10 ms·

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 th

by mabbo 9y ago

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.

bb88 9y ago
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.
- wtallis 9y ago
  It does seem like quite a few ISPs are little more than WWW providers with partial email functionality.
- sjm-lbm 9y ago
  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.
  - DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
    A court might.
    - robomc 9y ago
      but they'd just call themselves a "networking communications service provider" or something, or call themselves nothing, and people will still just use them.
      - dzhiurgis 9y ago
        You can call yourself whatever you want, but these are the regulations.
        theandrewbailey 9y ago
        In the US, the internet is hardly regulated at all. ISPs can legally get away with anything.
  - adictator 9y ago
    Nothing stopping any of us from filing a class action suit against such "internet" service providers.
  - bb88 9y ago
    > but I also doubt that enough people will understand this nuance for it to really matter. Certainly that's the first step. There's options for the second step. But advertising seems like it would be the most powerful. "Why use us over AT&T? Because you're not getting the Internet. You're getting what AT&T decides you should look at." "We don't block Netflix or Hulu or a whole host of other streaming services, unlike AT&T"
    - rrix2 9y ago
      Who's advertising this when AT&T has a legal monopoly or duopoly in your town?
      - bb88 9y ago
        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?
        icebraining 9y ago
        Except they haven't, really. They can still turn on their phone and login onto Facebook and watch stuff on YouTube. Someone telling them they no longer have Internet will just sound silly.
        zentiggr 9y ago
        Oh god I really hate that that sounds so accurate in so many cases. How do we provide a kiddie day care service level for people who won't or don't want to care, and a full service level for the rest of us? Or do I owe the Internet an apology?
        topranks 9y ago
        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.
  - raquo 9y ago
    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).
    - ForHackernews 9y ago
      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.
      - colechristensen 9y ago
        It would also be punishing CloudFlare customers quite a lot. Taking a moral stand is honorable, but using your customers to do it isn't.
- desireco42 9y ago
  Great point. Like at some point Hershey was on the verge to lose ability to call it's chocolate 'milk chocolate' because it's contents didn't have enough of it and cocoa. I really love your idea.
  - gargravarr 9y ago
    "Internet-like product"
  - JackFr 9y ago
    You know what happens then . . . "Last year, a number of industry groups lobbied for a change to the FDA’s definition of chocolate — a change that would have allowed cocoa butter to be replaced with vegetable oil. At the time, Hershey’s spokesman Kirk Saville told the Harrisburg Patriot-News that “there are high-quality oils available which are equal to or better than cocoa butter in taste, nutrition, texture and function, and are preferred by consumers.”" https://www.today.com/food/chocoholics-sour-new-hersheys-formula-2D80555560 https://www.today.com/food/chocoholics-sour-new-hersheys-for...
- colordrops 9y ago
  Do you think anyone will notice or care if Spectrum or Verizon stops using the term ISP to describe themselves?
- tekproxy 9y ago
  I'm fine with this. It's fraud otherwise.
- tekproxy 9y ago
  Organic, fair trade, vegan, gluten free internet service provider
- SturgeonsLaw 9y ago
  Made From Reconstituted Internet
- xg15 9y ago
  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?)
  - bb88 9y ago
    > 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. They'd also become unreliable and untrustworthy. "Mom, I'm going over to Timmy's house tonight. They have _good_ Internet"
    - gargravarr 9y ago
      "Mom, I'm going over to Timmy's house tonight. They have more internet, not just Facebook!"
      - xg15 9y ago
        "Hold on... they have what?! I'll talk with Timmy's mother - and you don't go anywhere. The nerve of her to her own child roam around unsecured just like that. What if you'd hit one of those pedophile sites?" (Meanwhile this whole exchange is probably already obsolete because who visits their people's houses when you have phones?)
    - ge0rg 9y ago
      "Mom, we need to move downtown, where there are two competing shady ISPs and not just the one we've got here, so we can buy different packages from both to get 95% of the Internet we need."
  - stickdogg 9y ago
    No doubt. That is absolutely how it would work out.
- userbinator 9y ago
  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.
thaumasiotes 9y ago
Are they blocking 8.8.8.8? Why do you think they're blocking 1.1.1.1?
- outworlder 9y ago
  Because users were able to connect and after the firmware update they are not? And also because they didn't even let you change this setting to begin with. There is not enough data to attribute this to malice yet, but it does not look good (see CloudFlare's tweet).
