AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1 • Hacker News Board

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#221

Post by bb88 » Thu, May 03, 2018, 7:43 AM UTC

topranks wrote: post #215

bb88 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The arguments for anti-net-neutrality has basically come down to "let the free market sort it out." I don't agree with that, but if we can't have net neutrality, at least define to the customers what the "internet" means. And in that case, the town just lost it's internet. What makes you think the residents won't remember this come election day?

The problem with the "let the market decide" is that there is no free market for Internet access in the US! In most areas there is effectively a government imposed monopoly on who can provide you access. So there is no "market" to normalise things. You simply cannot vote with your feet. In Europe, where the regulatory framework is different, people would just switch ISPs if one started acting in bad faith.

>In most areas there is effectively a government imposed monopoly on who can provide you access.

And that government is elected by the people, right? Which means they could make this an election issue and vote candidates that don't support monopolies, right?

I don't understand what part of my statement you're arguing with.

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#222

Post by paulmd » Thu, May 03, 2018, 7:44 AM UTC

tinalumfoil wrote: post #25

mabbo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they'll block 8.8.8.8 if the anger for blocking 1.1.1.1 isn't too loud. I think they're blocking 1.1.1.1 because customers are now using DNS that isn't them, which deprives them of valuable data on which domain names their customers go to, which they can sell to advertisers. Yes, there's other ways to get that information but the DNS server is an easy one.

> I think they'll block 8.8.8.8 if the anger for blocking 1.1.1.1 isn't too loud. On what basis? Google started Google Public DNS in 2009 and, as far as I know, it was never intentionally blocked by any ISPs. The issue with 1.1.1.1 is a lot of hardware treats it as though it was reserved for private networks. For instance, I can't access 1.1.1.1 right now since I'm connected to a Cisco router. So this could very well…

> On what basis? Google started Google Public DNS in 2009 and, as far as I know, it was never intentionally blocked by any ISPs.

Net Neutrality wasn't considered much of an issue back then, it was just taken for granted (and the administration at the time was attempting to enforce it as vigorously as possible).

Forcing independent internet technical infrastructure off the internet and through their own proprietary infrastructure would be the opening shot you would expect if they wanted to open that battle. After all, you gotta boil the frog slowly, and nobody but a tiny minority of technical users would really care about not being able to use third-party DNS servers.

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#223

Post by proaralyst » Thu, May 03, 2018, 7:49 AM UTC

Moru wrote: post #212

mabbo wrote: post #8

I wonder if anyone has considered some sort of legislation whereby internet service providers are not allowed to block or disrupt service to certain parts of the internet in order to promote their own business model.

This is almost funny. We have the exact opposite problem in Sweden, it was just in the news today. One ISP has been convicted for allowing access to facebook even though the user has reached it's data limit for the month. This is unfair competition since the local swedish newspapers are still blocked when you reach your limit.

That's exactly the problem: Facebook holds a special position on that ISP. Imagine a new social network trying to compete. If users can access Facebook when they can't access the new social network it's yet another reason to avoid switching.

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#224

Post by Zolomon » Thu, May 03, 2018, 7:52 AM UTC

Moru wrote: post #212

mabbo wrote: post #8

I wonder if anyone has considered some sort of legislation whereby internet service providers are not allowed to block or disrupt service to certain parts of the internet in order to promote their own business model.

This is almost funny. We have the exact opposite problem in Sweden, it was just in the news today. One ISP has been convicted for allowing access to facebook even though the user has reached it's data limit for the month. This is unfair competition since the local swedish newspapers are still blocked when you reach your limit.

Source of this news, please?

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#225

Post by giggsey » Thu, May 03, 2018, 8:02 AM UTC

Moru wrote: post #212

mabbo wrote: post #8

I wonder if anyone has considered some sort of legislation whereby internet service providers are not allowed to block or disrupt service to certain parts of the internet in order to promote their own business model.

This is almost funny. We have the exact opposite problem in Sweden, it was just in the news today. One ISP has been convicted for allowing access to facebook even though the user has reached it's data limit for the month. This is unfair competition since the local swedish newspapers are still blocked when you reach your limit.

Certain mobile ISPs are advertising this as a feature in the UK.

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#226

Post by SturgeonsLaw » Thu, May 03, 2018, 8:26 AM UTC

bb88 wrote: post #14

mabbo wrote: post #8

I wonder if anyone has considered some sort of legislation whereby internet service providers are not allowed to block or disrupt service to certain parts of the internet in order to promote their own business model.

The argument I've made is that if they're blocking certain parts of the internet, then they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves an Internet Service Provider.

Made From Reconstituted Internet

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#227

Post by dosshell » Thu, May 03, 2018, 8:27 AM UTC

Zolomon wrote: post #224

Moru wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is almost funny. We have the exact opposite problem in Sweden, it was just in the news today. One ISP has been convicted for allowing access to facebook even though the user has reached it's data limit for the month. This is unfair competition since the local swedish newspapers are still blocked when you reach your limit.

Source of this news, please?

In swedish: https://www.svd.se/telia-fortsatter-att-ge-facebook-fordelar

(note that its not an article but a debate post)

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#228

Post by xg15 » Thu, May 03, 2018, 8:31 AM UTC

bb88 wrote: post #14

mabbo wrote: post #8

I wonder if anyone has considered some sort of legislation whereby internet service providers are not allowed to block or disrupt service to certain parts of the internet in order to promote their own business model.

The argument I've made is that if they're blocking certain parts of the internet, then they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves an Internet Service Provider.

I think ISPs would be welcoming to that change. They'd market as "WWW-Providers" or "Social media providers" and most people would be happy.

But hey, if you have advanced needs, no problem, let me refer you too our Gaming Provider and Streaming Provider subsidiaries.

Oh you need actual technical access to the internet because you write your own software? Tricky, but I'm sure our Business Technology Services Provider subsidiary will have the service you need. (You do have a business, right?)

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#229

Post by tialaramex » Thu, May 03, 2018, 8:33 AM UTC

radicaldreamer wrote: post #94

dilap wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NN seems like probably a good idea, but it's crazy to me how the whole internet went crazy over something with at-most marginal effects, but barely a peep over FOSTA which has already taken out vast swathes of valuable websites, craigslist personals perhaps most notably.

It's very unfortunate that people are simply fatigued of fighting this fight. Also see the UK as well for an example of how previously unregulated speech has become regulated because the authorities have pushed over and over again, backing off every time there's a loud enough protest, but trying again after a short time.

All the stuff in the UK is voluntary (except the traffic analysis snooping stuff, but that's centralised and the Americans were doing that to their own citizens when it was theoretically illegal, so, meh). All the big famous ISPs you see advertising on TV have decided to volunteer to censor, but it's not a law. Smaller specialist ISPs just say "No". Mine even had a thing saying look at this great endorsement and it was a link to Hansard (the official parliamentary record) where a Peer was moaning that bad people can get uncensored Internet service from that ISP and the law doesn't stop them.

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#230

Post by ForHackernews » Thu, May 03, 2018, 8:33 AM UTC

raquo wrote: post #202

sjm-lbm wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've made this argument before (and it does make some sense), but I also doubt that enough people will understand this nuance for it to really matter.

Maybe not-really-ISPs should be made ineligible for certain privileges / rights given to real ISPs. Like not-really-doctors can't do everything that real doctors can (grasping for a better analogy).

Other entities could punish them by revoking peering agreements. Or if CloudFlare wanted to play hardball, they could deny access to their CDN from AT&T IP ranges. That would be punishing AT&T customers further, but it would get their attention quickly and they'd complain to their ISP.