7 ms·

Canada's First Pirate Site Blocking Order Expires

61 points by gslin 2y ago

xethos 2y ago
Noting that TekSavvy (and only TekSavvy) fought the block, I looked into being one of their customers again. It was a good experience in the last city I lived in, and I was a customer for a year in my current location. They still lose on price by ~$30CAD monthly, but I could forgive that. Paying for objectively better customer support and an ethical ISP (even if just a reseller) is something I can work with. What really kills me is the upload topping out at 100Mbps (even with gigabit down), and that one I'm not willing to work around.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y ago
  Same. I was willing to use TekSavvy, but their internet service is just not there. I want symmetrical speed, I use upload extensively (and need unlimited data). Unfortunately, that's not their priority. Their website is also completely down right now, which is weird.
  - up-n-atom 2y ago
    They run their own fiber infrastructure in Chatham, Ontario. Resell on Bell in Ontario and Quebec. Telus, Aliant and SaskTel have until Feb 2025 to open up wholesale on their Fiber networks which I’d expect TekSavvy to tap that for Western/Maritime Canada.
    - Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y ago
      Oh cool, so there is hope! I'm with Novus which is a local ISP in BC, Telus was jacking up prices for no reason, like they do for mobile
  - bberenberg 2y ago
    Can you share what you need symmetrical speeds with unlimited bandwidth from home for?
    - MezzoDelCammin 2y ago
      Not sure about the original poster, but in my case it's because I'm running a NAS/rsync at home. Symmetrical speeds are really handy for that.
    - weberer 2y ago
      Not that person, but its needed if you're a live streamer. Even video chats with small groups take quite a bit of bandwidth.
    - rovr138 2y ago
      not the OP, but I'm a data engineer. I'm downloading and uploading data all day long. Even subsets are large and after combining data from multiple datasets, it grows. That's not including backups I run to external services.
    - lostlogin 2y ago
      I’m not the OP, but have a vastly over spec connection. For about $70 US per month I get 2 gigabit symmetric. I could get something like 300mbps symmetric for about $40 US but love the extra. I don’t notice the difference every day, but it makes me very happy when I do.
      - jaskerr 2y ago
        For $70 a month? Holy guacamole! Where are you, that you get such good rates? We’re lucky to have fiber, but we pay $60 for 100 mbps. (Edited to correct cost of fiber as part of telecom bill.)
        lostlogin 2y ago
        This is in New Zealand. I can get the same speed for cheaper, $US50-60 but the static IP, and great service from Voyager keep me with them. It’s not a load more for 4 or even 8gb. What a time to be alive.
  - 1over137 2y ago
    >Their website is also completely down right now, which is weird. Seems up: https://www.isitdownrightnow.com/teksavvy.com.html https://www.isitdownrightnow.com/teksavvy.com.html
    - Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y ago
      It's up but returns 403 for requests to the homepage
- passwordoops 2y ago
  Was a very happy TekSavvy customer for years, then we moved to a neighborhood where they don't have coverage :-( Went with Ebox, which was promptly bought up by Bell
- 1over137 2y ago
  >What really kills me is the upload topping out at 100Mbps Teksavvy resells Bell Fibe, its upload does not top out at 100 Mbps.
  - xethos 2y ago
    Send me an email (in my profile) and I'll drop you my address to plug into their availability page. Their claims may be low-balling it, but they state upload tops out at 100Mbps in my area
    - 1over137 2y ago
      I believe you. Your wording just made it seem like the top speed from Teksavvy was 100 Mbps, period; not just in your neighbourhood.
- slothtrop 2y ago
  Yeah, no rental fee on modems though after you purchase one outright. I've used TekSavvy for nearly a decade and they've been great, but be sure to use another DNS provider. Performance is terrible even if they do use CIRA, ostensibly.
- NiloCK 2y ago
