IPTV Piracy Blocking at the Internet’s Core Routers Undergoes Testing

After 15+ years of blackholing IP addresses and making the Domain Name System tell more lies than Pinocchio, some may wonder whether site-blocking is harming prospects of a future open internet. Confirmation that piracy blocking tests are now being conducted at the internet's core routers isn't a surprise. It's only the internet's spinal column, so what could possibly go wrong?

network-gone During 2010/2011, opportunity arose for Hollywood to convince the High Court in London that site-blocking would be a proportionate response to tackle a single Usenet indexing site called Newzbin.

As rightsholders offered assurances that the action would be carefully targeted and strictly limited in scope, the requested injunction was granted in October 2011. Within 14 days, ISP BT would implement blocking to prevent six million customers from accessing the site in the UK. That was a landmark win for the studios; it also laid the foundations for something bigger.

Whether the High Court would’ve acted any differently is unclear, but it certainly wasn’t informed in advance that its decision would effectively seed site-blocking on a global scale, while acting as an official seal of approval.

Not only did the injunction eventually lead to the blocking of tens of thousands of domains locally, the High Court’s decision was used to convince courts all around the world to do the same. Even in countries where blocking already assists mass censorship, governments are routinely encouraged to block more than they do already.

Of course, it’s never enough. Blocking is easily circumvented, which prompts calls for even more blocking. When faster blocking fails to produce results, preemptive and in some cases perpetual blocking is now accepted as normal. News that testing is underway, to block pirate IPTV devices by meddling with the internet’s core routers, is certainly depressing. What it definitely is not, however, is any kind of surprise.

Brazil Embraces Blocking

When Elon Musk and a Brazilian judge became embroiled in a bitter dispute over what can (and cannot) be said online, Brazil’s Supreme Court ordered local ISPs to take action. Using tools developed in recent years to block pirate sites and piracy-configured set-top boxes, the entire X platform was rendered inaccessible in Brazil. When a blocking mechanism is so readily available, the likelihood of it being used to stifle dissent is just a button press away.

Urged on by movie studios in the United States and the global recording industry, Brazil has now fully embraced site-blocking as a convenient anti-piracy solution. Courts have been issuing orders with such frequency it’s now almost impossible to keep up. Details of the entities subjected to blocking aren’t for public consumption, a common trait of site-blocking systems which prevents accountability.

Yet, those who somehow gain access to the blocklist will discover it currently contains around 11,800 domains. The majority are related to piracy and at some others concern outlawed gambling platforms that don’t appear on Brazil’s official whitelist.

The whitelist approach also applies to Android-style set-top boxes. All such devices are now illegal by default, pending state certification authorizing their use.

Building/Blocking Communications Infrastructure

Ensuring that only authorized platforms and devices are accessible in Brazil falls to telecoms regulator Anatel.

In an interview with Tele.Sintese, outgoing Anatel board member Artur Coimbra recalls the lack of internet infrastructure in Brazil as recently as 2010. As head of the National Broadband Plan under the Ministry of Communications, that’s something he personally addressed. For Anatel today, blocking access to pirate websites and preventing unauthorized devices from communicating online is all in a day’s work.

“The topic of combating piracy has evolved significantly. We can already see the impact of this work on customer satisfaction indicators for IPTV boxes. Pirate box brands are receiving worse reviews as time goes by,” Coimbra says.

“This means that the service is getting worse, users are becoming more dissatisfied, and as a result, one day they will no longer use that pirated service. This is a great indicator of the work that Anatel has been doing.”

Automated Site-Blocking Incoming

While blocking a few sites, services, or devices can be managed manually, Coimbra says that automation is the preferred option.

“Today, orders to block pirate boxes are issued manually. We work on call and send the orders to the operators. The operators receive this and implement the IP blocking,” he explains.

“What we are going to do at this point is that these orders will no longer be manual, they will have a common system in which everyone [operators and providers] will have access to the system at the same time.”

While it can be argued that manual systems are prone to errors, automated systems are designed to need much less oversight. Whether that means fewer checks and balances remains to be seen. In general, however, limited oversight is considered a plus in the world of site-blocking.

Oversight Makes Blocking Less Efficient

After many years of putting Brazil under enormous pressure to block pirate sites, the current system involving the courts now blocks thousands of them. Yet in a typical display of incremental demands for improvement, rightsholders now want more.

In a January report to the USTR (pdf), major rightsholders urged ANATEL to “implement an effective system to tackle online piracy within Internet applications and sites based on Bill of Law #3696/2023, which was signed by the President on January 15, 2024, and sets forth an administrative site-blocking provision.”

When a country’s ISPs receive their first request to block a single pirate site, using carefully targeted, strictly limited measures under the supervision of the courts, administrative blocking of tens of thousands of sites is the long-term goal.

This often means blocking measures discussed behind closed doors between mostly commercial entities, with limited or even no oversight from local courts. This is the system preferred by major rightsholders but having inspired Brazil to do more, why should it stop there?

Targeting the Internet’s Backbone

In broad terms, the ‘internet backbone’ is the core infrastructure that combines to form the foundations of the global internet. It is comprised of the fastest, most capable networks, and data travels via high capacity fiber-optics and advanced ‘core’ routers. Operated by commercial companies, government, military and educational institutions, effective backbone networks are critical to the functioning of the wider internet.

Considering the ongoing crisis in Italy where the Piracy Shield system has already caused considerable damage with nothing like the same level of access, the idea of messing with the backbone of the internet seems like a bad dream; now it’s wake-up time.

“The second step, which we still need to evaluate because some companies want it, and others are more hesitant, is to allow Anatel to have access to the core routers to place a direct order on the router,” Coimbra reveals, referencing IPTV blocking.

“In these cases, these companies do not need to have someone on call to receive the [blocking] order and then implement it.”

Already Targeting the Internet’s Backbone

Thanks to the interviewer at Tele.Sintese pressing Coimbra after his initial response, what initially sounds like a plan for the future is suddenly revealed as already underway. Will Anatel really access core routers to block IP addresses used for piracy?

“Companies that deem it convenient can give us limited access, not full access, so that we can perform these blocks directly for non-certified and non-approved equipment. Limited access so that we can only perform these blocks remotely. It would be a kind of virtual seal,” Coimbra adds.

Recall, all devices (mostly Android devices) are illegal without certification, regardless of whether they’re configured for piracy or not. So how long before something like this is actually implemented?

“Participation is voluntary. We are still testing with some companies. So, it will take some time until it actually happens,” Coimbra says. “I can’t say [how long]. Our inspection team is carrying out tests with some operators, I can’t say which ones.”

Limited to Brazil? Or Not…

Most likely quite surprised at the revelation, the interviewer inquires whether this is also happening in other countries.

“I don’t know. Maybe in Spain and Portugal, which are more advanced countries in this fight. But I don’t have that information,” Coimbra responds, randomly naming two countries with which Brazil has consulted extensively on blocking matters.

“It’s critical infrastructure, so it has to be done with great care, with a limited scope. That’s why it has to have the support of the company that feels comfortable,” he concludes.

Blocking with great care and with limited scope are the same arguments presented in London during 2010/11. Due to a lack of transparency, how many domains and IP addresses are currently blocked around the world is impossible to say. That means that it’s impossible to say whether it’s carried out with great care or not.

As for limited scope, Brazil doesn’t appear to be targeting all core routers at the moment. Spain and Portugal, of which nothing is known, may or may not have tested anything at all. By definition, then, the scope is indeed limited and arguing otherwise risks being portrayed as an alarmist who lacks respect for the creative industries.