Why is Canadian ISP “Shaw” blocking iTunes store / podcasts?
Comments(2)
Boing Boing picked up on the story of Canadian Internet Service Provider Shaw blocking iTunes store and / or their podcasts due to the content coming from multiple sources.
Over the past month Rogers (ISP) in Canada has put some software on their networks that prevents activity for BitTorrents, P2P, IRC, and also along with that is a rule that if you are trying to download a large media file from more then 1 server it will be dropped. When you download a Podcast from iTunes it downloads that file from multiple servers in the background (I confirmed this by watching my cable modem logs). As soon as it tries to use more than 2 different servers for the download, it just stops. That’s the reason why Podcast downloads stop at random places – it’s the point where a 2nd server is involved in the download. The same issue causes timeouts and cut-offs in the iTunes music store.Here is the problem – when anyone calls Rogers about the problem they say it is either a router, firewall or Apple problem and they shrug you off.
Hundreds or thousands of people in Canada can no longer get Podcasts or purchase music from the iTunes Music store. This is BAD. Please, Apple, contact Rogers and sort it out. So many people have called Rogers with no luck.
The question I ask myself is why an Internet Service Provider should be capping bandwidth or limiting net-services in any way?! For security issues I do not mind certain restrictions, such as blocking port 25 for outgoing email to reduce spam coming from the network, and/ or blocking the ports135 to 139 in order to reduce common worm-threats – but there should always be some kind of user agreement where the advanced user should be able to sign a paper and taking all responsibility for unlocking these ports.
What your Internet Service Provider should do is to deliver you an unfiltered Internet-connection, if you choose to have this. With no traffic limitations or other restrictions. What you do with your Internet connection should be your business and responsibility, no-one else should be able to dictate what sites you surf to, what content you choose to download and so on. What should be applicable is the laws of the country you reside in, not the arbitrariness of your Internet Service Provider.
So, if you are a customer of Shaw or any other Internet Service Provider that is limiting your Internet-access, vote with your feet and with your wallet: switch to a provider that will provide you with un-filtered access. Sooner or later, your old provider will be forced to change their policy.
Tags: apple, Censorship, Distribution, Entertainment Industry, Freedom of Speech, Help us!, Internet, Internet Service Providers, iPod, Perspective, podcasting, Technology
Technorati Tags: apple, Censorship, Distribution, Entertainment Industry, Freedom of Speech, Help us!, Internet, Internet Service Providers, iPod, Perspective, podcasting, Technology
This isn’t so easy: one can’t exactly vote with their wallet here. Many people don’t have a choice in high-speed providers, as they can’t get DSL in their area. 3rd party high-speed providers still must use the Shaw or Rogers network and thus also must deal with the traffic shaping that’s going on. Basically they cap anyone that connects simultaneously to 2 or more servers with a high speed download.
What’s awful here is that this has apparently always been in Rogers’ contractual agreement — they’re allowed to shape their traffic however they see fit. And it’s arguably only a matter of time before the DSL providers such as Bell Sympatico follow suit.
The most obvious way this kind of behaviour will stop is if Internet access becomes regulated by the CRTC (Canadian FCC) as an essential service and imposes standards on how traffic shaping occurs. Of course, increasing regulation like this is a dangerous move on many levels, so one would hope a market solution will emerge — enough complaints to Rogers, Shaw, and/or their co-branding partners like Yahoo! might be able to introduce a new pricing structure to reflect bandwidth usage without these shaping restrictions. Perhaps something in between “business” pricing and consumer pricing.
That’s awful.. Sounds like situation in Sweden with TeliaSonera having monopoly over more “rural” areas.
Thank you for your insight however, Stu!!!