Robert John Morton
The Internet Website Hosting
Internet Insecurity
Spam Email
Digital Exclusion
Security Warnings
Modern Websites
Semantic Indexing
Router Problems
About ISPs
Introduction
W@y Internet
NET,
Oi,
Blink
Claro,
GVT
Conclusion
Through the networks facility on my computer I see the names of all Wi-Fi nodes within range of my computer's Wi-Fi transceiver. Practically all of them are protected by encryption, so I could not access them, and rightly so. However, I saw a Wi-Fi node that was not password-locked. [Português]
The unlocked node was called "#NET-CLARO-WIFI". So, on 03 October 2022, I tried to log into this Wi-Fi node. It displayed the initial page of a service by Claro NET comprising Wi-Fi hotspots, which provided free Internet access to Claro's customers. My smartphone operates on Claro's network, so I am already a Claro customer. I thought that if I could log into this Wi-Fi facility with a temporary password, I would be able to access their contract email on my computer where I could read it without any problem and sign up to their residential fibre-optic service. So I decided to contact Claro.
I was to discover much later on that this #NET-CLARO-WIFI roaming Wi-Fi service simply doesn't work. The only response I have ever managed to get from it is: "Login service not available, please try again later".
I carefully prepared all the information about the service I wanted, plus all they would need to know about me and the location of my residence. I also asked as nicely as I could if they would grant me a temporary password to their local community Wi-Fi node for the express purpose of obtaining their contract email in order to sign up to their service. I wrote all this information into a PDF file, which I copied across to my smartphone.
Early on 04 October 2022, I opened Claro's WhatsApp channel and sent the PDF file as a message attachment. I got an automatic reply saying that there was nobody available at the time to attend my message. A bit later I received a message from a representative called 'LUCAS'. He asked for my CPF. I replied that all information was in the attached file that I sent above. I never heard anything else from 'LUCAS'. From this I deduce that 'LUCAS' wasn't human but an automated menu, which Oi erroneously calls an 'Artificial Intelligence' [AI] and which I call an 'Artificial Imbecile'. So I guess I have hit yet another blank wall.
I later received a WhatsApp message from a younger relative saying that he bought his Internet plan from a shop in a large shopping mall. He said that he found it much easier to do it that way. I had been given the firm impression that it was no longer possible to buy Internet services from a shop. I had been to shops to buy other things and often told that nowadays they only actually sold stuff via the Internet.
Consequently, I arranged with my younger relative for him to come for me in his car to go to a shopping mall on Sunday 09 October to buy an Internet access plan. We went to the mall and investigated the offerings of the ISPs: Claro, TIM and Vivo. Unlike Oi and Blink, none of these three offered fibre optic direct to an Optical Terminal Unit in the customer's residence. They used optical fibre to convey the signal along the streets to so-called 'aggregation units' that transferred the signal from optical fibre to coaxial cable [coax] from the street to customers' premises.
We went back home and made contact with Blink again. Blink discovered that installing fibre optic service in my apartment building was impossible because there was absolutely no space left in the building's entry ducts. So on Wednesday 12 October 2022 my younger relative took me again to the mall where I signed up for the Claro NET service.
The reason I needed an Internet service at this time was that Oi, the ISP I had been with for well over a decade, decided to end its ADSL service. Oi first unexpectedly cut my ADSL signal on 03 August 2022 but reinstated it intermittently after much complaining. However, on 21 September 2022, Oi cut my ADSL signal definitively and permanently. This left me without an Internet connection, which I need for my work.
Law no. 12.965 of April 23, 2014 CHAPTER II, USERS’ RIGHTS AND GUARANTEES, Art. 7. Internet access is essential for the exercise of citizenship, rights and duties, and users have the right to: ... IV – maintenance of Internet connection, unless it is terminated due to the user’s failure to pay for its use;
Oi was supposedly going to install a fibre optical service to an OTU [Optical Terminal Unit] in my apartment to replace the old ADSL service at the same monthly rate. However, after much confusion and lack of consistent and coordinated information, plus not knowing when — or even if — Oi was going to install the fibre-optical service, I had to seek another supplier. It was later discovered that fibre optical cable could not be installed in my apartment building because the building's entry ducts were full of old expanded coaxial cables.
Thus I was left high and dry without an Internet connection. Claro was the one and only option available within my apartment building.
Signing up for the service in the mall shop was a far more welcome and less stressful experience for me than battling with cretinous AIs and automated menus on my smartphone. The shop wins every time. The young sales guy was extremely methodical and verified immediately that Claro already had a service distribution box inside my apartment building so the problem Blink had with the full cable ducts didn't exist. Claro arranged to install our service on Saturday 15 October 2022.
It should be well noted here that I was not allowed to buy what I actually wanted. I had to buy what Claro NET wished to sell me. And since Claro NET was the only ISP who was able to supply me with an Internet connection, my choice was simply to buy what they wanted to sell me or have no Internet connection.
| WHAT I WANTED | WHAT I HAD TO BUY |
|---|---|
|
A full duplex Internet connection with data transfer speed ≥ 5 Mbps with no port blocking. |
An Internet connection 'package'
called Claro NET Virtua 350 Mega. No further information available. |
COMPLAINT 1: I could only buy a 'Combo' package, not just the service I actually wanted. I don't know if this violates any law but it seems grossly unfair to me, especially since basic Internet access has become a de facto necessity in order for a person to function adequately within modern society, irrespective of their means.
Internet Bill of Rights Chapter II: Users' Rights and Guarantees
Art. 7º Internet access is essential to the exercise of citizenship, ...
I could discover nothing further as to what the 'Claro NET Virtua 350 Mega' package comprised. I searched both on Claro NET's website and generally. If the information is technically available in some corner of Claro NET's website, access to it has been so obstructively de-emphasised that it is obviously not intended to be found. So that is all I had to go on prior to purchase. Consequently, I did not — could not — have much of a clue about what I was buying, except that it was some kind of internet connection.
COMPLAINT 2: Lack of the necessary and sufficient information prior to purchase for making an informed purchase decision. I think this withholding, obscuring or obstructively de-emphasising the buyer's access to such information is a reprehensible practice, which is grossly unfair.
The contract itself didn't reveal much more; merely that its speed [presumably download only] was a maximum of 350 'Mega' [which I assume means mega-bits per second] and that it included a fixed telephone line with my original telephone number 'ported' from Oi, my previous supplier.
COMPLAINT 3: Lack of the necessary and sufficient information after purchase for actually knowing what I had bought and how to make full use of it. Same comment as above.
I was to discover much later, after what was a difficult and time consuming process, that I had inadvertently [through lack of adequate pre-sale information] bought the following:
A partial Internet connection that is essentially designed for video streaming but which had certain limited Internet functions such as to be able to view web sites and to interact with webmail and social media sites.
An upload speed of about 40 Mbps and a download speed of about 90 Mbps.
All 65535 ports appear to be permanently blocked for listening, with no means, accessible to the user, for unblocking any of them. In otherwords, I have a deaf Internet connection.
A monthly subscription to video/film content that I had no means of viewing and in which I had no interest anyway.
I had inadvertently bought a so-called Internet connection package that was, for the most part, essentially useless to me. From this, I can only assume that Claro NET's modus operandi is to catch the customer any which way, leaving him to discover after the event that he has 'bought a pup' and is grid-locked into an unfortunate contract for a whole year. If this small amount of pivotal information had been available to me prior to sale, I would certainly have declined to buy.
After installation, when I had an internet connection, I was able to see that once I had signed up, Claro NET had sent me some emails.
It does seem to me to be the height of stupidity to send somebody significant information by email and expect them to have received it before they have an Internet connection installed. But large corporations seem to be able to get away with being total cretinous idiots.
The first email, sent on 12 October 2022, asked me to confirm the time and date of the installation. Obviously, I could not reply to that at the time. On the 15 October 2022, Claro NET sent another email saying that the installer was en-route to my apartment to do the installation. Obviously, I could not see that before installation either.
On 13 October 2022 at 15h56 I received an SMS message from Claro 25475:
"CLARO INFORMA DESCULPE SEU PEDIDO DE INTERNET FOI SUSPENSO - SEM POTENCIA DE SINAL NO LOCAL - SERA ENVIDO PARA OPERADORA PARCEIRA NA REGIÃO, TE LIGAREMOS."
At 16h04 a woman [purporting to be] from Claro rang saying that the contract had been cancelled because there was no way to run fibre optic cable into the building. I told her that I did not ask for fibre optic and that the man who attended us knew that fibre optic could not be installed into the building. He said Claro already had a coax service in the building and that my service would be taken from that. Yet more confusion. The woman just hung up. I suspected that she was part of a hit.
At 07h20 the following morning [Friday 14 October 2022] Claro [25475] sent a repeat of the above SMS message:
"CLARO INFORMS YOU: SORRY, YOUR REQUEST FOR INTERNET IS SUSPENDED - THERE'S NO SIGNAL IN THE AREA - IT WILL BE SENT TO A PARTNER OPERATOR IN THE REGION. WE'LL CALL YOU."
However, I do not believe that either of the two SMS messages came from Claro. I already knew that the Claro service was present within the building. They were clearly clandestine impersonators trying to divert my request for Internet access to some other provider.
Then at 08h33 a WhatsApp message arrived from Claro's Artificial Imbecile [+55 21 98729 0873] talking as if the original contract is going ahead on schedule [i.e. as if it had not been cancelled]. It asks me if: the service is already connected, I'm waiting for the technicians to arrive or my connection isn't yet working properly. It also gives me the option to cancel the installation. I suspect that this is another attempted hit by criminals. The Claro logo on the WhatsApp caller's conversation window didn't look quite 100% authentic to me. So it wasn't Claro's Artificial Imbecile, it seems that the criminals are using them too.
At 11h15 an email arrived saying that my delivery [presumably of the modem] is scheduled for tomorrow [Saturday 15 October 2022]
At 11h00 on Saturday 15 October 2022, the Claro installation technician José Júnior arrived and installed my Internet connection. He did exactly what I asked, bridging the Claro modem to my own router and switching off its Wi-Fi transceivers. I checked that I could access web sites [including this one] and also that I could do FTP uploads to my site as an FTP client. José said that I could alter the modem configurations later by logging in to the modem's configuration area at address: 'http://192.168.0.1'. Shortly after he left, a woman from Claro rang my cell phone asking if everything was working. At the time, I had no positive indication that it wasn't so I told her that it was working.
And it contained at least 6 inconsistencies:
It said he had used a 2-way coax splitter. He used my 3-way splitter that was already on my cable, which I bought in 2005.
It said that he installed 32 metres of coax. He didn't. My apartment was already fully cabled. All he had to do was connect it to the source at one end and the modem at the other end. NET made a similar claim when I tried their service for a few hours in 2015 to see if it would work: it didn't.
No doubt, if I try to cancel the contract, Claro NET will claim the cost of these materials, plus the fictitious labour involved in installing them, as their cost of investment in the service provided, and thereby justify their substantial severance fee. Yet, as can be seen here, the ingrained dirt and deterioration of the outer sheath of the cable demonstrates clearly that it must be around 20 years old. It obviously wasn't installed recently. Furthermore, there are two grubby old cables, one of which was for W@y TV's set-top box installed in 2005. If Claro NET installed the cable recently, why did they install a second grubby old cable and then cut it short, leaving it disconnected. Claro NET's inconsistencies are all too obvious.
further inconsistencies:
It affirms that the "Técnico expliquou a funcionalidades as canais digitais APP Minha Claro Residêncial e WhatsApp Claro (11) 9999 10621". Technician explained the features of the digital channels APP Minha Claro Residêncial and WhatsApp Claro (11) 9999 10621. No, he didn't. But this does not matter because I cannot use a smartphone for other than phone calls, SMS and WhatsApp because of my sight. Furthermore, I cannot make sense of the automated menus of the Claro WhatsApp service anyway.
It affirms that "Técnico expliquou sobre uso de NOW na TV e no APP e fez demonstração de conteúdo gratuito de NOW". Technician explained about the use of NOW on TV and APP and demonstrated free NOW content. He did not. I have no clue as to what NOW is or what it stands for. I assume it is part of the 'package' I had to buy in order to get basic Internet access, the content of which I had no clue about before sale — and still have no clue.
It affirms that "Serviços Claro foram testados durante atendimento e estão funcionando em perfeitos condições" Claro services were tested during the installation visit and are working in perfect condition. In the time available, I could only test two functions: 1) access to two different websites to check that they downloaded, 2) Accessed an FTP server to check that I could upload to and download from it. Neither of these tests could reveal that all the listening ports were closed and factually unopenable.
It is obviously impractical and unreasonable to suppose that I could do all the tests in the short time the installation technician was there to determine whether or not all aspects of a bona fide Internet access service were functioning correctly. Obviously they were not.
I did not see this PDF document until after the technician had left. I did not sign or agree to the content of this PDF document.
COMPLAINT 4: Contractual inconsistencies, which give a false view of my situation with regard to the contract.
All the following is witness to just how little information or help was forthcoming to me from Claro NET and the incredible extent to which it externalised all the problems, time and labour needed to solve them onto the shoulders of me, the customer, in order to try to obtain an adequately functional Internet service.
Later that evening, purely out of curiosity, I decided to examine the modem configuration in order to review its settings. I could not enter the modem's configuration area because the default user name and password did not work. Naturally, I tried all the standard default username and password combinations but all to no avail. I had been locked out. The user name and password are not one of the standard defaults as published. They have been changed. The usernames & passwords label on the modem itself contains no information. All its fields are blank.
Thus, at some time after the woman had phoned me, my access to the modem configuration area had somehow become locked. That rang a bell and raised a large red flag in my mind. This had happened before. It was in August 2015 when I briefly tried a service provided by an ISP called 'NET'. Then I found that somehow all the listening ports closed shortly after the installation technicians had left and I had answered the phone call from NET's office asking if it was all working fine. Then it hit me. Claro had bought NET. What I had bought was a service by 'NET'. I had just jumped into the frying pan again.
The problem of not being able to access the modem configuration was not absolutely pressing at the time, but it would have to be resolved. I could still upload my work files as an FTP client. With the NET modem working in Bridge Mode, my own router does everything I need. Its firewall and port-forwarding are all still set up correctly and my four computers are all working on fixed internal IP addresses, which I need for various network utilities involved in my work. However, if the NET modem configuration were ever to become corrupted by such a thing as a power surge or break, as happens all too often during the rainy season, then I would not be able to get in there to reset its configuration.
Activating some very low bandwidth utilities, I notice that NET is [as it was in August 2015] very zealous with port blocking. So now I no longer had the use of conveniences that, up to a month ago, I could use freely with the Oi 2Mbps ADSL service. In this respect the new NET service is the worst service I have ever had. I am extremely unhappy that I subscribed to this service. I've suddenly realised what I have got myself into. But I am stuck with it now for a year.
On Monday 17 October 2022, [2 days after installation] I decided to conduct formal tests to see exactly what I had and didn't have with this new service from NET.
