Slashdot Mirror
CenturyLink Blocked Its Customers' Internet Access in Order To Show an Ad (arstechnica.com)
CenturyLink briefly disabled the Internet connections of customers in Utah last week and allowed them back online only after they acknowledged an offer to purchase filtering software. From a report: CenturyLink falsely claimed that it was required to do so by a Utah state law that says ISPs must notify customers "of the ability to block material harmful to minors." In fact, the new law requires only that ISPs notify customers of their filtering software options "in a conspicuous manner"; it does not say that the ISPs must disable Internet access until consumers acknowledge the notification. The law even says that ISPs may make the notification "with a consumer's bill," which shouldn't disable anyone's Internet access.
Coincidentally, CenturyLink's blocking of customer Internet access occurred days before the one-year anniversary of the Federal Communications Commission repeal of net neutrality rules, which prohibited blocking and throttling of Internet access. "Just had CenturyLink block my Internet and then inject this page into my browser... to advertise their paid filtering software to me," software engineer and Utah resident Rich Snapp tweeted on December 9. "Clicking OK on the notice then restored my Internet... this is NOT okay!"
Coincidentally, CenturyLink's blocking of customer Internet access occurred days before the one-year anniversary of the Federal Communications Commission repeal of net neutrality rules, which prohibited blocking and throttling of Internet access. "Just had CenturyLink block my Internet and then inject this page into my browser... to advertise their paid filtering software to me," software engineer and Utah resident Rich Snapp tweeted on December 9. "Clicking OK on the notice then restored my Internet... this is NOT okay!"
So it's fine for an ISP to disable your Internet until you view an ad that they want you to view? What if it's two or three ads? What if it becomes before any page load and not just at the beginning of a browsing session? What if you're playing an online game and get locked out because the ISP decided that you needed to watch their newest ad and you were busy gaming?
At what point does it go from "it's just a button press so it's okay" to "this is unacceptable !"
Also keep in mind that many ISPs are monopolies in their areas. So your ability to say "I hate all these ads the ISP is forcing me to view so I'm leaving" is highly limited.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I was in the mist of rebooting my Tivo Roamo box, and it simply wouldn't complete its network setup. I spent a good 30 minutes diagnosing my home network. It was getting its IP address via DHCP fine, was pingable, etc....
Its only when I went to the URL that the Tivo was telling me to visit that I ran into the "ad" (I'm in Utah). Sure enough, as soon as I acknowledged the ad, my Tivo was able to connect to the Tivo service. I found it more than a bit annoying that CenturyLink blocked my Internet access and forced me to read an ad for basically web filtering software. I don't have a copy of the ad anymore, but from what I remember, it was mostly talking about blocking porn.
So this blocked more than simple web browsing.
No joke. That was his point. We didn't need a visit from Captain Obvious.
The state did not require this. I guess you can't even be bothered to read a fucking summary.
No ISP would be stupid enough to do this unless it was legally required - which it was by Utah law. Network neutrality as regulation will bring MORE insane interpretations of how an ISP should be have like this one - not fewer.
In short if you like ISP's cutting off access for idiotic messaging from the state, then my all means push for more regulation of the internet.
As a resident of Utah, I think you missed part of the summary (not to mention the actual law). ISPs are required to notify customers that filter software is available. My own ISP just notified me through my paper bill.
Except it wasn't required. One of the co-sponsors of the bill even said so:
Bill sponsor Todd Weiler, a Republican state senator, confirmed on Twitter that the law "did not require that—and no other ISP has done that to comply with the law. They were only required to notify customers of options via email or with an invoice."
M-m-m-monster fail.
The thing you can't quite seem to grasp is there are ways to comply with this law without blocking someone's Internet and displaying an ad. The fact that they chose this particularly idiotic method if complying with the law is the problem.....but it was done by a large corporation, so you are unable to understand that difference.