No, they use a proxy to a virtual private server. Depending on the nature of the proxy and exit node, it may have a uniquely bad reputation, or is collateral damage from other bad actors in that cloud service.
It's hard to see a case to be made to block IPs with a "bad reputation" from accessing sites that are essentially text documents.
I can see that blocking IP ranges is part of a strategy to protect service signups, logins, or contact forms. But a gov agency publishing a piece of text? What's the risk that is mitigated by blocking IPs here?
They are hosting a lot of applications on various subdomains on fcc.gov. If they have tons of subdomains with login forms and services, and one without, why would they bother making special rules that should not affect typical usage for that one site?
I was/am more concerned with functionality and the fact that what they're doing should be illegal. The Comcast MITM attack I experienced literally broke the functionality of the steam browser (~2015).
This decision ultimately belongs website owners. OP can unilaterally block connections to those sites, but this breaks/blocks those websites in a manner that is as bad as Comcast injecting ads.
comcast and other cable providers do not block as I just verified this with using xfinity comcast to access the site this morning with no VPS whatsoever.