I powered up the NET modem at 04h50, having unplugged it from the power the night before in order to get a fresh re-boot.
I went away for half an hour to have my breakfast to give the modem time to stabilise.
On return, I noticed that, although I had asked the technician to switch off the NET modem's Wi-Fi altogether, the lamp for the 2·4 GHz Wi-Fi was on.
I looked in my laptop's and smartphone's Wi-Fi configuration areas to see if there was any signal present from the 2·4 GHz Wi-Fi transceiver of my NET modem. Its appearance was very fickle, but it was there. Notwithstanding, using the Wi-Fi password I had been given, I was unable to connect my laptop or my smartphone.
I was able to connect both these devices to my own router's Wi-Fi service.
I connected my main computer's RJ45 Ethernet plug to the LAN1 socket on the NET modem. I opened the Firefox browser and accessed the modem's configuration log-in screen at 'http://192.168.0.1'. The log-in screen appeared with the blank 'User Name' and 'Password' fields. I tried all the general default combinations:
None of the above combinations allowed me access to the NET modem's configuration area. Obviously, I had been locked out.
I later found a YouTube video saying that to enter the modem's configuration you need to enter the Login name as 'CLARO_' followed by the last 6 characters of the CM MAC address and the password [senha] as the entire CM MAC address. That didn't work either.
COMPLAINT 5: I am denied means to choose and configure port blocking options.
Marco Civil: CHAPTER I: PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS: Art. 3.
The above suggests to me that Item 6 of the summary list of the RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BROADBAND INTERNET TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP'S SUGGESTED PRACTICES would be incorporated into Marco Civil da Internet — at least in principle, viz;
Port blocking (or firewall) rules for consumer devices must be user configurable.
When I researched the Web on this matter, I found references to other people being locked out in this way. On the other hand, I found both Web pages and videos explaining to people in general how to configure the NET ARRIS TG1692A modem. So obviously some people are included and others not. This in itself is contrary to the spirit of Marco Civil da Internet.
The NET service, to which I have had to subscribe, purportedly provides this ridiculous data transfer speed of 350 Mbps. I have absolutely no use at all for anything above 5 Mbps. So who would — or even could — make use of such a speed. I can only surmise that it must be networked 'gamers'. Networked gamers need open listening ports. So how can they open the necessary listening ports if they do not have access to the modem's configuration area?
After a frustrating search through the Claro web site, I finally found a page about configuring the model ARRIS TG1692A modem. It described the steps for entering the modem configuration area on the assumption that the user name and password were printed on a label on the underside of the modem. Of course, on my modem [Serial Number 517309048591] there was no such label; or, if it existed, it was beneath a label showing bar codes for the serial number and Wi-Fi MAC addresses.
Details of the extremely tatty white-on-black label seen sideways above:
The initial lower case text translates as: "This equipment operates on a secondary basis, that is, it is not entitled to protection against harmful interference, even from stations of the same type, and may not cause interference to systems operating on a primary basis", whatever the hell that means! From the dates on the label, I would suppose that the modem originated in 2016-17. That would make it about 5 years old already. When I tried to access the ARRIS web site, I was redirected to this one, which added to my already enormous confusion.
Trying to communicate with Claro NET about this specific problem via the available mechanistic channels of the Internet proved to be impossible. Its Artificial Imbecile on WhatsApp was totally useless, and also developed a system fault while I was trying. The automated help 'menus' on the Minha Claro site were equally useless. I couldn't imagine trying to explain this problem to the typical telephone attendant. Getting meaningful and effective help from these big corporations is always an inevitable and enormous problem.
After much trying, I decided that the only effective channel of communication, in this day and age of the Internet, was to write a letter and send it by post. The letter was sent by tracked delivery at 10h15 on Tuesday 18 October 2022 [3 days after installation].
At 11h33 on Thursday 20 October 2022, a man from Claro phoned asking if everything was OK. I told him that no it wasn't because I couldn't access the modem configuration area. While I was explaining to him that user name 'admin' and password 'password' did not give me access, the call dropped. He didn't call back. Nevertheless, I have, hereby, informed Claro that the service, at this point, is not to my satisfaction, although the call could have been bogus. I don't think that this call was in any way precipitated by my letter.
On the following day, I looked on the Claro NET website. The only option I found that slightly related to my problem was to press the 'reset' button on my modem to reset it to factory defaults. I chose not to reset the modem for two reasons:
I was unsure whether or not resetting the modem would reset the user name and password to the factory defaults. I thought this would be unlikely because then an impostor could access the modem configuration simply by pressing the 'reset' button and entering the configuration area using the universally known default user name and password, which would render the modem's password protection irrelevant.
Assuming that the user name and password would not be reset by this action, I would be left with the modem in its factory default state, in which nothing worked because it resulted in double NAPT conversion with conflicting IP addresses on my local network.
I did some Web research and found articles on accessing and configuring the Claro NET modem. Unfortunately, it assumed that I had the user name and password for entering the modem's configuration area, which of course I did not.
I later found another very well-written and comprehensive article that described my problem of blocked ports, at least in part. This article related that by appealing to ANATEL, a Claro NET customer with blocked ports managed to get Claro NET to open them so he could access his employer's databases from his home-office. I found many blogs on which people complain bitterly about ISPs' almost universal contempt for Marco Civil da Internet, which they flagrantly disobey with impunity.
I found a YouTube video about configuring the Claro NET modem. I watched it but it assumed that there was a label on the bottom of my modem that stated the user name and password. Of course mine had a label but it didn't contain a user name and password and the label looked very different from the one in the video.
On Wednesday 02 November 2022, I decided to watch the video again. This time, I just happened to notice, as the narrator was pointing to the label on her modem, that the user name and password contained bits of the Wi-Fi MAC address. I froze the video and got out my magnifying glass. I was able to construct logically from this fuzzy frame what my username and password ought to be. I entered them and was, for the first time, able to get into the modem's configuration. I set up my virtual servers and disabled the firewall. I then powered down everything, had my lunch and powered up again. The ports I had opened were all still shut. The only way I could see that this was possible was that if Claro NET were blocking all listening ports at their Distribution Router [often referred to as an Edge Router].
I powered down, had a break and then powered on again. I could no longer even access the modem's configuration login page on 192.168.0.1. However, what worked initially still worked: I could access web and FTP sites but nothing much else. So the situation was now even worse. Of course, the modem-attached telephone, which was part of the contract, has never worked and still doesn't.
I accessed the Minha Claro web site and went to the menu containing their automated menu for testing my telephone connection. The test 'verified' that my telephone signal was present and that it was functioning. Further steps in the menu seemed to get further and further off-topic. Eventually, I had to give up in frustration. I still had a telephone that did not work. There was a dial tone but when I dialled a number, all I got was a 'busy' signal. I tried calling my fixed phone using my smartphone. A voice said the number did not exist and that I should check the number I had dialled.
COMPLAINT 6: Fixed telephone not functioning: unfulfilled contractual obligation without any advice as to why, or when or if it will be fixed.
On Thursday 03 November 2022 I did some further Web research and found a site that listed alternative User Interface addresses for the Arris TG1692A modem. I was able to access the modem's user interface on one of these listed addresses [192.168.100.1] and managed to view the status data. This was immediately visible without the need to enter a user name or password. However, in order to enter the configuration area, I had to type-in the username and password that I had managed to construct from information discerned from the fuzzy video frame.
I had to enter 'NET_' [not 'CLARO_' as it had said on Claro NET's website] followed by the last 6 characters of the MAC address of the 2·4 GHz Wi-Fi as the user name and all of the same MAC address as the password.
I took screenshots of the entire settings of the ISP's modem just in case I became locked out again. However, I set it into Bridge Mode so that it would simply pass IP packets 'as is'. Consequently, the modem's port forwarding [and other] settings were irrelevant.
I traced the route to a particular host I know:
I checked the IP address my TP-LINK router was seeing and also the Internet IP address I appeared to have when viewed from the outside Internet. I then constructed what appeared to me to be the arrangement through which I was connected to the Internet, as shown in the following diagram:
With the ISP's modem in my study set to Bridge Mode, I expected my WAN-side IP address of my own TP-LINK router to be its currently dynamically allocated Internet address. I looked in the status and configuration area of my own TP-LINK router. It showed my WAN-side address as 100.68.2.3, which didn't look like an open Internet address. From my TP-LINK router's point of view, the address of my remote web server in the USA to which I was connected appeared as 100.68.0.1, which it isn't.
These addresses are within the range 100.64.0.0/10 [100.64.0.0–100.127.255.255], which is a range of 4194304 IPV4 addresses officially reserved for ISP subnets. My conclusion, therefore, was that there must be an additional intervening Network Address and Port Translation mechanism somewhere along the route.
My Subnet IP address [shown in the diagram as 100.68.2.3] changes from time to time. This indicates that it is dynamically allocated and not fixed. Furthermore, in its present state, my Internet service is subject to double NAPT and that if the ISP's modem/router in my apartment were not in Bridge Mode, it would be undergoing triple NAPT!
I would not expect the ISP's Distribution Router to perform IP address translation, although I would expect it to block certain ports — such as 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 445, 1434 — which are used as listening ports for daemons providing services within a single computer or local area network. Some ISP's [especially in Brazil] also block ports 21, 25, 53, 80, 110, 443, and 587, which they should not do, although having these ports open is pointless where the customer does not have a fixed IP address. Notwithstanding, this latter group, if blocked, should be blocked by default only in the modem installed in the user's premises, with the user having full control for liberating them if required [see item 6 below].
There exist many peer-to-peer protocols that can operate under dynamic IP. They maintain session connections by using a session ID exchanged at initial handshaking with known peers. Notwithstanding, these do need one or more arbitrarily allocated listening ports. And these must of necessity be fixed allocations by the end-user. I use networks operating with such protocols to enable colleagues to pick up my published files if, as and when they choose. The only alternative to this modus operandi is to push all my published files at all my colleagues, which would be a thorough nuisance to one and all.
In order to be able to allocate arbitrary listening ports for this purpose, it is necessary that some listening ports at least be unblocked. But the Claro NET service that I have been lumbered with blocks all 65535 ports, so there is no way that a daemon running in my computer can listen for requests from colleagues.
COMPLAINT 7: PORT BLOCKING: done in violation of:
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BROADBAND INTERNET TECHNICAL
ISPs should avoid blocking ports unless they have no reasonable alternatives
available to avoid unwanted traffic and protect users.
ISPs that can provide their users with opt-out clauses or exceptions to their
port blocking policies must do so.
ISPs must publicly disclose their port blocking policies.
ISPs should provide communication channels for feedback on port blocking
policies.
ISPs should review their port blocking policies regularly and re-evaluate
whether threats that required port blocking rules remain relevant.
Port blocking (or firewall) rules for consumer devices must be user configurable.
Art. 7. The agent in charge of transmission, switching or routing must adopt transparency measures designed to ensure that users understand the reasons for implementing network management practices that result in the discrimination or degradation referred to in article 4, such as:
§3. Subject to the provisions of this article, the content
of data packets may not be blocked, monitored, filtered or analyzed in Internet connections, either paid or free
of charge, or in transmission, switching, and routing.
— page 63 of PDF file: Brazil's Internet Bill of Rights: A Closer Look.
However, in the case of the Claro NET service, in addition to the additional intervening NAPT mechanism, there was also something blocking all 65535 ports for listening. I speculate that this additional NAPT and total port blocking must be being done by what I have termed a 'District Router' [often referred to as an Aggregation Router] in the above diagram. This performs the task of an Optical Node, although I don't see why an Optical Node should include port blocking. Thus it appears that direct Internet access is not delivered to my premises. I am simply on a District Subnet, which I obviously share with many other Claro NET customers. We are all — at least, logically — on the same coax-based LAN.
One of my questions is, how big is this Sub-net LAN? With how many other Claro NET customers am I sharing this coax-based Local Area Network? Is it just with people in my own apartment block? Is is everybody in my street? Where is the Aggregation [District] Router? Is it on a post in the street? Most likely, since it is probably coincident with the fibre-to-coax node.
At this point, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out what Claro NET is doing. It is economising on IPV4 addresses. All my neighbours and me on the Sub-net LAN have the same IPV4 Internet address. Perhaps this is fixed but it is most likely dynamic. This can be done because each neighbour on the Sub-net LAN, at any given time, can communicate with the outside Internet via Sub-net ports allocated by the NAPT of the District Router. Assuming that each neighbour, at any given time, does not need to use more than 8 ports, that means that Claro NET can hang up to 8192 neighbours on the same IPV4 Internet address. But the consequence is that none of these neighbours can have so much as a single listening port because the District Router can never know to which of the neighbours to send the IP packet.
This means that the same NAPT rules are being applied to all the Claro NET users on this same Subnet. And those rules are set such that all 65535 ports are blocked for listening — for everybody. Consequently, in order for my required listening ports to be liberated, I would need access to the District Router, to which I do not have access. Only the ISP can liberate my listening ports. They are outside my control.
The fact that my Subnet IP address is dynamic is problematic. In order for me to have specific ports forwarded by the District Router, my Subnet IP address would have to be fixed. I can see that this is very messy to set up just for me and is probably one reason that Claro NET is so reluctant to resolve my problem of closed listening ports. Notwithstanding, they could remove the NAPT function altogether at the fibre-to-coax convertion box, without any loss of security for anyone. But this would necessitate each neighbour having a separate Internet IPV4 address as required by Marco Civil da Internet.
If all this were not the case, I don't see why the bridging between the fibre-optical Distribution Network and the coax Subnet cannot be done at Layer 2 and thereby avoid involving the Internet Protocol, which is at Layer 3.
Thus, it is no surprise that Claro NET was in-communicative about my lack of access to the configuration area of the modem that had been installed in my apartment. This is because my access to this modem's configuration area is irrelevant. Whatever changes I would make to its configuration [such as opening listening ports or setting up virtual servers] would have absolutely no effect anyway because all listening ports are blocked further up the line.
WHAT CLARO NET IS SUPPLYING IS NOT A BONE FIDE INTERNET CONNECTION: IT IS MERELY A CONNECTION TO CLARO NET'S LOCAL AREA NETWORK OF NEIGHBOURS WITH ALL 65535 LISTENING PORTS BLOCKED.
I could try hacking into the District Router, re-password it, create my virtual servers and give myself a fixed Subnet IP address. But I do not see why I should have to resort to such means in order to obtain my legal rights. Others might not be quite so disinclined if thus provoked. And rightly so.
What would be, in my opinion, a somewhat frumpy solution — although nonetheless a workable one — would be for Claro NET to upgrade the NAPT software in its District [Aggregation] router to PCP [Port Control Protocol RFC 6887]. Personally, I don't like this idea. It complicates the already overcomplicated NAPT process. The complexity of the solution is vasty greater than the inherent complexity of the problem.
