[WXC/VFX] Account Suspension brought up a few issues.

Forums › One NZ (including Farmside) › [WXC/VFX] Account Suspension brought up a few issues.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

3384 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1023

Trusted

#135824 5-Jun-2008 23:16

Filterer:How is the AccountPirate varaible resolve - in a huge sql table - me thinks not.

table AccountPirate would be small table with those users who are blocked due to copyright infringement.

Cant you just drop all packets from the host unless its heading for voip?

CPU: AMD 5900x | RAM: GSKILL Trident Z Neo RGB F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC-32-GB | MB: Asus X570-E | GFX: EVGA FTW3 Ultra RTX 3080Ti| Monitor: LG 27GL850-B 2560x1440

Quic: https://account.quic.nz/refer/473833 R473833EQKIBX

Filterer

489 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 6

#135833 6-Jun-2008 00:19

To do what you propose -

Every packet would have to be inspected - lets say always allow traffic to xnet voip and main website servers.

First problem is this ip or dns based.

Secondly, for all other traffic going to non xnet servers, you then need to check do a lookup of the a) Pirate table, or b) the Unpaid table.

Thridly, where does this lookup occur? Is it centralised or do they have to come up with some way to distrbute it to multiple clients? Sure you can keep it in memory assuming its small enough, but thats A LOT of packets to be inspecting in any case. There have been a number of high profile cases in NZ where deep packet inspection has caused havoc on networks.

enforcernz - Lets try and stay away from the reasons for being suspended or we may get the thread locked again. This discussion is purely relating to what happens after xnet decides that they no longer wish to supply you with servcies - the reasons for which is fairly unimportant.

maverick

3594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 80

Trusted

WorldxChange

#135842 6-Jun-2008 06:18

Gents, some good points raised here as I have already said, trust me some of this is not as easy as you may think when you are combining multiple systems so I will let you discuss amongst your selves on this on how we do things , some people are are on the right track

buit we won't be saying to much on how we do things, to many other try and copy our stuff already

,but we will be looking at the other points raised here as they are valid, I just don't have an answer yet.

EDIT...Just a point to note as well, traffic is suspened on the SECOND infringement notice not the first.

Yes I am a employee of WxC (My Profile) ... but I do have my own opinions as well

https://www.facebook.com/wxccommunications

mushion22

297 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#135845 6-Jun-2008 07:24

sbiddle: IMHO WxC need to look at changes to their system to allow all VoIP traffic still and redirect all other web traffic to a page explaining exactly what has happened and why.

I very much agree. Little more creative thinking on the part of WxC and other ISPs would do a treat here, and not just for the copyright situation. Are you really going to just fall back on the T&Cs and discard any notion of proactive resolution?

I will be very hesitant about ever using an ISP that will drop my connection with 24 hours notice based on a third party notification.

There are many things you could do: (I realise DSL in NZ doesnt really work this way) Different VCs for Net and VoIP or different VLANs on future ethernet services; Disable off-net traffic untill the customer agress to cease illegal P2P; Block all but HTTP(s) off-net traffic untill customer agrees to cease illegal P2P; Block all but SIP/Skype traffic. Or a mixture of the above.

By off-net I mean outside of the ISP network, meaning email and on-net Voip would work. I disagree that it would be too difficult to filter for VoIP. ISPs should be doing QoS for VoIP anyway and it should be trivial to set up rules to drop non-Voip packets if they have an efficient network that doesnt leave all filtering and QoS up to the outbound firewalls/edge routers.

Alternatively ISPs could just stick up for the ideal of net-neutrality.... had best not get started on that topic though ;)

maverick

3594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 80

Trusted

WorldxChange

#135854 6-Jun-2008 08:06

mushion22:
sbiddle: IMHO WxC need to look at changes to their system to allow all VoIP traffic still and redirect all other web traffic to a page explaining exactly what has happened and why.

I very much agree. Little more creative thinking on the part of WxC and other ISPs would do a treat here, and not just for the copyright situation. Are you really going to just fall back on the T&Cs and discard any notion of proactive resolution?

