
CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to - snapwich
https://www.richsnapp.com/blog/2018/12-13-centurylink-blocking-internet-in-utah
======
xahrepap
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't going to be using it and didn't
want to be charged for it.

Fast forward to yesterday and we had a modem in the mail a $200+ bill for our
landline that should be <$60. She called and the guy on the other end was very
helpful (surprisingly). He went through the bill line-by-line and almost every
time said something to the extent of, "Why is that here?" "I'm going to have
to talk to {previous sales lady who 'upgraded' us}". Some of the items he
didn't even know what they were and couldn't remove them, so he instead gave
us a permanent $10/mo discount or whatever it was billing.

About the modem, he said, "You can keep it or mail it back. I can make a note
on our software that you didn't want it and it shouldn't bill you for it.
However, I recommend you mail it back because sometimes that note will
disappear from our software and start charging you again".

Wait... what!? Did he just acknowledge what some of us has suspected all
along? That their software has intentional "bugs" that don't remember to stop
billing someone for something?

The whole thing feels like a scam to me. I don't trust them at all. This isn't
the first time and won't be the last either.

The reason we haven't canceled? No other traditional landline offerings in our
area. Everything is VOIP or Cell. My wife wants something independent for
emergencies. She's starting to question the value of it all though.

~~~
illumin8
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 practices, but when the FCC
gets involved, they are facing potential fines of tens of thousands for each
infraction, so they'll bend over backwards to get you to drop the complaint.

Try it sometime, it sucks that it's necessary, but you'd be amazed at the
results.

~~~
bitsnbytes
"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 my service was to write a complaint to the FCC.

Sure enough just a few days later comcast called and apologized and cancelled
my service as requested and fixed the hundreds of dollars of wrongful billing.

~~~
jxfreeman
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.

~~~
morpheuskafka
In my experience helping an elderly relative with the cable shitshow, the
Comcast service center people are actually really nice and would have done so
without the drama. But I definitely recommend the physical side of things.

Although I have done a bit of a chaotic neutral thing myself: Comcast sent her
two new boxes instead of one after we switched her to a cheaper box. They
wanted us to drive all the way back to service center. Grabbed their UPS
account # from the tracking code, filled out the web form and had it sent back
with pickup billed against Comcast’s acct. She never got billed a cent.

------
twhb
“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 into a large
expenditure.

Today is, by the way, the one year anniversary of the repeal of net
neutrality. ISPs, including CenturyLink, were viciously fighting to end rules
preventing the sale of selective internet access, and won. In order to sell
selective internet access, you need exactly the system that just showed up.
This system would take a while to build—maybe a year. And once it’s built, you
would want to test it. The test would put your capitalization on the lack of
net neutrality in the spotlight—unless you just serve a legal notice, and
pretend you thought you had to. For that to work, you need to make sure people
know the “legally required” part; for a legitimately legally-required notice,
companies typically don’t say as much. CenturyLink literally highlights it.

~~~
B-Con
> “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.

------
pwg
And 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 communication;
         (B) with a consumer's bill; or
         (C) in another conspicuous manner.
    

Note the difference in language breadth. Bill sponsor: "via email" \- text of
statute: "by electronic communication".

And note clause (C): "in another conspicuous manner".

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)).

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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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 users, it's
arguably not even fully compliant.)

But, even if it were fully compliant with the law, it's not any lawmaker’s
fault that CenturyLink chose to implement pretty much the most user-hostile
method imaginable (short of, say, posting sings on its customers lawns, facing
the windows of their home, illuminated with burning crosses—which would
likewise be “another conspicuous manner”) to fulfill the notification
requirement.

~~~
pwg
> 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 perform this
"user-hostile method" under cover of being within the wording of the law.

If the law maker had written a more narrow law, and written what he actually
intended, then CL using this method would have been in clear violation of the
law, rather than being able to hide behind "we are permitted this method by
the law".

~~~
bashinator
It looks to me like the use of the word "may" in the actual law lends a degree
of flexibility to the implementation.

    
    
        A service provider *may* provide the notice [...]
    

That does not seem like a hard requirement. Or is this a case where legalese
differs from commonly-understood grammar?

~~~
pwg
That "may" there appears to refer to selecting among the choices (A), (B), or
(C) within the statute.

The portion before the selection list (which I did not quote, as it can be
read in full in the actual article) begins:

A service provider shall, before December 30, 2018, notify ...

This clause says they "shall" notify. So it is mandatory they notify. It is
not mandatory that they perform the notification via the means they selected
to perform the notification. The method is awful, but the method is allowed by
at least clause (C) of the statute.