A better solution would be to use the District Router as an interface between a fixed IPV6 Internet address and a fixed IPV4 Subnet address [with no blocking or Port Translation]. There are well sufficient IPV6 addresses for everybody in the world to have several. This is possible because there is also a well adequate number of IPV4 addresses to give a unique address to everybody on a Subnet.
I remember in 2015, when I had the same problem with the then NET ISP, the installation technician proffered his little pile of IT bullshit that the problem was because they were in the middle of changing over from IPV4 to IPV6.
A proper solution, under currently recognised Internet technology, would be to go all-out to replace IPV4 with IPV6 and in so doing, eliminate completely the whole need and complication of network address and port translation, connecting all networks at OSI Level 2. The ultimate solution, in my opinion would be to extend the IPV4 address by a further byte [bringing it to 40 bits] to be used merely as an end-point identifier; then implement the navigation-based routing strategy I mentioned in the Introduction to this series of essays. But this technology is not known or recognised by mainstream Internet authorities, so it is a non-starter.
Of course, business customers, for whom all necessary listening ports are open, must have their connection service delivered directly from the fibre-optical Distribution Network and not from a Subnet on which all listening ports are blocked. They are treated differently. This again seems to me to be contrary to the spirit of Marco Civil da Internet.
COMPLAINT 8: violation of NET NEUTRALITY:
The agent in charge of transmission, switching,
and routing must give all data packets equal treatment,
regardless of content, origin and destination, service,
terminal or application.
Finally, I did speed tests via various speed-test websites. These averaged 91·2 Mbps for download [26% of the contracted 350 Mbps] and 41·7 for upload. But as I have said, for me, speed is not a problem.
This situation certainly appears to me to be in clear breach of many clauses within LEI Nº 12.965, DE 23 DE ABRIL DE 2014 and also ignores the recommendations of the Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group's Suggested Practices.
In my opinion: just because the majority of customers in a certain place at a certain time do not choose to exercise a particular right or freedom granted by the law is no valid reason for an unelected commercial power to forcibly deprive everybody of that right or freedom. The fact that business customers are treated differently also violates clauses of the above law. Everybody must be treated the same, except in so far as they pay according to the data transfer speed they contract to buy.
In 2015, as expounded in detail in a previous essay, I had exactly the same problem with the ISP called NET in which ANATEL intervened at my request so that I could freely take up the service of another ISP. I signed up this time with Claro NET solely because it was the only ISP available at my location. And it seems that despite its takeover by Claro, its behaviour has not improved.
I can understand why Claro NET is so bloody-mindedly obstructive with regard to requests by individual customers to unblock listening ports. It is because whatever ports they unblock for me become unblocked for everybody on the district Subnet. And some of those on the Subnet may decide to start running commercial web servers or the like. The motive for adopting this somewhat dysfunctional network architecture is most likely to save infrastructure cost.
Notwithstanding, according to the content of the Marco Civil da Internet, I do have the legal right to demand and receive the means to open whichever ports I need to listen on for my chosen legitimate use of the Internet. So do I accept that Claro NET is a very large and powerful corporation and thereby has the power to disobey the law with impunity? Or do I try to enforce my right, first by appealing to ANATEL?
I am bound to say that I cannot consider the Claro NET service to be a bona fide Internet access service because, in my direct experience, it not only violates the Marco Civil, but also fails to meet the minimum necessary and sufficient conditions laid down by the Recommendations of the Internet Technical Advisory Group's Suggested Practices for Broadband services, as follows:
It bars me from accessing the configuration area of the installed modem in order to adjust it to my preferences and usage, I have never known any other service that does this.
All 65535 ports are blocked for listening, thus locking out my use of certain low-traffic utilities necessary to my Internet activities. This now means that in order to use these, I need to go visit a friend who has a different service.
I truly wish I had never signed up with Claro NET. But one cannot know these things before purchase. If such information indeed be accessible somewhere on Claro NET's confusing advert-laden website, it's prominence must have been obstructively de-emphasised sufficiently for me to be unable to find it. Both verbal and formally written requests for such information are ignored. This too violates identifiable clauses within the Marco Civil.
Sadly, although, in my opinion, the Brazilian Law on this issue is very well drafted, it would seem to have effect only in Fairy Land, at least, up until now.
Apart from costing almost 3 times as much, this Claro NET service is a real step backwards from my previous Oi ADSL 2Mbps service. But I guess I'll have to live with it for a year. I will need to obtain a judicial order to ensure that the service is terminated definitively on 14 October 2023.
In the afternoon of Monday 07 November 2022, feeling incensed at having to pay 3 times the price for what wasn't even a proper Internet connection, I decided to research the television facility that I appear to have inadvertently bought. I discovered that it was accessible through a web address 'nowonline.com.br', which redirected me to a Claro NET address. I discovered almost immediately that it was impossible to use this 'service' on my television. If I want it to work on my television, I must incur the further expense of buying a new television, for which I have no use.
The only option for watching anything was on my computer. By the end of the day, when I want to watch television, the last thing I want to do is stay sitting at my computer. I want to relax on the sofa. The glitzily presented content seemed to be for the most part infantile cartoons, foreign films with sub-titles and channels that I could receive perfectly via the antenna of my television anyway. In other words, it offered me nothing. So here is another case of the Microsoft Windows Tax: a facility I never wanted, have no means of using but have to pay for if I am going to avoid having Claro NET use its corporate instrument of extortion called Serasa-Experian to prize the money out of me.
I think it is self-evident that all this is grossly unfair. I don't think that I should be forced to pay for things I don't need, don't want and have no means of using. But conversely, I do think that I have an inalienable right to be able to buy — at an accessible price — a basic service, which is nowadays, by default, an essential and obligatory part of social infrastructure.
On my pay-as-you-go [pre-pay] mobile phone from Claro, I noticed after a very short time that I was being charged a weekly fee for recording unattended calls. I never requested this service and I have no use for it. I never make phone calls. I only receive a plague of unsolicited sales calls, by far the most being from Claro itself. In addition, I get my SMS messages 'box' inundated with messages telling me about the arrivals of these unwelcome nuisance calls. This is an example of the slimy corporate pilfering of customers' accounts that we now have to accept. There is purportedly a means of cancelling the recording service. However, finding out how to do it and actually doing it are well wrapped up in a convoluted and obstructive procedure.
So whatever service you want nowadays, you are forced to pay for a whole lot of other things that you don't want and have no use for. You have to pay for a whole package, in which the sales people say the extras that you don't want are all free additions. This, of course is a lie. Everything the company provides is loaded into the package price somehow. Or perhaps I have got it all wrong and Claro is really a philanthropic society or charity that provides these extra services to 'the people' freely out of its profits.
In conciliation, I would be happy to accept from Claro NET another channel through which to receive a bona fide Internet service such as 4G radio or a short-range 5G street post to apartment link that can provide me with the open listening ports I need.
Otherwise, if Claro NET cannot supply me with an adequate service, then in view of the facts that:
Claro NET would give no detailed information about the service prior to sale, particularly that all 65535 listening ports appear to be permanently blocked and not user-configurable,
Claro NET explained nothing about what I had bought after sale. I had to search the Web to try to find out what NOW meant,
the phone doesn't work and has never worked: it can neither make nor receive calls and no information has been forthcoming as to when or if it will become operational,
the supposed TV content is not viewable on my TV and no information was given pre or post sale as to what special type of TV was required.
I think it proper that the service should be terminated without cost to me so that I can seek an ISP who can supply me with a bona fide Internet connection. If adequate information had been supplied prior to sale then I would not have had to waste my time investigating the situation and writing this report.
I decided to give Claro NET plenty of time to reply to my letter, which I posted by SEDEX [tracked delivery] on 18 October 2022. Then I would write and send my appeal to ANATEL together with an accompanying letter, plus a copy of the contract and the installation receipt. I waited until Monday 14 November 2022 on which at around 06h30, I accessed the ANATEL web site with the intention of registering my complaint.
I must say that I found the whole process of registering a complaint with ANATEL daunting. I had tried to register a complaint a month before regarding my treatment by Oi. Then I found it impossible to register a complaint via ANATEL. I simply could not get into ANATEL's site because of the impervious security system. The ANATEL app on my cellphone was even worse. It always returned a server error. I therefore had to register my complaint with 'consumidor.gov.br', the upshot of which was that nothing was resolved.
This time, however, after battling through its complicated and convoluted system of security, I was eventually able to get into the ANATEL site. In the past, it had been far easier, in fact, no trouble at all. Now it is getting close to the point at which it will become easier to hack into the site than to enter by the legitimate route. I expect this is to reduce the number of people who are able to register complaints, especially the old and infirm.
On entering the ANATEL website, I saw that I must first complain to Claro NET's ombudsman. I cannot register a complaint with ANATEL without a Número de Protocolo issued by the ombudsman. I entered my shortlist of 4 complaints listed in the letter that I have prepared to send to ANATEL and got the following response on Mon 14 Nov 2022 07:19:34 -03
Registro cadastrado com sucesso! Confirmamos o registro de sua manifestação na Ouvidoria da Claro. Vamos avaliar e entraremos em contato por telefone, WhatsApp (através no número (11) 99991-0621), SMS ou e-mail. O prazo para solução é de até 10 dias corridos. Atenciosamente, Claro. Protocolo 39092115.
I know full well from the past that this is a futile exercise and a total waste of time, especially since Claro NET has not responded to my SEDEX letter. I surmise that it might achieve a partial resolution like making the phone work or being able to see the video content I am paying for on my television. However, I am certain it will not resolve the issue of the 65535 blocked ports, which for me is the real problem. So I must now wait until 24 November 2022 to register the complaint to ANATEL.
That same morning, of 14 November 2022, I received an email with a PDF attached with Claro NET's first service bill. It was for the initial partial month of service. Of course, it charged me as if I were receiving the full service as contracted. The Document, which extended to 3 pages was a blaze of colour, with large areas of red. The sheer cost of printing this would use the best part of a black plus colour ink cartridges on my printer. It would have cost me more to print the bill than the amount of the bill. I think this is totally ridiculous and is another prime illustration of a corporation externalising as much ancillary costs as possible onto the customer.
To try to reduce my costs in this matter, I marked an took a screenshot just of the area around the barcode on the second page. Then I edited and printed it using GIMP [Gnu Image Manipulation Program]. I am hoping the bank's ATM will be able to read the bar code. Of course, if I don't pay — even though the stated services have NOT been rendered — my name will be placed on the Serasa Experian bad debtors' list rendering me a financial persona non grata. But really, should I, as a customer, have to do all this just to pay a bill?
The obvious purpose behind this is to put me off from paying by bill and bully me onto direct debit. But obviously that is not going to happen. I don't want the inevitable cost, stress and delay of having to get a Judicial Order to stop Claro NET continuing to debit my account for services not rendered when I am able to cancel the contract and move to a different ISP. It's a kind of instrument of extortion that corporations can use to bully individuals into paying bills irrespective or whether or not the bill is valid. In my opinion, I should, by self-evident moral right, be able to refuse to pay for services not rendered without suffering any penalty. But the law of 'Might is Right' always prevails.
As a foreigner, I am forever intrigued by the way in which Brazilians submissively accept this. The law of 'Might is Right' is an accepted part of the culture. The corporate is king. The individual is simply a second class citizen.
Early on 24 November 2022, I registered my complaint with ANATEL. Unfortunately, I used the original protocol number 013221220445685 issued by Claro NET when I first complained through the normal website form. I should have entered the Ombudsman's protocol number 39092115. Notwithstanding, this correct protocol number was in the header of each page of the report and request file, so they should see the correct one when they read the report. The ANATEL site flagged me that the ombudsman did not have a complaint registered under the protocol number I gave but accepted the complaint anyway. I now must check the ANATEL site periodically to see if there has been any reaction.
I read in an article that if you want open listening ports, Claro NET requires you to register as a company [an expensive proposition] and buy the plan under your company registration number [CPNJ]. This means that in order to have a normal bona fide Internet connection that meets the minimum requirements of Marco Civil da Internet, I must establish and maintain a company that does not trade, has no income but must go through all the expensive rigmarole of annual returns and other legal obligations of a functioning company. And I am retired on a small pension.
The prices of Claro NET's 'company' plans [of R$110 to R$250 per month] is not a problem. They are less than those of a minimum domestic connection in the United Kingdom [R$392.43 per month for a 4G connection and R$196,21 for fibre optic] and Canada [R$270,92 for 30Mbps and R$331,57 for 100Mbps fibre optic]. But the prohibitively expensive requirement, imposed by Claro NET, to set up an 'inactive' business in order to have some open listening ports cannot be perceived as anything other than plain bloody-mindedness on the part of Claro NET. Non-commercial users are just social riff-raff that don't matter, to be managed with contempt like colonial slaves through the standard commercial protocol of false politeness.
At 09h34 on Monday 28 November 2022 a woman called saying she was from Claro regarding my complaint to ANATEL. She would not talk to me, only to the signatory of the contract, who was not available at the time. The woman said she would call back later but didn't. At 10h25, I received the following WhatsApp message:
"Olá, eu sou Assistente virtual da Claro. Esse é o nosso canal oficial de Whatsapp. Estou entrando em contato referente a sua reclamação na Anatel, protocolo 202211242887839. A pessoa responsável para seu caso está disponível para falar sobre a resolução da sua solicitação aqui no Whatsapp, basta responder essa mensagem das 0h às 23h, que eu te transfiro para o atendimento da nossa equipe. O atendimento funciona de segunda a sábado."
"Hi, I'm Claro's Virtual Assistant. This is our official WhatsApp channel. I'm contacting you regarding your complaint at Anatel, protocol 202211242887839. The person responsible for your case is available to talk about the resolution of your request here on WhatsApp, just reply to this message from 00:00 to 23:00, and I'll transfer you to customer service from our team. The service operates from Monday to Saturday. — 09:35 October 28, 2022"
I received repeats of the same WhatsApp message at 18h18 on 29 November and 17:13 on 30 November. However, I am now very wary of WhatsApp messages purporting to be from Claro. I was nearly sucked into a phishing hit with one of these that asked for full personal details including bank account number, which I refused to divulge. I think Claro should find a more secure way to communicate with customers. For instance, Claro could send me an email, which I could verify from the context of its content and its return IP address. Or even a letter by post.
At 16h26 on Tuesday 29 November 2022, I connected my main computer directly to the Arris modem in bridge mode. My WAN-side address was '100.68.19.51', which is still an ISP subnet address. I used a port checker service website to test my required listening ports. My Internet address seen by the port checker from the outside Internet was '201.17.159.51'. With all relevant listeners running, the port checking website couldn't get a response from any of my listeners. All ports are still blocked.
If Claro NET intends to resolve my problem, why don't its technicians simply open the ports on the Aggregation Router? Claro NET doesn't need a Virtual Assistant to contact me by WhatsApp to arrange for someone to talk to me, neither does it need to arrange to visit my premises nor involve me in any way in order to open the ports on the aggregation router. Why don't they just get on and do it?
