3 ms·

How is this not illegal?

by noobermin 9y ago

awat 9y ago
That’s what I want to know. I’ll save the soapbox speech and just leave it at isn’t this why monopoly laws exist?
- nv-vn 9y ago
  The issue is that the cable companies have monopolies set in law already. There are numerous regulations designed to stop any new last-mile telecom companies from starting up, which literally guarantees a monopoly for the few companies that already exist in the vast majority of the US. As good as Net Neutrality sounds in theory, all we really need to do is drop the regulations and allow new players to enter the game and the market will fix it for itself.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- komali2 9y ago
  Unenforced laws might as well not exist. See: Monopoly/duopoly of telecom in the USA, net neutrality protections, and the speed limit signs on 280.
  - mr_spothawk 9y ago
    > Unenforced laws might as well not exist. until they are selectively enforced.
AFNobody 9y ago
Republicans showed they wouldn't enforce net neutrality regulations so there isn't fear of Govt action.
bb88 9y ago
Because as it stands right now, AT&T sells you access to their network. What happens on their network is for AT&T to decide. With the FCC striking down net neutrality [1], AT&T is probably testing out the waters. [1] According to google, it's defined as: "the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites."
- nv-vn 9y ago
  They've done this before, during, and after net neutrality. AT&T regularly blocks entire ranges at the IP level because they are "suspected of cyberattacks." I've frequently had issues with web hosts who are blocked only on AT&T, and this was the case in October-November (before the FCC vote) while I was launching a new site.
- stefan_ 9y ago
  If you can construe some horizontal where Cloudflare and AT&T are competitors it could of course still be illegal for AT&T to block the others services simply under antitrust law.
  - jjeaff 9y ago
    I'm sure ATT has cdn or similar services.
- mattmanser 9y ago
  NN hasn't actually been struck off yet though, it's still on the books isn't it? Pai needs to sign something and for some reason he hasn't. It was in the news a few days back.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> How is this not illegal? Well, since the formal repeal of net neutrality has been delayed, I think it technically is a violation of the no-blocking rule. OTOH, it's not like the FCC is enforcing net neutrality while delaying the official effect of its repeal.
jopsen 9y ago
Let's give them the benefit of the doubt, it's probably incompetence ;)
- noobermin 9y ago
  Low in the thread but is this a possibility?
- nitrogen 9y ago
  Incompetence or intent, if there was a penalty for this kind of thing you'd see it happen a lot less.
hedora 9y ago
The routers in question are the only ones I’ve encountered that are incompatible with my home router. Clearly, they’re discriminating against certain client devices, and were under the Obama administration too. However, the documentation says it should work, and AT&T won’t provide support. They’ve been getting away with this for years, so I guess plausible deniability (it is “just a bug”) can work wonders in this space.

How is this not illegal?

awat 9y ago

That’s what I want to know. I’ll save the soapbox speech and just leave it at isn’t this why monopoly laws exist?

nv-vn 9y ago
The issue is that the cable companies have monopolies set in law already. There are numerous regulations designed to stop any new last-mile telecom companies from starting up, which literally guarantees a monopoly for the few companies that already exist in the vast majority of the US. As good as Net Neutrality sounds in theory, all we really need to do is drop the regulations and allow new players to enter the game and the market will fix it for itself.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
komali2 9y ago
Unenforced laws might as well not exist. See: Monopoly/duopoly of telecom in the USA, net neutrality protections, and the speed limit signs on 280.
- mr_spothawk 9y ago
  > Unenforced laws might as well not exist. until they are selectively enforced.

AFNobody 9y ago

Republicans showed they wouldn't enforce net neutrality regulations so there isn't fear of Govt action.

bb88 9y ago

Because as it stands right now, AT&T sells you access to their network. What happens on their network is for AT&T to decide. With the FCC striking down net neutrality [1], AT&T is probably testing out the waters. [1] According to google, it's defined as: "the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites."

nv-vn 9y ago
They've done this before, during, and after net neutrality. AT&T regularly blocks entire ranges at the IP level because they are "suspected of cyberattacks." I've frequently had issues with web hosts who are blocked only on AT&T, and this was the case in October-November (before the FCC vote) while I was launching a new site.
stefan_ 9y ago
If you can construe some horizontal where Cloudflare and AT&T are competitors it could of course still be illegal for AT&T to block the others services simply under antitrust law.
- jjeaff 9y ago
  I'm sure ATT has cdn or similar services.
mattmanser 9y ago
NN hasn't actually been struck off yet though, it's still on the books isn't it? Pai needs to sign something and for some reason he hasn't. It was in the news a few days back.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> How is this not illegal? Well, since the formal repeal of net neutrality has been delayed, I think it technically is a violation of the no-blocking rule. OTOH, it's not like the FCC is enforcing net neutrality while delaying the official effect of its repeal.

jopsen 9y ago

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt, it's probably incompetence ;)

noobermin 9y ago
Low in the thread but is this a possibility?
nitrogen 9y ago
Incompetence or intent, if there was a penalty for this kind of thing you'd see it happen a lot less.

hedora 9y ago

The routers in question are the only ones I’ve encountered that are incompatible with my home router. Clearly, they’re discriminating against certain client devices, and were under the Obama administration too. However, the documentation says it should work, and AT&T won’t provide support. They’ve been getting away with this for years, so I guess plausible deniability (it is “just a bug”) can work wonders in this space.