Vodacom throttling image quality on 3G?

[MeercatMilker]

Have you disconnected and reconnected, i.e. started a new session, since midnight?

Good idea, but just tried it and it didn't make a difference unfortunately.

 

[jannievanzyl]

I am not sure that it's even technically legal for an ISP to be intercepting and modifying data in this fashion. This is outrageous. I hope they stop it soon.

Just for our education here on the forum; can you please give the legal base for your statements. Which law is being breached here? I can then take it back to my guys.

Just a short quote of the relevant act and subsection would be cool, as well as the opinion you got on it.

Tx!

 

[jannievanzyl]

I'm situated in North West.
I'm using Mac OS X 10.7.4 (Also seeing this in Windows, iOS and on different PC's connected to the same network.)
I'm using a Routerboard 411UAHR + Sierra Wireless MC8792V (Latest RouterOS v5.17)
Images are still as bad as they were initially. The javascript is still injected into all http pages. Only https are fine. I did "CMD + R" on the Macs and "Ctrl + F5" on the Windows PC's, but it made no difference.

Tx,

Anyone else?

 

[PJBadenhorst]

I have this issue as well. It's caused by vodacom injecting a script file into web pages browsed from my desktop browsers using my 3G modem. The scrip is called http://1.2.3.4/bmi-int-js/bmi.js and I can only access it when using my 3G modem. It sends all images to a proxy that compresses them and adds the Ctrl+A and R messages.

It is dependant on the browser Agent ID - if I change the Agent ID my browser reports vodacom does not inject the script (but that reduces the functionality in most web apps like gmail). The only way I've been able to get around it is to filter out the script in AddBlock (I'll check when I get home but it is reported that the image url's get overwritten whether the script is blocked or not - leaving you with reduced quality images but, at least other javascript still works.). I've heard using https works as well but have not tested it yet.

As of this morning it was still happening. No responses from Vodacom Support on the Vodacom site, Hello Peter or Twitter.

 

[fM1DRKbzkFqwA]

Central Gauteng.

Reconnected (unplugged and re-plugged usb dongle). Linux. Tried reload and different browsers, and non-browsers with http consumers. I'll dump the browser cache tonight when I try again.

 

[fM1DRKbzkFqwA]

I have this issue as well. It's caused by vodacom injecting a script file into web pages browsed from my desktop browsers using my 3G modem. The scrip is called http://1.2.3.4/bmi-int-js/bmi.js and I can only access it when using my 3G modem. It sends all images to a proxy that compresses them and adds the Ctrl+A and R messages.

Technically the same proxy that injects bmi.js already sends you the compressed images.

You need bmi.js to undo the changes to get the original stuff. If you turn javascript off, you still get compressed images -- except you can't undo them. Otherwise I'd firewall 1.2.3.4.

 

[PJBadenhorst]

I have found this regarding the legality of modifying images transfered beween 2 people by a third party. Not sure what the South African position is but...

"According to German copyright law this right consists of the *usage* and *change* of copyrighted material. Whenever you publish material on a website, it is assumed that you transfer a usage right for the transfer and recall/display of that material. However, a right for further usage (e.g. on your own site) or
the MODIFICATION of copyrighted material is NOT included. The one responsible for the modification of (German) copyrighted material may go to jail for a year (§ 108b Urheberrechtsgesetz)."

So, it looks like, at the very least there are issues when a South African user browses a German site and Vodacom modifies the images or interferes with the workings of the original site content.

 

[PJBadenhorst]

Technically the same proxy that injects bmi.js already sends you the compressed images.

Yup, I think you're right. Will verify when I get home tonight.

 

[sajunky]

So, it looks like, at the very least there are issues when a South African user browses a German site and Vodacom modifies the images or interferes with the workings of the original site content.

No. It applies to South African law. But issue is very important and when matter is challenged in SA courts, if any ambiguity exists in the local law, the judge will hear comments to the law
in other countries.
This case is even stronger, due to copyright agreements signed by both countries.

 

[MrGray]

Just for our education here on the forum; can you please give the legal base for your statements. Which law is being breached here? I can then take it back to my guys.

Just a short quote of the relevant act and subsection would be cool, as well as the opinion you got on it.

Tx!