During this time, one of my listeners managed to get an open listening port using IPV6. However this was to a server on IPV6. The vast majority of Internet users are on IPV4 still. And this is not going to change significantly any time soon. So I still can't listen for data updates in real time from IPV4 peers. Consequently, open listening ports on IPV6 can't solve my problem.
Early on Thursday 01 December 2022, I accessed my complaint process on the ANATEL website.
I must say that I found this in itself a complicated, confusing and stressful process. I did not realise for quite some time that, in order to access my current complaint process, I had to go through the procedure for starting another complaint process before I got to the list of pending and past processes. Not exactly what I would call logical!
At 08:15 on 01 December 2022, I downloaded a PDF file of the current status of the pending process. It merely intimated that Claro had initiated their treatment of my complaint.
Reluctantly, I decided to respond to Claro's WhatsApp Virtual Assistant. I responded with the following message:
"Ainda estou esperando a Claro abrir minhas portas de escuta para IPV4, que presumo estarem bloqueadas no seu roteador de agregação ou nó óptico. Claro pretende fazer isso? Se sim, quando?" — 09:34 01 dez 2022
I am awaiting a WhatsApp response from Claro. In the meantime, I discovered that an email had finally arrived from Claro about this matter. It was dated Wednesday 30 November 2022. It merely said that, in order to resolve my problem, it will be necessary to converse by telephone. I can't see why Claro's opening of my listening ports at its aggregation router needs a telephone discussion with me, but there you go! I guess that among all the Claro telesales calls to my cell phone, one or two of them might have been to resolve my problem. Notwithstanding, the phone would only ring 3 times before hanging up, giving me no time to answer the call. I don't know if this was by design or simply impatience.
A reply to my WhatsApp message came at 14h39 [5 hours later]. "Olá, meu nome é Iasmin, sou de Claro e estou entrando em contato para tratamento de Reclamação Anatel de número 202211242887839 e ficarei responsável por ela." I replied: "Então, vai resolver meus problemas de portas de escuta IPV4, o telefone e TV que não funcionam? Todo explicado em o meu arquivo de reportagem."
I'm awaiting a reply. In the meantime, at 16h05 on 01 December 2022, I decided to look at the Arris modem's configuration. And guess what? The user name and password with which I was able to enter the modem's configuration from 02 November 2022 no longer work. Somebody must have changed it remotely. The message I get when entering the original user name and password that worked from 02 November 2022 is:
Invalid user name or password!
This message is new to me. I never saw it during all my previous attempts to hack into the modem's configuration area. Perhaps the user name is still correct but only the password is wrong. Who knows? Notwithstanding, there is not, and never has been while I have had it, any Wi-Fi Network Passphrase, Pre-Shared Key or Network Key on any label anywhere on this modem! Once again, I have been locked out. I tried again the following morning. Still locked out.
This is one reason why I always use my own router for my local area network. I am fully in control. The ISP cannot interfere with it. I never trust a router that can be reconfigured or otherwise messed about with by the ISP remotely. Any router installed by an ISP must operate in Bridge Mode.
At 08h30 on Friday 02 December 2022, Iasmin from Claro NET phoned and arranged for a technician to come to our apartment tomorrow to rectify the problem of the blocked ports on IPV4 and to fix up the 'NOW' television viewing.
At about 10h00 on Saturday 03 December 2022, a young technician arrived at my apartment. I explained that I wanted all ports above 10000 to be open for listening. He contacted his boss at Claro NET by cellphone. His boss asked which specific ports. I said I wanted them all openable so that I could open the ones I needed at any particular time. The boss started ranting but eventually conceded.
The young technician then tried to put the Arris TG1692A modem/router into Bridge mode as I wanted. Apparently all previous attempts to set it into Bridge mode did not succeed. It always fell back to NAPT mode. The technician connected my computer directly to the Arris TG1692A modem/router. My own TP-LINK router was not involved. When attempting to log into the modem with the correct user name and password, the same strange message appeared [mentioned above]. Eventually, it became impossible to access the modem's configuration page at all.
The technician consulted his boss again who gave him a command to enter into my computer. He did some complicated procedure which obviously pertained to Microsoft Windows. My Linux machine ignored it. I think what he was trying to do was look at the interface configuration but neither of them knew how to do that. So I hit the terminal icon to open a terminal and typed "ifconfig". The young technician did not know if this was what his boss wanted.
The boss then started ranting that the whole problem was Linux, which of course, is pure bullshit. The operating system of the computer has absolutely no connection with configuring a modem/router through a web interface. Besides, most modem/routers run Linux or a derivative of it such as OpenWrt. Linux is essentially Unix, upon which the Internet is based.
Eventually, they both gave up on the old Arris TG1692A modem/router that had been installed on 15 October. The boss asked the technician to get another modem from his car. He brought what looked like a new Humax HGB10R-02 modem/router. He connected it to the coax and to my computer. Then we re-booted everything for a clean start and waited for the new modem/router to acquire its signal.
One way or another, it would seem that the technician's boss had some means of opening the ports specifically for me. Perhaps he allocated me a fixed Sub-net address. Perhaps he has put me on a different Sub-net carried on a different set of frequencies on the same coax. There are many ways of doing this. Anyway, it seems that I now have a normal domestic connection with certain ports still blocked but with all 'high' ports liberated. At least, on the Sub-net [WAN] side of Claro NET's Humax HGB10R-02 modem/router.
The technician asked me to check if my ports were open. I started two programs that listened on specific groups of ports. The first program showed that it had open ports. The second showed that its listening ports were still closed. I said I would have to do more work and take more time to verify whether the ports were open or not. At 12h30 the technician left.
Almost immediately afterwards, I discovered that the open port seen by the first program was on IPV6. It just happened by chance to hook up with an IPV6 server. All IPV4 ports were still closed. As with the old Arris TG1692A modem/router, the technician couldn't put the new Humax HGB10R-02 modem/router into bridge mode. Apparently, the new Humax HGB10R-02 modem/router didn't even have a Bridge mode option.
My only option at this stage was to configure the Humax HGB10R-02 modem/router to work in double NAPT with my own TP-LINK router, which is not recommended. In fact, it would be operating in triple NAPT with Claro NET's district [or aggregation] router. Definitely not recommended.
But I had no choice. I logged in to the configuration web interface of the Humax HGB10R-02 modem/router with the user name and password that were now actually printed on a label on the modem. And they worked. I had access. After battling with the frumpily designed web interface of the Humax, I finally managed to configure its NAPT to pass unsolicited packets on the listening ports I required. And lo, my ports were open. My interactive programs worked.
At 11h50 on Monday 05 December 2022, a Claro NET technician arrived to fix the problem of my not being able to view the Claro TV+ [formally called 'NOW'] television streaming content on my television receiver. He was unable to download the required 'app' into my television set. So I cannot receive the TV streaming service. The technician left at 12h10.
I sent a message to Iasmin via Claro NET's WhatsApp: "O Técnico não consigiu fazer NOW funcionar no telelvisão. Por isso quero tirar serviço NOW do contrato." Iasmin replied: "olá boa tarde, o acesso ao Now é gratuito, o sr só paga alguns conteúdos que cobra, mas muitos são de graça de mesmo."
I don't think that Claro NET is a philanthropic institution. There's no such thing as a free lunch. The costs of all 'free' additions in a 'combo' are obviously loaded into the final price. Saying that I shouldn't pay any less because the addition is 'free' is a universally known salesman's deception. So, as an old age pensioner, who cannot see films on a small computer screen, let alone a phone, has to effectively subsidise those who can receive the streaming service on their television sets. That's just the way it is.
The text in green is taken from Claro NET's formal response to my appeal to ANATEL.
"We inform you that, after a technical evaluation, we found that maintenance is being carried out on the network that provides a signal for the location complained of, with a forecast of normalization in" [sic]
I never suggested that there was a lack of or fault in the signal. I simply said that my listening ports were blocked. The text terminated 'in mid air' as shown above. It didn't say when the service would be 'normalized'.
(there are no problems in the region, however in follow-up with the technical sector [a visit to the customer was arranged] for verification on 03DEC2022 from 08:00 to 11:00 maximum period until 12:00)). [sic]
The symptoms of blocked listening ports do not even suggest to me that there is a network problem in the region when the internet itself is otherwise working. There was really nothing that needed doing at my premises regarding the blocked ports.
However, due to unavailability in the period of more than 30 days, we granted the amount of R$70.00 (25DEC2022).
Appreciated, but it is not even a drop in the ocean of what all this lost time and the appeal to ANATEL has cost me. This highlights the real cost of this kind of behaviour on the part of ISPs that they externalise onto the shoulders of the customer.
regarding the question of the internet service and the access to NOW [the TV streaming service] it was explained that this requires an on-site visit by technicians, which was made for 03DEC2022 from 8:00 am to 11:00 am, maximum period up to 12:00 pm,
Obviously the blocked listening ports were not a customer site problem, although my exclusion from the modem's configuration facility perhaps was. However, as it transpired, I got a new modem, which worked and to which I had configuration access. During the technician's visit, the listening ports were unblocked by a remote operative at whatever point in the network they were blocked, which was not, of course, at the modem at my premises.
and regarding the land-line phone, it was explained that there was an error in the conclusion of the portability, making it necessary to contact the original operator (Oi), and check if the line was [still] active. If not, it will be necessary to activate it [so as] to [be able to] request the portability of the number again. Later, by message, the customer confirmed that the line had been cancelled by the other operator and informed that he may be left without any fixed number.
Of course this problem with the transference of the landline number from the old Oi service was entirely the fault of the incredible fiasco of confusion created by Oi in changing from copper to fibre optic delivery.
...therefore, the customer regarding follow-up by scheduling an appointment to check the internet and NOW. [sic]
A separate appointment had to be made for a different technician to visit me in order to set up Claro NET's TV streaming service called 'NOW'. The TV technician explained that it was impossible to install the Claro NET app on my Samsung TV. I could download the app onto my cell phone and watch the content [films etc.] sitting at my computer or on my phone's 63 × 110 mm screen!!!!! Quite! Other than that, I would be much better off opening a Netflix account or watching YouTube, both of which were available on my TV.
"We remind you that technical visit and follow-up requests can also be requested through the Minha Claro Residencial application, which can be downloaded for free from Google Play and the App Store."
As I explained in my report, whereas I have no problem whatsoever reading text on the screen of my computer and can adeptly use its keyboard, I cannot read much on a phone screen. It is simply too small and inflexible, as is the ridiculous touch 'keyboard' with keys a quarter the size of my finger tips. So the Minha Claro Residencial phone app is unusable for me. Yet another form of enforced digital exclusion.
"...we take the opportunity to clarify that we have an ombudsman, which could help you, in case your request has not been resolved in our service channels."
This strongly suggests to me that the Claro NET person didn't read my report. The protocol number of my appeal to their ombudsman is the first item in the header of every page. I appealed to the Claro NET ombudsman and waited the full 10 days that Claro NET stipulated for a response. It was only then, in the absence of a response from the Claro NET ombudsman, that I launched my appeal to ANATEL.
At about 11am on Tuesday 06 December 2022, I tried to send my final evaluation report to ANATEL in response to the above response from ClaroNet. On the second attempt, I managed to log into the ANATEL site. I have to say that I find the ANATEL site very confusing and difficult to use. In the past it was so much easier and better.
On trying to upload my response file I found that the ANATEL site provided no way for me to do this. So I tried re-opening the complaint. This, apparently gave Claro NET 3 more days to respond. With the complaint open again, I tried to upload my final report. I could find no means on the ANATEL web page for me to do this.
I waited 3 days for Claro NET to enter a reply to my re-opening. But by 09 December 2022 Claro NET still had not responded. So I had to leave the complaint in limbo. Consequently, my final evaluation report could not be seen either by Claro NET or ANATEL.
At 11h31 on Friday 09 December 2022, Iasmin from Claro phoned me in order to close the complaint. She had just entered a response to my re-opening of the complaint. It was not there earlier that morning when I checked the ANATEL site. The content wasn't particularly meaningful to me and explained that I could watch the TV content on my cell phone!!! That to me is just plain ridiculous and ignores the government's initiative stated in Marco Civil Art.25 II that applications must seek to provide:
accessibility to all interested parties, regardless of their physical-motor, perceptive, sensory, intellectual, mental, cultural and social capacities...
So I'm included twice in there: I have sub-normal eyesight and I am high-function autistic. So viewing on a TV is fine: no problem. But a cell phone: don't even think about it.
As a result of this time-consuming appeal to ANATEL, I now have a basic Internet connection, costing R$85 per month, with ports 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 445, 1434, 21, 25, 53, 80, 110, 443, 587 blocked according to the norm for residential connections, which is what most ISPs provide in the first place. It is essentially the same as the 2 Mbps ADSL service, at R$36.15 per month, I had from Oi until Oi cut my signal on 21 September 2022. The only difference is that I now have a 90 Mbps download and 40 Mbps upload speed for R$85.00 per month, plus the cost of all the lost working time and effort I have had to expend in writing and mounting my appeal to ANATEL, which was certainly not insignificant.
Of course, after all this, my Internet connection still does not meet the minimum necessary and sufficient requirements of Marco Civil da Internet, but at least it's a start. And I can work with it. Not a good result, but I can't see it being resolved any further.
So after 49 days with a deaf Internet connection, it is now able to hear. Marco Civil da Internet has become upheld — at least in part: the part that I need. Not being able to do what I was supposed to be doing during this 49 days, rather than do nothing, I naturally and understandably spent my time writing about why I couldn't do what I was supposed to be doing.
For a home-based programmer requiring access to his employer's databases in order to work, his loss for the 49 days would be on average in Brazil R$44532.95 [US$8,521.53]. Claro reimbursed me R$70 [US$13.39].
As a result of an appeal to ANATEL, I now have some openable listening ports but the standard ports are still blocked and my IP address is still dynamic. So it is still not a bona fide Internet connection that can be used interactively peer-to-peer the way the Internet was originally meant to operate. But with this, I can at least work.
But why should it cost me all the time and effort to appeal to ANATEL just to obtain some of my basic rights under the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights? Shouldn't ISPs naturally, and as a result of due course, provide a service that meets a customer's legal rights in the first place, without them having to be enforced by ANATEL?
My final verdict is that Brazil is not the place for work that involves anything other than a very trivial use of the Internet.
On Monday 12 December 2022, after barely 9 days from when my Internet connection was finally working, and only 2 days after I had finally concluded my complaint to ANATEL, down it went! Once again: no Internet. That was the small problem. The big problem was trying to communicate with Claro NET to tell them about it.
