Maxim Kammerer <m...@dee.su> writes: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Tom Ritter <t...@ritter.vg> wrote: >> It is unusual. If I was a betting man, I would >> put my money on them mislabeling your server or server farm as a >> spam/malware serving site. > > Indeed, malware would also be my bet, and it is apparently the reason: > http://forums.att.com/t5/Features-and-How-To/I-can-not-access-sites-from-000webhost/td-p/3842847 > > I still consider this weird. Perhaps such censorship is more > acceptable for mobile Internet in the US, where all web access is > proxified? Maybe the related Wikipedia article needs some updating: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_States#Telecommunications_and_Internet_service_companies
To submit an additional anecdote for your consideration: this time last year, AT&T (both ADSL and mobile) blocked me from my bank's online portal. I was eventually able to speak with network operations people at AT&T, who promised to correct the blockage (which was for malware at the same or a nearby host), but the problem resurfaced some weeks later. I filed a complaint with relevant details with the Federal Communications Commission, which was acknowledged, and I switched providers. dee.su is working for me from Comcast. Of course, Comcast has already faced sanction from the FCC for running deep packet inspection to discover BitTorrent users, in violationn of FCC rulings; perhaps AT&T is more daring because they have not yet faced such an enforcement action. Perhaps we could change that. -- Best, WGG
-- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu.