Which was my original point. The bill sponsor replied that their intent was
"by email" or "with the invoice". But what they wrote as the statute not only
encompasses that intent, but allows choosing a huge number of other, many very
awful (as is this one), ways of 'notifying' as well. If the sponsor's intent
was "email" or "with invoice" then their statute should have said "by email"
or "with invoice".

~~~
ryanlol
This feels particularly delusional.

Even if the law said that this notification _must_ be delivered via certified
mail, that would obviously not prevent Centurylink from also doing this.

Why is it that you so badly want to blame lawmakers for this?

------
fpgaminer
Hmmm, so if I were on CenturyLink and in the "SOL" category the following
could have happened.

Attempting to email my state senators to express a political opinion? Freedom
of speech: Blocked.

Buying from a company online, located in another state? Interstate commerce:
Blocked.

Trying to run an online business? Blocked.

Trying to contact my kids? Blocked.

My elderly grandmother is dying and family was trying to Skype me in since I
couldn't make it? Blocked.

The number of constitutional laws, federal laws, and moral laws broken here is
mindbogglingly astronomical.

Good luck, CenturyLink.

~~~
kingbirdy
Your constitutional protections are protections from the government, not
businesses.

~~~
craftyguy
Is the line a bit fuzzy though because most ISPs in the US are government-
sanctioned monopolies?

~~~
erikpukinskis
Are you sure?

~~~
craftyguy
No, that's why I'm asking...

Not every question on the internet is a thinly veiled attempt to make a
statement!

~~~
justwalt
I find this unique trait of the Internet tiresome at times. I’d prefer not to
feel like I have to include a disclaimer on a question comment to avoid coming
off hostile.

~~~
carapace
C'mon man, there's no voice-tone in text!

;-)

------
waffle_ss
The 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.

~~~
gtdawg
They purchased Level(3) who already previously owned Global Crossing, Savvis
Video and Genuity, among other acquisitions.

The Level(3) name was much more memorable in the carrier/enterprise/ISP field
and it feels like they are starting from scratch on brand recognition, because
as you said, lots of people haven't heard of Centurylink before.

Edit: And as noted by the thread "CenturyLink is totally shady.",
Centurylink's retail consumer reputation is quite tarnished (as are most large
consumer ISP companies) and mixing that reputation with Level(3) was a bad
decision, IMO.

~~~
ndarwincorn
What? Level3 was huge as a fiber ISP at the enterprise level, but
Qwest/CenturyLink has been a huge phone service/ISP in the west since the
breakup of Ma Bell. They own the naming rights to the Seahawks's stadium.

They have huge brand recognition in the West, though you're right, little of
it's positive. I remember a cover article in my sleepy mountain town's
alt/leftist newspaper titled 'Qworst' when I was growing up.

Full disclosure I work at a shop that switched to CL fiber (e.g. Layer3) per
my recommendation on coming on. The service quality/uptime is top-notch but
the sales/PM process has left a lot to be desired.

~~~
gtdawg
True, I did forget about the Qwest acquisition from Centurylink because that
was so long ago (to my memory). I do remember the days when routing problems
and outages with Qwest in public forums always led to the 'Qworst' name
popping up.

I also work for a shop that I recommended Level(3) DIA fiber/Layer 3 services
on about 1.5 years ago. Now that it's CL, not much has changed on service or
reliability.

The sales people however are still trying to expand their grasp into our
organization so it's always a battle there.

------
LeoPanthera
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. Comcast should be a dumb pipe, not fucking with my
data.

~~~
RKearney
There's an RFC[0] for that

[0] [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6108](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6108)

~~~
joshu
That Comcast wrote.

------
zapdrive
So what happens if a CenturyLink customer is not using their DNS, and using
for example Google's DNS. They will suddenly have their internet disabled and
will never see this page, where they have to click "OK" to reconnect their
internet.

~~~
jeroenhd
They will probably forward all DNS traffic to their own resolvers by just
changing the destination IP of any UDP traffic to port 53.

This won't work with DNSSEC or encrypted DNS though.

~~~
aflag
The tldr section of the article says that's not the case.

~~~
snapwich
It wasn't the case for me, however I'm not exactly sure how they've
implemented this DNS hijacking and if I was just an exception or the rule.
Other people using custom DNS seemed to have a similar experience from what I
read on reddit though.

------
wl
It's sad that even ISPs seem to think that WWW = the internet these days. If I
were traveling and I couldn't VPN into my home network because of this, I'd be
really pissed.

------
kstrauser
I loathed CenturyLink when I had to deal with them. Quick reminder: they never
specify _which_ century they're linking you to.