I tried their service number 1072 but that didn't work. I tried again. The ensuing confusion just drove me out of my mind. It offered me all kinds of Claro NET's ridiculous 'plans' and all kinds of 'atendimento' that was absolutely nothing to do with my problem. After all this confusion I received two SMS messages with the following information:
fone 25276 09h39 12/12/2022 protocolo 20221413600428
Although it is difficult for me, at 10h22, I managed to send a message via WhatsApp on my cell phone to Claro NET's automatic cretin. It gave me a list of services from which I selected '3-Ir para Claro Residêncial'. Then came its second list from which I selected '2-Suporte técnico'. Then another list from which I selected '1- Suporte técnico (com login)'. Then it opened a Claro NET website in my phone's Chrome browser, which of course was far too small for me to read! I tried to log in but on the minuscule touch keys of the phone 'keyboard' I was unable to get the username or password correct. It's rather like trying to drive a car with a one-inch diameter steering wheel. Of course I have absolutely no problem entering data on my computer. I gave up. Dead end.
Then the cretin sent what it called a 'token' by SMS. This was a number to enter in the WhatsApp field. I looked it up and entered it. Then came another idiot list on which none of the choices remotely applied to my situation. I decided to try again. Came full circle through the same menus. I went through the same stupid procedure 3 times. It was obvious that I was going round in circles getting nowhere. I tried another round. I selected '3-Claro Residêncial' again. This time, the cretin purportedly did a test and said that there was nothing wrong with the signal in my locality and consequently could not help me any further. And that was it!
I searched and searched for a telephone number to call for Claro NET service to tell them about my Internet being down. But I could not find one anywhere. There are plenty of numbers on which to call Claro NET, but only for sales: nothing for service.
I decided the only thing to do was phone the ombudsman on 0800 701 0180. Of course, the ombudsman is not human: he's simply an Artificial Imbecile, like everybody else at Claro NET. And guess what? He had a system problem and couldn't attend to my request. I tried several times. Then the artificial ombudsman didn't recognise the protocol I had been given by the service cretin.
AND ALL I WANT TO DO IS REPORT
More than half the day is now gone. Yet so far I have drawn a complete blank as to how to simply report to Claro NET that my Internet isn't working and to ask them to fix it! I'm currently at a dead loss. I tried again and again. Eventually I had to concede that it was impossible.
At 13h57 on 12 December 2022, I struggled to try, as best I could, to enter the required details on the ombudsman's web page using my cell phone. It said that Protocol 20221415189679 that I had been given by the service cretin was invalid. I squinted with my magnifying glass and verified conclusively that the protocol number was correct as entered. Of course, this meant that I could not report my problem to the ombudsman so consequently 'he' didn't issue me with an ombudsman's protocol number. So strictly, I can't appeal to ANATEL. There was no more I could do. End of the line. I now see only 3 options:
stay forever paying for a non-existent service, or
write to ANATEL by post [SEDEX], quoting only the service protocols, or
simply refuse to pay the monthly bills until Claro NET mounted a process against me for not paying for the service it was not providing. That way, I might eventually get to discuss the problem with a human being.
Notwithstanding, in the latter case, I have to ask myself, would that human being be any more cogent that the stupid AI?
So, what should have happened?
I should have had a phone number to call to talk to a human technician and say to him: "My Internet is down. Power ON, DS ON, US FLASHING, Online OFF, Ethernet ON.". His reply: "probably the fibre-to-coax unit on the street post isn't getting your up-signal. OK I'll get it fixed". Done!
But not in Brazil. Here bureaucracy is king. As the customer I need to spend indeterminable hours battling with stupid automated menus and getting nowhere. In the long term — and it is a very long term — I must try to enter a complaint through a web form that says the protocol number the AI gave me is invalid. My only recourse then is to try to complain to an unreachable ombudsman, who is also an AI that doesn't accept the protocol number that the webform gave me. My only option then is to appeal to ANATEL, which I can do only through an Internet connection that doesn't work. So I must ask a friend [luckily I have one within reachable distance], who has a working Internet connection, if I can please come over and use her Internet to launch my complaint to ANATEL [assuming that this time, ANATEL's website is actually working]. Then I must wait for Claro NET to respond and send some irritable technicians to correct the fault. Of course they have to come to my apartment and mess with my modem, complaining that correcting the fault isn't possible because my computer is running Linux instead of Microsoft Windows. Of course, the fault was obviously in the street at Claro NET's post unit or beyond. In the meantime, I lose at least a week's more working time for which I receive no compensation. I believe my lesson here is: caveat emptor.
One last-ditch effort. I installed the Minha-Claro Residêncial app on my cell phone. On the tiny display I managed to find a spanner [wrench] symbol, which I assumed stood for technical help. I touched it and got a screen on which was an option that I had NO SIGNAL. I touched it. The procedure took me through the age-old process of checking that all the cables were located correctly, unplugging the power and reconnecting it after a minute. Then it asked me if each status lamp were lit appropriately. It gave me one option to proceed: to click if they were all correct. It gave me no option for saying that no, they were not all illuminated correctly [Brazilian logic]. So I couldn't convey that the lamps were as stated in the small inset block of text above. I clicked that the lamps were all OK, which of course was not true. I was then given the option of booking a technician's visit, for which I would be charged.
NOTE: you've always got to scrutinise their invoices. They have a habit of super-loading them with charges they hope you won't notice. Like the weekly charge on my cell phone bill that started appearing for an answering service, which I never use, never asked for and which was not part of the original contract. However, getting rid of such thieving is always impossible without a lot of work appealing again to ANATEL.
So, after a full day of exhausting work trying to inform Claro NET that my Internet connection is down, I still have been unable to do so; Claro NET is none the wiser and it looks as it I will have to continue without Internet unless or until I can somehow get an appeal to ANATEL.
Amazingly, at 18h50, the modem suddenly acquired its up-signal and achieved an on-line connection for a few minutes. Then it lost the up-signal and fell back off-line. This evinced a fault that was arbitrarily intermittent. The cabling was dry, solid and undisturbed within my apartment and the apartment building. The intermittency of the fault suggested that it was outside in the street or beyond. Since we were in the period of very heavy tropical rain, a likely reason is that rain could have penetrated the fibre-to-coax aggregation router on a street post to the extent that it shorted out its up-signal receiver. Or it could have been rain penetration into some other active circuitry somewhere en-route between Claro NET's edge router and my apartment. What I do know with certainty is that it is nothing to do with the cabling between my computer, my private router and Claro NET's modem. Nor is it anything to do with the fact that my computer is running Linux and not Microsoft Windows or any other kind of technical bullshit.
06h00 Tuesday 13 December 2022: the second day of my new downtime. I must work hard today trying to find some way of communicating with Claro NET, although I have, as yet, no idea how to start.
So obviously this is not a channel I can use to communicate with Claro NET when their proper connection goes down. Thus I can neither use it to receive emails from them nor to access their Minha Claro website to report a fault. I'm left high and dry.
Perhaps I could prevail upon a neighbour to let me use his computer. He could sign me in to his work area, thereby giving me access to all his private information and leave me alone for some hours while I fiddle my way through the time-consuming automatic menus of Claro NET's exasperating website. With the level of security I need for my work I could not think of letting anyone else into my computer this way. But obviously this is what Claro NET expects somebody to do for me.
Alternatively, my neighbour could give me his Wi-Fi password so that I can enter his wireless network using my laptop. Then, of course, he would have all the trouble of devising a new password and installing the new password in his router and all his other devices. Lots of time-consuming work flagrantly externalised by Claro NET onto the shoulders of the customer — and of course his neighbour! This is all necessary because my neighbour's Wi-Fi network would otherwise be thereafter open for me to use such that I would no longer need the Claro NET service at all.
The only practical option is to transfer all necessary data onto my laptop and take it to the residence of a trusted friend who will give me the name and password for her Wi-Fi network. That is workable because when I am not at my friend's residence, I am way beyond the range of her Wi-Fi network. This is what I did during the downtimes the 49 days of signal cuts by Oi and the 21 days with no internet after Oi cut my signal, plus the following 49 days that my Claro NET connection was deaf. It was all an awful lot of disruptive inconvenience, but I survived. So this is what I must do now. I must arrange to travel to my friend's residence, which I cannot do very often for practical and health reasons, and use her Internet connection to try to rattle Claro NET's cage. However, for this I must wait until a weekend, thereby having to waste my working days for the rest of the week.
What I shall probably have to do is write a letter to Claro NET, as I did before, and send it by SEDEX [tracked postal service]. Of course, as before, Claro NET will not respond to it. Consequently, I will not give Claro NET a month to reply. I shall send it same-day delivery and give Claro NET a stated 3 days only in which to contact me regarding my dud Internet connection. On the 4th day, an appeal goes to ANATEL. If this fails, another appeal goes to both 'consumidor.gov.br' and also to the private complaints site 'Reclamar Aqui'. And after that to certain people concerned with the formulation and implementation of Marco Civil da Internet. I cannot afford to lose so many days. I desperately need this to move.
Why? Because I need to be able to do my work. And there will be, without doubt, accumulating in my email box, bills and invoices [including from Claro NET itself] that I cannot know of, cannot access but which I must pay on time. My failure to do so will result in my being fined, charged interest and perhaps even have my name placed on the ubiquitous corporate instrument of extortion called Serasa-Experian. The absence of Internet access is no excuse. I am supposed to somehow be able to know the amount, its payment bar code number and pay it.
I think that indeed, Brazil has a very long road ahead before it arrives anywhere near a cogent theory of justice for the individual, let alone the practical implementation of such.
After 3 hours solid work on this problem, at 09h03 Tuesday 13 December 2022, I tried one more time with the Minha Claro app on my cell phone. I got through to the 'NO SIGNAL' option. The sheer illogical stupidity of the design of this facility boggles my mind! The only option into which it finally railroaded me was a technician's visit to my home, which is totally unnecessary and inappropriate and for which I would be charged R$90. I had absolutely had enough.
Certainly, from my point of view, the virtual assistants and automated menus of Claro NET's 'Minha Claro' website, its WhatsApp channel and its telephone 'help' lines appear to be intentionally designed to be as obstructive as possible to the user for doing anything other than buying a new product or service. I'm trying to report a fault on the service I have, and what do I get? Flashy adverts and constant rhetoric for service plans with higher speed and more facilities. The effect on me is totally negative. It is anti-advertising. What on earth would motivate me to buy a faster more comprehensive service plan when the one I have doesn't even work!
I drafted a letter to Claro NET. The previous letter I sent to Claro NET was forthrightly ignored. Consequently, at 09h13 on Wednesday 14 December 2022, I posted the
finished letter by SEDEX next-day delivery in which I gave Claro NET until Saturday 17 December 2022 to reply, or at least leave me a WhatsApp message. I don't consider this unreasonable since I gave them a whole month last time and they didn't respond, so I reasonably suppose that they won't respond this time. I certainly can't afford to spend another month off the Internet. I sent the letter this time simply as a witnessed formality before making my appeal to ANATEL from my friend's house.
Why, as it is abundantly clear from the vast plethora of complaints I see on the Web blogs, does Claro NET not respond, with the result that fines are imposed upon it by ANATEL when the user complains? I can only surmise that to Claro NET, it is a simple risk-benefit calculation. The benefit gained by ignoring the complaints of the many outweigh the fines imposed by ANATEL as a result of the few who take the trouble to complain.
On Saturday 17 December 2022, I arranged to pay a visit to a friend in order to use her Internet connection to submit my official new complaint to ANATEL and to update my website and cloud backups. My complaint is registered under ANATEL protocol number: 202212172926254. Claro NET has 10 days to respond.
I must now wait for a response, which hopefully will be by phone. But did you notice the absurdity? In order to monitor the progress of my complaint, I must go to the ANATEL website. But my complaint is about my not having an Internet connection, which means I obviously cannot access the ANATEL website. So I won't know what the progress is, except each weekend when I can hopefully arrange to go to visit my friend to use her Internet connection.
Finally, at 16h06 [after 6 hours and 48 minutes] the virtual attendant sent another WhatsApp message saying that the human attendant had concluded his task of attending to my problem.
The virtual assistant then asked if it could assist me with anything further? YES NO buttons were presented. I answered YES, after which the virtual assistant displayed the same dead-pan list of basic help that was obviously going to lead nowhere. Neither in this list, nor in any subsequent one, was there any option through which I could convey to Claro NET that nobody had attended me or even contacted me.
I selected to continue with the Claro Residential Internet service. Then I was presented with a menu asking if I wanted to question my bill, technical support, change my password, activate a chip, the Claro NET roaming Wi-Fi service [which doesn't work], buy or change products, details of my plan, or the NOW TV streaming service [which doesn't work]. I selected technical support and then to verify the signal in my area. I was, once again, told that there was nothing wrong with the signal in my area. Thereafter, the virtual assistant just rolled me round and round in circles through the same stupid menus without any exit to a human operator. The system was just flagrantly jerking me. And as far as Claro NET is concerned, my complaint about them to ANATEL has been resolved.
It is abundantly clear to me now that Claro NET has absolutely no intention of rectifying my problem, despite my complaint to ANATEL. My only option is to cancel the contract, which I shall require to be done without onus: that is, without my having to pay any cancellation penalty. In fact, with the vast amount of working time this has cost me, Claro NET should be compensating me — rather heavily! I can think of no other option. I have absolutely had enough. Once again, exactly the same situation as with NET in 2015.
Without an Internet connection, of course, I cannot go to the ANATEL website to see Claro NET's response. Neither can I go to the Claro NET website to cancel the contract. However, I managed to find a phone number [10621] through which I am told I can cancel the contract. I called the number using my cell phone.
It's essentially an advert. The red "Mais opções" [More options] button just takes me to Claro NET's standard incomprehesible website with its confusion of glitzy adverts. The WhatsApp button takes me to the same 'virtual assistant' channel with its highly restricted language of endless automated lists, none of which contains the option I am so desperate to find. The 'Voltar a ligação' [return to the call] button returns me to the original call I made where the automated voice starts again from the beginning to bring me back to this screen. So the only practical option I have to try to cancel this non-service is Claro NET's website. For this, I will have to make another journey to prevail once again on my friend to ask her if I can use my laptop on her Blink Internet connection.
At 10h00 on Thursday 22 December 2022, I made the journey to visit my friend with the Blink Internet connection. I checked the status of the ANATEL appeal. Claro NET had not yet responded.
At 09h47 on the morning of Saturday [Christmas Eve] 24 December 2022, I received another WhatsApp message from Claro NET's Virtual Assistant. It was the same as that shown in the first illustration above. I could not imagine any human operative responding to my problem on a Christmas Eve on a Saturday. So I ignored it. However, upon reconsideration, I thought I would play the same game. So I responded at 09h00 on Christmas Day with the message "All details are in the [PDF] files attached to the complaint [on the ANATEL site]". The Virtual Assistant immediately responded with a repeat of the message shown in the second illustration above.
I suspect from the way my previous claim to ANATEL was handled that the human operatives can't be bothered to read attached files. Of course, no human operative attended to me that day. The Virtual Assistant didn't even contact me again as it did the last time to say that the human operative had concluded his attendance to my complaint. This could mean, that the last time, a human operative actually told the Virtual Assistant that he had completed attending to my complaint when in fact he did nothing; and that on Christmas Day there was no human operative to do this.
