Russia Ramps Up Censorship Beef With Twitter Using Deep Packet Inspection Tech

from the not-helping dept

Over the last decade Russia has accelerated the government's quest to censor the internet. That was most conspicuous with the passage of a 2016 surveillance bill that not only mandated encryption backdoors, but effectively banned VPN providers from operating in the country unless they were willing to spy and censor at Putin's behest. Many VPN providers weren't keen on that, so they simply stopped doing business in the country.

More recently, Russia has been engaged in a bit of a hissy fit over Twitter's unwillingness to censor things the Russian government doesn't like. And while Twitter has been trying to filter more illegal behavior and pornography at the government's behest, the company hasn't been censoring broader content at the rate Putin and pals prefer. So as punishment, Russia has taken to throttling user access to Twitter to a rather 1997-esque 128 kbps, or about the speed of an old IDSN line. Granted the ham-fisted gamesmanship Russia has been engaged in has already resulted in some notable collateral damage:

New data suggests (you can find the technical specifics here) that Russia is engaging in the throttling via the use of "middleboxes" that Russian ISPs have installed as close to the customer as possible. Russian authorities then feed data on which domain should be throttled and punished to the devices, which utilize deep packet inspection to identify targeted traffic. Ars Technica notes that the deep packet inspection technology (which US ISPs also use, though most frequently for targeted advertising) opens the door to a much more sophisticated tracking and censoring regime less prone to collateral damage:

"The middleboxes inspect both requests sent by Russian end users as well as responses that Twitter returns. That means that the new technique may have capabilities not found in older Internet censorship regimens, such as filtering of connections using VPNs, Tor, and censorship-circumvention apps. Ars previously wrote about the servers here.

The middleboxes use deep packet inspection to extract information, including the SNI. Short for “server name identification,” the SNI is the domain name of the HTTPS website that is sent in plaintext during a normal Internet transaction. Russian censors use the plaintext for more granular blocking and throttling of websites. Blocking by IP address, by contrast, can have unintended consequences because it often blocks content the censor wants to keep in place.

New reports suggest there are around seven countermeasures Russian companies and citizens can use to thwart these efforts, including ECH, or Encrypted ClientHello, an update for the Transport Layer Security protocol that prevents domain blocking and throttling. That forces government censors to rely on the more collateral damage-prone IP-level blocklists, which (might) act as a deterrent for censorship obsessed governments that don't want a whole lot of attention focused on the fact they're massive cowards afraid of the free exchange of information that might challenge their hegemony.

Filed Under: censorship, deep packet inspection, russia, throttling
Companies: twitter

After Years Of Litigation, AT&T Customers Get A Measly $22 For Being Lied To Over 'Throttling'

from the what-accountability-doesn't-look-like dept

Way back in 2014 the FTC sued AT&T for selling "unlimited" wireless data plans with very real and annoying limits. The lawsuit noted that, starting in 2011, AT&T began selling "unlimited" plans that actually throttled upwards of 90 percent of your downstream speeds after using just two or three gigabytes of data. AT&T spent years trying to wiggle out of the lawsuit via a variety of legal gymnastics, including at one point trying to claim that the very same net neutrality and FCC Title II rules AT&T was attempting to kill, prevented the FTC from holding it accountable.

In late 2019 AT&T agreed to a $60 million settlement with the FTC without actually admitting any wrongdoing. Consumers who were lied to and ripped off for years nabbed somewhere around $12 each. Another, separate California class action recently came to a close with AT&T agreeing to a $12 million settlement. There too, consumers are expected to get somewhere around $10 to $11 each because they likely would have seen even less after a full trial:

"The new class-action settlement says that, on average, settlement-class members exceeded the throttling thresholds during 7.5 monthly billing periods. This means customers paid AT&T an average of $225 for unlimited data in months they were throttled. Despite that, plaintiffs concluded that the $10 or $11 settlement payments are a good deal compared to what they would likely get at trial."

Years of litigation, two major settlements, and $22 per consumer was the end result. Though lawyers wound up doing okay, grabbing their fair share of the $12 million:

"Here's how the numbers in the new settlement shake out. Of the $12 million, $462,000 is set aside for administrative costs and up to $3 million for attorneys' fees and expenses. The remainder would be distributed to the class, which is defined as California residents who bought unlimited mobile data from AT&T and exceeded the data usage threshold "for one or more monthly billing cycles such that the user would have been eligible for data usage slowing or deprioritization by AT&T in those billing cycles under AT&T's network management policies."