I don't think it is up to me to provide Vodacom with a legal opinion on this. Vodacom surely has ample resources to do this. I can't, however, believe that had Vodacom sought legal opinion they would ever have done something like this, because I think it probably is a legal minefield.

I would speculate, just for a start, that there are probably three main legal problems with what Vodacom is doing. The first one arises from the RICA ACT. RICA makes intercepting data illegal by an ISP for any purpose other than essentially network/abuse monitoring, billing or arising from a court order. This is even worse, though, Vodacom is not only intercepting the data, it's wilfully stopping it from reaching me. The second concern would be copyright law in that Vodacom is essentially making poor copies of other parties intellectual property. The third concern would be the reputational damage Vodacom may be doing to other parties by passing off poor copies of other people's work as if it were from those parties. The issue of the potential damage to website functionality that might be caused by injecting a script into third party html pages is a whole other pandora's box as well.

 

[PJBadenhorst]

Just got the following response from Vodacom Technical support:

Thank you for your e-mail.

Please be advised the resolution issue has been resolved. It will take 48hours before the implementation will be completed.

Regards

Siphokazi Dingana
Customer Care
eService Team

 

[sajunky]

Looking forward how it is resolved. In my opinion injecting javascript to the Web design is violating copyright law.

 

[PJBadenhorst]

Not only is it injecting scripts but, it appears that the application they are using to do this (ByteMobile‘s “Smart Capacity”) also preloads Jacascript and CSS files in inlines them into the web page (killing any notion of caching those). It strips out comments from the JavaScript and CSS file (including the copyright notices!).

The sooner they fix this the better because someone really didn't think this through on Vodacom's side.

 

[MeercatMilker]

This is getting very interesting.

 

[MrGray]

Looking forward how it is resolved. In my opinion injecting javascript to the Web design is violating copyright law.

There's also reputational damage. Scenario: I'm a web design business completing a project for a high profile client. The client accesses the latest work via their 3G. They see rubbish low res images. I lose a client.

 

[MeercatMilker]

There's also reputational damage. Scenario: I'm a web design business completing a project for a high profile client. The client accesses the latest work via their 3G. They see rubbish low res images. I lose a client.

That is very true.

I initially contacted my website's host and blamed them, but they were actually innocent and I almost canceled my hosing package until I found out it's Vodacom doing this. I can imagine your clients doing the same to you.

 

[jannievanzyl]

I don't think it is up to me to provide Vodacom with a legal opinion on this. Vodacom surely has ample resources to do this. I can't, however, believe that had Vodacom sought legal opinion they would ever have done something like this, because I think it probably is a legal minefield.

I would speculate, just for a start, that there are probably three main legal problems with what Vodacom is doing. The first one arises from the RICA ACT. RICA makes intercepting data illegal by an ISP for any purpose other than essentially network/abuse monitoring, billing or arising from a court order. This is even worse, though, Vodacom is not only intercepting the data, it's wilfully stopping it from reaching me. The second concern would be copyright law in that Vodacom is essentially making poor copies of other parties intellectual property. The third concern would be the reputational damage Vodacom may be doing to other parties by passing off poor copies of other people's work as if it were from those parties. The issue of the potential damage to website functionality that might be caused by injecting a script into third party html pages is a whole other pandora's box as well.

You made the statement, so you should provide the legal opinion to back it up surely.

If I agree with it, or not, image compression is used all over the world, including Europe.

But, in any case, you decided it's illegal and breaking three laws, so post the laws contravened or admit you've got no clue.

Your arguments above are pretty silly but let's see your legal backing for them. Especially Vodacom "making copies". Are you suggesting....actually just forget it, your attempt at being a forum-lawyer is mostly amusing.

But, of course, you might be correct, so please quote the relevant Acts as requested before.

 

[jannievanzyl]

There's also reputational damage. Scenario: I'm a web design business completing a project for a high profile client. The client accesses the latest work via their 3G. They see rubbish low res images. I lose a client.

Agree

 

[jannievanzyl]

That is very true.

I initially contacted my website's host and blamed them, but they were actually innocent and I almost canceled my hosing package until I found out it's Vodacom doing this. I can imagine your clients doing the same to you.

Agree again.

 

[PJBadenhorst]

@jannievanzyl. What does the "Vodacom Rep" below your name mean?