09h00 26 December 2022: A woman from Claro NET called and arranged a technician's visit to my home between 11h00 and 14h00 tomorrow [protocolo 41125970]. Why a technician's visit? I explained that my modem's On-Line lamp is off and that DS is on [i.e. it has a synchronised downstream signal], which shows there's nothing wrong with the physical coax connection. The US lamp is flashing [i.e. the upstream signal is being sent by my modem but the upstream equipment isn't responding to it]. This clearly points to a problem upstream from my modem. 12:55 the Claro NET WhatsApp Virtual Assistant asked me if there was anything further it could help me with. I answered 'no'.
27 December 2022: the deadline set by ANATEL for Claro NET to respond to my complaint. My Internet connection has now been dead for 16 days. At about 06h15, I switched on Claro NET's Humax modem/router, my TP-LINK router and my main computer. I accessed the Humax's configuration area and enabled the 2·4 and 5 GHz Wi-Fi transceivers.
I checked the settings for the 4 virtual servers. I found that in 3 cases, the Humax had somehow changed the port protocols from the way I had originally set them. They were now all set to TCP, whereas one of them should have been for TCP+UDP and two others should have been UDP instead of TCP. I tried to set them back but couldn't. It's a very frumpy user interface design.
The set up program asked me for the virtual server's address. Before, the DHCP had always allocated the first available address but now it was not doing this. I tried disabling DHCP on the LAN side of the Humax, whereupon I could no longer access the configuration area. Consequently I could no longer set anything. It appeared that disabling LAN-side DHCP permanently locked me out of the configuration area. I don't see why this should be. The configuration web address 192.168.100.1 is fixed for the Humax itself: it is not something the Humax's DHCP allocates to a device on its LAN. So why should it become inaccessible?
At 07h33 DS and US synchronized all of a sudden and the 'on-line' lamp came on solid. At 07h37 the lamps reverted to their original states: DS=on, US=flashing, On-line=off. Both Wi-Fi signals went off. Seems as if someone was messing with the network somewhere up-stream. I powered off, waited and powered on again. Same situation except that both the Wi-Fi lamps came on. I tried to access the Humax's 2·4 and 5 GHz Wi-Fi transceivers via my laptop and then my phone. In both cases, the given password was not accepted. At 10h10 DS and US synchronized all of a sudden again and the 'on-line' lamp came on solid. At 10h15 the lamps reverted to their original states: DS=on, US=flashing, On-line=off. Both Wi-Fi units went off air.
At 11h50, two technicians arrived. They tested the signal on the cable and added a balun to the cable in the first junction box where the cable entered my apartment. It transpired — contrary to what I had thought — that the problem was that the Humax modem was not recognizing the answer to its own up-stream signal returned to it by the up-stream equipment. They replaced the Humax modem with another Humax modem of the same type. They configured the new modem. They gave me the username and password to the modem's configuration area. They gave me the username and passwords for logging in to the Humax modem's Wi-Fi transceivers. They helped me configure the forwarded ports I needed. They were conscientious and very helpful.
So, at 12h56 on 27 December 2022, after 16 days off the air, I was back on the Internet with the open listening ports I needed. We'll see how it goes.
On 29 December 2022, I finalised my complaint process on the website of ANATEL. I was not impressed with what Claro NET wrote in response to my complaint.
Claro NET said that it attempted to contact me on my cell phone number. There were calls, but each time the caller allowed only 3 rings and hung up before I could physically get to answer the call. Claro also said that they tried my fixed phone number. I do not have a fixed phone because Claro NET was unable to transfer my original fixed phone number from Oi and this was a condition I set for having the fixed phone at all. Besides, even if they had managed to implement my fixed phone, it would not be working anyway if my Internet connection was down, which it was. Claro NET said they also sent me an email, which obviously I could not receive with my internet connection not working.
Claro NET reported that there was active maintenance being carried out on their network in my area so allowed me 7 days credit on my next bill. The network maintenance is complete fiction. Every time their Virtual Assistant had tested the network at my request it returned that the signal was completely functional and without problem in my region.
The real reason for the failure of my Internet connection was not network maintenance in my region. It was, as stated to me by the technicians at my home, a second dud modem. The downtime was 16 days since I first reported the fault on Monday 12 December 2022 through Claro NET's service number 1072: not 7 days as Claro NET stated in the ANATEL response.
Claro NET then had the audacity to 'remind' me that requests for technical visits and follow-up can be made via the 'Minha Claro' website. This I had tried prior to appealing to ANATEL.
Claro NET also had the audacity to 'clarify' for me that they have an ombudsman through which I can resolve issued not resolved through the normal channels. I had also tried unsuccessfully to resolve this issue through their automated ombudsman and that is why I did not have an ombudsman's protocol number as I had explained fully in the report files I submitted with my ANATEL complaint, which clearly they did not read!
Thus I am distinctly unimpressed with Claro NET's completely fictional response and obvious lack of integrity.
It should be well noted that the ANATEL website no longer gives the complainer the option to answer the ISP's [in this case fictional] response to the complaint. which of course the ISP well knows. So my response under the above subtitle is not recorded by ANATEL.
09h06 a woman from Claro NET phoned. Rung off almost immediately. Obviously an exercise to register that they had tried to contact me once again.
On 12 January 2023 at 17h40 I received a letter by post from Claro NET. It reproduced the content of my complaint to them via ANATEL. It said that the contents of the complaint had now been addressed. thanked me for using their service. It did not address any of the content of my PDF file addressed to ANATEL itself, including the request for paper bills.
On Tuesday 24 January 2023, I noticed that my listening ports had been closed yet again. Of course, I checked that the port forwarding hadn't changed or become reset within both Cllaro NET's modem and in my own TP-LINK router. They were all still as they were.
I logged in to the Claro NET website to report this. But, of course, the website contains no mechanism for actually reporting this simple thing. This is because it is not one of the problems anticipated by Claro NET's automatic menu system. So I had to be taken once again through the tedious rigmarole of Claro NET remotely verifying that its signal was present and correct at my modem and that my modem was functioning correctly. I had no way of simply telling either a robot or a human being that my ports had closed again!
The only option was to request a technical visit to my premises to correct something that was obviously up-stream. So I had no choice but to request a technical visit scheduled for Thursday 26 January 2023 "PROTOCOLO: 013231242016190 Número da Ordem de Serviço (OS): 2399676730".
On 24 January 2023 at 17h35 01127559989 3 rings and hung up. At 17h51 another call from the same number. It was a woman from Claro NET technical services confirming the visit on Thursday 26 January between 08h30 and 11h30. She asked if I had a signal. I told her that yes I had a signal but that my listening ports had been closed again contrary to instructions from ANATEL as a result of my last complaint. I told her that I had already made two complaints to ANATEL about this and I didn't want to have to make another one. So, at the moment, my Internet connection is, once again, deaf.
On Thursday 26 January 2023 at 08h03, the Claro NET technician [William Batista de Almeida] arrived. The port forwarding on the Humax modem had not been changed since I originally set the 4 required listening ports 54662, 54665, 54672 and 47862 with their respective protocols on 03 December 2022. The technician cleared all forwarded ports and re-entered them all. With aMule and Gnutella running, I checked the ports using 'www.canyouseeme.org'. All were still closed from the outside Internet as verified by the indicators on aMule and Gnutella.
I repeated the tests while the technician was testing the ports directly within the modem's configuration area via his phone application. He found them to be open. Then we noticed that each time he did a port test, that port would open to the outside Internet for a few seconds and then fall back to closed. It seemed that the action of testing the port was necessary to open it to the outside Internet. However, on repeating the external open port test via 'www.canyouseeme.org' after a few seconds, the port was found to be closed again.
Each port would open, for a short time only, immediately it was triggered by the technician doing a port test on it. Some form of port triggering was clearly at work here. Or rather, the modem wasn't maintaining its specified configuration because of some kind of hardware latching failure. The modem was faulty.
The technician decided to try a new modem. We had to wait for ages for Claro NET to register the new modem to my account.
New Modem from 26 January 2023
We repeated all the above with the new modem. Same result. The technician said that he would have to refer the problem to a more senior technician [called Erasmo]. He arrange for Erasmo to contact me by phone. The technician left at 10h15 with the problem unresolved.
At 12h55, I managed to get the ports to stay open. It appears that the old Humax modem did become defective on Tuesday as regards forwarding ports. The problem with the new Manaus modem was as follows. The DHCP of the old Humax modem always dynamically allocated, by default, the LAN IP address 192.168.0.17 to my TP-LINK router, which acts, in effect, as the server to which the ports are forwarded.
However, the DHCP of the new Manaus modem was not activated. In this case, as it would seem, by default, any device attached to:
RJ45 socket 1 is automatically allocated the address 192.168.0.31
So, with my TP-LINK router plugged into RJ45 socket 1 of the Manaus modem, I had to clear and re-enter the port forwarding details into the Manaus modem under IP address 192.168.0.31. Then, after re-booting the modem, it all worked. A re-boot is essential for changes to take effect.
At 12h55 on Thursday 26 January 2023, my connection was once again working.
At this point, I feel that I must comment on the fact that this is the 3rd modem I have had in my 4 months with Claro NET. The last time I had a modem failure before signing up with Claro NET was in 1984. That's about a decade before all the separate networks were integrated to form the Internet. Searching on the Web for complaints about Claro NET's service, I found one complainer who was on his 5th modem. It seems that Claro NET has an enormous propensity for faulty modems.
At 07h50 Tuesday 31 January 2023, I discovered that my listening ports had closed again. My Internet connection was, once again, deaf. Being a little wiser now as to the idiosyncrasies of Claro NET, I looked at my TP-LINK router's WAN IP address allocation. It had changed. The Claro NET modem had, for some reason best known to itself, 'decided' to change it from 192.168.0.31 to 192.168.0.10.
I can only surmise that somebody at Claro NET had decided to mess about with my modem's configuration remotely. In fact, I had never understood why the modem allocated 192.168.0.31 in the first place. I could find no place where that address was specified as any form of base address. I had thought from the beginning that it should be 192.168.0.10 because that was the start address specified throughout in the DHCP tab of the Claro NET modem.
I entered the configuration page of the Claro NET modem. I found my way to Port Forwarding. I deleted the 5 ports forwarded to IP address 192.168.0.31 and re-entered them for IP address 192.168.0.10. I powered down everything. I waited 10 minutes. I powered everything up again. My ports were open. But the question remains: why did I have to do this? Why did the address allocated to the one and only device, connected to the LAN-side of the Claro NET modem, change at all? What changed it? Who knows?
Since this event very much disrupted my work for that day, I justifiably decided to report it in my Downtime Table as 1 day of deafness.
On Thursday 16 February 2023 I received by email the bill for the month from Claro NET. It included a R$90 charge for the above-mentioned technician's visit to replace the faulty modem. I do not think that they should have charged me for replacing their faulty modem:
HUMAX DO BRASIL INDÚSTRIA ELETRÔNICA LTDA.
on 26 January 2023 with a new one:
TECHNICOLOR BRASIL MIDIA Emprendimientos LTDA.
Note that even so, the technician left without the modem configured properly. He did not seem to know what to do but entered a DMZ [demilitarized zone] address for some reason, which seemed to confuse the modem's start addresses for LAN device allocation. The technician's visit, for which I was charged, thus did not resolve the problem.
Before he left, the technician arranged for another, more experienced, technician to contact me by phone. I never heard from this other technician. I had to spend considerable time to work out how, and then reconfigure the new modem myself. Of course, I do not know what kind of story the technician told regarding the problem that I was having with my connection. But that is something internal to Claro NET.
During the morning of Thursday 16 February 2023, I laboured for well over an hour trying to find out how to access any facility on Claro NET's website where I could make a complaint about the amount they had charged on the bill. I could find out how to get a second copy of the bill, pay the bill on-line, buy a more advanced plan and much more. But I could find no means of complaining about the inappropriate charge. All was totally obstructive to my attempt to question Claro NET's bill.
The question was now: do I pay the overcharged bill and complain afterwards, or do I just not pay at all as a means of rattling their cage and answer the case when they enter my name on the national bad debtors' register? I decided to pay and then pursue the complaint.
I finally managed to connect to the complaints number 1052 and was given a protocol number 2023227228302, which I verified twice by getting the robot voice to repeat it in full. After getting nowhere in this labyrinth of audio menus, I decided to write a complaint to the Ombudsman. The entry form for the Ombudsman declared that the protocol I had been given was invalid. I could proceed no further.
On Saturday 18 February 2023, I decided to use 'Protocolo: 013231242016190' of the technician's visit itself as a means of accessing the Claro NET Ombudsman. The Ombudsman's complaint entry form accepted my complaint details, which were as follows:
Fui cobrado R$90 pela visita do técnico, em 26 janeiro 2023, realizada sob o número do protocolo 013231242016190.
To my great surprise, at 13h52 that same day, a lady from Claro NET Ombudsman's office phoned me [Protocolo 44914296] saying that they accepted my argument that the charge should not have been made and that the amount would be credited back to me over the following two bills. Excellent.
Bearing in mind this almost 5 months of hard work, lost time and stress I have had to do and endure in order finally to get sub-standard but workable Internet access from Claro NET, it is safe to say that what they provide cannot be rightly described as a bone fide Internet connection. It is essentially nothing more than a television cable service that uses the Internet as its transport medium, with the addition of Web access. Nothing more. Caveat emptor.
Notwithstanding, in my situation, being a wary buyer is futile. At my premises, Claro NET was the only option. My choice, at my residence within an inner suburb of a city of three million people, was simply between signing up with Claro NET or being without Internet access at all.
I have a pre-paid or 'pay-as-you-go' cell phone account. The reason I stick to pre-payment rather than a monthly account is that, based on bitter past experience, I never trust a telecom company. If I needed ever to terminate the account — for instance, in the event that I were to leave the country — I would be unable to stop the service provider from continuing to bill me.
The service provider would consequently place me on a publicly visible debtors' list for non-payment of bills sent after I had cancelled in order to try to extort the money out of me. This would defame me financially and precipitate a lot of trouble for me. Then I would have the long drawn out encumbrance of having to go through due process of law to get the account legally terminated. Telecom service providers do not, of volition, permit their individual victims simply to terminate an account.
On 18 September 2024, it was expedient for me to recharge my cell phone with monetary credit, which I did at my local newspaper stand. The details of this recharging transaction are as follows:
Recharge valid until: 16/01/2025
The payment was made with my debit card, the specific details of which are not shown here but are preserved off-site. Each asterisk represents an alphanumeric character. Each 'H' represents a hexadecimal digit.
VIA LOJISTA: TON-BELO HORIZONTE/MG
I checked the above data thoroughly from the terminal tally roll printouts. All have been rigorously verified as correct. I checked the transaction trail [statement or extract] of my bank account, at CAIXA ECONÔMICA FEDERAL, from which the recharge was paid, which showed:
This verifies that the amount for the cell phone recharge was, in fact, paid.
