Live data from Hacker News

AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

dslreports.com

281–290 of 382 posts

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

#281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's not just malice but doubly so: they used an IP they didn't have the rights to and they're now blocking proper users of it.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

Except when it is AT&T. Then you can just assume it was more malicious than you even originally thought

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

#282
post #14
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.

In many parts of southeast Asia you can find plenty of "web access" providers that literally give you a private IP behind a NAT in their "LAN", and they are much cheaper than "real Internet". Free WiFi is almost always a similar thing. They are sometimes called InterNAT instead of Internet service.

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

#283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe something about being neutral on the internet.

Net neutrality started disappearing long before it was even called "net neutrality" --- a lot of residential ISPs won't even let others send packets to the full 64K port range of TCP/UDP to the IP it gives you, blocking some of them for "security reasons", throttling/cutting off certain protocols like BitTorrent, censoring "malicious" sites, etc. If we want true Internet connections we're going to have to fight a lot…

The problem is that "we" understand the issue, but Joe & Jane Suburbanite have absolutely no clue about any of it and when they vote, they vote for the guy with the nicest hair.

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

#284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe something about being neutral on the internet.

Net neutrality started disappearing long before it was even called "net neutrality" --- a lot of residential ISPs won't even let others send packets to the full 64K port range of TCP/UDP to the IP it gives you, blocking some of them for "security reasons", throttling/cutting off certain protocols like BitTorrent, censoring "malicious" sites, etc. If we want true Internet connections we're going to have to fight a lot…

At&t routers are complete garbage anyways. I've literally had the following conversation with a csr:

Me: hi can you open up some ports on my router? CSR: sure which port? Me: all of them

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

#285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1/8 hasn't been "bogus" since 1/2010. ( http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-addr... ) Using unallocated IPs for "internal" or bogus purposes is sketchy, continuing to use them after they are allocated is something else. Especially so nearly a decade on.

The wheels of technological change in the Telecom space turn very, VERY slowly. Not upgrading equipment and configs for 10 years is nothing in the ISP world.

You'd be scarily surprised just how much telecommunications runs on Perl5 ranging around the ~150GB level.

I had my stint at an ISP that worked with around 40 state level and national orgs. I saw the underbelly of how things work, and its frankly scary.

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

#286
post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

That would be less of a problem if most US elections weren't duopolies as well.

Plus the agitprop--the media hates the Internet and always depicts it as an accomplice in crimes. So the "real" Internet would be portrayed as the dark web, full of unseemly crooks, gangsters, child molesters, etc. You wanting "full Internet" would imply that you're a pedophile. And you're not a pedo, are you?

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

#287

This isn't malice. AT&T has an internal IP they assigned to 1.1.1.1 because it was unused and they used it as an image caching proxy so it browsing the internet would feel faster on early phones. I've seen it when I was reverse engineering on Android a while back.

then it's stupidity and malice.

stupid to think using the IP was a good idea

malice to break my device in order to paper over their stupidity.

And from a telecom no less - of all people, they should know better.

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

#288

This isn't malice. AT&T has an internal IP they assigned to 1.1.1.1 because it was unused and they used it as an image caching proxy so it browsing the internet would feel faster on early phones. I've seen it when I was reverse engineering on Android a while back.

You are wrong, that is obviously not the cause.

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

#289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's not just malice but doubly so: they used an IP they didn't have the rights to and they're now blocking proper users of it.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

It's stupidity, then malice as a cover-up.

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

#290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wheels of technological change in the Telecom space turn very, VERY slowly. Not upgrading equipment and configs for 10 years is nothing in the ISP world.

You'd be scarily surprised just how much telecommunications runs on Perl5 ranging around the ~150GB level. I had my stint at an ISP that worked with around 40 state level and national orgs. I saw the underbelly of how things work, and its frankly scary.

Nothing wrong with Perl5 though.
Post reply on HN