  - xienze 9y ago
    And they singled out this one instead of Google’s, which has been around since well before NN existed and is far more well-known, because...? I remember seeing talk about this on dslreports a couple weeks ago, IIRC it’s not a deliberate block, they were using this IP or a range internally.
- mabbo 9y ago
  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.
  - tinalumfoil 9y ago
    > 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 be a technical issue. But even if 1.1.1.1 is taking off more than 8.8.8.8 did, your assuming the DNS queries people are sending are secure anyway. I'll admit I'm not completely up-to-date on the whole "DNS over TLS" thing but I haven't noticed any support for it on my fully-updated Windows machine or Android phone. I'd love for someone to correct me, but I don't believe any major electronics ship with secure DNS by default. If people are sending DNS queries unencrypted the ISPs can just sniff them.
driverdan 9y ago
Maybe something about being neutral on the internet.
- userbinator 9y ago
  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 harder...
  - timmytim 9y ago
    I would guess it has something to do with cisco asking them to help alleviate issues with their 1.1.1.1 squatting on a bunch of devices. I tested it when it came out, and if I set my DNS to 1.1.1.1, then logged into a hotel wireless network (that I knew was running those devices), as soon as a request was made, I was logged out of the captive portal. I would have expected 1.1.1.1 to already be blocked if anyone filters on bogon-space (or has dealt with i Is there a database of who blocks what? I searched but didn't find a collection anywhere. Unless we are looking at port 25 and whatnot. Yes, it is not allowing you to use a (not technically)-arbitrary port, but most would agree that the internet is better off for that.
    - colechristensen 9y ago
      1/8 hasn't been "bogus" since 1/2010. ( http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml 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.
      - notdonspaulding 9y ago
        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.
vinniejames 9y ago
You mean like net neutrality?
- komali2 9y ago
  Thatsthejoke.jpeg
dilap 9y ago
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.
- radicaldreamer 9y ago
  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.
  - tialaramex 9y ago
    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.
    - Brotkrumen 9y ago
      The digital economy act 2017 requires porn with "insufficient" age verification to be blocked. Required by law. So exactly what parent said, happened.
      - tialaramex 9y ago
        Nope. It's fascinating how many people believe this, but it isn't what that law says, and so sure enough such sites are accessible via my ISP. The ISP is required by law to provide some means by which consumers can choose not to be able to access "adult" content. It does this during sign up, if you pick "Yes, block adult content" it informs you that they choose not to do business with you and suggest you use a different ISP.
Moru 9y ago
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.
- hvidgaard 9y ago
  Look at it the other way around. They're blocking everything except Facebook. It's the same, but instead of 1 IP, they're blocking almost everything.
  - Moru 9y ago
    Yes, that is what I'm trying to say. They have been battling it out in court for two years and lost so far. Still free bandwidth for facebook though.
- proaralyst 9y ago
  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.
- Zolomon 9y ago
  Source of this news, please?
  - dosshell 9y ago
    In swedish: https://www.svd.se/telia-fortsatter-att-ge-facebook-fordelar https://www.svd.se/telia-fortsatter-att-ge-facebook-fordelar (note that its not an article but a debate post)
- giggsey 9y ago
  Certain mobile ISPs are advertising this as a feature in the UK.
simias 9y ago
>in order to promote their own business model. What's the theory exactly? What would be the benefit for AT&T to block a new 3rd party DNS? Did they do similar things in the past for other 3rd party DNSs such as OpenDNS, Quad9 or Google's? Seems odd to target this one service in particular.
- rsynnott 9y ago
  I would think that being able to see what people are looking up would be quite valuable to an ISP; would help with customer profiling and selling ads. The ship may have sailed on blocking 8.8.8.8 at this point; some things _hard-code_ it.
  - xienze 9y ago
    > I would think that being able to see what people are looking up would be quite valuable to an ISP Definitely. So if this truly was their strategy, why are they blocking 1.1.1.1 instead of pointing it at their own DNS? It would be less immediately obvious what’s happening versus outright blockage. I really think people are prematurely attributing this to nefariousness.
csomar 9y ago
Isn't that what net neutrality is all about?
- mildweed 9y ago
  That's the joke
ctdonath 9y ago
Then take your business elsewhere. There are options.
- larrik 9y ago
  There really aren't for most people.

