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!"

10 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. The Onion by nwaack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every day it seems I see more and more real news articles that look like they belong on The Onion.

    1. Re: The Onion by jeff4747 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hit one button to clear the ad is okay.

      I eagerly await your explanation of how my not-web-browsers that still use the Internet will hit that button.

  2. Net Neutrality Is Bad by Drethon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just remember that when providers find new and innovative ways provide services that make them more money.

  3. I had to click on a button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    That is NOT OK.

    We're in the phase of a civilization where people get ridiculous, right before the collapse.

    1. Re:I had to click on a button by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I had a choice of ISPs

      That's the rub, isn't it?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  4. Law does not prohibit blocking either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Centurylink may not have been required by "law" to block access until a specific acknowledgement was given, but it was certainly required by the litigiousness of our decrepit society to do so.

    Without it, you know there would be a class action lawsuit claiming someone's child was harmed by porn because CenturyLink failed to show them their filtering options. By forcing acknowledgement, they are covering their butts against such a suit.

  5. Re:Re-read post by HarrySquatter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, this was just a shitty company acting shitty to hawk their shitty software then trying to act like a law made them do it.

  6. Re:Re-read post by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It wasn't stupid. It was astute. It was a (maybe unwitting) call to restore net neutrality by showing what will happen without it. Again, we must demand they be put under common carrier rules, and that there be no priority in any particular content. We can do our own filtering, thank you.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  7. Re:But by ichthus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People could have. What if one of the affected customers had VoIP (eg. Obi) and was attempting to call 911 to save someone's life? The call would be blocked, and the attached phone would give no indication as to why.

    CenturyLink should burn for this.

    --
    sig: sauer
  8. Kendall is a known lying faggot since forever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Kendall is a known lying faggot since forever. Don't feed the idiot.