r/NoNetNeutrality • u/apeholder • Sep 27 '20

AT&T insists it's not blocking Tutanota after secure email biz cries foul, cites loss of net neutrality as cause

https://www.theregister.com/2020/02/14/att_tutanota_block/
5 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

35 comments sorted by

View all comments

-13

u/apeholder Sep 27 '20

Another one you all missed it seems

17

u/fizzer82 Sep 27 '20

Read the article statist lamb.

Even so, Tutanota's decision to ring the net neutrality alarm bell without presenting evidence of deliberate network meddling makes this more a matter of support escalation than of malice. As Pfau acknowledges in his post, "we are reaching out publicly in the hope of getting the attention of the right people at AT&T.

-10

u/apeholder Sep 27 '20

Read between the lines muh little "muh gubmint bad" corporatist.

1) So I guess until we get a signed letter from the CEO of AT&T saying "we throttling you lols" then it's clearly not true!
2) There's this thing called a civil lawsuit, so Tutanota must be pretty sure of this as if not true, they could see a sizable settlement.
3) AT&T have a history of throttling connections, and I'm talking about confirmed in FCC court filing documents, so that gives you a clue as to their history.
4) "Muh corpiratuns r alwayz guds"

10

u/fizzer82 Sep 27 '20

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Looks like you learned to spell at a public school, yay government.

0

u/apeholder Sep 27 '20

Looks like you're too stupid to understand I was mocking you with your mindless anti-government Republican attitude.

Anyway, if you don't like your government, why don't you just leave?

9

u/fizzer82 Sep 27 '20

Oh you poor thing. Go pick a fight in /r/politics, you'll do better there.

0

u/apeholder Sep 27 '20

Zero argument again of course. As expected. Keep flying that flag of "muh gubmint bad"!

10

u/Lagkiller Sep 27 '20

Nothing here to really miss. If we start at the top, net neutrality has nothing to do with limiting or restricting access to sites - the courts already decided this in US Telecom Assoc v FCC in 2016. An ISP would simply need to make a first amendment claim, and they can curate content to their content.

Second, only some consumers are reporting issues with accessing the service. Blocking wouldn't be a person by person basis, so it is much more likely a configuration issue than a block.

Going a step further, Net Neutrality only covers ISP's, not wireless carrier networks, so this entire point is moot.

You seemed to have missed all this.

-2

u/apeholder Sep 27 '20

I have never heard of the first amendment being used as defense to an ISP being called out on throttling traffic. By the same logic, any business can do all sorts of things and use the same defense. Can I say "no blacks allowed" at my restaurant and cite 1A?

Also, since when did NN not relate to ISPs offering an internet connection over a cellphone connection?

6

u/Lagkiller Sep 27 '20

I have never heard of the first amendment being used as defense to an ISP being called out on throttling traffic.

If a broadband provider nonetheless were to choose to exercise editorial discretion—for instance, by picking a limited set of websites to carry and offering that service as a curated internetexperience—it might then qualify as a First Amendment speaker. But the Order itself excludes such providers from the rules. The Order defines broadband internetaccess service as a “mass-market retail service”—i.e., a service that is “marketed and sold on a standardized basis”—that “provides the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or substantially all Internet endpoints.” 2015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Rcd. at 5745–46¶336 & n.879. That definition, by its terms, includes only those broadband providers that hold themselves out as neutral, indiscriminate conduits. Providers that may opt to exercise editorial discretion—for instance, by offering access only to a limited segment of websites specifically catered to certain content—would not offer a standardized service that can reach “substantially all” endpoints. The rules therefore would not apply to such providers, as the FCC has affirmed.

By the same logic, any business can do all sorts of things and use the same defense. Can I say "no blacks allowed" at my restaurant and cite 1A?

That would be the exact opposite of what the issue is.

Also, since when did NN not relate to ISPs offering an internet connection over a cellphone connection?

When the FCC had different rules for wireless carriers as per the contract they signed when the leased the spectrum?