MultiChoice pushing for ISPs to block illegal streaming

[Daniel Puchert]

Push for ISPs to block people streaming from illegal sites

DStv owner MultiChoice recently told MyBroadband it has actively advocated for legislative reforms to combat illegal streaming websites through multiple submissions to government authorities.

South African Internet service providers (ISPs) can only monitor customers' Internet traffic under certain circumstances, meaning they are largely unable to help MultiChoice in its fight against streaming piracy in the country.

 

[PaulGherkin]

Ag Frikkie.. F0K0F.... jy en daai aaglike perd van jou!

 

[LCBXX]

 

[Charlesjjm]

 

[Fulcrum29]

Even should ISPs oblige, what do they block? Blocking things could have undesirable consequences. You can't put the expectancy on ISPs to be reactive. Banning IP blocks, ISPs will lose customers quick, then this won't work, then that won't work. Domains change and move.

 

[PaulGherkin]

Even should ISPs oblige, what do they block? Blocking things could have undesirable consequences. You can't put the expectancy on ISPs to be reactive. Banning IP blocks, ISPs will lose customers quick, then this won't work, then that won't work. Domains change and move.

And people use VPNs

 

[PaulGherkin]

There's only one appropriate response to MonoChoice...

 

[deweyzeph]

Considering that 99% of internet traffic is encrypted these days, ISPs have no way to intercept and monitor what their customers are doing even if they were legally allowed to.

 

[blah99]

These Monochoice articles are getting out of hand now.

If this is the way Monochoice tries to get new customers, I'm afraid it will only drive potential customers away.

Rest in Pieces Monochoice.

 

[Fulcrum29]

And people use VPNs

True, but an ISP could block them too, they can block Smart DNS services too. The point I am making is that Multichoice is expecting others to police the impossible. DSTv can place bans on their own network. It is predatory to expect others to do it when they are competing against them.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Ag shame MC...

For a "broadcasting and streaming" giant, you clearly aren't all that clued up on how the interwebs actually works these days.

 

[PaulGherkin]

Ag shame MC...

For a "broadcasting and streaming" giant, you clearly aren't all that clued up on how the interwebs actually works these days.

Frikkie is middle-aged, have you seen that hairline?

 

[deweyzeph]

True, but an ISP could block them too, they can block Smart DNS services too. The point I am making is that Multichoice is expecting others to police the impossible. DSTv can place bans on their own network. It is predatory to expect others to do it when they are competing against them.

They might be able to block commercial VPN services with known IP addresses, but there's no way they could block someone from spinning up their own VPN server at a hosting company running on port 443 and completely indistinguishable from normal SSL traffic.

 

[PaulGherkin]

True, but an ISP could block them too, they can block Smart DNS services too. The point I am making is that Multichoice is expecting others to police the impossible. DSTv can place bans on their own network. It is predatory to expect others to do it when they are competing against them.

Then we will work around it like they do in China bru

 

[PaulGherkin]

Considering that 99% of internet traffic is encrypted these days, ISPs have no way to intercept and monitor what their customers are doing even if they were legally allowed to.

MonoChoice bro... they think THEY ARE THE AUTHORITY on encryption and DRM 'cause IRDETO and DENUVO

 

[Brian_G]

True, but an ISP could block them too, they can block Smart DNS services too. The point I am making is that Multichoice is expecting others to police the impossible. DSTv can place bans on their own network. It is predatory to expect others to do it when they are competing against them.

Not so easy, top sites like the BBC keep trying and... keep failing. These VPN's keep moving the goalposts.

And Winscribe desktop has a new(?) Stealth connect option - AFAIK looks like stealth streaming / downloading disguised as normal https browsing.

 

[LCBXX]

MC wasting money and resources to stop piracy because it refuses to address the elephant-sized reason piracy is even mainstream:
Your product is more expensive than the cost of the overall inconvenience to pirate it.

 

[Fulcrum29]

They might be able to block commercial VPN services with known IP addresses, but there's no way they could block someone from spinning up their own VPN server at a hosting company running on port 443 and completely indistinguishable from normal SSL traffic.

This is why they can't place bans on IP blocks in response to DSTV's requests. In essence it is a demand made by Multichoice to ISPs to cripple their own service. Besides, you can tunnel through CF, no way a ISP will block any CDN.

 

[zolly]

Again, here I am beating this drum: the only way Multichoice wins is by offering a better service.

I could stream things illegally but I don't because I have Netflix, YouTube, and Disney. On the rare occasion I can't find what I want on these services I do a digital rental.

I don't pirate games anymore because I have steam and I buy what I want during sales.

Again, laws aside, pirating content is relatively easy to do but I don't because the services I use are affordable and make it easy for me to use them.

Be better Multichoice. Be better.

 

[Supersphola]

THEM THE PEPOLE WILL STOP PAYING THE ISP.