"Mario" may be in trouble for many streamers....

[btimbit]

I used to pirate movies nonstop, then streaming services really got their game together and now I pay for Amazon, Crave, and Netflix.

If you make your service user-friendly and smooth, people will use it.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

The sites aren't being "shut down" under this order. All Canadian ISPs will simply block their DNS lookups and IPs until the games are over.

How effective this will be remains to be determined.

This is literally why God created DNS providers.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

This is literally why God created DNS providers.

DNS isn't enough here if the host IPs are still the same, in that instance a VPN service would be the only client-side option.

Let's say I have the domain name "mariosnhlstreams.com" and point it to an IP: 200.100.50.5

Using ISP DNS servers: the ISP can just block resolution of the domain name mariosnhlstreams.com and also block routing to the host IP of 200.100.50.5.

Using alternative DNS servers: the ISP blocking the domain name has no effect as I can resolve the domain name to a host IP, but the host IP 200.100.50.5 is still blocked by the ISP. No dice.

What would need to happen is 1. subscribers would need to use a DNS provider that doesn't block host resolution, and 2. mariosnhlstreams.com would need to change their host IP for their site.

The domain TTL could be set short enough that the record updates every 5 minutes or so and then the site operator would need to have IPs they could quickly swap between. That way you get around the DNS blocking and the IP addresses are still routable. But of course, each stream that new IP will get dynamically blocked.

[bluejays]

Why is everyone saying "Mario" here? What am I missing? Is IPTV a taboo word I'm not aware of?

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by fleury

Why is everyone saying "Mario" here? What am I missing? Is IPTV a taboo word I'm not aware of?

I am guessing cuz mentioning the specific provider may be considered violating one of the CP guidelines and don't want the thread banned. Also search engines regularly scrape CP threads and it wouldn't be a good idea for CP to show up grouped in with that provider on Google search results.

[shogged]

Originally Posted by fleury

Why is everyone saying "Mario" here? What am I missing? Is IPTV a taboo word I'm not aware of?

Mario refers to a certain nhl players number, which is used in the address of a certain site that may or may not be the subject of this court order

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

DNS isn't enough here if the host IPs are still the same, in that instance a VPN service would be the only client-side option.

Let's say I have the domain name "mariosnhlstreams.com" and point it to an IP: 200.100.50.5

Using ISP DNS servers: the ISP can just block resolution of the domain name mariosnhlstreams.com and also block routing to the host IP of 200.100.50.5.

Using alternative DNS servers: the ISP blocking the domain name has no affect as I can resolve the domain name to a host IP, but the host IP 200.100.50.5 is still blocked by the ISP. No dice.

What would need to happen is 1. subscribers would need to use a DNS provider that doesn't block host resolution, and 2. mariosnhlstreams.com would need to change their host IP for their site.

The domain TTL could be set short enough that the record updates every 5 minutes or so and then the site operator would need to have IPs they could quickly swap between. That way you get around the DNS blocking and the IP addresses are still routable. But of course, each stream that new IP will get dynamically blocked.

^^
This is correct.

It will take some effort to get around the blocking, but there ARE a number of methods of doing so. As I said earlier, time will tell if their blocking efforts are effective or not.

I've randomly tested a number of the goldtv sites over time and some are blocked, some not, despite the fact that the blocking order has been in place publicly now for a couple of years; they still come and go.
On July 25, 2019, the Federal Court issued an interim injunction, ordering that the GoldTV websites be immediately disabled.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by shogged

Mario refers to a certain nhl players number, which is used in the address of a certain site that may or may not be the subject of this court order

And we don't know, because most of the order was redacted.

[djsFlames]

How about this Sportsnet, you keep all McDavid talk on Flames airtime to only BoA match ups and I'll consider purchasing your service.

I know you'll never do that though, so again, suck it.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

I am guessing cuz mentioning the specific provider may be considered violating one of the CP guidelines and don't want the thread banned. Also search engines regularly scrape CP threads and it wouldn't be a good idea for CP to show up grouped in with that provider on Google search results.

Originally Posted by shogged

Mario refers to a certain nhl players number, which is used in the address of a certain site that may or may not be the subject of this court order

Thanks. I had never heard of that site before. No idea how it’s common knowledge either

[Azure]

Why wouldn't the sites just be hosted in a country where this ridiculous court order has no legal bearing?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Why wouldn't the sites just be hosted in a country where this ridiculous court order has no legal bearing?

Why would it matter where it's hosted? The court order compels ISPs to block user access from Canada; the site's host's location is immaterial.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Azure

Why wouldn't the sites just be hosted in a country where this ridiculous court order has no legal bearing?

They are.

The order isn't about blocking static sites or taking them down, but forcing Canadian ISPs to dynamically block them based on intelligent policies and rules basically - their previous attempt to block them statically failed when they just changed their IPs and they had to spent weeks getting another court order again.

If this goes through, there will still be ways to use VPNs or darkweb proxies.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

They are.

The order isn't about blocking static sites or taking them down, but forcing Canadian ISPs to dynamically block them based on intelligent policies and rules basically - their previous attempt to block them statically failed when they just changed their IPs and they had to spent weeks getting another court order again.