I will be very hesitant about ever using an ISP that will drop my connection with 24 hours notice based on a third party notification.

There are many things you could do: (I realise DSL in NZ doesnt really work this way) Different VCs for Net and VoIP or different VLANs on future ethernet services; Disable off-net traffic untill the customer agress to cease illegal P2P; Block all but HTTP(s) off-net traffic untill customer agrees to cease illegal P2P; Block all but SIP/Skype traffic. Or a mixture of the above.

By off-net I mean outside of the ISP network, meaning email and on-net Voip would work. I disagree that it would be too difficult to filter for VoIP. ISPs should be doing QoS for VoIP anyway and it should be trivial to set up rules to drop non-Voip packets if they have an efficient network that doesnt leave all filtering and QoS up to the outbound firewalls/edge routers.

Alternatively ISPs could just stick up for the ideal of net-neutrality.... had best not get started on that topic though ;)

I don't won't to take this off topic but,

We are not fans of this at all, it cost's us as the service provider a huge amount of time and resource managing this and we have to by law as do all ISP's, and of all all the infringement notifications funnily enough we don't get any denials from the users so really this comment is not fair.

"I will be very hesitant about ever using an ISP that will drop my connection with 24 hours notice based on a third party notification."

would love to be able to recover our cost's on this by charging a processing fee as do you think it's fair that we have to wear the cost's in time and wasted manpower, hence the reason we are no fans of this at all, would much rather have my support guys do I don't handling support issues and not infringement

if you ran a business and had to have time and manpower alloacted to handling a non profit exercise on something that is at this stage on what is technically an illegal activity how would handle it, how would you justify the time and cost's involved as I and a lot of other people would like to know the answer to this.

You are right here NZ wholesale DSL dosn't work this way, VLANing and different VC's are not an option on the current offering, EUBA may address some of this but only for routers capable of priority tagging. QOS / Filtering at this point has nothing to do with issue actually and it may be just the way accounst are suspended so as you will not have the details on why it's pretty hard for anyone to make a judgement yet on what happens.

We are also pretty proactive when dealing with our customers always have been always will be, we won't satisfy all but you never can, and on this one we are the ones that have to bear the cost's.

This could turn in a heated debate on the pro's cons of file sharing and infringement handling which is not what this thread is about and Geekzone have what I think is a good policy on this, I may have my own opinions on this but what we are basically talking about is ileagal activity and our obligations as a commercial company under those requirements. and really unless you are in a company dealing with it it is easy to throw stones so if you can tell us how I can cut my costs and meet the legal requirments then I'm all ears.

Yes I am a employee of WxC (My Profile) ... but I do have my own opinions as well

https://www.facebook.com/wxccommunications

jpollock

600 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Trusted

#135859 6-Jun-2008 08:22

How To Lock out a device:

Set up a restricted address range. That address range only has the ability to talk to internal WorldXChange services, such as VFX, email (to help resolve it), and the WorldXChange web site.

When the person is disconnected, their IP address is changed from the unrestricted range to the restricted range. This would also allow WorldXChange to offer VFX service without an outgoing broadband plan.

This should work for everyone with dynamic IP addresses, without a per packet lookup.

For static IP addresses, you could apply those same static rules to the individual address, but poking holes like that in your address range might get expensive, I don't know the capabilities of the routers. :)

This assumes that all DSL traffic is trunked back to WorldXChange and originates back to into the wider Internet from WorldXChange's points of presence. If they are using Telecom to route the traffic into the wider Internet (in other words, they don't control the routers), this may not be possible.

---
http://blog.jason.pollock.ca

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

mushion22

297 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#135861 6-Jun-2008 08:31

The Copyright (New Technologies) Amendement bill:

"An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer."

"In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner."

Now this seems to be a good example of vague law making when it says "a work." This could either mean Someone who repeatedly infringes a particular work, or Someone who repeatedly infringes copyrighted works.

As far as I can tell your policy takes the latter approach.

