ISP Censorship

AndyPix

Eshul ..
The difference here is that they are actually going to block servers , thats right ..


As im sure you are aware, if they simply block the URL, then the provider and just point a different URL at the server in seconds.
What they are intending to do here is actually block the IP address of the server, Or possibly block certain traffic types/protocols communicating with that server.


They aren't publishing exactly what it is.


And yes, you are right, this will have an impact on any other (possibly legit) services that also live on that server ..


That is why this is a test case, as no body is sure yet what impact this is going to have..


However, i wouldnt expect any "mainstream" services to be affected by this as the dodgy streams tend to live on obscure servers in parts of the world where they dont risk getting taken down because of copyright laws etc ..


Its all a bit wooly, which is why this is such an unprecedented step !!

kwikbreaks

As the blocking is supposedly at ISP level and not some plan to fiddle with non-ISP owned routers sfaik I fail to see how they expect blocking the IP as opposed to just a URL is going to stop a VPN simply bypassing the block. I'm guessing we will soon know whether it works or not and I'll be very surprised if it does.

Strider590

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

Sadly brought about by those that want to watch things they haven't paid for.

No, not at all.

Your not seeing the forest for the tree's, your taking the bait story and missing the truth.

They're pushing this forward by using piracy as way of getting the general public support for something much more sinister, which will affect everyone.

Piracy is not as big an issue as everyone is being led to believe and those of us who speak out against this censorship/filtering are not doing so because we want to steal movies, we're speaking out because of the wider implications that most people are being blinded to by these constant diversionary tactics designed to appeal to the British public sense of "fair play" in order demonise and silence those who speak the truth.

Back before we had Camerons !!!!!! filter thing, anybody speaking out against it was labelled as supporting !!!!!philes, sections of the news/media passively suggested that anyone criticising it was involved in child !!!!!!.

They want to shame those who speak out, so that their voice is not heard, but those speaking out are doing so on YOUR behalf.

I mentioned Russia earlier, these tactics don't work in Russia, because they don't have our sense of "fair play", they have a culture based around "win at all costs or die trying", which is why over there the authorities just censor whatever they like and make no excuses for it.

Decades ago ISPs were also considering a pay as you go model for the internet, where much like a TV subscription, you would get set websites that you can view depending on what package you buy and how much you pay per month. Maybe you'd be allow to pick 50 websites for £10 a month, 100 sites for £18 a month, 200 sites for £25 a month and 1000 for £30. Who'd like that?
People would have supported this decades ago, but now I think most of us are aware of just how detrimental that would be and same applies now, they're doing something that nobody is going to regret until it's too late.

AndyPix

kwikbreaks wrote: »

As the blocking is supposedly at ISP level and not some plan to fiddle with non-ISP owned routers sfaik I fail to see how they expect blocking the IP as opposed to just a URL is going to stop a VPN simply bypassing the block. I'm guessing we will soon know whether it works or not and I'll be very surprised if it does.

It isnt.


They know tech savvy users will work around this.


The content providors/ISP's are more concerned that due to the explosion of the sales of these "pre loaded" firesticks, it has brought this technology to the masses.
They dont know or care how it works, they only know they can buy one for £25 quid, stick it in their telly , and watch free illegal stuff.


Now if they had to install a VPN, or even know what a VPN was, then that would instantly kill 90% of the userbases connection.


In my opinion of course

DoaM

Agreed. And the other 10% would happily continue as they were, and some of the 90% would go back to finding streams via their web browser (there would always be some that would slip through the net), like they did before they got a "box".

And the content providers would be no better off since hardly any of the 90% would actually take out a subscription.

All in all - an utterly pointless exercise (based on what the court order states). The reality is likely more to do with post #54, and this is just the test to see whether the technology works.

RumRat

AndyPix wrote: »

It isnt.


They know tech savvy users will work around this.


The content providors/ISP's are more concerned that due to the explosion of the sales of these "pre loaded" firesticks, it has brought this technology to the masses.
They dont know or care how it works, they only know they can buy one for £25 quid, stick it in their telly , and watch free illegal stuff.


Now if they had to install a VPN, or even know what a VPN was, then that would instantly kill 90% of the userbases connection.


In my opinion of course

My reading of the reasons that the ISP's were wholly on board was to protect bandwidth as much as anything else. Of course getting a few more customers on the back of it would be a nice little bonus.
I'm sure you are right, they are not that interested in the tech savvy minority as the ever ending fight in that corner would cost more than it does to ignore.
Of course I would never condemn Pirates and think that those watching stuff for free on the internet should be renamed as it's giving us Pirates a bad name......

AndyPix

Haha quality

kwikbreaks

AndyPix wrote: »

The content providors/ISP's are more concerned that due to the explosion of the sales of these "pre loaded" firesticks, it has brought this technology to the masses.
They dont know or care how it works, they only know they can buy one for £25 quid, stick it in their telly , and watch free illegal stuff.

You don't need to be very tech savvy to know whether something works or not so i would expect preconfigured devices to appear that do work so long as that remains technically possible.

AndyPix

Yes but you are now nitpicking.
The average firestick/kodi user wouldn't even attempt to put VPN on their stick even if they knew what it was.
They would just find the service not working all of a sudden.


And yes, I expect pre-configured devices would appear. Set up of course by someone who is tech savvy


This is detracting from the main point

kwikbreaks

I don't think so. Your point is that ISPs will be putting obstacles in the way of getting free football streams. I'm simply saying that in anything but the very short term it is unlikely to work.

Additionally the tech level bar to setting up kodi on a variety of devices is the ability to enter a Google search together with the ability to follow step by step level instructions. Overcoming whatever gets put in place will likely only amount to a small change to those instructions.

What level of technical ability is needed to circumvent the earlier piracy prevention measures such as cd and DVD ripping?