How is this not illegal?

Because as it stands right now, AT&T sells you access to their network. What happens on their network is for AT&T to decide. With the FCC striking down net neutrality [1], AT&T is probably testing out the waters.

[1] According to google, it's defined as:

"the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites."

They've done this before, during, and after net neutrality. AT&T regularly blocks entire ranges at the IP level because they are "suspected of cyberattacks." I've frequently had issues with web hosts who are blocked only on AT&T, and this was the case in October-November (before the FCC vote) while I was launching a new site.

If you can construe some horizontal where Cloudflare and AT&T are competitors it could of course still be illegal for AT&T to block the others services simply under antitrust law.

NN hasn't actually been struck off yet though, it's still on the books isn't it? Pai needs to sign something and for some reason he hasn't. It was in the news a few days back.

> How is this not illegal?

Well, since the formal repeal of net neutrality has been delayed, I think it technically is a violation of the no-blocking rule.

OTOH, it's not like the FCC is enforcing net neutrality while delaying the official effect of its repeal.

The routers in question are the only ones I’ve encountered that are incompatible with my home router.

Clearly, they’re discriminating against certain client devices, and were under the Obama administration too.

However, the documentation says it should work, and AT&T won’t provide support.

They’ve been getting away with this for years, so I guess plausible deniability (it is “just a bug”) can work wonders in this space.

That’s what I want to know. I’ll save the soapbox speech and just leave it at isn’t this why monopoly laws exist?

The issue is that the cable companies have monopolies set in law already. There are numerous regulations designed to stop any new last-mile telecom companies from starting up, which literally guarantees a monopoly for the few companies that already exist in the vast majority of the US. As good as Net Neutrality sounds in theory, all we really need to do is drop the regulations and allow new players to enter the game and the market will fix it for itself.

Unenforced laws might as well not exist.

See: Monopoly/duopoly of telecom in the USA, net neutrality protections, and the speed limit signs on 280.

> Unenforced laws might as well not exist.

until they are selectively enforced.

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt, it's probably incompetence ;)

Incompetence or intent, if there was a penalty for this kind of thing you'd see it happen a lot less.

Low in the thread but is this a possibility?

The guy which himself banned a site from his service? Surely if he has the right to block others do to. After all, it's a free market and private companies are allowed to do what they want, you don't like it, go to someone else. Remember, only the government can censorship.

Cloudflare are not a monopoly or duopoly. Cloudflare isn't a critical link in the chain between consumers and the wider internet. Being a Cloudflare customer isn't a necessary part of internet access.