is Canada Shaw Cable blocking p2p apps

[spot-trade]

I was told in one chat channel that Shaw Cable is becoming a problem, blocking P2P .  I have been unable for a month now to upload or download.  I see uploads connect at 10  only to drop fast to .13 then disconnect.  My download sit in que for days and when I get to the first spot, they dissappear, and so on.. no download...
sure I am connected as primary and patched but nothing happening...
I am changing to dsl in 2 days,  will post if it makes a difference.

[Bearded Blunder]

Yes Shaw are known to do this in some areas.

[Woodstover]

I too am having the same problems with the same conditions on Shaw.  Winxp Pro Fresh install of 3.54 with patch & peer guardian.   Using 15964 tcp 15970 upd (have tried many others too).  I have done the bandwidth check and have set up accordingly and have played around a bit with it too.  Same results, start off at 3kbps then it drops off then turns red and that's it.  Also, I'm unable to come in as a primary user even with my firewalls turned off I can't get any number in the secondary spot.  I'm really at a loss as to what to do. 

[Me Here]

If changing ISP's is not an option then changin ports sometimes works, the trick is not all (infact most ports wont work), so finding the right ports to use and get your best results can be a bit of a game to test them.

Here is a link with some that you can try.
https://forum.winmxworld.com/index.php?topic=1206.0.html
Be very sure to get the ports set up correctly in any firewalls, router, and antivirus programs.

Its also not a bad idea to google search 'shaw, ports, p2p'  in order to see if there are ports that have worked on other applications for other customers.  Shaw is not new to this activity, its been going on to my knowledge for over a year now..

[spot-trade]

wow,    DSL    yesssssss,,,,  the way to go, 
DSL  totally fiixed the problem.   Cable was and is  shaping (oppressing, restricting, denying ) people on p2p.
and the DSL speed increase is amazing...
Thanks too all who clued me in on this.

[laurie]

I to used Shaw Cable & experianced all the difficulties you mentioned. They all went away when I to switched to DSL using Telus internet. The difference was 100% better with Telus DSL. If you are reading this & use Shaw Cable, I highly suggest that you switch to DSL. I guarantee that you won't be dissapointed.

[Me Here]

Thanks guys for the suggestions, I agree and have seen this way too many times that DSL has fixed the problems ..

Cheers and congrats to you for switching..

[Gary Mont]

Has anyone inquired if this kind of unauthorized download blocking is legal.
It would seem to me that blocking legal downloads without informing customers should be illegal.
Since the process itself is identical in every case - high transfer rates drop to near zero in minutes then die altogether - it is obviously intentional.
It would be interesting to learn also WHY Shaw is voluntarily blocking its own customers - someone must be paying them to do so.

[DaBees-Knees]

Regretably the practice of restricting p2p use by ISPs is not uncommon. The usual practice is to limit your speed in an evening if you are a heavy p2p user. In the worst cases some ISPs just block p2p so badly as to make it more or less unusable. The cure ...... change ISP.

[Gary Mont]

I understand the widespread nature of the practice by ISPs such as Shaw and can guess as to the source of the incentive for continuing the practice even when it will obviously lose them customers.

I've no doubt the American Entertainment Industry has been offering fairly large cash rewards to ISPs who are willing to play this game for them. It is after all, one of the richest industries on earth.

What I am wondering about however, is whether or not anyone has actually inquired as to the legality of the practice.

After all, one pays for the use of the service and there is no claim in the contract as to Shaw's right to limit, restrict, or prevent downloads from sources Shaw deems improper and no notification is given to customers who suffer this denial of service, so what I'd like to know, is whether or not the actual practice of Shaw's denying a paid for service, is legal or illegal. If it is legal, why do they not notify customers of the restriction. I suspect it is indeed, illegal.

Apparently, everyone has simply accepted the practice as legal and upon discovery of the denial of services regarding p2p by Shaw and others, switches to an ISP that is not so self destructive.
I assume it is necessary for Shaw to monitor the activities of all their customers in order to determine whether a p2p service is the source of a download and I'd also like to know if this is legal.

I sent Shaw an email tonight, asking them to point out the section in the service contract that allows them to do this denial of service without notification regadring p2p, since p2p transfer is legal in Canada.
I am very curious how they will respond.

If they reply, I will post that reply here.

