CenturyLink/Qwest/Layer3 blocks Kiwi Farms

How do you find out what smaller ISPs are connected to the big ones? I have a relative who is the president of a state’s branch of a major American ISP and if they’re connected to this, I may be able to convince them to get a complaint in through that channel. No idea if that can even help, but it would certainly be more weight than I have on my own
Go to https://bgp.tools/ click on your IPv4 address and there on the Connectivity tab. There you see the Upstreams.
 
Who is your mobile provider? I use AT&T for my mobile service, with Spectrum as my home internet provider. In my case, I think both networks are getting caught in the crossfire of whatever nonsense is going on with CenturyLink.

I can access the site just fine right now, though that may change throughout the day.
U.S. Cellular. Not a nationwide carrier as far as I know.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Procrastinhater
1671813221820.png

CenturyLink has 30 days to answer to the FCC for their illicit jamming of my network access to the services hosted by 1776 Hosting, LLC.

Refresh my memory on 230. I know it's not relevant. But 230 means a website is a Platform, not a Publisher, as so long as they do not make editorial decisions about user generated content, correct? And as long as they remain a Platform (i.e., Neutral), then they are not held to the standards of a Publisher (i.e., responsible for the content).

So you could make the argument -- you'd be wrong, but you could do it -- that by deciding which websites are acceptable to go over Lumen pipe, Lumen is endorsing those websites as a Publisher. They only remain a Platform by remaining neutral -- i.e., not making editorial (AUP) decisions about the content of the websites traveling through their network without a court order mandating such action.
 
I don't have a super good grasp of criminal law, but can someone explain to me how this isn't wire fraud on a massive scale? Aren't companies like CenturyLink intentionally lying about whether the site is down to ISPs just to deprive people of their ability to access it? I don't see how that's possibly legal; it's not even a censorship/liability issue legally.
Wire fraud is related to a scheme designed intentionally to defraud someone out of money. If there's malfeasance on the part of any providers, it would more likely be a regulatory matter than a criminal one. But that's what net neutrality is intended to do - to create a regulatory framework to require neutrality, and as yet we don't have broad Federal regs or other requirements for it.
 
CenturyLink has 30 days to answer to the FCC for their illicit jamming of my network access to the services hosted by 1776 Hosting, LLC.
I bet they'll send the FCC a response in 29 days that simply says 'They violated our AUP in an unspecified way' and the FCC will pass on that message to you and say 'Hope this helps' and consider the matter settled.
 
This reminds me of Zoe Quinn in her little IRC chatroom on Christmas Day with Jake Alley and all their tranny cronies scheming on how to combat gamergaters; does liz have NOTHING better to do, even grind MMOs, on this Christmas Eve eve?
 
I was wondering what happened to this website. I have not used a VPN for a while but had to access it again. I guess they are teaching us to go all "underground hackers" again. @Null Can you put the website status on an alternative website that does not require us to sign in with a phone number to read it? Perhaps twitter?
 
This reminds me of Zoe Quinn in her little IRC chatroom on Christmas Day with Jake Alley and all their tranny cronies scheming on how to combat gamergaters; does liz have NOTHING better to do, even grind MMOs, on this Christmas Eve eve?
he's chinese, he'll just order some takeout and shoot some hrt by himself for christmas.
 
It's a nasty practice typically reserved for abusers when applied to networks they don't own. The fact that it can be done with no accountability or opportunity to appeal is ridiculous plus they don't even have to give a reason or notify anybody that they're doing it.

The argument of "private companies can do whatever they want" imo doesn't apply when your responsibility is that of a carrier. If senior management at DHL decided to create a special "Do Not Deliver" list and put troons on it specifically because they're troons, I'm sure they'd be fucking fuming as their deliveries of HRT suddenly go missing for seemingly no reason.
I get all that but how is this legal? You would think they're given the implications for abuse again. Something like this would have a serious legal attachment preventing any kind of further of abuses
 
This reminds me of Zoe Quinn in her little IRC chatroom on Christmas Day with Jake Alley and all their tranny cronies scheming on how to combat gamergaters; does liz have NOTHING better to do, even grind MMOs, on this Christmas Eve eve?
None of them have anything better to do. Think of all the 'big players' in this whole thing. They all have nobody & will be seething by themselves this Christmas.
 
Back