by mabbo 9y ago

bb88 9y ago

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.

wtallis 9y ago
It does seem like quite a few ISPs are little more than WWW providers with partial email functionality.
sjm-lbm 9y ago
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.
- DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
  A court might.
  - robomc 9y ago
    but they'd just call themselves a "networking communications service provider" or something, or call themselves nothing, and people will still just use them.
    - dzhiurgis 9y ago
      You can call yourself whatever you want, but these are the regulations.
      - theandrewbailey 9y ago
        In the US, the internet is hardly regulated at all. ISPs can legally get away with anything.
- adictator 9y ago
  Nothing stopping any of us from filing a class action suit against such "internet" service providers.
- bb88 9y ago
  > but I also doubt that enough people will understand this nuance for it to really matter. Certainly that's the first step. There's options for the second step. But advertising seems like it would be the most powerful. "Why use us over AT&T? Because you're not getting the Internet. You're getting what AT&T decides you should look at." "We don't block Netflix or Hulu or a whole host of other streaming services, unlike AT&T"
  - rrix2 9y ago
    Who's advertising this when AT&T has a legal monopoly or duopoly in your town?
    - bb88 9y ago
      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?
      - icebraining 9y ago
        Except they haven't, really. They can still turn on their phone and login onto Facebook and watch stuff on YouTube. Someone telling them they no longer have Internet will just sound silly.
        zentiggr 9y ago
        Oh god I really hate that that sounds so accurate in so many cases. How do we provide a kiddie day care service level for people who won't or don't want to care, and a full service level for the rest of us? Or do I owe the Internet an apology?
      - topranks 9y ago
        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.
- raquo 9y ago
  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).
  - ForHackernews 9y ago
    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.
    - colechristensen 9y ago
      It would also be punishing CloudFlare customers quite a lot. Taking a moral stand is honorable, but using your customers to do it isn't.
desireco42 9y ago
Great point. Like at some point Hershey was on the verge to lose ability to call it's chocolate 'milk chocolate' because it's contents didn't have enough of it and cocoa. I really love your idea.
- gargravarr 9y ago
  "Internet-like product"
- JackFr 9y ago
  You know what happens then . . . "Last year, a number of industry groups lobbied for a change to the FDA’s definition of chocolate — a change that would have allowed cocoa butter to be replaced with vegetable oil. At the time, Hershey’s spokesman Kirk Saville told the Harrisburg Patriot-News that “there are high-quality oils available which are equal to or better than cocoa butter in taste, nutrition, texture and function, and are preferred by consumers.”" https://www.today.com/food/chocoholics-sour-new-hersheys-formula-2D80555560 https://www.today.com/food/chocoholics-sour-new-hersheys-for...
colordrops 9y ago
Do you think anyone will notice or care if Spectrum or Verizon stops using the term ISP to describe themselves?
tekproxy 9y ago
I'm fine with this. It's fraud otherwise.
tekproxy 9y ago
Organic, fair trade, vegan, gluten free internet service provider
SturgeonsLaw 9y ago
Made From Reconstituted Internet
xg15 9y ago
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?)
- bb88 9y ago
  > 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. They'd also become unreliable and untrustworthy. "Mom, I'm going over to Timmy's house tonight. They have _good_ Internet"
  - gargravarr 9y ago
    "Mom, I'm going over to Timmy's house tonight. They have more internet, not just Facebook!"
    - xg15 9y ago
      "Hold on... they have what?! I'll talk with Timmy's mother - and you don't go anywhere. The nerve of her to her own child roam around unsecured just like that. What if you'd hit one of those pedophile sites?" (Meanwhile this whole exchange is probably already obsolete because who visits their people's houses when you have phones?)
  - ge0rg 9y ago
    "Mom, we need to move downtown, where there are two competing shady ISPs and not just the one we've got here, so we can buy different packages from both to get 95% of the Internet we need."
- stickdogg 9y ago
  No doubt. That is absolutely how it would work out.
userbinator 9y ago
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.

thaumasiotes 9y ago

Are they blocking 8.8.8.8? Why do you think they're blocking 1.1.1.1?