And this of course could have been worse had AT&T succeeded in flinging these folks toward binding arbitration, a system advertised as more effective than class actions despite being demonstrably even more lopsided and pathetic.

Wireless carriers have been advertising "unlimited" plans and then lying about their very real limits for the better part of fifteen years now. Many are still doing it and will continue to do it. Why? The penalty is always a tiny, tiny, fraction of the money earned by being misleading. The only real lesson here for AT&T is that stalling and litigation can easily blunt accountability for misleading or predatory business practices.

Filed Under: class action, fcc, throttling, truth in advertising, unlimited
Companies: at&t

Major ISP Cox Begins Throttling Entire Neighborhoods for 'Excessive Usage'

from the not-the-future-we-were-promised dept

Major ISP Cox Communications has begun throttling the connections of entire neighborhoods for what the ISP deems "excessive usage." More specifically, the ISP has begun severely throttling the upstream connections of internet users who consume too much bandwidth for the ISP's liking, even if those users have paid the company extra for faster, unrestricted service.

Despite ISPs making it repeatedly clear that their networks are handling COVID-19 related strain very well, complaints about the new restrictions have been popping up at Reddit over the last month. While Cox confirmed to Ars Technica that it had started throttling the upstream speeds of entire neighborhoods, it wasn't willing to clarify how many neighborhoods are impacted and just how much data is deemed "excessive" by the cable giant:

"Cox responded by lowering the upload speeds on the gigabit-download plan from 35Mbps to 10Mbps for the customer's whole neighborhood. Cox confirmed to Ars that it has imposed neighborhood-wide slowdowns in multiple neighborhoods in cases like this one but didn't say how many excessive users are enough to trigger a speed decrease."

Some users who are impacted say they already pay Cox $150 a month for a 1 Gbps down, 35 Mbps up (now 10 Mbps) connection -- and an additional $50 per month to avoid going over Cox's 1 terabyte monthly bandwidth cap (which triggers a $10 per additional 50 GB surcharge once surpassed). And they're still facing slowdowns:

"Mike, a Cox customer from Gainesville, Florida, pays $150 a month, including $100 for 1Gbps download speeds and 35Mbps upload speeds, and another $50 for "unlimited data" so that he can go over Cox's 1TB data cap. Mike told Ars via email that most of his 8TB+ monthly use consists of scheduled device backups and "data sharing via various (encrypted) information-sharing protocols," such as peer-to-peer networks, between 1am and 8am."

Please keep in mind that as ISPs pushed for the net neutrality repeal (which demolished much of the FCC's authority over telecom), they claimed repeatedly that this would result in a massive surge in investment (that never happened, and at some ISPs, like AT&T, investment dropped). The idea that "regulatory freedom" would result in near-Utopian outcomes has been the mantra for several years, yet suddenly users who already pay an arm and a leg for bandwidth find themselves inexplicably throttled anyway? Without any transparency into "how much is too much?"

Telecom lawyer Harold Feld asked all the right questions on Twitter, noting that this certainly wasn't the deregulated Utopia US broadband consumers were promised:

Again, we heard more times than we could count that the net neutrality repeal and FCC lobotomy requested by telecom lobbyists would result in waves of investment and near magical outcomes. Yet here, instead of investing in the necessary upgrades to handle the added load, Cox is throttling the connections of entire neighborhoods that already pay an arm and a leg for bandwidth (Americans consistently pay some of the highest prices for broadband in the developed world). Worse, they're doing so in a way that's entirely not transparent, and likely would have violated the transparency requirements in the FCC's net neutrality rules, had we not demolished them at lobbyist behest and in stark contrast to the will of the public.

Granted this is happening because, as we warned all along, mindlessly deregulating US telecom doesn't magically result in spurred investment and Utopia. In large part because when you eliminate regulatory oversight of a broken, monopolized market (without embracing reform or competitive policies), telecom giants always just double down on bad behavior. For ISPs that means higher prices, stifled investment, worse customer service, and more of the kind of non-transparent behaviors US consumers have complained about for decades.

