Sky Broadband Setup, Cabling, Connection & WiFi

[cecr]

Some sites I visit are being resticted. One of them is Oron.com a file storage site. What seems to have happened is that the site has been put on The Internet Watch Foundation's 'blacklist'. This means that requests to the site go through a filter, to prevent access to whatever it has been blacklised for. If the request passes the filter, it then goes through a proxy and reaches Oron.

The problem is that the proxy has a limited number of IP addresses, and Oron places a limit that can be downloaded via each IP. The result is that users cannot retrieve anything from the site because the requests of many users are attributed to one IP which exceeds the allowable limit.

This is happening not just with Sky, but other UK ISPs also. Some, like Plusnet have resolved the problem.

This could also be the reason why other sites are unreachable. The error message from Oron doesn't explain what the problem is because they cannot know if a user's ISP is filtering requests, and I guess other fileserver sites may give mislading info also.

Is Sky aware of this problem and is it tackling it? This is a fairly recent problem, starting abou a month or so ago.

[PaulEK]

Sky doesn't need to tackle anything, the blocked site needs to get itself off the blacklist or it will continue to have problems. Oron need to make contact with the main groups that control the blacklists and get themselves taken off it, no one else can sort this.

[cecr]

yes, of course you're right paul, if the site wasn't blacklisted, the problem wouldn't exist. However, that is the position I would like to be in, not the position I am in. Rather like saying that if I hadn't have run out of petrol, I wouldn't  have strained my back, and wouldn't have to wait for so long in A&E. Well, I did run out of petrol, did strain my back, and I DO need treatment in A&E. As another example, imagine complaining about slow service in a restaurant, and the manager saying that if all the customers didn't come in at the same time, service would be faster. Well, its his job to match demand and supply, not the customers job to come in at a time when the kitchen can cope. It's Skys job to ensure that sites can be reached on an equal basis, and not to casue restrictions.

If a user was experiencing a slow internet speed because of the number of users, I don't think you would say that Sky don't need to do anything, the users just have to spend less time online, and to stagger their online times. I think everyone would agree that Sky needed to increase the bandwidth in cases like that

It can take along time to get off those blacklists, it only takes one file amongst milions, and such bodies are fast to add to their watchlists, and slow to remove. In the meantime, the lack of proxy IP addresses available to those accessing the site is resricting  access. It is the lack of IP addresses that is causing the lack of access, not the inclusion on a watchlist, and that IS Skys responsbility.

I recognise that if the site wasn't on a watchlist, the problem wouldn't exist, but also recognise that the watchlist itself isn't the problem, it's how Sky choose to treat visits to that site. Effectively, they are causing a restriction on visits to that site, and maybe others too.

Other ISPs have tackled the problem, and I wonder if Sky are aware of this and if they will do something.

[PaulEK]

There is more than one blacklist, the other ISPs may not be using the same blacklisting company. It is most definitely not Skys problem to get a site removed from a blacklist, it is always down to the site owner and they have to work with the blacklisting company to sort out what is happening and to resolve whatever issue is causing it.

Sky is a provider of access to the internet, it is not there to help people use proxys to negate blacklists. If the site in quetion does not want to keep ending up on blacklists it needs to be pro-active in making sure content uploaded is not copyrighted, illegal or going to cause them issues in any way.

[cecr]

you are totally wrong.

Sky is using the proxy, and sky has allocated a small number of IP addresses to those proxies. The result is that to the sites beyond those proxies, all users seem to be the same. This means when I try to log in to my account, it tells me I am already logged on - because another user has gone through the same proxyand teh site doesn't allow the same user (IP address) to log in to more than one account. It also means that all downloaders appear to be the same as they have the same IP address and therefore share the same download amount.

It is SKY who has implemented the proxy, and therefore SKY that is restricting access to those sites. It is SKYs reaction to the watchlist that has casued the problem.

Other ISPs are using the same IWF list and after complaints from their fee paying customers have removed the barriers to the sites affected.

This is not a problem I can solve, but SKY can

With respect paul, I don't think you have read or understood the problem, that comes across from your answer. It is superficial to say that if teh site wasn't on a blacklist, the propblem wouldn't arise. The fact is, SKY has put a proxy in place that is restricting access to several sites. That was SKYs decision.

However, you've made your views known. As you can't solve the problem, there isn't much point in you posting any more

I came here to get an 'official' view before I put a complaint in writing to SKY. I thought I could get such a view here, so if there is anyone to give an official view, I'm interested in hearing, otherwise, I wil have to resort to the only tactic that big businesses understand - withholding of subscriptions.

So, can I have a view from someone 'official'?

[John-B]

Hi cecr

Unfortunately until this site has been removed from the IWF blacklist you would not have access on a Sky Broadband connection.

If it is not blacklisted do you have more information about the proxy servers and IP address ranges, etc. involved?

[cecr]

hello John, nice to hear from you.

Actually, I do have access to these sites from a SKY broadband connection. Th esite I mention isn't the only one affected, but it is the only one I use. I have seen posters on this forum also complaining about site unavailaibility, and they could also be affected.