If you want to save money, then do not try and be the moral police. Implement a policy that conforms with the law, but use it as a back stop and do your best to retain customers.

As far as QoS and filtering is concerned, yes it is financially difficult of course, but if you want to be the police then the onus is on you to implement appropriate policing mechanisms. If you want to be the police AND retain customer loyalty, then these had best not be draconian measures.

You are in the unique position that you control the equipment that is able to connect to your VoIP network. Thus you have the ability to control service parameters on the CPE as well as your outbound edge. Yes, Telecom is the big bully in the middle, but with some creative thinking you could do better.

This could range from in-network filtering, to simply developing a DSL router that has the ability for central management, similar to how you do for ATAs and the like. You could sell this to customers who use VoIP not just as a platform to ensure higher voice quality, but to further differentiate your sevice by setting bandwidth and priority parameters for difference services. Eg: HTTP(S) Traffic only for $10 a month, then add services form there.

Building out a nationwide network is not the only way to differentiate...

maverick

3594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 80

Trusted

WorldxChange

#135883 6-Jun-2008 09:24

mushion22: The Copyright (New Technologies) Amendement bill:

"An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer."

"In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner."

Now this seems to be a good example of vague law making when it says "a work." This could either mean Someone who repeatedly infringes a particular work, or Someone who repeatedly infringes copyrighted works.

As far as I can tell your policy takes the latter approach.

If you want to save money, then do not try and be the moral police. Implement a policy that conforms with the law, but use it as a back stop and do your best to retain customers.

As far as QoS and filtering is concerned, yes it is financially difficult of course, but if you want to be the police then the onus is on you to implement appropriate policing mechanisms. If you want to be the police AND retain customer loyalty, then these had best not be draconian measures.

You are in the unique position that you control the equipment that is able to connect to your VoIP network. Thus you have the ability to control service parameters on the CPE as well as your outbound edge. Yes, Telecom is the big bully in the middle, but with some creative thinking you could do better.

This could range from in-network filtering, to simply developing a DSL router that has the ability for central management, similar to how you do for ATAs and the like. You could sell this to customers who use VoIP not just as a platform to ensure higher voice quality, but to further differentiate your sevice by setting bandwidth and priority parameters for difference services. Eg: HTTP(S) Traffic only for $10 a month, then add services form there.

Building out a nationwide network is not the only way to differentiate...

Sorry you have totally lost me here with this,
"As far as QoS and filtering is concerned, yes it is financially difficult of course, but if you want to be the police then the onus is on you to implement appropriate policing mechanisms"

Which part don't we have ???, the issue as I just pointed out was the VOICE has nothing to do with QOS or Filtering it may be just the way the account is suspended in the system as to why the Voice Component is not continuing to work after a infringement suspension.

"If you want to save money, then do not try and be the moral police. Implement a policy that conforms with the law, but use it as a back stop and do your best to retain customers."

This is not an answer but a moral statement and actually not an answer to the question, we are not the moral police but a Company that has legal requirements under the Act as do all ISP's now, the policy we have is basically 3 strikes and your out,

EDIT:
First Time you get a notice with no disruption of service, and we explain the ramifications of rxing a second notice
Second Time we have to terminate the service

So how would you do this and comply with the act ?, Put yourself in our shoes , treat this as a real work example and and this should be right up your alley since you are an IT Student "Bachelor of IT at Victoria Uni in Wellington, majoring in Information Systems (I have mainly stuck to the management side for the last couple of years)."

I come to you as your Lecturer and say Hamish since you are in "Management" we have a requirement under the "The Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment bill" to be legally compliant so that we can not be prosecuted for not complying under this act,
Please supply me a solution that complies with the act and is not based on a moral judgment or own personal belief just something that complies with the act and works for all,

Things to factor in
Human Resources
Cost's
Customer
Legal Requirement
Processes

Again I'm a bit lost with this, settings for QOS and Priority Markings we have this already and can be done as part of our centralized provisioning as well as bandwidth allocation for VFX customers, but your really missing the point under the current DSL network, TAG's / QOS markings are ignored and dropped in the current wholesale DSL network infrastructure, bandwidth and CIR is not controlled by US or any ISP's under the terms of current DSL wholesale offerings, EUBA that is not available yet will allow for priority taging but only with devices that are capable of it and there aren't many out there at present.