Filed Under: bandwidth, excessive usage, fcc, net neutrality, regulations, throttling
Companies: cox

Netflix, Disney Throttle Video Streams In Europe To Handle COVID-19 Internet Strain

from the throttle-me dept

Netflix, Disney, YouTube, and Instagram have all announced they're temporarily throttling their video streams in Europe to help mitigate the bandwidth strain created by COVID-19, as millions hunker down to slow the spread of the pandemic. In a blog post, Netflix stated the company was throttling back the streaming quality of its titles by around 25% for 30 days after European regulators asked the company to do so to handle the pandemic-driven bandwidth surge:

"We immediately developed, tested and deployed a way to reduce Netflix’s traffic on these networks by 25% - starting with Italy and Spain, which were experiencing the biggest impact. Within 48 hours, we’d hit that goal and we’re now deploying this across the rest of Europe and the UK."

Netflix had already integrated settings that let users on slower or capped broadband plans manage their bit rate and stream quality. According to the company, the impact on visual quality should be minor (for everybody but videophiles, anyway):

"In normal circumstances, we have many (sometimes dozens) of different streams for a single title within each resolution. In Europe, for the next 30 days, within each category we’ve simply removed the highest bandwidth streams. If you are particularly tuned into video quality you may notice a very slight decrease in quality within each resolution. But you will still get the video quality you paid for."

So far, Netflix has yet to indicate that similar measures will be coming to the United States, though it's certainly possible as more and more locations engage in everything from voluntary self-quarantines to mandatory shelter in place requirements. Disney's Disney+ service, which launches across Europe on Tuesday, will similarly incorporate a bitrate throttling scheme for the foreseeable future. The company's launch of Disney+ in France has been delayed until April 7 at the request of the French government.

Many telecom executives and experts I've spoken to about the strain COVID-19 will place on U.S. networks have remained largely optimistic the U.S. internet will be able to handle the load, though many are quick to point out that it's hard to make predictions given the unprecedented nature of the pandemic--and the US' historic inability to craft accurate broadband speed and availability maps:

"Blair Levin was a former FCC chief of staff and co-author of the agency’s 2010 “National Broadband Plan."...

“I don't think anyone knows,” Levin said. “First, the FCC has done such a poor job of collecting data that we don't know where we are on many points. Second, we really don't know how much bigger the bandwidth demands will be. So this situation will be a stress test and show us where we are strong and where we are weak."

Most of those weaknesses shouldn't be particularly surprising for Techdirt readers. The central transit core of the US internet shouldn't have problems; it's the spotty, expensive, and slow "last mile" where a lot of headaches will pop up. US telcos, who've neglected their infrastructure for years, have refused to upgrade (or in some instances even repair) the nation's aging DSL lines. As entire families attempt to use sluggish era-2003 speeds to teleconference and stream video, games, and music, problems will inevitably arise (especially on the upstream side). VPNs could also be another congestion point.

But the biggest problem remains affordability and availability. For years, arguments that broadband should be seen as an essential utility were brushed aside, and now the "digital divide" could easily become a matter of life and death. Some 44 million Americans can't get any kind of broadband whatsoever, and thanks to limited U.S. competition (especially at faster speeds), many more can't afford a decent connection. This patchy, expensive, barely competitive nature of US telecom networks is something the industry's biggest players have lobbied to perpetuate for years, and now the check is likely coming due for many.

Filed Under: bandwidth, covid-19, europe, networks, streaming, throttling, video streams
Companies: disney, instagram, netflix, youtube

Wireless Carriers Fight Rules Preventing Them From Screwing Firefighters During Emergencies

from the ill-communication dept

You might recall that Verizon found itself under fire last summer after it throttled the data connection of California firefighters as they were busy battling the Mendocino Complex Fire. When the firefighters complained to Verizon, the company didn't immediately put the restrictions on hold; instead they attempted to upsell the providers to a faster plan. While not technically a net neutrality violation, the repeal of the net neutrality rules (and FCC authority over ISPs) did impede the first responders' ability to effectively contest the restrictions. Verizon also ultimately admitted that the move was in direct violation of the company's own rules.

Last week, California took the first steps toward passing a law that would prevent wireless carriers from imposing such restrictions on first responders during an emergency. Not too surprisingly, wireless carriers (who've effectively been dictating all federal telecom policy the last few years) weren't too keen on that idea:

"A letter sent to the California Assembly’s Communications and Conveyance Committee last week by CTIA, which represents the wireless industry, argues that language in the bill — which states that providers may not “impair or degrade” internet traffic — is ambiguous. CTIA also cited concern with the amount of people who could declare a state of emergency, and wrote that providers should be notified of an emergency if they’re expected to adjust service."