  Years ago in a different city I had a TekSavvy DSL connection. There was some issue, and I called tech support. The initial conversation included some hints that I, too, was ... Tek Savvy. (sorry) The agent ditched the script and we dove into a live debug collaboration between peers. I have no idea whether the same spirit endures, but it was an amazing positive experience, unlike anything I've seen before or since. Recommended.
- gruez 2y ago
  >They still lose on price by ~$30CAD monthly, but I could forgive that. Paying for objectively better customer support and an ethical ISP (even if just a reseller) is something I can work with. Surely you'd be better off taking the $30 and donating it to EFF (or Canadian equivalent)? Spending extra money on an ISP that occasionally engages in activism but has higher cost structure is less efficient for everyone involved.
  - slothtrop 2y ago
    There's also the competition angle, lobbying efforts from the big 3 (Bell, Telus and Rogers) weakens it. Teksavvy periodically makes it into the newscycle pushing for changes with the CRTC. Undermining the oligopoly is in the consumer's interest. Quebecor has been branching out Canada-wide at least and they're not just a MVNO.
    - jszymborski 2y ago
      As a Quebecker, I'm always surprised to hear Quebecor mentioned as a challenger to the incumbent oligopoly. It's always been my perception they are well among them. A quick internet search suggests that Telus ($5B) has half the total assets than Quebecor ($10B) albeit a 1/7 of those of Rogers ($70B). Those numbers might be wrong though, I got them all from secondary sources.
      - slothtrop 2y ago
        They are huge no doubt, but until very recently their ISP services were not available outside of QC. Of course realistically it's just a marginally expanded oligopoly, but 4 players is better than 3 as competition is concerned.
  - themaninthedark 2y ago
    Because giving money to an organization that fights to protect your interests vs paying a company providing a service that is also aligned with you in your interests is not that same thing. The business itself is less efficient but that may be because they are doing things to protect your mutual interests. An equivalent would be "Why don't I buy everything off of Ali Express/Temu/etc and just donate the extra money I save to Amnesty International/Greenpeace/WWF/etc" Edit add: We as members of society create a standard that we want to apply: Clean air, clean water, safe working conditions. These standards come at a cost and it is unethical to ask for these things and then decide that we do not want to pay the costs associated with the standards we have put in place. If we desire these things, we have to pay for them. If the cost is too high for us, then we should stop demanding those around us continue to pay while we take shortcuts.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Neonlicht 2y ago
I find it amusing that America bullies countries for not enforcing the DMCA meanwhile they can't block piracy sites in their own country.
passwordoops 2y ago
"Following a complaint from major media companies Rogers, Bell and TVA...There was little opposition from Internet providers"... Because two of the complainants are also ISPs, and I'm pretty sure TVA's owners also have a major stake in Videotron. Not to mention Telus, who as a TSX company has a board that looks very similar to Bell's
- 1over137 2y ago
  Quebecor owns both Videotron and TVA.
SOLAR_FIELDS 2y ago
As I read through the article I kept wondering why the plaintiff would let the order expire. The real reason is buried about halfway down the article: > The media companies provide no further details on the decision, but it’s possible that the costs of keeping the blocking order intact weigh stronger than the perceived benefit. Unlike in some other countries, the rightsholders must compensate ISPs for the costs incurred. Well that seems like a fair tradeoff - if you are going to have the privilege of impugning free speech you should at least have to pay handsomely for that privilege. Now incentives are aligned: plaintiffs must actually feel like there is demonstrable damage here in order to pay ISP’s to keep the content offline. If there is no actual demonstrable damage, then there’s no reason to be paying the ISP. And lo, when incentives are aligned we find that, in fact, the intangible damages being complained about tend to evaporate

