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!"
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!"
The Onion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The Onion (Score:2)
Apparently predictive programming is real, and the onion was at the forefront.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that was his point.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The Onion (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.
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't just block web access but all access. Not just on computers, but it also blocked internet over mobile devices and other IOT devices. And not everybody blocked by it understood or could easily get around the block. You would lose all internet access but only got the redirect if you were opening a browser. So my Son came up stairs to complain that he couldn't watch Youtube on the Xbox, I was browsing FB G+ and a few other apps and my phone dropped to LTE instead of wifi as I usually use at
Re: (Score:2)
Why are your not web apps using HTTP and HTTPS ports?
Why do you think web browsers are the only things that can speak HTTP or HTTPS? Heck, there might be an entire network application protocol [tutorialspoint.com] that uses HTTP(s) but isn't a browser.
Most likely they just redirected the HTTP and HTTPS ports.
Did they direct them to somewhere other than the Internet? Golly, that sounds a lot like blocking Internet access......
Re: The Onion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Says the guy who forgot REST existed.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, you've never heard of REST. Do look it up, and be enlightened.
Re: The Onion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Translation, you either didn't know what REST was or you didn't think of it. The above was all you could type while trying to pry your foot out of your mouth.
So, did you look it up or choose to remain willfully ignorant?
Re: The Onion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So I take it then you have chosen to remain ignorant.
You might need this [homedepot.com] for your foot.
Re: The Onion (Score:2)
Net Neutrality Is Bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Just remember that when providers find new and innovative ways provide services that make them more money.
Re:Net Neutrality Is Bad (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Dude, this was literally the government's fault (Score:5, Funny)
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. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dude, this was literally the government's fault (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Re-read post (Score:5, 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.
Re: The government DID make them do it (Score:2)
We can never know for sure in this timeline, but your assertion fails on plausibility grounds.
Re:The government DID make them do it (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So you want to penalize them for achieving the goal of the law better than their competitors?
This isn't better. They interfered with a host of non-browser Internet connections, and did not ensure that the customer actually saw the ad. It's not like someone else in the household can't click "OK".
So, in terms of actually reaching all of their customers, this ad is not as effective as something printed on their bill. It also potentially opens them up to penalties under this law, since their customer may not see the ad.
So no, this is about the worst possible way of attempting to comply with the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see, there is a law against robbing the liquor store so Nutzy McFruitcake burns it down to make sure he doesn't rob it. Shall we make armed robbery legal to avoid future misunderstandings?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Re-read post (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The law requires ISPs to notify customers that there is filtering software. The law does not require that all customers use the same filtering software (or any filtering software at all). CenturyLink probably used this methodology because it's already a common practice (eg. force guests to read a ToS page before getting access to the rest of the net).
Re:Re-read post (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This is incorrect. The FCC's Open Internet Order, which most people erroneously referred to as "Net Neutrality", was 400 pages, and was voted on and passed before any member of the public read it.
Why would it take hundreds of pages to say "do not f*ck around with your network"? Unless either (1) there's plenty to interpret, or (2) what the FCC wrote was not Net Neutrality.
The correct answer we have standards organizations that define how the Internet works, not legislatures.
Re: (Score:2)
Next time, perhaps their CEO should just go on the 6 o'clock news and read a statement while he stabs himself in the eye with a fork. That's pretty conspicuous.
But, in the spirit of not having laws mis-interpreted by sociopathic idiots, all laws against kicking SuperKendal in the nuts are hereby repealed. Sorry, it's the only way to avoid mis-understandings.
Re:Dude, this was literally the government's fault (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
"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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When's the last time an interviewer brought in a woman to say that you sexually assaulted her 36 years ago and then expected you to prove that you didn't?
Every single employer has asked about my personal and job history (as much as allowed by law). And most employers have asked about criminal accusations via asking if I've been arrested.
Also, Supreme Court Justice is just a teensy-tiny bit more important than my job. Probably deserves a little bit more of an investigation.
Finally, the one woman who was allowed to testify doesn't erase the other women who did come forward, but Grassley forbade. Pattern of behavior is pretty important when evaluating people
Re: (Score:2)
Funny nobody on this site ever gets mad about that.