Yes I am a employee of WxC (My Profile) ... but I do have my own opinions as well

https://www.facebook.com/wxccommunications

Filterer

489 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 6

#135888 6-Jun-2008 09:34

maverick: Just a point to note as well, traffic is suspened on the SECOND infringement notice not the first.

Not true as of a few months ago, not sure if you have changed your m.o.

Previsouly it was suspend on first notice until the customer could be notified - and termination on second notice

maverick

3594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 80

Trusted

WorldxChange

#135898 6-Jun-2008 10:05

Filterer:
maverick: Just a point to note as well, traffic is suspened on the SECOND infringement notice not the first.

Not true as of a few months ago, not sure if you have changed your m.o.

Previsouly it was suspend on first notice until the customer could be notified - and termination on second notice

Sorry let me clarify a bit more,
On the first one, we send an Email and ask you to contact us within 7 Days to stop a auto suspension of the service, if we get no response we will suspend.

Yes I am a employee of WxC (My Profile) ... but I do have my own opinions as well

https://www.facebook.com/wxccommunications

mushion22

297 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#135899 6-Jun-2008 10:05

I'll assume that wasnt a personal attack, but please avoid making this personal anyway. I am merely suggesting that you could do better to retain customers through the use of technology. Retaining customers is generally accepted as being cheaper than gaining new ones. I also believe that the conditions of your policy rely too heavily on contractual mechanisms and do not allow for flexibility.

In my personal opinion which is based on my own morals and academic and professional experiences, your company's policy agrees with a viewpoint that ISPs are to be the police of such matters, and go beyond what is required in terms of terminating contracts. I strongly believe that total termination is a draconian measure, and you should be willing to look at alternatives (such as the above suggestion on different IP ranges and subnets, or in the future you would look to using mechanisms such as provided for in traffic shaping, QoS, packet filtering, and so on).

It is also my opinion that the law is not written well, and doesn't uphold the principles of net neutrality. I thoroughly agree that people need to respect the principles of copyright and that stealing music and other media is immoral. I do not, however, believe that people should have their total rights to internet access removed for a mere 3 restricted acts given the current social acceptance of file sharing and in many cases the unawareness of the implications of those restricted acts. You are well within your right to use this policy, but I believe it is unnecessarily draconian.

Untill the new Copyright Act is tested in court, there will be no precedent as to what is reasonable and not reasonable. Thus I imagine that while debate is healthy, it is probably largely unfruitfull for any of us individually unless we are all deciding to become legal academics other than that our knowledge about the topic will have increased.

It does however lead to some interesting points when it comes to the state of communications infrastructure, particularly when it comes to copyright enforcement and moral obligations.

I think it Naive to point the finger at me or anybody else and say 'ok come up with a better solution otherwise you're wrong' because I doubt that you or any other current or past employee of World Exchange came up with your strategy, policy, and business model on your/their own in a very short period of time.

I do believe that sharing my opinions, pointing out facts and branstorming for potential solutions is healthy and is the general idea of forums such as this.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

mushion22

297 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#135913 6-Jun-2008 10:32

Oh, I should also clarify. When I am suggesting the use of traffic shaping and filtering tools, I am just referring to avoiding the possibility of mutiple services being cut off after account suspension.

This can mean internet, voice, alarm/security systems, in the future would mean TV and it seems illogical to have all these cut off with such little notice.

It would be like me stealing a packet of gum from the dairy a couple of times, and having my car and bank accounts taken away from me and not being allowed into any other store untill I can buy a new car and get new bank accounts.

Maybe I'm just a left wing communist hippy or something...

maverick

3594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 80

Trusted

WorldxChange

#135922 6-Jun-2008 10:53

Absolutely not a personal attack, and I hope you didn't interpret it that way.

healthy debate and understanding is what this place is all about, what I am trying to point out that on a subject like this peoples own views can be a distraction from the actuals.