On 02 October 2024, I discovered that the above credit recharge of my cell phone had not been credited to my telephone account. I checked the balance [saldo] on my cell phone. It showed a balance of R$0,01. That is only 16 days after I bought R$50,00 of credit. I had made no phone calls, sent any SMS messages or used any of my Internet allowance during that 16 days. My phone is always logged in to my house Wi-Fi. I never take my phone out of the house.
One would naturally expect to be able to resolve any problem such as this easily, either by phoning Claro or via their web site. But not with Claro!
As advised on Claro's web site, I dialled 1052 to try to talk to one of their staff to try to resolve the problem of the unregistered credit that I had bought. But, naturally, I was just left waiting forever. Then I received an SMS message saying that I could get better service by dialling *1052#. So this is what I did.
I was presented with a menu of items from which to select one. None of the items offered pertained to unregistered credit: credit that I had bought but which had not been added to my balance. I selected in turn various of the options which I thought might be somewhat related to the problem. But none of them proved to be relevant. I was passed around the menu system in circles, on each lap finding nothing of help or relevance. In the end I was taken to a sequence of jazzy advertisements for Claro's plethora of new cell phone service plans. In total frustration, I had no choice but to give up. A bit later, I received five SMS messages as shown below:
Protocolo 20241442558272 de 01/10/2024 as 17:31 Você consultou o consumo de internet no canal *1052#
I tried to access the complaints facility on the Claro website but was always and inevitably led, without any way of exit, into the blazing adverts of the purchasing section. I thus found it systemically impossible to register a complaint.
Notwithstanding, I finally found my way to the site's Ombudsman [Ouvidoria] page. This required that I enter a service event [atendimento] protocol number. The phone number *1052# had been referred to as a channel for 'atendimento'. Consequently, I assumed that the protocol numbers in the SMSs shown above were 'atendimento protocolo' numbers. So I entered the first one in the Ombudsman form on the web page. And I got the following message:
"O protocolo foi gerado anteriormente via atendimento, é composto por 15 dígitos, iniciando pelos três primeiros dígitos de seu contrato, seguido pelos dois dígitos do ano."
The 'protocolos' provided in the above SMS messages each has only 14 digits and was stated to be invalid by the on-site entry form so I could not make the
complaint or supply the data of the transaction of my financial recharge of the phone. There was also another field in which I was supposed to give an alternative telephone number.
"Informe um número diferente do reclamado, para que possamos ter mais um contato para falar com você e resolver sua solicitação."
I have only one cell phone, which never leaves the apartment. I no longer have a land line phone. I could not therefore provide another phone number on which I could be called at home. Consequently, I had to abandon the idea of writing to the Ombudsman [Ouvidoria]. Without a further protocol number supplied by the Ouvidoria, I could not proceed to make a complaint to the government telecoms Watchdog ANATEL because this protocol number is required in order for me to be permitted to make a complaint. The only procedure available to me for resolving this simple problem has thus proven to be systemically dysfunctional.
If there does indeed exist a means for resolving this simple problem, on Claro's website or through their telephone help line, access to it seems to be obstructively convoluted. It is, to me, incomprehensible. But why? I can think of only 3 options:
I, as a programmer of 60 years experience, am incredibly inept at following the 'logic' of Claro's website, or
Professionally, Claro's web designers are incompetent imbeciles, or
Claro's web designers have been instructed, by their bosses, to build the website in such a way as to forcibly discourage complaints, while providing a path for making such a complaint that is so obstructively convoluted that that it will scupper any attempt by a customer to register a complaint. The hapless customer is from thence railroaded into upgrading to a more expensive plan.
I would wager that the correct option be the third one. Furthermore, I think that their non-crediting of my R$50,00 recharge is itself a slimy ploy to force me to succumb to their incessant pressure to upgrade to a more comprehensive and expensive post-pay account.
Stupidly, I gave Claro the benefit of the doubt and on Wednesday 20 November 2024 I bought a further R$25.00 of phone credit at my local pharmacy store. I checked my balance the next day and my credit was still registered as R$0,01 [one Brazilian centavo]. Details of the transaction are as follows:
azulinha X
I spent from 08h31 until 09h48 trying their 1052 phone number and their *1052# menu system plus their web site — all to no avail. Finally, as instructed on their web site, I sent an SMS to their 1052 number. They sent an SMS reply saying I should dial *1052# to get even better service attendance. What? Again?
I received an SMS: "Vc ligou para a Claro em 21/11/2024 as 09:15 e o numero de seu protocolo eh [SIC] 20241695082243" [a 14-digit number]. In order to register a complaint through Claro's web site I need a 15 digit number. Back to the same stupid game.
Clearly, either Claro has stopped crediting cell phones in this way or is deliberately trying to force me onto a post-pay plan. But of course hasn't seen fit to inform me of whatever they have done. A flagrant case of corporate irresponsibility and plain simple pilfering clients' money. Currently they owe me R$75,00 of phone credit which they are denying to me. I have decided to do nothing further and just let the account die. There is nothing further I can do and I am not going to spend truckloads of my time vainly trying to contact a human functionary, assuming such a thing still exists.
At 13h23 on Thursday 30 January 2025, I answered an 0303 [commercial marketing nusance] call from Claro. The woman wanted to get me to agree to combine my existing Internet service account with my pre-pay cell phone account to form a single monthly contract. I told the woman about the pre-payments I had already made that had not been credited to my account. She didn't express any surprise but said she would see to that when I had signed up for the combined plan. I didn't believe her.
She said that, with the combined plan, I would have the advantage of 500 Mega [presumably 500 Mbps] instead of 300 Mega and the Globo Play service would be included. I told her that none of the TV streaming that I was paying for had ever worked and that I didn't want 500 Mega and that even 2 Mega was well sufficient for what I wanted to do. Notwithstanding, it was obvious that she wasn't going to give me any other choice and so accepted the new plan at R$114 per month full of additions that I couldn't use, didn't work and that didn't want anyway.
Please note that, the refusal to supply a simple connection to a customer [or even saying that such is unavailable] is illegal under Article 39 of the Consumer Protection Code.
LEI Nº 8.078, DE 11 DE SETEMBRO DE 1990
The rights of The Consumer: Art. 39.
She then said I would have to go through a confirmation process. The voice of another woman started to talk. It was obviously a recording. However, the sound quality was so bad that I couldn't tell much at all of what was being said. Furthermore, there were other conversations taking place in the background. All I managed to discern was 'Claro app'. I thought that if this rigmarole involved the Claro app, all was pointless because I could not use an app on a cellphone because of my dexterity and sight limitations. Eventually the voice stopped and the call fell silent but did not drop. Eventually, I switched off my phone.
I have no idea what that was all about or whether 'the system' has somehow deemed me to have signed a 'virtual' contact on-line that I have not read nor even seen. However, when I received my bill by email on 17 Feb 2025, it was the same amount: the contract had not been changed, much to my relief. I am desperate not to 'rock the boat' so that, although I'm paying for additional services I don't want, don't need and don't work anyway, at least I have sufficient connectional functionality to be able to do what I need to do.
The last time I had a problem with Claro, I had a 3-month fight in which I communicated principally by letter and had to invoke clauses of Marco Civil da Internet [the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights]. I'm not going through anything like that again. I am not going to keep paying R$50,00 recharges until one will hopefully be credited to my phone.
On 15 February 2025, Claro cut service to my cellphone. Claro didn't reimburse me with the credit I had already bought, which they had not credited to my phone's account.
This all leaves me feeling very uncomfortable and vulnerable having to rely on Claro for my Internet service, which is the only provider available to me at my location. Happily, it is not the only cell phone service provider available to me. So I am free to take my business elsewhere.
I wish I could do without a smartphone because such is for me extremely difficult to use because of my diminishing vision and dexterity, although my vision and dexterity are more than adequate for everything else in life: I am not classed as being deficient in any way. My problem is entirely and exclusively with being forced to use these ridiculously small devices.
Notwithstanding, as I approach 83 years of age, I need to bring myself to accept that the time is rapidly approaching when I will become physically unable to walk the 2 km round trip to the bank and back, in all weathers, every time I need to make a payment or consult my transaction trail. They don't post statements any more and ever more facilities are disappearing from bank websites, remaining available only through smartphone apps. And 'society' isn't going to accept my not paying my local and national taxes, utility charges and condominium payments just because I become physically unable to do so. It will simply penalise and punish me.
Consequently, although I can't see the content of a smartphone screen reliably, nor type accurately using its miniscule 'keyboard', I am forced to realise that without possessing and being able to use a smartphone, I am physically unable to meet my statutory obligations. In other words, by induction, I am legally obliged to have one and be able to use it. If I am to stay out of trouble, I have no choice.
I needed to find a bigger phone. I needed the largest screen possible. The largest phone I could find that was not totally unaffordable had a screen measuring 6·7 inches across its diagonal. Very large indeed [I don't think!]. Its aspect ratio made it unnecessarily narrow, which certainly didn't help. But beggars can't be choosers. So, in desperation, at 11:20:19 on Saturday 15 March 2025 I bought a Samsung A25 5G. This was expensive but I needed the enlarged print feature.
Of course, simply enlarging the text on a small screen is a very frumpy solution. It requires that I scroll from side to side for each line of print in order to read an A4 sized document. This is very distractive and fatiguing compared with being able to read it on paper or a 25-inch screen.
My only use for a smartphone is to meet my statutory obligations. I don't make phone calls. I just need it for short message services and to facilitate the flagrantly insecure process insisted by corporate service providers of two-factor authorisation for access to webspace and cloud storage. [Insecure for the user, that is: not for the provider.] It's the easiest way to get yourself permanently locked out from your own data, the obvious instances being if your phone gets stolen or if you need to access your service from another country. So my endeavour is never to rely critically or exclusively on any such service.
The old phone I had been using belonged to my wife. However, since she became unable to use her phone due to the progression of Alzheimer's disease, she gave it to me to take over. I did not previously have or need a phone. I was therefore hoping, with my new phone, to change to another cellphone service provider and be rid of Claro with its pilfering of my pre-payments and obstructive convoluted channels for trying to complain about it.
Notwithstanding, I discovered that I could not transfer my wife's number to my new phone with a different service provider without her signature. And her Alzheimer is at a stage where she is no longer able to sign anything. Besides, anything she did sign, if she could, would be legally invalid. I initiated the process to become her power of attorney nearly two and a half years ago. But, to this day, although I was granted provisional power of attorney two years ago, I still have no portable proof, such as a card or concise document, with which I can verify to anybody that I have power of attorney to sign for her.
Consequently, since making any further pre-payments to Claro will achieve nothing, I have no choice but to accept whatever post-pay plan Claro will force me into, simply accepting that I have lost the uncredited pre-payments I have already made to Claro. In a capitalist free-market economy in which the only effective law is the law of 'might is right', I simply have to accept this. So that's what I'll have to do, assuming Claro does not cancel my phone number before I get the chance to complete.
Early on Monday 17 March 2025, while trying to familiarise myself with my new Samsung A25 5G, I decided to make a final concerted attempt to communicate my problem to Claro. I accessed the app Claro Móvel. I registered through it my wife as the owner of the phone.
I got nowhere! For a start, with the print large enough for me to see, a considerable proportion [I don't know how much] of the displayed page was off the screen to the right and I had no means of scrolling across to it. I therefore could not know what was there. Then all I managed to see were blazing advertisements for cell phone service plans. I couldn't find any other way of communicating anything specific to Claro, even though I exited and re-entered the app several times.
I decided to try Claro's universal contact menu again by dialling *1052#. This time, instead of presenting me with an endless confusing labyrinth of menus, it gave me two options: 1) Recharge with credit, 2) move to a post-pay plan. Obviously, neither applied to what I wanted to communicate. Another dead end! A blunt way of being totally obstructive. So, once again, I simply could not communicate with Claro.
I went back to my main computer and accessed Claro's website once again. At 07h42 I somehow finally managed to find my way through the site's labyrinth of convoluted menus to a place where I could type in a complaint message. It was such a complicated route that I would be wholly unable to retrace it. From there I sent a message:
"I have already paid credit twice and each time Claro has failed to credit the money to my cellphone account." [paraphrased]
The site displayed a 13-digit reference number "Protocolo 2025359256674" and said they would reply to me by email. A few minutes later I received the following message by email:
"Olá ! Estamos atualizando sua linha, reiniciar aparelho e aguardar prazo de ate 30 minutos para normalizar. Caso não normalize ligar no: 1052. Continuamos à disposição para ajudá-lo (a) caso você tenha dúvida ou queira saber mais alguma informação. Sua mensagem foi registrada sob o número de protocolo: 2025359256674. Atenciosamente, Mylena De Oliveira Nascimento
So now, 166 days after I first discovered, on Wednesday 02 October 2024, that the R$50 of pre-pay credit that I bought on Wednesday 18 September 2024 had not been credited to my cell phone, I have finally managed to get a message to Claro to this effect! At least, I think I have, although I'm not very confident that I'll get a response that makes any sense. The website promised me a definitive reply within 48 hours. And so I waited. And checked the balance of my mobile phone account. It remained steadfastly at R$ 0,01.
And I waited. Until, that is, I mentioned the situation to friends, who told me that the above email was the definitive answer to my complaint:
Complaint: "You have failed to credit the payments I have already made to my phone."
It reminds me of when Henry Kissinger [former US Secretary of State opened a press conference with: "Does anyone have any questions for my answers?". I don't know whether Claro is run by human dimwits or an AI [artificial imbecile]. Or perhaps it's run by politicians like Henry Kissinger. Whatever the case, Claro is simply, by obvious intent, behaving towards me like an omnipotent cretin.
But what can I do? Obviously, if I do make another pre-payment, I expect that will disappear into nowhere like the others. So I am not going to pay Claro any more money for nothing. I'll just wait for its artificial imbecile to cancel my line and move on to another operator with a new number — with the added inconvenience of having to tell 'everybody' my new number.
At 08h00 on 18 March 2025, I made one final attempt to get some sense out of Claro. My message was registered under Protocolo: 2025365065538. But this is merely a formality to convince myself that I have made every possible attempt to resolve the issue. I don't expect anything to be resolved. The problem isn't so much the money: it's the fact that Claro simply cannot be communicated with. So, bye bye Claro Móvel!
Well, this is the reply I got. Resolves nothing. And of course the phone number 1052 is never attended: the call always drops to an automatic voice that tells me to use *1052# for better "atendimento". And there I am simply given the choice to buy more credit or move to another plan!
Atendimento Claro 2025365065538
I am driven to conclude that 'Mylena De Oliveira Nascimento' is an arbitrary name they have given to their Artificial Imbecile and that the response to my complaint did not receive any human attention. Of course, with only a 13-digit 'protocolo', I can't register a complaint to the Ombudsman because, for this, a 15-digit number is required.
Although my diminishing vision and dexterity makes it very difficult to use a smartphone and practically impossible to use banking apps, government and big business have now rendered it systemically impossible to live in this society any more without one. So, at 11:20:19 on Saturday 15 March 2025, I reluctantly bought a new Samsung Galaxy A25 5G smartphone.
