It was actually the reverse in the initial email they sent out. They were going to block and only let you access if you contacted them.
They are honestly a bunch of morons trying to cover their own asses at this point from the blowback. Obvious whose team they are doing this for. I spent a week in northern Idaho around 10 years back, and I believe they were the provider I had to use up there. Seemed like multiple layers of NAT (like one layer per tower) and I was showing up on the ‘net with an IP address from a lawyers office. Yeah... I’m used to really shitty WISP networks, but this took the cake. To be fair, they may be better now. Sent from my iPad > On Jan 12, 2021, at 3:55 PM, Lee <ler...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 1/12/21, Kevin McCormick <kmccorm...@mdtc.net> wrote: >> Imagine if Tier 1 ISPs had a censorship free clause that required companies >> like Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon to provide services free of censorship or >> have IP blocks blackholed. They would lose hundreds of millions of dollars >> per day. I bet they would reverse their tone in a hurry. >> >> https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/idaho-internet-provider-to-block-facebook-twitter-over-their-trump-bans/ > > Clickbait title. > "The company said Monday it decided to block Facebook and Twitter > for customers who request that starting next Wednesday after the > company received several calls from customers about both websites." > > The way I read it, they aren't blocking Facebook/Twitter for everyone > - the customer has to request the filter for their service. > > Regards, > Lee > >> >> Thank you, >> >> Kevin McCormick >> >> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+kmccormick=mdtc....@nanog.org> On Behalf Of mark >> seery >> Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2021 8:06 PM >> To: K. Scott Helms <kscott.he...@gmail.com> >> Cc: NANOG Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> >> Subject: Re: Parler >> >> I assume multiple networks/ ISPs that have acceptable use policies that call >> out criminality and incitement to violence, for example: >> >> https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/comcast-acceptable-use-policy >> >> Have these AUPs been invoked previously for these reasons, or would that be >> new territory? >> Sent from Mobile Device >> >> >> On Jan 10, 2021, at 2:52 PM, K. Scott Helms >> <kscott.he...@gmail.com<mailto:kscott.he...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Right, it's not a list for content hosting. >> >> Scott Helms >> >> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:42 PM >> <sro...@ronan-online.com<mailto:sro...@ronan-online.com>> wrote: >> No, this is a list for Network Operators. >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> On Jan 10, 2021, at 5:32 PM, K. Scott Helms >> <kscott.he...@gmail.com<mailto:kscott.he...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> This is a list for pushing bits. The fact that many/most of us have other >> businesses doesn't make this an appropriate forum for SIP issues (to use my >> own work as an example). >> >> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 4:52 PM >> <sro...@ronan-online.com<mailto:sro...@ronan-online.com>> wrote: >> This is a list for Network Operators, AWS certainly operates networks. >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> On Jan 10, 2021, at 4:27 PM, K. Scott Helms >> <kscott.he...@gmail.com<mailto:kscott.he...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> No, >> >> It really does not. Section 230 only applies to publishers, and not to >> network providers. If this were a cloud hosting provider list then you'd be >> correct, but as a network provider's list it does not belong here. >> >> >> Scott Helms >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 3:21 PM Lady Benjamin PD Cannon >> <b...@6by7.net<mailto:b...@6by7.net>> wrote: >> As network operations and compute/cloud/hosting operations continue to >> coalesce, I very much disagree with you. Section 230 is absolutely >> relevant, this discussion is timely and relevant, and it directly affects me >> as both a telecom and cloud compute/services provider. >> >> >> —L.B. >> >> Lady Benjamin PD Cannon, ASCE >> 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC >> CEO >> b...@6by7.net<mailto:b...@6by7.net> >> "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in >> the world.” >> FCC License KJ6FJJ >> >> >> <Speedtest9118.png> >> <Ben LIC.png> >> >> >> On Jan 10, 2021, at 12:13 PM, K. Scott Helms >> <kscott.he...@gmail.com<mailto:kscott.he...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> It's not, and frankly it's disappointing to see people pushing an agenda >> here. >> >> >> Scott Helms >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:37 AM >> <sro...@ronan-online.com<mailto:sro...@ronan-online.com>> wrote: >> >> >> NANOG is a group of Operators, discussion does not have to be about >> networking. I have already explained how this represents a significant issue >> for Network Operators. >> >> On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:09 AM, Mike Bolitho >> <mikeboli...@gmail.com<mailto:mikeboli...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> It has nothing to do with networking. Their decision was necessarily >> political. If you can specifically bring up an issue, beyond speculative, on >> how their new chosen CDN is somehow now causing congestion or routing issues >> on the public internet, then great. But as of now, that isn't even a thing. >> It's just best to leave it alone because it will devolve into chaos. >> >> - Mike Bolitho >> >> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 6:54 AM >> <sro...@ronan-online.com<mailto:sro...@ronan-online.com>> wrote: >> >> >> Why? This is extremely relevant to network operators and is not political at >> all. >> >> On Jan 10, 2021, at 8:51 AM, Mike Bolitho >> <mikeboli...@gmail.com<mailto:mikeboli...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> Can we please not go down this rabbit hole on here? List admins? >> >> - Mike Bolitho >> >> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 1:26 AM William Herrin >> <b...@herrin.us<mailto:b...@herrin.us>> wrote: >> >> >> Anybody looking for a new customer opportunity? It seems Parler is in >> search of a new service provider. Vendors need only provide all the >> proprietary AWS APIs that Parler depends upon to function. >> >> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-parler-suspension/ >> >> Regards, >> Bill HErrin >> >>