I believe from what has been said by other ISP technical staff, that filters and proxies have been put in place. The filters filter out (block) whatever they have been set up for, and the rest of the connections go through a proxy (or proxies). The proxies have only a small number of IP addresses available to them. All connections going through the proxy appear to come from the same IP address. So, 10,000 (for example) SKY subscribers (and maybe other ISP customers as well) appear to the site to be a single user. That means, if say, 1000 users each try to log in to their own individual accounts,  to the site, they appear to be one user trying to log in to 1000 accounts concurrently. Most sites don't allow it.

It also means that for those trying to download software/apps as a free user, they all have to share the same download allowance. 1 GB for a free user is pretty generous, but spread across say 10,000 users, it isn't, and they get a confusing message that they have exceeded their free download limit.

In addition, traffic is limited to the bandwidth of the proxy, which, being shared between many users, is obviously much slower than an individual connection.

Other ISPs have had the same complaint, and that is the explanation that has been offered. Some ISPs have solved the problem.

I don't know why the sites are on a watchlist, but it would only take one wrong file to come to the attention of the authrorities to cause it. I fully support the IWF as I understand it is tackling child pornography, but there must be a better way of doing it than to cripple anyone else attempting to make legitimate use of the internet.

No where in my T&C am I aware that SKY will restrict access or bandwidth to legal sites, for any reason.

It is my understanding, that the ISPs chose to put these filters and proxies in place, and hence caused the problem,  and it is therefore possible for them to resolve the problem.

Obviously, I don't have access to the IP addresses allocated to any proxy, that info wouldn't be available to the public as far as I know.

Unfortunately, this is the type of problem that ISPs like to blame others for : "if the site is on a blacklist....."

It isn't being on a blacklist that is causing the problem, it is the measures operated by SKY that are causing it. Obviously, if  the software/apps I was trying to access were banned, I would get a message (from SKY) telling me so, or I woud get a 403 error or similar (to avoid confirming the page content) but I don't. I access the site and find I either can't log in (becasue the site thinks my IP address is already logged in) or that I cannot download (because the site thinks my IP has already downloaded enough). Those messages come from the site itself, not any intermediary.

It could be that SKY have simply subscribed to a proxy operated by some one else, or that they have set up their own proxy to access theses sites. I don't know.

What I do know is that SKY, for whatever reason is allowing my legitimate use of the web to be restricted, without explanation, and without compensation.

If you go to

http://oron.com/axkazko4019m/ubuntu-10.04.1-desktop-i386.iso.html

and select "regular download" (as you don't have an account) the bottom right hand button, the next page, which should be the download page, instead will announce that you have exceeded your download limit. Now, as you haven't put in any passwords etc, this is based entirtely on your IP address. You can trying changing your IP address by resetting your router etc, and trying again and will get exactly the same result. You know your IP has changed, but the site sees the same IP. How can that be unless you are accessing the site through a proxy?

If you wanted to access the site through your own proxy, you will get full access, but free proxies are very slow, so you would be faced with the cost of a paid for proxy. Why should you have to do that? Access to the site was fine until a matter of weeks ago.

If you can come up with another credible explanation, then fine, I'm interested, but other ISPs have generally confirmed the use of proxies with limited IP addresses.

[Oliver341]

Just thought I'd back cecr up on this one.

Basically if there is one blacklisted page on a website with a million pages, access to that website is routed through Sky's IWF proxy. The proxy only has a few IP addresses, so the website sees hundreds of requests from Sky users coming from just a few IP addresses. The website bases download limits per IP address (there is no other way) and so the IWF proxy's download limit is exceeded very rapidly.

My solution is this. Sky's IWF proxy should have a few million IP addresses, so every Sky customer will be assigned a unique IP address when using it. This can be done using IPv6.

[cecr]

thanks for your comments Oliver, glad to see someone else can see and understand the problem. Other ISPs have solved it, I'm sure SKY can too........ if they want any more of my money

[cecr]

Well, after the comments made by Paul, I figured the writing was on the wall so to speak, and that there wouldn't be anyone here who actually understood the problem. So I made a request for help from SKY

I can't believe it, because all they did was rewrite what Paul said, and include a link to this thread!!!!

What cheek to be passing off comments from unknown amateurs, with unknown skills, as advice from SKYs technical staff. All those who have difficulties that SKY cannot resolve might wonder if the reason is because the technical 'advice' SKY are passing off, is actually comments from forum members.

In a lot of cases, enthusiastic amateurs can be a great help, with their varied experience of 'playing around' with equipment and settings, but if you want such advice you go to a forum, not to the provider's technical staff.

For the record, here is what the person in SKYs helpcentre said:

"

Thank you for contacting Sky Help Centre.

Please see link below for further information as this is something we are unable to assist with.

(link to this thread)

Oron need to make contact with the main groups that control the blacklists eg IWF watchlist and ask for them to be removed from this list.

Oron places a limit that can be downloaded via each IP address, resulting in users not being able to retrieve anything from the site as the requests of many users are attributed to the one IP address which then exceeds the allowable limit.

Whilst I realise that you may be disappointed with the decision made, I hope that you can appreciate our position on this matter.

