Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to

richsnapp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 294 posts

Re: CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to

#191

Post by nacs »

twhb wrote: post #100

“It’s because the law gave them too much leeway” doesn’t make sense. If you have leeway, you choose the easiest and cheapest method, not the one that involves building a whole new communication system. “They thought it was the only way to satisfy the law” also doesn’t make sense. There’s no reasonable way to get that from the law, they didn’t confirm it was necessary, and they didn’t publicly fuss about being forced…

1) Most ISPs have something like this router/software -- one that is capable of injecting/redirecting web requests to whatever they want. I remember seeing this kind of thing when I was a Comcast customer -- they implemented a bandwidth limit and to warn you that you were about to exceed it, they used this type of web request injection.

2) There's likely a profit motive here as the software that is being advertised via this injected message costs money. They're likely getting a commission/affiliate fee from every customer that installs said software via this notice.

Re: CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to

#192

Post by beatgammit »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #149

I use Xfinity. (It’s my only option for internet.) They would routinely inject crap into unencrypted HTTP webpages, bill notifications, adverts for antivirus, stuff like that. In the end I configured my (pfSense) router to forward all data on port 80 (and a small selection of other commonly unencrypted ports) through a VPN to a local VPS. Port 443 HTTPS is still allowed to connect directly. Makes me feel a lot better…

I have a municipal fiber connection, but the bandwidth is atrocious and Comcast seems to be much better priced for faster speeds.

What router do you have? Is it just something running OpenWRT, or something fancier? Also, how much do you pay beyond the listed service price (fees, taxes, etc), and can you waive the installation fee?

Re: CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to

#193

Post by flurdy »

xahrepap wrote: post #175
krupan wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"My wife wants something independent for emergencies." Have you considered ham radio?

I haven't thought of that. That's a good idea!

With those inflating costs, maybe a satellite phone becomes economically viable...

Re: CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to

#194

Post by dangrossman »

eridius wrote: post #179
rosser wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll have to clarify what "by accident" means. The FTC's rules on "unordered merchandise", linked else-thread, seem pretty unambiguous.

If they meant to send it to someone else but put your address on it, that's an accident. Which is to say, if the package has your address on it but someone else's name, you can't keep it (in fact, if it's delivered by the USPS then I believe even just opening it is a crime as it's someone else's mail). If they intended for you to receive it but believed you were expecting it (and understood that you'd have to pay for…

The law is not determined by what you find reasonable, but by what the legislation says.

See: 39 U.S. Code § 3009 - Mailing of unordered merchandise

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/39/3009

If you're mailed merchandise that you did not expressly request or consent to, it becomes your property to do with as you will, and you cannot be billed for it. There are no exceptions for accidents.

Re: CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to

#195

Post by B-Con »

twhb wrote: post #100

“It’s because the law gave them too much leeway” doesn’t make sense. If you have leeway, you choose the easiest and cheapest method, not the one that involves building a whole new communication system. “They thought it was the only way to satisfy the law” also doesn’t make sense. There’s no reasonable way to get that from the law, they didn’t confirm it was necessary, and they didn’t publicly fuss about being forced…

> “It’s because the law gave them too much leeway” doesn’t make sense. If you have leeway, you choose the easiest and cheapest method, not the one that involves building a whole new communication system.

No, you choose the most self-interested option. That type of criticism is usually levied against laws that provide an incentive to enforce it in a self-serving way.

In this case what CenturyLink did should itself be illegal. CenturyLink knows fully well this was a self-serving move and they likely only did it because they're betting they can avoid lawsuits by blaming the law.

Interfering with traffic on a paying customer's active account should be illegal so there is no option to do this for any reason.

Re: CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to

#196

Post by twunde »

bitsnbytes wrote: post #171
illumin8 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quickest way to resolve all of these billing shenanigans: file a consumer complaint with the FCC. Magically, you'll almost immediately get a phone call from someone fairly high up in the company (typically executive relations or similar) that has the power to fix things and will make it right. The sad truth is that these telcos will systematically screw millions of customers with shady fees and fraudulent billing…

"The quickest way to resolve all of these billing shenanigans: file a consumer complaint with the FCC" This , I had to do this with Comcast because of their craptastic service ,BS, and invalid billing. Trying to cancel them I kept being passed around to ALL the wrong people and departments, hung up on, refusal to give confirmation that the service was actually cancelled. Finally figured the only way they would cancel…

Make sure to file a complaint with your state attorney general. Cases like these can quickly get their attention and more importantly, companies don't want to be investigated by AGs. Unlike state regulators, companies are less likely to have a pre-existing relationship with them. Since you're talking about telecom and not just internet, it's also worth checking to see if that is regulated by your state PUC/PSC. Don't bother with the better business bureau. A company can have an A rating as long as they respond to you, they don't actually need to fix your issue.

Re: CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to

#198

Post by joshu »

RKearney wrote: post #155
LeoPanthera wrote: post #149

I use Xfinity. (It’s my only option for internet.) They would routinely inject crap into unencrypted HTTP webpages, bill notifications, adverts for antivirus, stuff like that. In the end I configured my (pfSense) router to forward all data on port 80 (and a small selection of other commonly unencrypted ports) through a VPN to a local VPS. Port 443 HTTPS is still allowed to connect directly. Makes me feel a lot better…

There's an RFC[0] for that [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6108

That Comcast wrote.

Re: CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to

#200

Post by steelframe »

lettergram wrote: post #152
xahrepap wrote: post #94

CenturyLink is totally shady. My wife just yesterday spent a significant amount of time fixing our phone bill. She decided a couple months ago to upgrade to a "fixed" bill plan (apparently they've been raising our prices $10/mo every year for the last few years). This plan price won't change until we change the plan. It's bundled with their internet though, but my wife told them to not send the modem because we weren…

I had a similar issue with comcast. I sent back a modem I didn't need, took photos and even had a receipt. After around 8 hours of phone calls asking them to remove it from my bill and them giving me the run around. They continued to charge me and sent my bills to collections. At collections, it continued like this for months, I sent photos, I even had a recording of a comcast manager saying "we shouldn't have billed…

A couple of Comcast employees were canvasing my neighborhood earlier this year trying to talk me into switching over from my amazing fiber provider. I told them I've read enough horror stories like this to ever even consider the possibility of getting into any kind of contractual agreement with them.
Post reply on HN