Were not lawyers but we employ people who are

and boy they charge like wounded bulls, so like all companies you implement policies based on legal advice when acts such as these are out there, personal opinions don't count Hamish, and as I said before I have my own opinion on this as well remember and it could be in line with your thinking with some of it but we are bound under the act.

I am not trying to point the finger at you as such Hamish nor did I say anywhere you were wrong if you disagree so please don't take it that way all I did was to give you some factors to think about when complying a reply. people are very quick to tell us what we are doing is wrong but you have to come to the table with how we could handle it as well and to do that you need to have some things to take into account.

We do listen to feedback here and have based changes on the way we do things from some of this feedback, my questions to you were purely academic and I actually thought you may have enjoyed the challenge since you are studying in the Industry and management is what you are looking at by the looks of it, and this is the type of issue you have to deal with at a management level. By asking the questions I am trying to get across to you and others that will read this some of the things that we as a company and other ISP's have to put into our thought processes. If you see what we look at and try and take that into account you may have more of an understanding of why we do things, I could just have easily said "This is The LAW" Borrowed from the Judge Dread movie

, but that doesn't give you an insight as to what we have to take into account or give , people here want to understand and have open discussion with us, I am hopefully doing that.

As for facts and brainstorming I'm all for it as I said before ideas brought up here do have merit and in fact some have been implemented so it's good for all, but what I was also trying to say is that the "Facts" around QOS , Tagging are not quite correct under the current wholesale DSL network and can give people the wrong idea on why the Voice service would have stopped working on a suspension, and I don't want to be rude about it.

Yes I am a employee of WxC (My Profile) ... but I do have my own opinions as well

https://www.facebook.com/wxccommunications

maverick

3594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 80

Trusted

WorldxChange

#135924 6-Jun-2008 10:55

mushion22: Oh, I should also clarify. When I am suggesting the use of traffic shaping and filtering tools, I am just referring to avoiding the possibility of mutiple services being cut off after account suspension.

This can mean internet, voice, alarm/security systems, in the future would mean TV and it seems illogical to have all these cut off with such little notice.

It would be like me stealing a packet of gum from the dairy a couple of times, and having my car and bank accounts taken away from me and not being allowed into any other store untill I can buy a new car and get new bank accounts.

Maybe I'm just a left wing communist hippy or something...

good points and something we are looking at,

maybe you are and I'm just a right wing shoot them all type of guy

Yes I am a employee of WxC (My Profile) ... but I do have my own opinions as well

https://www.facebook.com/wxccommunications

jpollock

600 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Trusted

#135925 6-Jun-2008 10:56

mushion22: Oh, I should also clarify. When I am suggesting the use of traffic shaping and filtering tools, I am just referring to avoiding the possibility of mutiple services being cut off after account suspension.

This can mean internet, voice, alarm/security systems, in the future would mean TV and it seems illogical to have all these cut off with such little notice.

It would be like me stealing a packet of gum from the dairy a couple of times, and having my car and bank accounts taken away from me and not being allowed into any other store untill I can buy a new car and get new bank accounts.

Maybe I'm just a left wing communist hippy or something...

Don't worry Mushion, that's what we're discussing here. :) Personally, I don't think there is any intention on the part of WorldXChange to drop the customer entirely - that's why Maverick said "I won't comment to much at present , but you raise a couple of very good points, more to follow" way back in the beginning. I took that to mean, this is an "unanticipated feature interaction", it's probably the first disconnect that they've had of a VFX/DSL customer (or at least the first vocal one).

It comes from having DSL, the pipe, confused with Internet Access, the service. WorldXChange will have to sort out how to keep the pipe but disconnect the service internally.

Service interactions are a constant problem in Telco, and larger companies spend huge sums of money just trying to avoid them (frequently failing). When I was at Nortel, we had huge documents just to analyse the impacts of each feature change on all of the other features. It was nasty.

---
http://blog.jason.pollock.ca

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5