CenturyLink customers should exercise caution in responding to e-mail links to CenturyLink’s online account portal.  Hackers have meticulously duplicated the look and feel of the nation’s fourth largest phone company’s online account website with hopes customers will provide personal information that can be used for identity theft or fraudulent financial activity.

Trend Micro’s TrendLabs group warned readers it noticed the well-done phishing fakes popping up on several websites, preparing to collect information from unsuspecting customers.  Most phishing attacks typically start with unsolicited e-mail purporting to be from CenturyLink, with a convenient link included for customers to click.  Only this e-mail will not direct visitors to CenturyLink, instead diverting customers to the impostor websites that look like the real thing.

Customers can protect themselves from these phishing tricks and traps by following this advice:

1. If receiving e-mail from a company asking you to follow a link to their website, you are safer typing in the company’s website address yourself, ignoring the link.  Links that look authentic in an e-mail can be anything but when you click on them.  If you intend to share personal information or password to log in to a website, it’s better to start your journey there yourself.
2. If the site you reach shows an unexpected address in the URL window, that is often a warning sign trouble is brewing.  CenturyLink’s account login screen should display either https://auth.centurylink.net/saml/module.php/core/no_cookie.php?retryURL=https%3A%2F%2Fauth.centurylink.net%2Fsaml%2Fsaml2%2Fidp%2FSSOService.php%3Fspentityid%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fcenturylink.net%252Fsaml%252Fmodule.php%252Fsaml%252Fsp%252Fmetadata.php%252FClient%252FLibrary%252FSaml%252Fsaml-sp%26cookieTime%3D1521251419%26RelayState%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fcenturylink.net%252Flogin%252F or https://eam.centurylink.com/eam/login.do.  If it shows a series of numbers or a website address other than centurylink.com or centurylink.net, consider ending your visit and starting over at centurylink.com, typed into your browser yourself.  When in doubt, don’t enter your login information.
3. A padlock should be visible somewhere in your browser at the CenturyLink login screen.  Most place the padlock at the bottom of the browser screen.  No padlock?  Danger.
4. Any code errors on the page that show up should also be a point of concern along with spelling and grammatical errors.

In general, using up to date antivirus software and applying security patches regularly will offer some advance warning of a suspicious message.  But nothing beats common sense.

The authentic CenturyLink website. Notice the padlock circled on the right.

The fake version phishing for your personal information. Circled on the left is a warning of code errors on the page. On the right, notice the absence of a padlock icon.

Phillip Dampier

The Wall Street Journal today published an article reviewing the landscape of flat rate broadband service and how some Internet providers want to change it.

The article quotes me on the issue of Internet Overcharging becoming a political football in the Net Neutrality debate.

“This could come down to carriers saying, ‘If you don’t allow us to manage our networks the way we see fit, then we will just have to cap everything,’ ” says Phillip Dampier, a consumer advocate focusing on technology issues in Rochester, N.Y. “They’ll make it an either/or thing: give them more control over their network or expect metered broadband.”

Mr. Dampier was among those who forced Time Warner Cable to shelve a metered Internet pilot program in several cities last year. The company, which had argued the plan would be a fairer way to charge for access, acknowledged it was a “debacle.” It won’t say if it plans to revive the trials.

Unfortunately, the article never bothers to mention Stop the Cap!, the website dedicated to fighting these overcharging schemes.

AT&T weighs in on their experiment to overcharge consumers in Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada, and analysts think Net Neutrality arguments may give providers an excuse to expand those experiments, launch price increases and blame it on Net Neutrality policies:

“Some type of usage-based model, for those customers who have abnormally high usage patterns, seems inevitable,” an AT&T spokesman says. AT&T declined to provide more details on its trials.

“Unquestionably, the carriers erred in their initial selling of broadband with a flat rate,” says Elroy Jopling, research director of Gartner Inc. “They assumed no one would use it as much as they do now, but then along came high-definition movies. They’re now trying to get around that mistake.”

Network neutrality deals primarily with ensuring that Internet providers don’t favor any online traffic over any other. Still, Mr. Jopling and other analysts argue, the net neutrality debate might provide the carriers with an opening to argue for changing that pricing.

“With network neutrality enforced, the only other option for carriers is to charge by the byte or to raise the flat-rate pricing,” says Johna Till Johnson, president of Nemertes Research. “Right now they’re just deciding which one to do. Just be prepared to pay more.”

It's "Rep. Eric Massa," Not 'Joe Messa'

The article has several flaws.

• It mis-identifies Rep. Eric Massa (D-New York) as “Rep. Joe Messa.”  Rep. Massa introduced legislation to ban Internet Overcharging when companies cannot produce actual evidence to justify it, particularly in the limited competitive marketplace for broadband in the United States.
• The article fails to mention the usage limits proposed by smaller broadband providers, including Frontier’s infamous 5GB usage definition in their Acceptable Use Policy.  This is a very important fact to consider when the article quotes Professor Andrew Odlyzko, an independent authority on broadband usage, as stating the average broadband consumer uses triple that amount (15 gigabytes per month).
• The quotation about the number of e-mails or web page views available under plan allowances that routinely appear in such articles ignores the increasing use of higher bandwidth applications like online video.  Telling a consumer they can send 75 million e-mails is irrelevant information because no consumer would ever need to worry about usage limits if they only used their account for web page browsing and e-mail usage.  They very much do have to be concerned if they use their service to watch online video from Hulu or Netflix, or use one of the online backup services.
• The article makes no mention of publicly available financial reports from broadband providers like Time Warner Cable that prove that at the same time their profits on broadband service are increasing, the company’s costs to provide the service continue to decline, along with the dollar amounts they spend to maintain and expand that network to meet demand.  Providing readers with insight into the true financial picture of a broadband provider, instead of simply quoting the public relations line of the day would seem particularly appropriate for The Wall Street Journal.
• The article doesn’t make mention that the same providers arguing increased Internet traffic is creating a problem for them are also working to launch an online video distribution platform that will rival Hulu in size and scope.  TV Everywhere will consume an enormous amount of the broadband network they claim can’t handle today’s traffic without Internet Overcharging schemes being thrown on customers.  Of course, such usage limits are very convenient for companies like Comcast, Time Warner Cable and AT&T, which are now in the business of selling pay television programming to consumers.  Should a consumer choose to watch all of their television online instead of paying for a cable package, a usage allowance will help put a stop to that very quickly, as will planned restrictions that only provide online video to “authenticated” existing pay television subscribers.

One thing remains certain – providers are still itching to overcharge you for your broadband service.  Consumers and the public interest groups that want to represent them must stand unified in opposition to Internet Overcharging schemes and for Net Neutrality protection, and never accept sacrificing one for the other.

Robb from Hillsboro, Oregon graciously gave permission to share his own research on what a 5GB cap means in the real world.   Some upset about the usage cap announced by Frontier have suggested that’s almost as bad as going back to dial-up.   But as Robb discovered, you would be better off with 56k dialup! That’s because an unlimited Frontier dial-up account can deliver more to you in a month than a crippled DSL account with a 5GB usage cap on it.

See the numbers for yourself:

Courtesy: Robb (a/k/a 'funchords'), Hillsboro, Oregon