I’m in the process of pulling together some privacy-related thoughts surrounding Canadian ISPs’ use of DPI equipment. I’ve posted an early draft of the document, and invite comments and thoughts. If you want to prepare your own comments, you’ve still got until February 23rd.
ISPs
Update: Associating Canadian ISPs with Anonymized Data Traffic Submissions
I’ve just posted a document that draws together the CRTC’s February 4, 11, and 12 filings for PN 2008-19. The document ties ISPs with categories of anonymous data for easy reference, and is also meant to contextualize each data set by reproducing the questions that led ISPs to develop these data sets in the first place.
Items of note:
- Responses to question 1 (a) show that, save for a single ISP, ISPs’ annual percentage growth of total traffic volume has decreased. ISPs required to anonymously submit data: Barrett, Bell Canada et al., Cogeco, MTS Allstream, QMI (Videotron), Rogers, Sasktel, Shaw, Telus.
- Responses to question 1 (b) show that the percentage of HTTP/Streaming traffic has increased, two companies report that the percentage of P2P traffic has increased and two report it has decreased slightly, UDP traffic has increased slightly, and the “Other” category now accounts for a smaller percentage of total traffic than in the first months measured. ISPs required to anonymously submit data: Barrett, Bell Canada et al. (for Bell Wireline), Bragg, Rogers, and Shaw.
- Responses to 2 (a) reveal the annual percentage growth of monthly average usage per end-user. We find that growth is occurring on company networks, and that this growth has been uneven (e.g. Company A experienced 16% growth one year, 47% the next, and 13% in the final year). This suggests, to me, that developing an accurate forecast of expected bandwidth growth would be challenging. Without knowing what companies are associated with each data set, it is challenging for analysts to determine if Network Management Technologies might be responsible for the changes in growth rates. ISPs required to anonymously submit data: Barrett, Bell Canada et al. (for Bell Wireline), Cogeco, MTS Allstream, QMI (Videotron), Rogers, and Telus.
- Responses to 2 (b) discuss the percentage growth for ISPs’ top 5% and 10% users. Data for the top 5% shows that two companies experienced negative growth in 2007-2008, one only 2% growth in 2007-2008, and the last a 25% growth. Data for the top 10% shows that two companies experienced negative growth in 2007-2008, one 1% growth, and the last a 25% growth. ISPs required to anonymously submit data: Bell Canada et al. (for Bell Wireline), Cogeco, MTS Allstream, QMI (Videotron), Rogers, and Telus.
- Responses to 2 (c) identify how much of the total traffic that top 5% and 10% users account for. Top 5% account for 37%-56% of total traffic. The top 10% account for 52%-74%. These are fairly damning numbers, given that they clearly demonstrate that massive proportions of the network are being used by a relatively small minority of users. ISPs required to anonymously submit data: Barrett, Bell Canada et al. (for Bell Wireline), Bragg, Cogeco, MTS Allstream, Primus, QMI (Videotron), Rogers, Shaw, and Telus.
- Responses to 2 (d) break down the application usage numbers for the top 5% and 10% of ISPs’ users. For the top 5% of users, HTTP/Streaming has remained relatively constant, P2P use decreased for only one company, UDP traffic is up, and “Other” traffic has decreased for two of three companies. For the top 10% of users, HTTP/Streaming traffic makes up a higher percentage of total traffic, in all but one case P2P traffic represents a larger percentage of total traffic, UDP is up, and “Other” is down for two of three companies. ISPs required to anonymously submit data: Bell Canada et al. (for Bell Wireline), Bragg, and Shaw.
Update: CRTC PN 2008-19 ISP Filing Summary Document
I’ve updated my initial ISP Filing Summary document with the information that ISPs provided on February 9, 2008 per the CRTC’s February 4, 2009 request. Updates to the document are made in blue. The updates to not include Videotron’s response to 1 (c).
I would maintain that the most interesting parts of was was released have been summarized in a post from two days ago, which was entitled “Update: CRTC PN 2008-19 Filings“. Tomorrow, I should be posting a document that correlates data the CRTC aggregated and anonymized with the ISPs who were required to release anonymized data. My hope is that this will make it a bit clearer who data might be associated with.
Update: CRTC PN 2008-19 Filings
I’ve only just now had a chance to start to summarize my thoughts on documents related to CRTC Public Notice (PN) 2008-19; Review of the Internet traffic management practices of Internet service providers that have been filed since January 26th, 2009. Below are points of interest that come up – my hope is in the next few days to integrate and update the initial summary document that I prepared for ISP filings, so that a more complete picture of what has been filed exists.
January 26, 2009 ISP Filings
These filings, by major Canadian ISPs, were in response to the earlier inquiries made by non-ISP interrogatories for the public notice. I put together a summary document concerning those inquiries, and wrote a post that pulled together interesting comments that emerged from them.
Cogeco noted hat it was well known that there was a growth in Internet data traffic, though was not willing to disclose their actual growth numbers. Bell and MTS Allstream both supported the suggestion that the CRTC aggregate raw data traffic information that was provided by ISPs, so long as the information was anonymized and thus kept trade secrets relatively secret. Bell suggested that such aggregations could be divided according to ‘HTTP/streaming’, ‘P2P’, ‘UDP’, and ‘Other’ categories. MTS Allstream suggested that aggregated numbers be divided by ‘Telcos’ and ‘Cable providers’, or by ‘ISPs that throttle’ and ‘ISPs that don’t throttle traffic’.
Update: Network Management, Packet Inspection, and Stimulus Dollars?
Iain Thomson notes that the stimulus bill that recently cleared the American Congress might work to legitimize ISP packet inspection practices under the guise of ‘network management’. Specifically, the amendment in question reads:
In establishing obligations under paragraph (8), the assistant secretary shall allow for reasonable network management practices such as deterring unlawful activity, including child pornography and copyright infringement.
While Thomson takes this to (potentially) mean that ISPs and major content producers/rights holders might use this language to justify the use of packet inspection technologies, it’s possible that alternate management methods could be envisioned. This said, given that copyright infringement is explicitly noted, there is a very real worry that this might legitimize this clause to push for ISP ‘policing’. Any such effect, I suspect, would further escalate the war between P2P and Media; encryption would become more common and effective, and result in a greater sophistication in avoiding inspection devices. This is a real loss for any and all groups who rely on non-encrypted traffic for intelligence purposes; any drive that will get ‘common folk’ thinking about encrypting more and more of their traffic, accompanied with relatively easy ways of doing so, will substantially hinder the capture of actual content. How you read the implications of this depends on your perspective on privacy and surveillance, but it seems to me that it threatens to further escalate a ‘war’ that criminalizes huge swathes of the population for actions that are relatively harmless.
Update: Bell Users’ Average Bandwidth Use
Just a quick note about an interesting tidbit that was passed out by the Bell rep who gave a presentation on DPI today: A few years ago (no precise dates given) users were consuming, on average, 1GB of traffic; this has risen tenfold since that date. As Bell has repeatedly stated in CRTC submissions, they are not caching personally identifiable information as packets course through their DPI equipment, but still maintain that they are looking into the application layer of packets, but not the ‘content’ of the packet. It’s my hope that, over the next few months, more information about ISP uses of DPI emerges so that a more nuanced and productive discussion can take place.
In the next day or so, I’ll be putting up more thoughts and facts that emerged through the 10th annual security and privacy conference, “Life in a Digital Fishbowl“.
Technology, Thoughts & Trinkets 