basically censoring you from the internet. I'm not really concerned about who the network belongs to............ and i'm not really concerned about these traffic shaping tools..... no hacker should be.... not hard to get around.... but why is the simple man.... the consumer...... putting up with this?

As far as ISP's go.... you folks need to get a clue quick...... you have a job... it is a simple one.... your job is to transport data from point A to point B. It is not to choose what data you will or will not transmit...... you job is not to be a censor...... your job is not to choose for me what is and what is not appropiate for me to do on the internet.....

I will decide that..... and if you have problems with that... get out of the business... cause bottom line..... all your job consists of and all we want you to do is transport data from point A to point B.....

You have a good thing here..... don't screw it up or folks will find a way to do what they wan and leave you out of the loop that includes their bank accounts........

You don't want that to happen do you......... I didn't think so......

So handle your dirty laundry and let us get back to business as usual...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Xichael, 27 Dec 2006 @ 6:31pm

Shaw
Shaw actually does have a stated limit on data transfer: 10, 60, 100 or 150 GB/month depending on which service plan you have, but according to a customer service rep I once spoke with, they don't enforce it in any way, and he wasn't privy to whether they're traffic shaping.

One thing Shaw definitely is up to, I was recently shocked to discover, is the blocking of torrent uploads to The Pirate Bay. I'd been trying for days to upload a torrent I'd created, but I kept getting TPB's default "database problems" page. After someone on TBP's IRC chat told of reports that uploads were being blocked by some ISPs, I downloaded Torpark, and via a German IP, was suddenly able to upload with no problems.

I find it reprehensible that a Canadian ISP would be allowed to engage in the same sort of censorship that so many an authoritarian government are condemned for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shaw FRAUD, 5 Apr 2007 @ 12:29pm

Shaw is engaging in fraud
Shaw seems to be slowing down all of the websites except the popular speed test sites. I'm paying for a premium service at ten megs but I'm only consistently getting three. They had no explanation as all my hardware and software is functioning properly. So essentially, they are selling a false bill of goods and should be sued. I've heard of various other people with the same problem. Class action anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shaw Bites, 7 Nov 2007 @ 10:19pm

Traffic shaping and port blocking are different
Traffic shaping actually looks within the packets rather than just blocking ports. Using non-standard ports with your p2p client doesn't help. At least Telus isn't doing traffic shaping, although they have participated in web site blocking during their union dispute to block the union's free speech. All believing that the net should be open should sign the petition at www.neutrality.ca
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Angry in Vancouver, 22 Nov 2007 @ 6:18pm

Shaw denies using any traffic shaping.
Just got off the phone with Shaw, and they deny that they use any traffic shaping technology at all.
When I pressed further saying that their is mounting evidence, he said "our official position is that we don't use any traffic shaping or throttling technology".
It's bullshit, and he knew I could hear it in his voice.
I say Class Action lawsuit. We need to get this started.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]