If this goes through, there will still be ways to use VPNs or darkweb proxies.

It's "through" already. The Court Order exists and is extant and likely will be used for Game 1 of the Finals. I'll be testing.

The question is whether the "smart user" can get around the block. Merely using a VPN may not prove good enough (but we'll see). Depends on how deep the packet inspection launched by the #BigTelecom companies is.

There is a highly secret file (known in the industry as the "bot file" or "STB file") which the CRTC has used as a piledriver to push this on behalf of the Telcos/ISPs....who just also happen to be the owners of the actual media licenses.

It is this concentration of ownership that has given rise to the blocking order -- the folks "owning the licenses" and "blocking the access" are one and the same.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

It's "through" already. The Court Order exists and is extant and likely will be used for Game 1 of the Finals. I'll be testing.

The question is whether the "smart user" can get around the block. Merely using a VPN may not prove good enough (but we'll see). Depends on how deep the packet inspection launched by the #BigTelecom companies is.

There is a highly secret file (known in the industry as the "bot file" or "STB file") which the CRTC has used as a piledriver to push this on behalf of the Telcos/ISPs....who just also happen to be the owners of the actual media licenses.

It is this concentration of ownership that has given rise to the blocking order -- the folks "owning the licenses" and "blocking the access" are one and the same.

Are you elaborate on what this bot file or STB file is? How is it that the CRTC is using it for leverage on behalf of the telcos? That makes sense that Rogers Sportnet is also in the position of soon to be the largest wireline provider in Canada thus enabling this to be an easy change. Does that mean the court order is really just the legal permission for the providers to start obstructing the free flow of information and net neutrality in their favor?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Why would it matter where it's hosted? The court order compels ISPs to block user access from Canada; the site's host's location is immaterial.

Yup. It would be different if the site was hosted in Canada and the government gave a court order to shut down the site's hosting; then you could simply move the site to hosting outside of the court's jurisdiction.

But this gets around that by essentially saying "Run your stupid site all you want, but Canadian ISPs will not resolve your DNS entries or route traffic to the destination IP(s)".

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Are you elaborate on what this bot file or STB file is? How is it that the CRTC is using it for leverage on behalf of the telcos? That makes sense that Rogers Sportnet is also in the position of soon to be the largest wireline provider in Canada thus enabling this to be an easy change. Does that mean the court order is really just the legal permission for the providers to start obstructing the free flow of information and net neutrality in their favor?

The "Bot File" is under an extreme NDA. People can disclose its existence, but cannot disclose the contents. Some people will .... say more than others, but not much.

The background to this is found in what is known as the "Compliance and Enforcement and Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2021-9" and can be found here: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2021/2021-9.htm

Its informal title: Call for comments - Development of a network-level blocking framework to limit botnet traffic and strengthen Canadians’ online safety

Public (mostly) documents can be found here:
https://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/List...=a&PT=nc&PST=a

The others....can be found here: "Redacted"



Most of the interesting stuff is buried (apparently) in the redacted documents, which aren't even published, just libraried. Technical details, IPs of known sites etc are in there (as they are now in the Court records, also redacted).

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

The "Bot File" is under an extreme NDA. People can disclose its existence, but cannot disclose the contents. Some people will .... say more than others, but not much.

The background to this is found in what is known as the "Compliance and Enforcement and Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2021-9" and can be found here: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2021/2021-9.htm

Its informal title: Call for comments - Development of a network-level blocking framework to limit botnet traffic and strengthen Canadians’ online safety

Public (mostly) documents can be found here:
https://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/List...=a&PT=nc&PST=a

The others....can be found here: "Redacted"



Most of the interesting stuff is buried (apparently) in the redacted documents, which aren't even published, just libraried. Technical details, IPs of known sites etc are in there (as they are now in the Court records, also redacted).

Okay from what I'm reading there, the CRTC is using anti-botnet (and that is vague - I can see it being extended to any undesirable networks) legislation to justify network level blocks. From you said, then I gather it is perhaps going to be used in the favor of the NHL rights holders to also limit net neutrality and enforce blocks on providers of streams.

From the public document, it only mentions blocking DNS resolution and known IP address lists but as the Pirate Bay showed, they could easily proxy and hide behind ever-changing IPs on the darkweb.

Against certain actors, dynamic IP based blacklists are not that effective, maybe you are hinting towards the fact that they would be pushing toward deep packet inspection of all traffic to identify undesirable activity? That sounds super big-brother to me.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Okay from what I'm reading there, the CRTC is using anti-botnet (and that is vague - I can see it being extended to any undesirable networks) legislation to justify network level blocks. From you said, then I gather it is perhaps going to be used in the favor of the NHL rights holders to also limit net neutrality and enforce blocks on providers of streams.

From the public document, it only mentions blocking DNS resolution and known IP address lists but as the Pirate Bay showed, they could easily proxy and hide behind ever-changing IPs on the darkweb.

Against certain actors, dynamic IP based blacklists are not that effective, maybe you are hinting towards the fact that they would be pushing toward deep packet inspection of all traffic to identify undesirable activity? That sounds super big-brother to me.

Hammer, meet nail.

[Shazam]

Only way to do this is decrypt tls traffic which would require MiM, necessitating all traffic go through govt routers.