My choice was driven by its 'enormous' 6·7 inch screen and its facility for significantly enlarging the print on the screen. The touch keyboard was a little larger and had better contrast than the one on my old phone but not by very much. It was still a matter of one-finger typing: I don't have the dexterity to type rapidly with the edges of my thumb nails the way I see young women doing nowadays.
Notwithstanding, the shock and disappointment came when I managed to download the apps for the 4 banks my wife and I use. I discovered that if the print size is set to anything above the standard size, only the left-hand part of the bank's screen content is actually displayed. The remainder is off-screen to the right and there is no means of scrolling to it. Control buttons can be on a page's hidden right-hand side and so cannot be clicked. Consequently, in order to use these banking apps, I am back to squinting at microscopic print through my magnifying glass to battle with a user interface whose logic is many times the complexity of the logic inherent to the task in hand.
I have the distinct feeling that the inability of the banks' screen content to scroll sideways must be something to do with the banks' web designers kowtowing to Google's insistence that, in order not to be 'penalised in searches', a web page's viewport should always be set to 'device-width' to make it what Google calls 'phone friendly', thereby rendering the viewport tag pointless. Perhaps one day it will dawn on governments that they are morally bound to ensure that banking apps are 'user friendly' — for everybody, and the smartphone can never be that. It's a matter of 'horses for courses', I believe.
With a poll-based figure of 1680 smartphones per hour being stolen [usually at gun point] where I live, my intended strategy is to keep my phone in a safe place inside my apartment and never carry it on my person in the street. If one really needs to communicate on the move, the current dictum is to buy a separate cheaper phone without any banking apps installed on it and carrying no sensitive personal data.
Fortunately, for three of the banks, I was able to install and enable the app without having to take my phone out of my apartment. The fourth bank, however, required that I take my phone physically to a branch of the bank in order to photograph a QR code that would be displayed on the screen of an ATM in the banking hall. I felt very uncomfortable with this.
In the meantime, on my new phone, I was receiving SMS messages from Claro pestering me to buy more credit and sign up to new plans. But, of course, no communication whatsoever about resolving the problem of them not crediting to my account the money I had already pre-paid since September 2024. Eventually, they began to send SMS messages threatening to terminate my number.
Consequently, at 13h00 on Thursday 03 April 2025 a young relative took me to a local shopping centre where I signed up to a cellular telephone service account with TIM [Telecom Italia Mobile].
The one thing I found disconcerting was the total absence of paper. I went away with nothing: not even so much as a tally-roll receipt. Everything is on-line now and not at all easy to find. After endless pissing about on the TIM app, I managed to find the contract document, regulations and a statement about the need for me to pay a fine if I didn't keep the service for at least one year.
Obviously these documents were no use whatsoever on the phone. Somehow I had to get them onto my computer where I could at least read them. Again, I found that the only option offered to me for doing this was to send their web-links via Signal to my daughter half way across the world so that I could receive them back onto my computer. What's the world coming to?
At least now I have what I am hoping will be a reliable phone number for when I have no option but to be able to receive 2FA SMS messages in order to access my emails, webspace, cloud data and Internet banking websites.
So where am I left with Claro? I still have Claro NET internet service. But I am having to pay for a 'combo' package, which comprises:
Both of which are in direct violation of Article 39 of the Brazilian consumer law: LEI Nº 8.078, DE 11 DE SETEMBRO DE 1990. But apparently, Claro is big enough to be able to do this with impunity.
I also have a pre-pay cell phone account, which, if I buy credit, the credit is no longer placed on my account: the money I pay disappears from my bank account and goes into some kind of limbo in Claro's business. And it is apparent that they will eventually carry out their repeated threat to cancel my phone number and leave me without a service. But there is now nothing I can do about it because I am simply unable to communicate with Claro Móvel.
© Oct 2022 to Jan 2023, Oct-Nov 2024, Jan-Feb 2025 Robert John Morton
What I Had Inadvertently Bought
A Chicken & Egg Situation
The Installation Fiasco
Inconsistencies on The Service Order
Later that same day, after installation, Claro NET sent a further email confirming that the installation had been completed successfully. This email had a PDF file attached called 'ORDEM DE SERVIÇO DIGITAL - MINHA CLARO RESIDENCIAL' which is 'ORDER FOR DIGITAL SERVICE - MY CLARO RESIDENTIAL'.
![My three-way splitter with my original input and output [far right] pressure connectors. Photo taken 07NOV2022](images/isp/splitter.png "My three-way splitter with my
original input and output [far
right] pressure connectors.
The two right-most outputs
[with their connectors] are to
maintain the connections to
the neighbouring apartment.")
It said that the technician had used 6 coax compression connectors for the installation: he used the connectors that were already on my cable.
The Problems Start To Appear
Formal Verification Tests
User Name Password
admin password
admin admin
admin (leave blank)
admin 1234
Admin Admin
Admin (leave blank)
(leave blank) (leave blank)
"The following principles underlie Internet governance in Brazil:
V – ensuring stability, security, and functionality by technical means consistent with international standards and by encouraging the use of best practices;"
Searching For A Solution
Taking A Deeper Look
traceroute to **************, 64 hops max
1 192.168.2.1 0.334ms 0.233ms 0.181ms
2 100.68.0.1 15.585ms 11.846ms 11.977ms
3 201.17.159.143 16.877ms 14.969ms 14.942ms
4 ....
ADVISORY GROUP'S SUGGESTED PRACTICES:
I – including provisions in service contracts entered
into with final users and application providers; and
II – disclosing information on network management practices on their websites, using easily understood language.
Sole paragraph. The information contemplated in this
article must contain at least:
I – a description [of] mentioned practices;
II – the effects the adoption of mentioned practices on the quality of users’ experience; and
III – the reasons and need for adopting the practices.
— page 33 of PDF file: Brazil's Internet Bill of Rights: A Closer Look.
— Marco Civil, Section I: Net Neutrality, Art. 9.
— page 62 of PDF file: Brazil's Internet Bill of Rights: A Closer Look.
Questioning The Legality
Dysfunctional Television Facility
An Attempt at Conciliation
Appeal To Claro NET Ombudsman
Claro NET's First Service Bill
Appeal Sent To ANATEL
Further Investigation
Response From Claro NET re ANATEL
"I am still waiting for you to open my listening ports for IPV4, which I presume are blocked at your aggregation router or optical node. Does Claro intend to do this? If so, when?" — 09:34 01 Dec 2022
Please enter the Wi-Fi Network Passphrase (sometimes referred to as "Pre-Shared Key" or "Network Key") that is printed on the label for this device into the password field.
The Claro NET Technician's Visit
Unable to Enable TV Streaming
Claro NET Reply to My ANATEL Appeal
Result of the Appeal to ANATEL
BEFORE AFTER
1
The modem is not configurable
by the user.
The new modem is configurable
by
the user.
2
All 65535 ports blocked for
listening beyond the modem.
All ports open except those that
are blocked as per the norm for
residential connections.
3
The landline phone doesn't work.
The landline phone doesn't work
because Oi made my number no
longer available for portability.
4
The video/movie content ‘NOW’
cannot be played on my TV.
Situation hasn't changed because
the technician couldn't install the
'NOW' app on my television.
Counting What It Cost Me
The Inevitable Downtimes
PHONE
INTERNET
FROM
TO
DURATION
dead
deaf
15OCT2022 16:50
03DEC2022 12:00
49 days
dead
alive
03DEC2022 12:50
12DEC2022 07:30
09 days
dead
dead
12DEC2022 07:30
27DEC2022 12:00
16 days
-------
alive
27DEC2022 12:56
24 JAN2023 15:00
28 days
-------
deaf
24 JAN2023 15:00
26 JAN2023 12:55
2 days
-------
alive
26 JAN2023 12h55
31 JAN2023 07h50
5 days
-------
deaf
26 JAN2023 12h55
01FEB2023 00h00
1 day
-------
alive
01FEB2023 00h00
?? ??? ????? ??h??
...........
deaf
Working passively but all 65535 ports blocked for listening.
alive
All ports open for listening except those normally blocked for resi-
dential connections. Nonetheless, this doesn't meet the minimum
necessary and sufficient requirements of Marco Civil da Internet.
dead
No connection between the ISP's terminal device and the Internet.
-------
The phone was never implemented because Oi eliminated my old
phone number before it could be transferred to Claro NET.
fone 25276 09h40 12/12/2022 protocolo 20221413607625
THAT MY INTERNET IS DOWN!
Claro NET 'provides' roaming Internet access to its customers via an extra 2·4 GHz Wi-Fi channel in customers' residential routers. This would give me Internet access when my own connection is down. The problem is: it doesn't work. Each time I try, the response is the same as shown at the top of the adjacent illustration. It says: "Login service not available, please try again later."
The Final Straw
At 20h02 Monday 19 December, I received a WhatsApp message from Claro NET's virtual assistant in connection with my complaint [protocolo 202212172926254] to ANATEL. It said they needed more information in order to proceed with my case. It asked me to reply to the message, whereupon it would transfer me to the person responsible for my case. Since it was late and way beyond working hours, I decided to wait until the morning to reply. On Tuesday 20 Dec 2022 at 09h18 I replied to Claro NET's WhatsApp message. The virtual assistant then sent me another message telling me that in a moment the person responsible for my case would speak to me right there via WhatsApp.
I kept my cell phone with me the whole day, fully expecting a WhatsApp voice call from Claro NET's human assistant. DURING THE WHOLE OF THAT 6 HOURS AND 48 MINUTES, NO HUMAN ASSISTANT FROM CLARO NET CALLED ME. There was no record of any attempted WhatsApp call. I think I have reasonable grounds to suspect that, because I have launched a second complaint to ANATEL in a month, Claro NET must be deliberately ghosting me by its non-attendance to my problem.
An automated voice told me that there was a very easy way to interact with Claro NET and to watch my phone's screen. The content on the right appeared. If you're viewing this on a standard 4k 24-inch computer screen, that's the size it appeares on my phone and I find it very difficult to read.
Claro NET's Written Response
Listening Ports Blocked Again
TECHNICOLOR BRASIL MIDIA Emprendimientos LTDA.
MODELO: TC7337NET
DOCSIS 3.0
HW 3.00
FABR.: 02/2018.
INPUT 12VDC 30W 2.5A
IP: 192.168.0.1
Versção SW: 08.89.17.23.03
S/N: 318040755672
RJ45 socket 2 is automatically allocated the address 192.168.0.32
RJ45 socket 3 is automatically allocated the address 192.168.0.33
RJ45 socket 4 is automatically allocated the address 192.168.0.34
Listening Ports Blocked Yet Again!
Charged For The Visit
MODELO: HGB10R-02 [ClaroNET],
DOCSIS 3.0
FABR: 07/2018
S/N: 11818685850055809805
MODELO: TC7337NET, HW 3.00
DOCSIS 3.0
FABR.: 02/2018.
S/N: 318040755672
Esta visita foi para substituir um modem com defeito:
HUMAX DO BRASIL INDÚSTRIA ELETRÔNICA LTDA.
MODELO: HGB10R-02 [ClaroNET],
FABR: 07/2018
S/N: 11818685850055809805
com um novo modem:
TECHNICOLOR BRASIL MIDIA Emprendimientos LTDA.,
MODELO: TC7337NET, HW 3.00,
FABR: 02/2018,
S/N: 318040755672
A visita técnica para este fim não é cobrada. Como já paguei a conta, será necessário que você me credite esse valor nas duas contas seguintes. Eu vou aceitar isso.
Analysis So Far
Claro Cell Phone
Transaction type: Debit Card
Agency [VENDA]: Banca Parreiras
CPNJ: 47.614.949/0001-45
Location: Belo Horizonte-MG
Date/Time: 18/09/2024 às 09h56
Account Type: Pós-pago
NSU Recarga: 100103010
Número do Fone: (31) 98277 9355
Service Provider: CLARO
TOTAL: R$50,00
Terminal Number: 009142 Versão 1.1.45.145
VENDA: BANCA PARREIRAS
DEBITO: R$ 50,00
Visa: ********
AUT: ******
NAME: ********
ID **********: Aprovado com senha
Visa Electron: SN **********-*.*.*.**
AD HHHHHHHHHHHHHH
ARQC HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
EC:HHHHHHHH HHHH HHHH HHHH HHHHHHHH HHHH
Data Transacão Pagamento
18/09/2024 180957 R$50,00D
Protocolo 20241442553337 de 01/10/2024 as 17:30 Você consultou Autenticação de USSD no canal *1052#
Protocolo 20241442540387 de 01/10/2024 as 17:28 Você consultou Autenticão SMS Consulte também no app, site, SAC ou lojas com CPF ou ....?
Protocolo 20241442562145 de 01/10/2024 as 17:32 Você consultou Protocolo de consulta de saldo no canal *1052#
Protocolo 20241444480616 de 02/10/2024 as 06:47 Você consultou Autenticação USSD no canal *1052#
"The protocol was previously generated via customer service and consists of 15 digits, starting with the first three digits of your contract, followed by the two digits of the year."
"Please provide a different number than that of the phone about which you are complaining, so that we can have another means of contact to speak with you and resolve your request."
VISA xxxxxxxxxxxx9555
DEBITO A VISTA
VIA - CLIENTE
CNPJ 11 185 583/0001-99 CV-000000183
RECARGA CELULAR
20/11/24 11:27:42 AUT=438551 C
VALOR R$25,00
25,00
RECARGA DE PRE-PAGO
CLARO MG
TELEFONE 31 982779355
NSU: 263132NSU OPERADORA 000099414
DATA OPERADORA 20/11/2024 11:27:38
VALIDADE 030 dias
BONUS R$ 0,00
Cliente Claro Pre. acesse
minhaclaro.com.br ou *1052#
e fique por dentro das novidades!
Dos Direitos do Consumidor: Art. 39.
É vedado ao fornecedor de produtos ou serviços, dentre outras práticas abusivas: (Redação dada pela Lei nº 8.884, de 11.6.1994)
I - condicionar o fornecimento de produto ou de serviço ao fornecimento de outro produto ou serviço, bem como, sem justa causa, a limites quantitativos;
Suppliers of products or services are prohibited from, among other abusive practices:
I - making the supply of a product or service conditional on the supply of another product or service, as well as, without just cause, on quantitative limits;
"Hello! We are updating your line, restart the device and wait up to 30 minutes for it to return to normal. If it does not return to normal, call: 1052. We remain available to help you if you have any questions or would like more information. Your message was registered under protocol number: 2025359256674. Best regards, [name]."
Response: "We are updating your line, restart the device and wait up to 30 minutes for it to return to normal."
Olá !
For details or adjustments, call: 1052. We remain available to help you if you have any questions or would like to know more information. Your message was registered under protocol number: 2025365065538.
Atenciosamente,
Mylena De Oliveira Nascimento
New Smartphone
New Service Provider
Conclusion
