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

231–240 of 294 posts

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

#231

Post by jxfreeman »

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…

The best way to cancel any cable service is to simply unplug your equipment and drive to the service office and plunk it on the counter while announcing loudly that you’re canceling your service. It took all of 15 minutes and all the service rep said was “Sorry to see you go.” No retention techniques, nothing. It was the best customers service experience I ever had with Comcast.

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

#232

Post by AnimalMuppet »

recursive wrote: post #90
pwg wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Taking away their leeway to do this might not be a bad thing for a law to do...

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

#233

Post by hopler »

warent wrote: post #166
lettergram wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You could just take the CEO to small claims court for the maximum amount in your area (usually $5000-$10000) for the charge + punitive. Some states make it so you can't have a lawyer represent you in small claims court, and since Centurylink does business in your area then the person you served (i.e. the chief executive) would have to show up in person. That's basically what I did with a shady property management com…

That seems absurd

1. If you sue the company, any non lawyer rep can show up.

2. If you can sue the CEO over a corporate matter to force a settlement, why isn't everyone suing every rich person over everything?

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

#234

Post by hopler »

dangrossman wrote: post #194
eridius wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, the law is what judges and juries say it is, and intent matters. The laa is clearly referring to sales practices, not shipping errors.

Holding a package intended for someone else may well be theft (depending on particulars), just as keeping something that fell in the street is theft.

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

#235

Post by hopler »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #224
eridius wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's simply not true. An accidental package is not "unordered merchandise". If it's got your address on it, but someone else's name, it's not your package and you're not entitled to it (in fact, you can't even open it). If it's got your name and address on it, but the company meant to send it to someone else named dragonwriter instead of you, it's also not your package and you're not entitled to it. If you order it…

Is that a moral distinction? Then both are right. It's not 'yours', but the law says otherwise. The reason is, the common con game where criminals would send expensive items to someone, often a recently deceased person, and demand payment. The surviving family would assume that good ol' Dad had ordered it and pay up. The item was usually junk but with a high price tag. So the con had little to lose. Anyway, items mai…

If they paid voluntary for a worthless item, than that's a totally different situation from what the law protects against.

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

#237

Post by everdrive »

jxfreeman wrote: post #231
bitsnbytes wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

The best way to cancel any cable service is to simply unplug your equipment and drive to the service office and plunk it on the counter while announcing loudly that you’re canceling your service. It took all of 15 minutes and all the service rep said was “Sorry to see you go.” No retention techniques, nothing. It was the best customers service experience I ever had with Comcast.

Depending where you are in the US, you're in for an hour or two of waiting.

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

#238

Post by jiveturkey »

1. The actions in the article don't seem possible. Google search is forcibly https, using HSTS. In Chrome and Clank (android), maybe others, google is additionally cert-pinned. It is not possible, through DNS or any other trick, to get forcibly navigated away from the google search page or to have content injected. He says he "turned to a google search on his phone" but he must have done something else before actually searching google, to get the injected notice. I feel this is an important point.

2. This doesn't meet the requirements of the law. The person using the internet, especially at some arbitrary moment, is not likely the subscriber. The law is that the consumer must be notified, with consumer explicitly defined as the subscriber. Email to the address on record, or an insert in a mailed invoice, or a special mailing, seem the only reasonable ways to meet the requirements of the law.

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

#239

Post by JoeAltmaier »

hopler wrote: post #235
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that a moral distinction? Then both are right. It's not 'yours', but the law says otherwise. The reason is, the common con game where criminals would send expensive items to someone, often a recently deceased person, and demand payment. The surviving family would assume that good ol' Dad had ordered it and pay up. The item was usually junk but with a high price tag. So the con had little to lose. Anyway, items mai…

If they paid voluntary for a worthless item, than that's a totally different situation from what the law protects against.

Not making my self clear. The unordered item, traditionally a bible with the deceased's name in gold lettering (so it cannot reasonably be returned) is delivered with a wildly optimistic price tag. In the hope that the suckers will pay up without question.

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

#240

Post by nickodell »

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…

>involves building a whole new communication system.

Did this require building a new communication system? Comcast has a similar injection system for reminding you to pay your bill, or to notify you that you've been accused of piracy.

Maybe this was done using hardware and software they had lying around.

Post reply on HN