outworlder 9y ago
Because users were able to connect and after the firmware update they are not? And also because they didn't even let you change this setting to begin with. There is not enough data to attribute this to malice yet, but it does not look good (see CloudFlare's tweet).
- xienze 9y ago
  And they singled out this one instead of Google’s, which has been around since well before NN existed and is far more well-known, because...? I remember seeing talk about this on dslreports a couple weeks ago, IIRC it’s not a deliberate block, they were using this IP or a range internally.
mabbo 9y ago
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.
- tinalumfoil 9y ago
  > 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 be a technical issue. But even if 1.1.1.1 is taking off more than 8.8.8.8 did, your assuming the DNS queries people are sending are secure anyway. I'll admit I'm not completely up-to-date on the whole "DNS over TLS" thing but I haven't noticed any support for it on my fully-updated Windows machine or Android phone. I'd love for someone to correct me, but I don't believe any major electronics ship with secure DNS by default. If people are sending DNS queries unencrypted the ISPs can just sniff them.

driverdan 9y ago

Maybe something about being neutral on the internet.

userbinator 9y ago
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 harder...
- timmytim 9y ago
  I would guess it has something to do with cisco asking them to help alleviate issues with their 1.1.1.1 squatting on a bunch of devices. I tested it when it came out, and if I set my DNS to 1.1.1.1, then logged into a hotel wireless network (that I knew was running those devices), as soon as a request was made, I was logged out of the captive portal. I would have expected 1.1.1.1 to already be blocked if anyone filters on bogon-space (or has dealt with i Is there a database of who blocks what? I searched but didn't find a collection anywhere. Unless we are looking at port 25 and whatnot. Yes, it is not allowing you to use a (not technically)-arbitrary port, but most would agree that the internet is better off for that.
  - colechristensen 9y ago
    1/8 hasn't been "bogus" since 1/2010. ( http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml 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.
    - notdonspaulding 9y ago
      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.

vinniejames 9y ago

You mean like net neutrality?

komali2 9y ago
Thatsthejoke.jpeg

dilap 9y ago

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.

radicaldreamer 9y ago
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.
- tialaramex 9y ago
  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.
  - Brotkrumen 9y ago
    The digital economy act 2017 requires porn with "insufficient" age verification to be blocked. Required by law. So exactly what parent said, happened.
    - tialaramex 9y ago
      Nope. It's fascinating how many people believe this, but it isn't what that law says, and so sure enough such sites are accessible via my ISP. The ISP is required by law to provide some means by which consumers can choose not to be able to access "adult" content. It does this during sign up, if you pick "Yes, block adult content" it informs you that they choose not to do business with you and suggest you use a different ISP.

Moru 9y ago

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.

hvidgaard 9y ago
Look at it the other way around. They're blocking everything except Facebook. It's the same, but instead of 1 IP, they're blocking almost everything.
- Moru 9y ago
  Yes, that is what I'm trying to say. They have been battling it out in court for two years and lost so far. Still free bandwidth for facebook though.
proaralyst 9y ago
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.
Zolomon 9y ago
Source of this news, please?
- dosshell 9y ago
  In swedish: https://www.svd.se/telia-fortsatter-att-ge-facebook-fordelar https://www.svd.se/telia-fortsatter-att-ge-facebook-fordelar (note that its not an article but a debate post)
giggsey 9y ago
Certain mobile ISPs are advertising this as a feature in the UK.

simias 9y ago

>in order to promote their own business model. What's the theory exactly? What would be the benefit for AT&T to block a new 3rd party DNS? Did they do similar things in the past for other 3rd party DNSs such as OpenDNS, Quad9 or Google's? Seems odd to target this one service in particular.

rsynnott 9y ago
I would think that being able to see what people are looking up would be quite valuable to an ISP; would help with customer profiling and selling ads. The ship may have sailed on blocking 8.8.8.8 at this point; some things _hard-code_ it.
- xienze 9y ago
  > I would think that being able to see what people are looking up would be quite valuable to an ISP Definitely. So if this truly was their strategy, why are they blocking 1.1.1.1 instead of pointing it at their own DNS? It would be less immediately obvious what’s happening versus outright blockage. I really think people are prematurely attributing this to nefariousness.

csomar 9y ago

Isn't that what net neutrality is all about?

mildweed 9y ago
That's the joke

ctdonath 9y ago

Then take your business elsewhere. There are options.

larrik 9y ago
There really aren't for most people.