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!"
Every day it seems I see more and more real news articles that look like they belong on The Onion.
Just remember that when providers find new and innovative ways provide services that make them more money.
Slashdot will resume after this commercial break.
Equifax. Get Unlimited Credit Score reporting. Easy to access, no service refusal for anyone.
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.
Next step is they don't restore the connection until you purchase the software. NEXT step is cutting off your connection while watching Superbowl and only restoring it after you sign up for this more powerful connection for just 59,99 <font size=1>more than you are paying now</font>. After that who knows what reasons they'll think up to cut off your connection whenever they feel like it?
This isn't about pressing a button. This is about the whole thing being a proof-of-concept DDOS from the ISP.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
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.
It's more "I had to be aware that my Internet had been disconnected and I now had to fire up a web browser and click on a button, something that I wouldn't be aware of - and in some cases wouldn't have been able to do anything about either - if I was waiting for an email, setting up a smart device, trying to make an important call using a VoIP service like Vonage, waiting for said call, trying to access my security camera remotely, trying to access my home PC remotely, and all manner of other functions."
Is it reasonable behavior for an ISP?
No, it isn't. If I had a choice of ISPs and was a CenturyLink customer, I absolutely would terminate my contract with CenturyLink over this.
Comcast, take note.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
The state did not require this. I guess you can't even be bothered to read a fucking summary.
Perhaps we should require people to read TFS and acknowledge it by clicking "Ok" before they can post. :-)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Mormon porn comes in two types. One fetishizes the "temple garment" underwear. The other is swimsuit photography covered with a bubble-shaped solid color mask to help a dirty mind fill in the blanks.
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.
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.
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!”
If you're a CenturyLink customer in Utah and you haven't received any other notification of this blocking service and you don't use port 80 between now and December 31 2018, CenturyLink will be in violation of the new law as they haven't informed you of this optional service.
They're liable for a fine of $10,000
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.
If I had a choice of ISPs
That's the rub, isn't it?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
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.
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
"But hey, you need a reason to ignore those allegations to overturn Roe, so I'm sure that distinction won't quite matter to you."
I think you are confusing me with a Republican, your immediate jump to that despite my post targeting R's and D's suggests you are partisan politically, in other words you don't use the reasoning centers of your brain with regard to anything you perceive as political (or at least that is what fancy fMRI studies have shown). So my response isn't really for you, no offense but it would make about as much sense having a conversation with you as a conversation as it does for an agnostic to try to have a conversation with a true believer disparaging the beliefs of another religion.
I do want to see Roe v Wade overturned. It's a bad ruling that happens to prevent the enforcement of some bad state laws. It is the state laws that need changed. Parents do have a right to be informed; so do the fathers and spouses. Abortion should not be a way to dodge facing the music for your actions. Roe v Wade makes it one.
Doctors have a right to a full medical history so they can ethically refuse chronic abuse in the same way they refuse plastic surgery at some point. Especially given that the morning after (really more like 3 day after) pill is readily available and accessible. Roe v Wade prevents this.
These may not be babies and it may not be murder but it is the termination of human potential and everything that life would have become and in a society where courts represent the interests of children vs their parents it logically follows that there should some level of enforced respect for that concept as well. Mothers can give children up for adoption or have an abortion and drop liability for a child. Fathers should have the same right. Currently, Roe v Wade makes this impractical in many ways. The fetus is not part of her body, it is just temporarily incubated in it. It is 50% the father and he has rights. In that respect, paternity tests (which are quite safe) should be standard procedure as part of the care through pregnancy but while related to these other issues this bit has little relation to Roe v Wade specifically.