Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Communications The Internet

CenturyLink Blocked Its Customers' Internet Access in Order To Show an Ad (arstechnica.com) 198

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!"

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CenturyLink Blocked Its Customers' Internet Access in Order To Show an Ad

Comments Filter:
  • The Onion (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nwaack ( 3482871 ) on Monday December 17, 2018 @01:50PM (#57818288)
    Every day it seems I see more and more real news articles that look like they belong on The Onion.
  • by Drethon ( 1445051 ) on Monday December 17, 2018 @01:51PM (#57818292)

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

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17, 2018 @02:00PM (#57818390)
      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.
    • This almost certainly had nothing to do with Network Neutrality, since (I'm assuming) they prevented customers from connecting to all web sites equally. Unless they showed this ad if, for example, you tried to go to Google but not if you tried to go to Bing, which I doubt is what happened.
    • by lgw ( 121541 )

      Net Neutrality has to do with what one set of megacorporations charges (or does not charge) a different set of megacorporations. We should takes sides? In a fight like that, I root for casualties.

      • by dryeo ( 100693 )

        It also has to do with blocking websites. My ISP broke net neutrality when it blocked the unions site along with a few hundred other sites on the same server. It can also be about blocking your VOIP client or VPN because they want you to use theirs.

  • by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday December 17, 2018 @01:54PM (#57818328)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by Shaitan ( 22585 )

      In this country they just installed a new supreme court justice who believes providers modifying your communications in flight is protected by their right to free speech.

      People might have had an issue with that but they were too busy being distracted by a movement to make the lawmakers throw out the judge on the basis of unproven allegations... in a country which holds as its primary legal value innocent until proven guilty. Sort of a two for one special, they get to install a supreme who will allow their I

      • in a country which holds as its primary legal value innocent until proven guilty.

        That would be relevant if a Senate confirmation hearing was a criminal trial. It isn't. It's a fancy job interview.

        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.

        • Re:In many countries (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Shaitan ( 22585 ) on Monday December 17, 2018 @03:42PM (#57819180)

          "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.

          • I think you are confusing me with a Republican

            I don't care what label you apply to yourself. I care what you actually do. Because you can apply all sorts of high-minded labels and justifications for your actions, but the results of those actions are what actually matters.

            So feel free to call yourself whatever you want. You're actions are that of a Republican. So you are a Republican.

            If you don't want to be a Republican, well then you're going to need to work towards different results. Continuing to back Republicans because you think they're more l

          • Holy crap! A reasonable and well thought through political philosophy on slashdot! And of course I don't have mod points this week :(
    • The same countries where it is illegal for a company to gather all of your personal data and sell it to the highest bidder.

      Funny nobody on this site ever gets mad about that.
  • by sinij ( 911942 ) on Monday December 17, 2018 @01:55PM (#57818334)
    Slashdot will resume after this commercial break.

    Equifax. Get Unlimited Credit Score reporting. Easy to access, no service refusal for anyone.
  • by xack ( 5304745 ) on Monday December 17, 2018 @01:57PM (#57818358)
    It happened a while back, Interrupting my experence on the internet forcing me to make a decision if i wanted a porn block or not (fuck no).
  • Two things... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by El Cubano ( 631386 ) on Monday December 17, 2018 @02:00PM (#57818382)

    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.

    • BS. The law says you just need to include the notice in the customers bill. That is a lot cheaper and easier to do than what they implemented.
    • by Shaitan ( 22585 )

      "Second, the proximity to the anniversary of the NN deregulation is both specious and disingenuous."

      I doubt it. Frontier celebrated by silently throttling Netflix on at least their FIOS service.

    • 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.

      Very good point. So was it just CenturyLink that did it this way, or did every ISP serving Utah do the same thing? If it was only CenturyLink, what would be your conclusion?

    • Granted, there are times where the programmer just makes the wrong choice

      This ad would be one of those times.

      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's blatantly obvious that this decision did not originate with legal. Because the legal department would far, far, far, prefer something written on paper. Like printed on the customer's bill.

      Thanks to this ad, the company can be sued under this law because the customer can legitimately claim they did not see the ad. Their poor, corrupted, porn-surfing child clicked the "OK" button. And now the customer was never notified about how the good people at CenturyLink coul

    • 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.

      The law says, "A service provider may provide the notice described in Subsection (2)(b)(i):
      (A) by electronic communication;
      (B) with a consumer's bill; or
      (C) in another conspicuous manner.

