Quote:
Originally Posted by BenMcr
AFAIK STM is a putting you onto a slower profile than you had, not purposely slowing packets/data
e.g a 1Mbit profile rather than a 2Mbit profile
|
I understand that's part of it, but I have been given to believe* also hardware gating logic and software which both intercepts and has the effect of intercepting packets.
Incidentally, do you know about the Canadian anti-throttling case? Runs pretty much on the same lines as here, although different legal procedures.
*The Numbskulls in my head haven't decided yet, they're still debating.
---------- Post added at 21:09 ---------- Previous post was at 20:46 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonglet
How can you see the proof as dpi is undetectable as a passthrough? hope you arent going to do a late night recon of a virgin media head end and take photos or anything lol.
|
On two known servers, client and host separated by distance, send a stream of packets with a loop-back to return them. A reasonable size PDF would suffice as data. If either server log contains 307s then something is picking up packets, redirecting elsewhere and returning to continue the stream. Also, emanate a series of consistent pings from both ends. A long identical delay in a particular node across pings will display interception. If both logs, client/server/client and loop-back streaming, show the same results then you have proof of interception. To corroborate this proof, try the same client/server test with either a VPN or secure HTTPS connection: if the delaying node no longer delays you substantiate HTTP interception. You could go further with such forensic tests and analysis but these simple methods will prove the case.