Consumer groups, as you might expect, suggested that wireless carriers were being a touch melodramatic:

"It’s basically bogus,” Falcon said. “The legislation is straightforward in that they just can’t throttle public safety like they did in Santa Clara where they took their 50 Mbps down/10 Mbps up connection and brought it down to kilobits speed where it was useless to them."

Granted, much like state privacy and net neutrality laws, it's another instance of how you wouldn't need these additional restrictions if wireless carriers hadn't neutered modest and popular federal guidelines. Of course in this instance, while the throttling of firefighters didn't run directly afoul of the FCC's since-discarded 2015 net neutrality rules (Verizon at least disclosed the restrictions in its fine print, and didn't discriminate against specific types of traffic) it did once again highlight how wireless carriers are routinely misleading and utterly terrible when it comes to customer service.

Much of the problem stems from companies like Verizon selling an "unlimited" product -- then imposing all manner of confusing limits, something they've been getting fined and criticized for the better part of the last fifteen years. Such restrictions don't just confuse customers, they create bold new headaches where companies impose arbitrary restrictions, then charge consumers more money to tap dance around them (HD streaming on Verizon unlimited plans, for example, is now a pricey luxury option).

And while the net neutrality rules themselves may not have prevented Verizon from doing this, the repeal of those rules didn't just kill net neutrality. It effectively neutered the FCC's authority (at direct ISP lobby request), then shoveled most remaining authority to an FTC critics have long stated lacks the authority to adequately police telecom (the whole reason the ISP lobby wanted it). That means far less recourse for consumers and competitors getting caught up in wireless carriers' never-ending quest to nickel-and-dime them, using a rotating crop of increasingly annoying, confusing, and often unnecessary network restrictions.

Filed Under: california, degrading traffic, emergency services, fire fighters, net neutrality, throttling
Companies: verizon

In Wake Of Verizon Flub, New Law Would Ban Wireless Throttling Of First Responders

from the ill-communication dept

Last summer Verizon got caught in a PR shitstorm after it throttled the wireless data connection of a California fire department -- just as they were fighting one of the biggest forest fires in California history. When the firefighters complained to Verizon about the throttling (which occurs on all of Verizon's "unlimited but not really" data plans), instead of fixing the issue Verizon tried to upsell the department to a more expensive plan. While some responsibility lies with the department for not understanding the data connection they'd bought, Verizon ultimately admitted that throttling any first responders violated the company's policies and should have never happened.

In the months since, Verizon has been running ads (including one during the Super Bowl) in a bid to burn the PR kerfuffle out of the public consciousness.

But the damage had already been done. The incident has now been a cornerstone of net neutrality activist arguments as to why some basic rules on this front are necessary, and it was brought up repeatedly during the recent opening arguments in the latest net neutrality court battle. And now Texas Representative Bobby Guerra is pushing for new legislation (HB1426) that would prohibit the throttling of first responders in areas deemed a national emergency:

"When the Federal Communications Commission ended net neutrality, it essentially allowed internet providers to throttle, or block access, to certain internet services or websites. HB 1426 joins more than 100 other bills introduced in state legislatures around the country aimed at protecting internet access.

The FCC vote raised broader concerns over who should have control of internet access. But it also came as more and more first responders are using online platforms and apps."

Granted, laws like this wouldn't be necessary if the Ajit Pai FCC was interested in actually doing its job. Whether we're talking about AT&T using usage caps to hinder streaming competitors or CenturyLink blocking internet access until users click on an ad, the FCC has remained largely mute and toothless in the wake of any and all bad ISP behavior, including the firefighter throttling incident. And many still don't understand that carrier lobbyists didn't just dismantle net neutrality, they're gunning to dismantle most if not all meaningful oversight of large ISPs.

As we've covered ad nauseum, Verizon and other giant ISPs just got done effectively convincing the Trump FCC to neuter itself at the behest of natural telecom monopolies, leaving oversight in the hands of an FTC ill-equipped to police telecom (the entire plan). At the same time, ISPs like Verizon and Comcast convinced the FCC to declare that states are also prohibited from holding them accountable for false statements or poor service. At the same time, ISP lawyers have been busy leaning on the argument that any attempt to hold them accountable on the state or federal level violates their First Amendment rights.

It's been a bold lobbying gambit that has seen incredible success in the Trump era, largely while the general public (and even many in the tech press) remain oblivious to the full scope. And it's a gambit ISPs like Verizon are desperately hoping will be upheld by Brett Kavanaugh should it wind its way to the Supreme Court.

Filed Under: bobby guerra, emergencies, fcc, first responders, net neutrality, throttling