[silicon_toad2000]

Nice one Gary.

I would imagine the legality would vary depending on the country and contract, but always something worth chasing up.
If they're advertising/contracting one thing and doing another thing, there's an issue there.

[Gary Mont]

Precisely. If I'm paying for internet services that include the ability to download files, and the service does not come with stipulations forbidding the use of specific on-line services such as P2P sites in the contract, then the ISP is in effect, making me pay for something that they are secretly disallowing the use of behind the scenes.

They are also monitoring all of my internet transactions if they are able to discern when I am using a P2P service, and this could aso be construed as an invasion of privacy unless alos stipulated in the contract as a company right.

I understand that the US has decided in favor of the corporation over the puplic in this matter so this sort of thing is very likely legal in the states, but my concern is Canada, because the downloading of P2P files is still perfectly legal, so such underhanded tactics as Shaw and other ISPs carry out against their own customers should by rights still be illegal.

I am hoping to use the illegality to force the company to cease and desist all of its unauthorized tampering with my internet services or repay me for their loss should they refuse. If the response I get back from Shaw is, as I expect, a complete denial of purposely restricting and limiting P2P downloads, then it stands to reason that these activities are not sanctioned by law and that Shaw is being compensated by external interests to perform illegal actions against customers. This actually might be reasonable grounds for a class action suit, or at least the threat of a class action suit, but personally, I just want them to stop interfering in my legal activities.

[Gary Mont]

FYI - Shaw has declined to respond to either of my posted inquiries.
I suppose that is their standard response.
No reply means not having to explain themselves or deny anything, so no record of lying or admittance of wrong doing.
I suppose I'll simply have to contact the CRTC and ask them if such behavior is legal or not and report Shaw if it turns out to be illegal.
I was hoping to do this the easy way but... C'est la vie eh.

[White Stripes]

it'll be interesting to hear what the crtc has to say.... ...if anything...

[Gary Mont]

Well, there was no response from the CRTC, but 2-3 weeks later, the blockage by Shaw stopped.
I simply cannot fathom why a corporation - whose sole purpose is profit - would treat its paying customers so badly.
The only way I can understand this, is if Shaw is being paid by the American Entertainment Industry to block p2p on their behalf here in Canada.
I mentioned this in my message to the CRTC and asked if this was not in breach of some international laws.
I also posted the same question on a number of "free" legal advise sites, only to discover that the word "free" has an entirely different meaning to lawyers.
In order to get an answer I was asked to pay, in advance, various amounts from 30 to 90 dollars.
Seems honesty went the way of the dinosaur after 9/11 on both sides of the border.
C'est la vie eh.
G.

[silicon_toad2000]

A corporation must have policies and procedures in place top limit it's exposure to risks from outside parties.
In this case I would suggest that this isp perceives there is a risk that the MPAA or RIAA may scrutinise their activity.
As such they have policies and procedures in place to create the appearance (effective or not) that they are doing everything they can to stop illegal downloads.
The problem is that losing a few customers because they have interfered with legitimate file sharing will not cost as much as investigating a number of queries from the riaa/mpaa or defending themselves in court even against a frivolous court case.

[Gary Mont]

Update.

Apparently, while the Fed here in Canada is less than happy about "throttling" data transfer rates of online game sites by Bell and Rogers, who have promised to stop doing this in future, the legislation as it stands today, allows these corporations to "throttle" or manipulate the download speeds of all P2P transfers. Thus, SHAW is actually "in compliance" and acting within the law when it secretly alters the transfer rates of its customers who are using p2p sites.

On another note, it might be of interest to many to note that the same corporations that are today pushing ACTA, SOPA, PIPA etc., are the very same corporations that originally created the p2p software and distributed it free to the world on their own and associated websites for over a decade, specifically for the purpose of downloading copyright material. Thus, the "piracy problem" was manufactured by the entertainment industry  to convince legislators that a "Piracy Problem" existed, in order to get their content-controlling laws - SOPA, PIPA, ACTA - put in place. Once these entertainment industry written laws are in place, only websites that have absolutely no links to any other website and contain nothing that might infringe any copyright, are safe from being shut down by the entertainment industry, which only has to "suspect" that a website is linked to or contains some infringement of copyright to have the site's ISP shut it down.

Welcome to the Fourth Reich folks.