CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to
And here we see the disconnect between what politicians say, and what they write into law.<p>The bill's sponsor's response to the blog authors query:<p>SB134 did not require that ...They were only required to notify customers of options via email or with an invoice.<p>And here is the text of the statute that was written:<p><pre><code>    (ii) 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.
</code></pre>
Note the difference in language breadth.  Bill sponsor: "via email" - text of statute: "by electronic communication".<p>And note clause (C): "in another conspicuous manner".<p>Century link is notifing by: "electronic communications" (DNS hijacking to force viewing of the page is "electronic communications") and/or by "another conspicuous manner" (it is definitely "another" and it is clearly "conspicuous" (one will not miss it)).<p>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".  If they were really only required to "notify ... via email or with an invoice", then clause (A) should have said "via email" and clause (C) should not have been present.