It's not just Facetime, there's all manner of related stuff. <a href="https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history" rel="nofollow">https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio...</a><p>Each time I see a NN post I'm generally too late and it's been run rampant with defenders of "light touch" regulation... no, just no. If the companies had competition, then, maybe. Sadly they're entrenched monopolies (and more are merging each day, further limiting choice). NN is the way to go.
I'd forgotten this! The dark ages of iPhone on AT&T. Seems... quant, now, doesn't it?<p><pre><code> We never will, but it’s very important that we be able
to. But we won’t. So let us do it. Because we won’t do
it. Which is why we’re spending so much money to make
sure we can. But we won’t. But let us.
</code></pre>
<a href="https://twitter.com/loresjoberg/status/933784794713821184" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/loresjoberg/status/933784794713821184</a>
3 years ago, timewarner was doing the same thing[1]. They throttled YouTube and then makes the page that explains it disappears from <i>THEIR</i> internet. It doesn't matter what they say about their position, they are in the business of making more money and Net Neutrality means not more money.<p>[1]:<a href="http://idiallo.com/blog/timewarner-you-suck" rel="nofollow">http://idiallo.com/blog/timewarner-you-suck</a>
Whenever discussion of this form comes up, I wonder how they can even block "applications" when their traffic is encrypted (never used FaceTime, but I'd hope that one is). They can block destinations, but I suspect this whole net neutrality thing is just going to spur more development in VPNs/tunneling/proxies/steganography/P2P.<p>A lot of ISPs block low ports like 80, 25, and 21, which is arguably in violation of net neutrality, but everyone didn't seem to care... they just used a different port.
We now need to focus on lobbying the FTC, since the FCC has made up its mind.<p>It's clear that with the effective monopolies they have, large telecoms need trade regulations.
They didn't do it via a network-level block though.<p>The function was disabled on the end-device as AT&T had the ability to control the device to that level.<p>So they'll argue it's different thing. Which in fairness it is.
I think that should be grounds to terminate a contract with the carrier. No doubt if they instantly started bleeding customers because of a stupid decision like this their minds would quickly change.