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!"
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.
First, what they did actually complies with Subsection (1)(b)(ii)(A). We may not like their approach, but it does comply with the law. Go read the law, it is a rather sparse 5 pages.
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.
Second, the proximity to the anniversary of the NN deregulation is both specious and disingenuous. If you know anything about how corporations work you know that legal compliance is an exercise in minimization. The CenturyLink corporate counsel (probably more than one) had to weigh in on this and conclude that this was done in a way that both met the requirements of the law and also did not expose the company to additional liability. It probably had to clear multiple similar hurdles.
So, just like I do when a programmer implements a spec and I look at the product and say, "wow that was wrong," my first thought is always, "the spec must be defective." Granted, there are times where the programmer just makes the wrong choice, but more often than not, the spec really is deficient. If it was a whole team of programmers that produced the wrong thing then the only sensible conclusion is that the spec was faulty.
In this case, the army of lawyers came to a conclusion on a course of action that is making people say, "wow, that cannot be right.". Based on my earlier reasoning, the law is poorly written.
When they disable my internet without warning and suddenly my 911 calls over my VoIP line don't work any more!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Remind me, what's net neutrality again? About.. not doing anything to alter traffic speed? A law that enforces net neutrality literally asks ISPs to do nothing. There's nothing to interpret. It says "do not f*ck around with your network", which is the exact opposite of what you're suggesting.
This problem was 100% PEBCAK. Sure, the state could have clarified was "conspicuous" means - it's not without fault. However the lawmakers weren't programmers and didn't write exception handling in their law, and some employee at CenturyLink decided to do something stupid, probably without asking their Legal department that would have then clarified the ask.