Kind regards

(I've withheld their name)

Sky Help Centre

"

The amazing thing is, she accepts the problem is caused by limited user IP availability, as I have said from the start, (and is supported by Oliver), but she cannot see that those IPs don't materialise out of thin air, they are allocated to the SKY user by someone, somewhere, and the only likely cause is SKY - if IPs changed between the requesting user and the site being visited, the user would never reach the site would he?

So, to SKYs technical staff, you understand the problem is casued by limited user IP availability, do you accept that it is YOUR proxy causing that IP limitation? If so, what are you going to do about it? If not, who or what is causing the limitiation?

Of course, as this is a public forum, anyone else with an explanation as to the cause of limited requestee IP availability is welcome to comment, you might teach SKYs helpcentre staff something!

It isn't my intention to demonise any particular member of SKY staff, but I find such actions smell distinctly either of technical incometence or sheer laziness. Someone in SKY knows what they have done to this and other sites.

Note to admin staff, I appreciate you may be uncomfortable with my condemnation of SKYs actions, but the removal of, or any censoring of this post will result in me going public with the fact that SKY doesn't answer requests for technical help itself, but relies on harvesting information from forums such as this, and puts forward comments from unknown amateurs as 'solutions'.

As soon as this post is public, screen shots will be taken to prove its existence, and all emails to/from SKY have been copied. What a shame a paying customer is has to resort to such things.

[cecr]

hmm, disappointing that no-one is willing to comment.

As a follow up to Sky's 'help centre', this is what the IWF have to say:

"IWF’s role in this blocking initiative is restricted to the compilation and provision of a list: the blocking solution is entirely a matter for the company deploying the list. Our list is designed and provided for blocking specific URLs only. Any decision to convert or adapt the list to block whole domains may lead to the overblocking of legitimate content and is not supported by the IWF."

From that quote, it is clear that IWF simply compiled list of page specific URLS where the content breaches UK law. This list is used by many ISPs and other UK companies.

It is also clear that the IWF do not intend whole domains to be blocked, only pages with illegal content - the IWF only list _pages_ with illegal content.

Any blocking or restrictions on the contactability of a site is due to the actions of the ISP and not IWF.

It is clear then, that the implementation of a proxy is an interference with the contactability of a site. This restriction which affects pages not on the IWF is not supported by IWF.

The unwarranted restriction by Sky on the contactability or usability of any page containing legitimate content is not allowed for in the Sky Terms and conditions, and if there was a clause that allowed them to block any site or page they wanted, it would be against the "Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008" and would not be legal. In effect, any such clause would allow them to simply deny access to the internet to anyone at any time, for no reason, and without explanation, but of course, you would still be charged the full subscription. A bit like charging for something and delivering nothing. We obviously pay for internet access, and that's what we expect.

As a result, blocking or restricting access in this manner is a breach of contract. In such cases of breach of contract, the innocent party can either refuse to honour their side of the contract (ie, not pay their subscription) and can consider themselves freed of that contract, or can elect to be held to the contract and seek damages for the breach.

Anyone experiencing any blocking or restriction of any site should immediately ask Sky if they are responsible and if there is no good cause should ask for compensation for Sky's breach. I have noticed that other sites are similarly filtered, and those with your own sites on low priced hosts may be affected because somebody else has a site on that host that has content that is not legal in the UK (though it may be legal in the owner's homeland, or in the hosting country.)

It's a shame that I should have to state these facts but big monopoly companies like Sky only respect one thing: money. Their 'help centre' has revealed itself to be a sham.

[cecr]

Is there no one from Sky with anything to say? Are you all embarrassed at Skys activities or do you just not have the knowledge?

No reply from the so called help centre either. The same question to them, are you embarrassed at passing off info from amateurs from this page as 'technical advice' or do you just not have the technical knowledge to respond, and no one higher up to escalate to? So, no one in Sky actually knows how your own system works? Or can explain why you breach your own Terms and Conditions by blocking sites for no good reason? Laughable incompetence if it wasn't so downright dishonest.

Well, we'll see what happens when you don't get paid this month, I'm sure you'll notice that and won't try to sweep that under the carpet. You know how direct debit works don't you, but don't know how your own proxy works. That says a lot about your priorities!

As it is, I'm simply waiting a respectable time before I pass it to Ofcom and Trading Standards.

[Wato]

Did yo have any luck with this proble as think some sites I use are also been blocked for no reason

many thanks Wato

[barbiedoll2]

I too, have recieved blocked sites, and they are national newspapers, I read them online. They have been blocked, why? The Daily Mail, Express, message 403, saying access not allowed, where I have been having access for months. I don't know how to resolve this, but may remove myself from Sky altogether, for their after sales service is getting silly for the price we pay each month. I to have been reffered to this site, some help for a novice who pays her bills each month without problems.  I've no idea what to do, or where to go for  help.

[Robert]

Hi barbiedoll2, 

Sorry to see this is happening, the Error 403 that you are seeing is usually generated by the site in question itself not Sky, this could indicate a temporary fault. Can you tell us if you are still seeing this issue?

Thanks.