Well, is the ultra conservative (LDS) Utah for you. LDS church has issues with porn, they pushed an idiotic law, the consequences did not have to wait long.
CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to
81–90 of 294 posts
Re: CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to
#82And here we see the disconnect between what politicians say, and what they write into law. The bill's sponsor's response to the blog authors query: SB134 did not require that ...They were only required to notify customers of options via email or with an invoice. And here is the text of the statute that was written: (ii) A service provider may provide the notice described in Subsection (2)(b)(i): (A) by electronic com…
> So, the fault here lies with the politician. He wrote a law that allowed Century link too much leeway to "do whatever they wanted to do to notify"
What? That's a ridiculous conclusion to come to.
Re: CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to
#83And here we see the disconnect between what politicians say, and what they write into law. The bill's sponsor's response to the blog authors query: SB134 did not require that ...They were only required to notify customers of options via email or with an invoice. And here is the text of the statute that was written: (ii) A service provider may provide the notice described in Subsection (2)(b)(i): (A) by electronic com…
I mean, the notification wouldn't get to anyone who used alternate DNS services, so it doesn't seem like their method is even very effective. (Ignoring how awful it is)
Re: CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to
#845G will put century link out of business.
I'll believe that when I see it. Until then, I believe that any wireless communication is inherently inferior to wired communication.
Canned soup is inherently inferior to homemade, but it only takes 2 minutes to heat up, travels well, lasts a long time, and can be bought almost anywhere for cheap.
Re: CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to
#85The original article title is more accurate. Replacing "CenturyLink" with "Utah ISP" as if they're some podunk lil' no-name ISP is misleading. CenturyLink is a Tier 1 ISP, and 5th largest in the country by customer count. Maybe city folk haven't heard of CenturyLink but they have monopolies over vast swathes of rural copper networks.
[deleted]
Re: CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So, the fault here lies with the politician. I disagree: the claim by CenturyLink that this particularly intrusive, access blocking method is mandated is simply false. It's true that it is permitted by the state law (just as it would be permitted without any specific law on the topic at all), and even arguable that it is one means of complying with the law. (Though since the notification is not presented to some us…
> claim by CenturyLink that this particularly intrusive, access blocking method is mandated is simply false Agreed - also not the point I was making. > it's not any lawmaker’s fault that CenturyLink chose to implement pretty much the most user-hostile method imaginable Oh but it is the lawmaker's fault. It is the lawmaker's fault by writing a law that was so broadly worded as to allow Century Link to be able to perfo…
Once again--yet again--it mystifies me that anybody would privilege the literal capability of being an asshole over the moral responsibility of not being one.
Re: CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to
#87I loathed CenturyLink when I had to deal with them. Quick reminder: they never specify which century they're linking you to.
Given that they were founded in 1930, I think the century is pretty clear, though not favorable.
Re: CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So, the fault here lies with the politician. I disagree: the claim by CenturyLink that this particularly intrusive, access blocking method is mandated is simply false. It's true that it is permitted by the state law (just as it would be permitted without any specific law on the topic at all), and even arguable that it is one means of complying with the law. (Though since the notification is not presented to some us…
If the politician does not take responsibility (accept fault) who will? Taking responsibility for the text of at least the law the sponsor has proposed and helped pass is the minimum responsibility I would expect from a legislator. What else do we elect them for? The legislator wrote a law that allowed too much interpretation, that is the fault of the legislator.
Who will? Probably not CenturyLink, but they should. They're responsible for making a stupid decision here.
The law doesn't require or even encourage CenturyLink to notify customers in this way so what is the politician responsible for? For writing a bill that wasn't impossible to interpret maliciously?
Re: CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to
#89And here we see the disconnect between what politicians say, and what they write into law. The bill's sponsor's response to the blog authors query: SB134 did not require that ...They were only required to notify customers of options via email or with an invoice. And here is the text of the statute that was written: (ii) A service provider may provide the notice described in Subsection (2)(b)(i): (A) by electronic com…
> So, the fault here lies with the politician. I disagree: the claim by CenturyLink that this particularly intrusive, access blocking method is mandated is simply false. It's true that it is permitted by the state law (just as it would be permitted without any specific law on the topic at all), and even arguable that it is one means of complying with the law. (Though since the notification is not presented to some us…
Maybe we shouldn't be looking at whether or not this law allows this particular message to be communicated in this way, and instead look at whether or not arbitrarily blocking access is permitted under the agreement between the service provider and its customers.
As users of streaming devices will attest, HTTP is just one part of the internet, so many would consider it to be a matter of not delivering the service that was promised if an ISP blocks access for any reason (other than by request from law enforcement or breach of the service agreement by the customer).
If a cable TV provider were to block all access and put up a message on an obscure channel that someone might never see explaining how to re-enable the service, I think it's reasonable to assume that most customers would call and complain that their cable service isn't working (and they'd be right).
It shouldn't matter if someone can use a specific type of internet-connected device (among many) and open a specific type of application (among many) on that device to communicate over a specific protocol (among many) to re-enable their service. For practical purposes and in the broad context of what "internet access" means, CenturyLink is simply cutting off service to its customers without justifiable reason. Customers should hold them to that and threaten legal action if the company doesn't want to deliver the expected service.
Re: CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
But given the options, it's absolutely CenturyLink's fault for choosing the option they did.
Agreed, it is CL's fault for choosing the option the choose. It is the politicians fault for writing a law that was so broad that it allowed CL the potential leeway to be able to choose the awful option they selected.
But CL already had sufficient leeway to do this before this law was ever written. You can't legislate away bad decisions.