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.
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.
You can tell Net Neutrality is bad because my grandma got up and posted a screed against it on the FCC's site, and she's been dead for 15 years. Now that's motivation.
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.
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!”
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