61 points by gslin 2y ago

Noting that TekSavvy (and only TekSavvy) fought the block, I looked into being one of their customers again. It was a good experience in the last city I lived in, and I was a customer for a year in my current location. They still lose on price by ~$30CAD monthly, but I could forgive that. Paying for objectively better customer support and an ethical ISP (even if just a reseller) is something I can work with. What really kills me is the upload topping out at 100Mbps (even with gigabit down), and that one I'm not willing to work around.

Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y ago
Same. I was willing to use TekSavvy, but their internet service is just not there. I want symmetrical speed, I use upload extensively (and need unlimited data). Unfortunately, that's not their priority. Their website is also completely down right now, which is weird.
- up-n-atom 2y ago
  They run their own fiber infrastructure in Chatham, Ontario. Resell on Bell in Ontario and Quebec. Telus, Aliant and SaskTel have until Feb 2025 to open up wholesale on their Fiber networks which I’d expect TekSavvy to tap that for Western/Maritime Canada.
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y ago
    Oh cool, so there is hope! I'm with Novus which is a local ISP in BC, Telus was jacking up prices for no reason, like they do for mobile
- bberenberg 2y ago
  Can you share what you need symmetrical speeds with unlimited bandwidth from home for?
  - MezzoDelCammin 2y ago
    Not sure about the original poster, but in my case it's because I'm running a NAS/rsync at home. Symmetrical speeds are really handy for that.
  - weberer 2y ago
    Not that person, but its needed if you're a live streamer. Even video chats with small groups take quite a bit of bandwidth.
  - rovr138 2y ago
    not the OP, but I'm a data engineer. I'm downloading and uploading data all day long. Even subsets are large and after combining data from multiple datasets, it grows. That's not including backups I run to external services.
  - lostlogin 2y ago
    I’m not the OP, but have a vastly over spec connection. For about $70 US per month I get 2 gigabit symmetric. I could get something like 300mbps symmetric for about $40 US but love the extra. I don’t notice the difference every day, but it makes me very happy when I do.
    - jaskerr 2y ago
      For $70 a month? Holy guacamole! Where are you, that you get such good rates? We’re lucky to have fiber, but we pay $60 for 100 mbps. (Edited to correct cost of fiber as part of telecom bill.)
      - lostlogin 2y ago
        This is in New Zealand. I can get the same speed for cheaper, $US50-60 but the static IP, and great service from Voyager keep me with them. It’s not a load more for 4 or even 8gb. What a time to be alive.
- 1over137 2y ago
  >Their website is also completely down right now, which is weird. Seems up: https://www.isitdownrightnow.com/teksavvy.com.html https://www.isitdownrightnow.com/teksavvy.com.html
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y ago
    It's up but returns 403 for requests to the homepage
passwordoops 2y ago
Was a very happy TekSavvy customer for years, then we moved to a neighborhood where they don't have coverage :-( Went with Ebox, which was promptly bought up by Bell
1over137 2y ago
>What really kills me is the upload topping out at 100Mbps Teksavvy resells Bell Fibe, its upload does not top out at 100 Mbps.
- xethos 2y ago
  Send me an email (in my profile) and I'll drop you my address to plug into their availability page. Their claims may be low-balling it, but they state upload tops out at 100Mbps in my area
  - 1over137 2y ago
    I believe you. Your wording just made it seem like the top speed from Teksavvy was 100 Mbps, period; not just in your neighbourhood.
slothtrop 2y ago
Yeah, no rental fee on modems though after you purchase one outright. I've used TekSavvy for nearly a decade and they've been great, but be sure to use another DNS provider. Performance is terrible even if they do use CIRA, ostensibly.
NiloCK 2y ago
Years ago in a different city I had a TekSavvy DSL connection. There was some issue, and I called tech support. The initial conversation included some hints that I, too, was ... Tek Savvy. (sorry) The agent ditched the script and we dove into a live debug collaboration between peers. I have no idea whether the same spirit endures, but it was an amazing positive experience, unlike anything I've seen before or since. Recommended.
gruez 2y ago
>They still lose on price by ~$30CAD monthly, but I could forgive that. Paying for objectively better customer support and an ethical ISP (even if just a reseller) is something I can work with. Surely you'd be better off taking the $30 and donating it to EFF (or Canadian equivalent)? Spending extra money on an ISP that occasionally engages in activism but has higher cost structure is less efficient for everyone involved.
- slothtrop 2y ago
  There's also the competition angle, lobbying efforts from the big 3 (Bell, Telus and Rogers) weakens it. Teksavvy periodically makes it into the newscycle pushing for changes with the CRTC. Undermining the oligopoly is in the consumer's interest. Quebecor has been branching out Canada-wide at least and they're not just a MVNO.
  - jszymborski 2y ago
    As a Quebecker, I'm always surprised to hear Quebecor mentioned as a challenger to the incumbent oligopoly. It's always been my perception they are well among them. A quick internet search suggests that Telus ($5B) has half the total assets than Quebecor ($10B) albeit a 1/7 of those of Rogers ($70B). Those numbers might be wrong though, I got them all from secondary sources.
    - slothtrop 2y ago
      They are huge no doubt, but until very recently their ISP services were not available outside of QC. Of course realistically it's just a marginally expanded oligopoly, but 4 players is better than 3 as competition is concerned.
- themaninthedark 2y ago
  Because giving money to an organization that fights to protect your interests vs paying a company providing a service that is also aligned with you in your interests is not that same thing. The business itself is less efficient but that may be because they are doing things to protect your mutual interests. An equivalent would be "Why don't I buy everything off of Ali Express/Temu/etc and just donate the extra money I save to Amnesty International/Greenpeace/WWF/etc" Edit add: We as members of society create a standard that we want to apply: Clean air, clean water, safe working conditions. These standards come at a cost and it is unethical to ask for these things and then decide that we do not want to pay the costs associated with the standards we have put in place. If we desire these things, we have to pay for them. If the cost is too high for us, then we should stop demanding those around us continue to pay while we take shortcuts.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Neonlicht 2y ago

I find it amusing that America bullies countries for not enforcing the DMCA meanwhile they can't block piracy sites in their own country.

passwordoops 2y ago

"Following a complaint from major media companies Rogers, Bell and TVA...There was little opposition from Internet providers"... Because two of the complainants are also ISPs, and I'm pretty sure TVA's owners also have a major stake in Videotron. Not to mention Telus, who as a TSX company has a board that looks very similar to Bell's

1over137 2y ago
Quebecor owns both Videotron and TVA.

SOLAR_FIELDS 2y ago

As I read through the article I kept wondering why the plaintiff would let the order expire. The real reason is buried about halfway down the article: > The media companies provide no further details on the decision, but it’s possible that the costs of keeping the blocking order intact weigh stronger than the perceived benefit. Unlike in some other countries, the rightsholders must compensate ISPs for the costs incurred. Well that seems like a fair tradeoff - if you are going to have the privilege of impugning free speech you should at least have to pay handsomely for that privilege. Now incentives are aligned: plaintiffs must actually feel like there is demonstrable damage here in order to pay ISP’s to keep the content offline. If there is no actual demonstrable damage, then there’s no reason to be paying the ISP. And lo, when incentives are aligned we find that, in fact, the intangible damages being complained about tend to evaporate