~~~
timerol
Given that they were founded in 1930, I think the century is pretty clear,
though not favorable.

------
ryanolsonx
This happened to my brother-in-law. He asked for help when his router wasn't
"working". Since I'm pretty computer savvy, I agreed to come and "fix" it.
Little did I know that it was this BS. I got to that notice and then finally
the internet started working again.

 _This_ is a small reason why NET neutrality is important. Total BS. I'll
never use CenturyLink. I've thought about it in the past, but after this, H
no.

------
logfromblammo
I saw something similar with a hotel wi-fi setup.

In order to reach the Internet, you have to agree to the hotel's terms of
service. The page to accept the terms of service is presented by redirecting
any HTTP request from an unauthorized device. But (!) the redirect page was
resolved by DNS, and DNS traffic to the Internet is also blocked. Only the
local DNS resolver is accessible.

The instant any machine that specifies a specific DNS resolver tries to
connect, the attempted redirect fails silently. In order to get things
working, you have to clear your DNS settings to use the DHCP-specified DNS
resolver, click the "accept" button on the redirect page, and then re-enter
your previous DNS settings.

I wasn't so much angry that this was happening, than angry that they did such
a ham-handed, botched job of it. If you're going to block outside DNS, you
have to redirect to an IP address rather than a DNS-resolved address.

------
hartz
More widespread use of DNS-over-TLS/HTTPS/QUIC can't come soon enough

~~~
dcbadacd
ESNI also can't come soon enough.

------
hathawsh
I'm not going to defend CenturyLink, but in the interest of attributing this
mistake to incompetence rather than malice, I'd like to suggest how this might
have happened. CenturyLink is a multi-state ISP and their generic system has
limited ability to support state-specific policies. They have a well-developed
system for creating state-specific packet processing rules, but they don't
have a well-developed way to notify all customers in a state.

Therefore, when Utah surprised CenturyLink with a new law, they didn't have a
way to comply with the law quickly except by changing their packet processing
rules. This was the ugly result.

CenturyLink should obviously have some way to add state-specific notifications
to customers' bills. I hope they learn that lesson from this ridiculous event.

~~~
techsupporter
Would it be too difficult to select all service addresses where state is equal
to "UT" and then send a bulk rate piece of paper to each of them with these
same words?

On my CenturyLink bill in Washington State, I get state- and city-specific
notices every month, but even if that's not easily changed, a piece of paper
in the mail would have sufficed quite nicely with no packet blocking required
at all.

------
zzo38computer
The customer might not even see it without compatible software, or if using a
different port number or protocol, or if not using DNS to access something, or
using a different DNS. Or if you are using a web browser but with customized
settings that make it incompatible.

Same with many hotels. If you are not even using HTTP(S), or DNS, then it
won't work, and even if you are using HTTP but not with a web browser program,
it won't work (there is a HTTP response code (511) defined for this purpose at
least), using nonstandard port numbers, etc.

For terms of service requirements, one possibility to avoid these problem is
to make the printed terms of service document with the wi-fi password
mentioned in that document.

------
jrnichols
Of all the way to inform customers of something, Centurylink picked the most
obnoxious and intrusive way they could think of. wow.

------
ryanolsonx
This happened to my brother-in-law. They told me that their internet went down
and that they need help. Since I'm good with computers, I came over to "fix"

------
enzanki_ars
I don’t think CenturyLink thought through the implications of what they just
pulled. I know that there are a significant number of people that use VoIP
services like Vonage.

Imagine waking up in the middle of the night with a need to call 911, but your
ISP purposely broke your internet just to sell you a “security offering.”

------
aplummer
The comments here interesting but nuts for foreigners. I’m so used to a slight
mention of an ombudsman being a 15 second turnaround to almost anything I ask
for happening with ISPs / telcos. I worry about buying anything in the USA
with such scant consumer protection.

------
ngngngng
Century link is my only option for internet here in rural Utah at a max speed
of 3Mbs per second. Luckily our municipal network is going up soon with max
speeds of 10GBs per second. I'm very excited.

------
bradenb
Well this sucks. I have CenturyLink for residential gigabit fiber. Honestly,
they've been a fantastic ISP for me. I also haven't received the notice and
I'm one of those "SOL" customers that uses non-CenturyLink DNS. We'll see what
happens. I'd be surprised if they didn't stop this immediately as soon as it
blew up.

