These corporations have zero benefit of the doubt level of trust.
A few voices to be fair pointed out 1.1.1.1 is often incorrectly used and issues with it becoming ‘live’ mostly likely caused the outage.
Not judging this response btw, I can clearly see why ATT and other big telco wouldn’t get much leeway.
I enjoy googling a new phrase as much as the next person... but really?
From WP: Ceteris paribus or caeteris paribus is a Latin phrase meaning "other things equal". English translations of the phrase include "all other things being equal" or "other things held constant" or "all else unchanged".
Journalistic jargon for "lead paragraph"
https://underthecurve.github.io/jekyll/update/2016/12/29/hed...
> ceteris paribus
"all other things being equal"
Top comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16982493
Seems... fine? Our comments were useful enough for Ars to apparently base their entire reporting on them. (Ok, mixed feelings there...)
Or, wait, are you saying Prince's reaction was the useful, authoritative one in this example?
Most commenters thought he was making a bit of a leap. Is that what you're actually pushing back on?
Their wireless router and DSL modem "U-Verse" gateway device lacks a true bridge mode, has a small NAT table, and you must use it because it contains a 802.1x certificate. You can use your own router with a rather involved hack: http://blog.0xpebbles.org/Bypassing-At-t-U-verse-hardware-NA... They instructed customers (including small businesses) to get off 10.X.X.X, presumably because they were considering CG-NAT, although they have since done some IPv6 deployment.
The original AT&T faded away with declining long distance revenue which they milked to the end until cellphones and Internet access became the main market. It took tax credits meant for "video dial tone" broadband deployment and used them to build their cellular network.
Its ADSL deployment use PPPoE and ATM which can cause MTU mismatch. ATM itself is a telco mistake. European access oligopoly members wanted 32 bytes because that suited voice frame transport and they thought data transport would never sell. American counterparts wanted 64 bytes for better data delivery. They compromised on 53: 48 for payload and 5 for header. With newer "U-Verse" ASDL they've finally eliminated this layer of overhead. (But no more 3rd party modems).
It decided to deploy VDSL instead of make the true upgrade to fiber. But they also cut costs by not building enough remote terminals so many customers have slow and unreliable links. Fast VDSL speeds (e.g. 100Mbps) aren't possible if customers are a mile away, or more. How much money have they spent on truck rolls diagnosing issues? Is it less than just building a more robust network to begin with?
Since 2005 they've been complaining that customers are using too much Internet and they need to slice and dice the Internet with data caps, application specific throttling, etc. And get more tax credits and deregulation which they promise will be used for broadband investment.
But really, the point this thread is making isn't about whether you approve of all of AT&T's business decisions, but rather whether their backbone engineers can properly manage a network.
I'm interested in the opinions of people who have managed default-free BGP peering before on whether AT&T does a good job, but I'm not so much interested in reading another dslreports thread about whether AT&T is a "good ISP".
Some of the branch locations at work have U-Verse as their only option. I don't have to deal with their day-to-day problems but the help desk tells me they're still pretty crap.
As a service. The gateways are still crap. Don't use 'em for routing or wireless. They are laughably bad.
There's always the chance they can try to put the customer on the hook for a truck roll, turning a loss into revenue.
However, you throw a SIM card from your phone in the hotspot and you'll magically have an IPv6 address, even without changing the APN. It's ridiculous that I have to resort to using a VPN to bypass all the troubles being behind a CG NAT entails.
So is it really surprising that AT&T handled an obscure IP address the wrong way?
I'd make the argument that the parent should not be down voted because Google, perhaps in a small way, allows degraded experiences on other platforms for one reason or another.
I don't think you can do that anymore, though. But I haven't tried it in a while.
A huge problem I see with the web is that it's is missing concessions for "advanced" users. I get that we're a smaller market, but come on.
On other operating systems you can set the default browser to be Firefox, Chrome, or whatever else you want, and different browser engines are allowed.
Oh course the "desktop" (not really) Hangouts app also only opens links in Chrome.
Don't worry though, Hangouts will soon be discontinued and we'll have to complain about some Google chat app.
I would also say money wasted on providing support for those users but I'm still not sure if such thing exists.
Chrome on Wayland, with GNOME 3 in particular, pretty much always pins a core too, but not for Gmail-related reasons.
Example: Android platform with their own Maps application will kill phone in minutes.
Maps continually will ask to enable location, which is not needed just to look at maps and search, every few seconds after selecting no previously. Only way around is by checking don't ask again. Bam, infinite loop of software asking with policy refereeing answer. Google Maps kills a phone's battery with-in minutes.
Only Webkit based browsers support that. If you make the mistake of testing/developing primarily in Safari + Chrome, you'll never discover the error.
They might have also used 'keep-all' which isn't supported in Edge, but is supported everywhere else, and have a fallback rule of break-all leading the behavior seen.
tl;dr:
There's actually no universal way of setting word-breaks for textarea's or pseudo-textarea, so I can't imagine if that writing a rich text input field is easy considering you have no foundations to work on.
If random startups can test all common browsers and ensure good experiences, I can’t see any reasonable justification why Google can’t.
Also, reading your comment, I couldn't help but think of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
Oh, man. It would be so fun to run vote analysis on comments over time. I'm jealous now. :)
(Fwiw, I was personally on board with the conspiracy theorists.)
Major ISPs generally do not act in the best interest of their customers, especially when the action is allowing access to service that hurts their ability to collect more information about their users. They certainly do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.