      So, the CenturyLink's action complied with the terms above. The questionable part is the explanation for their action, i.e., we interrupted your service to show you this ad because the state made us. That statement is not true. I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder if that passes muster for fraud and perhaps opens up CenturyLin

    • If it was a whole team of programmers that produced the wrong thing then the only sensible conclusion is that the spec was faulty.

      Interestingly enough, there were an army of ISPs that did NOT do this. CenturyLink specifically chose to do this, it was not forced on them. You are correct that an army of lawyers was likely consulted, but it was by the marketing executive who thought of this brilliant strategy to comply. What a bonus that executive will receive for this.

  • by rufey ( 683902 ) on Monday December 17, 2018 @02:02PM (#57818398)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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.

  • So what all did they block in doing this?

    Did VoIP phones stop working? Did ssh tunnels break? Did VPN connections go down? Did NetFlix get blocked? Did email access go down? If someone is on vacation, will their homes freeze if their thermostats can't connect? Will security systems fail?

    Did they block access on an IP level or DNS? DId they mess only with port 80? If they tried to redirect on 443, then the browsers wouldn't display due to the certificate mismatch, but most sites are https now. Are u

  • by sgt_doom ( 655561 ) on Monday December 17, 2018 @02:23PM (#57818548)
    Isn't CenturyLink the telecom with the extensive history in secretly downsizing employees' pensions?
  • As stuff like this can mess with VPN tunnels and lead to odd errors on things that don't have an full browser.

    What about remote systems that just have an internet link and some server that without an local user to log into.

  • That will stop this from being possible.
    Instead of the ad, all you'd seen in your browser is a security warning that someone is trying to hijack your connection - someone like your ISP.

    • That will stop this from being possible. Instead of the ad, all you'd seen in your browser is a security warning that someone is trying to hijack your connection - someone like your ISP.

      Well, they could block port 443 outgoing.

  • I'm a Centrylink customer in Utah and I didn't see this popup. However, I also use PfSense's dns resolver so maybe that had something to do with it.

    • by rufey ( 683902 )

      I saw the ad, and use a DNS service over a VPN to prevent CenturyLink from hijacking it in any way, so this wasn't done via DNS. It was actually blocking access. Others here have said it was only blocking port 80, and that would make some sense in my situation because some stuff was working fine, but other stuff didn't work until I discovered this by going to a URL housed on a port 80 web server.

      • No it was both, The customer webportal domain name is only visable from within Centurylinks network. So, If i was you I would double check your VPN's settings and make sure that DNS traffic is being correctly forwarded over the VPN.

        Second During the attack(yes that is what I consider this), port 443 was left alone and was routable etc, only port 80 traffic was blocked, My gmail kept working, my instant messaging client kept working, my udp traffic with the game I was playing kept working.

        Some funny sh
        • by rufey ( 683902 )

          My DNS queries go through a local forwarder sitting on my desk, which forwards to two DNS servers over a VPN, which are themselves housed at a VPS provider. I own the VPS servers and maintain them, so I own the entire DNS stack. My VPS servers do the recursive DNS work, and that is where my control ends.

          I did all of this because I got tired of CenturyLink always directing me to their "suggestions" page when I mis-spelled a URL (for those that I hadn't bookmarked in some way yet), which was all done with t

  • Boycott port 80 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by viperidaenz ( 2515578 ) on Monday December 17, 2018 @02:46PM (#57818756)

    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

  • by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Monday December 17, 2018 @02:50PM (#57818802)
    When they disable my internet without warning and suddenly my 911 calls over my VoIP line don't work any more!
    • [Citation Required]

      First confirm that they blocked 911 calls over VoIP before generalising.

      I mean sure we all know corporations are run by idiots so your scenario is likely correct but ... yeah there's still a chance someone with a functioning brain was behind this.

  • Their system crashed a couple of times leaving me this nugget.
    Sorry I have no clue how to make it formated nicely.
    #!/usr/bin/perl use warnings; use strict; use CGI qw/:standard/; use WalledGarden; my $CACHETIME = 3600; our %config; do '/etc/wg.conf'; my $wg = WalledGarden->new(); my $cgi = CGI->new(); my $UD = new Cache::Memcached { 'namespace' => 'excessive_use', 'servers' => $config{ 'memcached_servers' }, 'debug' => 0, 'compress_threshold' => 10_000, }; # Parse the incomin
  • This is just a 'fuck you, because we can' move. Never mind Tweedy Pai and the FCC. Shareholders need to short any company that risks political retribution by pulling childish crap like this.

You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.

Working...