The Pirate Bay is being blocked again on Plusnet

[#1]

AFAIK, BT are only forced to block their retail customers.
As I say, we take some transit from BT and there are no blocks in place.
adie:quote

[#2]

http://proxybay.info/

[#3]

the sx address has disappeared before and came back.its all over the place as a proxy.
no doubt breaking terms and conditions and a lot more.

[#4]

@AndyH BT as in an ISP ( BT retail, AKA BT infinity /BT broadband )  has received a court order requiring them to block web sites,  BT wholesale is a separate entity, It is they who sell capacity ect to lots of other ISP's  such as Plusnet and AAISP , The BPI targeted the biggest ISP's  Plusnet wasn't one of those  named , so is not required to block the Piratebay.sx  and BT has no control over what other ISP's block or don't block,  In fact  sky tt and o2 Don't use the BT wholsale  network, They may rent/lease  some BT links to interconnect with their core networks , but the data that passes though those links is of no concern of BT

[#5]

Those can also use a pac (which bypasses all these blocks. and the porno filter when it arrives)
http://clientconfig.immunicity.org/pacs/all.pac

[#6]

It seems to be a routing issue because even using VPN the following occurs.
If I choose London as a VPN exit point, I still can't access the .sx address, if however I choose Manchester as a VPN exit point it works. This has been consistent since the site disappeared from plusnet.
Also note, those ISPs who have been ordered to block TPB all seem to redirect to a page stating that the site has been blocked, rather than just giving a server not found response.

[#7]

On a related topic, has anyone been following the somewhat demented behaviour seen over the past week when typing eztv.it into a web browser from a  Plusnet connection ?
Early in the week, this immediately ( locally ?) redirected to a '403 forbidden' page from ngnix/1.4.?  There was no possibility of attributing the origin of this page from an inspection of the html source alone. That itself is a worrying lack of transparency. [ngnix is a proxy server]. At the same time, a traceroute could reach the correct host corresponding to this address and the Plusnet DNS server gave the correct response.
Yesterday, however, typing eztv.it into a web browser redirected to Facebook [!!!???]. A query of Plusnet's DNS servers returned multiple IP addresses - all belonging to Facebook. A query of Google's DNS server (dig @8.8.8.8) returned the correct single IP address. Typing the numerical IP of eztv.it into a web browser worked - the expected page loaded successfully.
Today we have different behaviour again. Typing eztv.it into a web browser just spins - and fails to connect. Plusnet DNS is correct, but the destination is unreachable at 192.121.86.242
Every time I performed each of these tests, I also checked with a server reachability service to see if this was a global problem. Each time, the service told me eztv.it was reachable and up.
My interest in this has only been piqued by spotting this initial post. Prior to this I had assumed that Plusnet was not silently and deniably censoring my web browsing. Now I am forced to reconsider this assumption. Is the ngnix page from Plusnet ? I fear so - it loaded almost as fast as a LAN page.

[#8]

eztv.it was giving a special page for UK users or redirecting to torrentfreak earlier.
Google DNS eztv.it = 185.19.104.80 (works)
Plusnet DNS eztv.it = 185.19.104.81 (timeout)
BT DNS (194.72.6.57) eztv.it = 62.239.4.146 (minimal site blocked webpage)

[#9]

That's interesting. Why would they serve a UK-specific page, if people in the UK would never see it ?
Did you get a screencap ?

[#10]

Quote from: disfroot

On a related topic, has anyone been following the somewhat demented behaviour seen over the past week when typing eztv.it into a web browser from a  Plusnet connection ?

A court order from 25/7 required 6 ISPs in the UK to block access to eztv.it
I am assuming that every time there is a court order blocking access to certain sites, PN will follow suit. It wouldn't make sense or be particularly prudent to ignore the High Court/Chancery Court judges.

[#11]

Was Plusnet mentioned on the list of 6 ?
If it was, then why no customer announcement or accountable block ?
If it wasn't, why are they apparently blocking it ?
State-mandated censorship is one thing; craven self-censorship is an entirely different animal.

[#12]

It's not a published order, but I would assume not based on previous court orders.
I don't think PN are in any position to ignore these court orders seeing as the holding company is named in the action. If they ignore them, they wil just end up with 6 figure legal bills.

[#13]

Here's a screenshot from now, if you sort things out so that eztv.it resolves to 185.19.104.80 not .81

[#14]

Try https://proxy-ez.tv/ (for example)

[#15]

and putting in the 185.19.104.80  IP address gets you there but the site eztv.it gets the blocked version and I am using Google DNS servers
Just saw this http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/493565/20130723/eztv-yify-pirate-bay-blocked-uk-mpa.htm