Slashdot will resume after this commercial break (Score:5, Funny)
Equifax. Get Unlimited Credit Score reporting. Easy to access, no service refusal for anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
no service refusal for anyone.
Even if you're not our customer.
Virgin Media in the UK did the same thing (Score:3)
Two things... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I regularly get bills from my ISP with a bit of glossy paper added to the envelope advertising something.
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Blocked more than just web browsing (Score:5, Informative)
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.
What about an SLA and an outage due to this?? (Score:2)
What about an SLA and an outage due to this?? will they have to pay out over that? or is drive to your office and open an web bower from an local system covers there ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Some IT organizations haven't figured out that HTTP/HTTPS isn't a simply protocol for browsing the web. It is also used for API calls. So they break applications. For example, you go to a hotel, open Microsoft Outlook, and Outlook makes an HTTPS call to download your inbox results. Instead of valid XML response, they get a certificate error and a page saying "Please enter your room number and click the I Agree button below." My employer did this too for a while, so you couldn't install certain applicat
Temple garments or bubble-covered swimsuits (Score:5, Funny)
Mormon porn comes in two types. One fetishizes the "temple garment" underwear [wikipedia.org]. The other is swimsuit photography covered with a bubble-shaped solid color mask [knowyourmeme.com] to help a dirty mind fill in the blanks.
Re: (Score:2)
The internet: Serious answers to even the most silly of rhetorical questions.
Law does not prohibit blocking either (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.
What all did they block? (Score:2)
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
CenturyLink and pensions (Score:3)
do they do this on business internet?? (Score:2)
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.
https by default (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Which would cripple their customer helpdesk and drive away the customers they don't have a monopoly over.
A customer in Utah (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Sounds like a serious liability... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
[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.
Who wants the shitty script that did it!!! (Score:2)
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
One-year anniversary (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
That is NOT OK.
We're in the phase of a civilization where people get ridiculous, right before the collapse.
Lets talk about what happens when the button fails to render properly and getting your internet connection back is impossible. Or when this happens with mobile internet and you have to tap a confirm button on your screen, and all you have is a flip phone...
Tab to the button (Score:2)
Flip phone web navigation uses tab order. Unless a website did something with script that would constitute an ADA or Section 508 violation, it should be possible to tab to the button to leave the captive portal.
Re:I had to click on a button (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Superbowl?? more like buy our cable tv for error f (Score:2)
Superbowl?? more like buy our cable tv for error free viewing. Ha with no network nuatrlay they can slow down 3rd party video and have an pop ad saying DON'T MISS OUT ON THE BIG GAME WITH COMCRAP TV!
Get no caps for TV USE / FULL HD / NO buffering.
Re:I had to click on a button (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I had to click on a button (Score:4, Insightful)
If I had a choice of ISPs
That's the rub, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
I eagerly await your explanation of how my not-web-browsers that still use the Internet will click that button.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently it was only port 80.
All those things you mentioned shouldn't use port 80.
Most people probably haven't even noticed, as their facebook machine goes straight to https://www.facebook.com/ [facebook.com] and when they type random shit in their browser to search, goes directly to https://www.google.com/ [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)
CenturyLink should burn for this.
or a VPN (Score:2)
Would be great to be away from home and no longer able to access my network because nobody is there to find / load / click on an ad.
Re: But (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: But (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Hello. I work at a provider support helpdesk.
Consumer internet service is not considered an "emergency communication" service in that manner. Carriers are not liable in a life-or-death way for the performance/reliability of data services. This is why if you get behind in your bill most providers will shut off your pay-TV and home internet, but keep the phone service active for while after that. Or if you're on fiber optic services and there is a power outage in your home usually only the (telco provided) ph
Re: (Score:2)
Just a small addendum.
I'm not saying I support CenturyLink's actions here. I still think blocking your service until you view an acknowledge an ad very scummy. I'm just saying, to be all OMGWTFBBQ that third-party phone services were not working is ignoring a very fundamental distinction here in communication services. You're trying to assign liabilities to the provider they never agreed to when they signed you up.
Re: (Score:2)