I have been noticing comments from people in my area on social media over the
last month with the recurring theme "Is anyone else's CenturyLink down?" This
must have been it.

------
auslander
Always on VPN on all your devices is pretty much a must today. Added benefit
when using commercial VPNs is hiding your IP address, a key feature for
tracking you by Adtech industry.

Finding good VPN provider is tricky though. Definitely avoid free ones. Look
for ones providing configuration for native VPN clients, like
profile.mobileconfig file for the native iOS / MacOS IKEv2 client. Using
native (OS supplied) clients lets you avoid installing third party VPN apps.

~~~
gmac
Depending on what you're trying to achieve, running your own can be a good and
simple option:

[https://github.com/jawj/IKEv2-setup](https://github.com/jawj/IKEv2-setup)

[https://github.com/trailofbits/algo](https://github.com/trailofbits/algo)

~~~
auslander
> running your own can be a good and simple option

\+ trusted vpn

\- unique IP that only you use, bad for tracking. Your searches and browsing
history is linked easily to you.

------
otakucode
"that the consumer may request material harmful to minors be blocked under
Subsection (1)(a)" absolutely unequivocally does NOT translate to "inform the
customer that they can pay for filtering themselves". The law really clearly
puts the burden on the ISP to perform the filtering, and requires the ISP to
inform the customer that they can request the filtering be turned on - not
that the customer can purchase some product that does filtering.

------
walrus01
Senior network engineer for an mid sized ISP here: These people should be
ashamed of themselves. I honestly don't care even the tiniest bit about
whatever sort of excuses or justification they put up.

It should not be necessary for a consumer end user (whether residential or
business) of an ISP in the US or Canada to treat their ISP as hostile, and
develop workarounds like VPN tunneling their traffic, such as I would do if I
found myself using an ISP in Turkey for a month.

This bullshit of injecting content into pages has been tried before, a long
time ago by Comcast. I really don't see the point to it in an era of
LetsEncrypt and nearly everything worthwhile moving to TLS1.2 or better end-
to-end.

[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/08/comcasts-dns-
red...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/08/comcasts-dns-redirect-
service-goes-nationwide/)

Also you absolutely should not mess with DNS returns from your client-facing
recursive resolvers. Various ISPs have tried things like redirecting nonexist
results to pages laden with "suggestions" and "advertising".

~~~
api
Unfortunately enough ISPs have abused their position that treating them as
hostile is where we're going.

VPNs are a stopgap. The future is end-to-end encrypted protocols like QUIC
that obscure even connection state information and prevent anything from being
modified in transit at all, DNS over HTTPS, etc. Everything has to be
encrypted and authenticated end-to-end.

~~~
jillesvangurp
Yes, men in the middle cannot be trusted. Especially ISPs. Most mean well but
are incompetent. Some don't mean well and are incompetent. ISPs that mean well
and actually know what they are doing are relatively rare.

If you have a device with wifi, most of the time you are on untrusted
networks. So, it makes no sense whatsoever to default to some random isp's DNS
just because the wifi you are on is suggesting that you use it.

~~~
behringer
They're only rare because their CEOs go to jail:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio)

[https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2015/04/29/joe-
nacch...](https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2015/04/29/joe-nacchio-
speaks-out-on-prison-broken-justice.html)

------
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.

------
mholt
Google Fiber just sent a nice email with some links to resources for families.
And it was totally sufficient to satisfy the law. (Source: am in Utah)

So there are two problems at play here:

\- Laws are technically ambiguous

\- CenturyLink and most other large ISPs are awful, incompetent companies

------
sbrother
For any other Utah residents in areas that aren't served by cable, check out
Utah Broadband. They've been fantastic for us, serving up 60Mbps over line-of-
sight fixed wireless. Also their customer service rocks.

------
nimbius
For anyone in Utah currently trying to deal with this issue, you might be able
to workaround with pihole:

[https://pi-hole.net/](https://pi-hole.net/)

or perhaps a local resolver?

------
cronix
I don't know if they do this (I no longer have them), but Comcast used to do
this for DMCA notices. They'd inject an iframe with the message into the
websites you were viewing.

------
stefek99
Clickbait.

"displaying popup and clicking OK to dismiss" is not as harmful as blocking
the internet.

They control all the traffic anyway...

------
ezoe
> I would switch ISPs but I have no other options where I live. Hopefully
> making this issue more public will help CenturyLink make better decisions,

Seriously? I won't trust such ISP to send/receive even one bit of information
if I were him. Even if they changed their mind because of this, Don't trust
them until all the boards resigned, all the employees implemented this be
fired, lost the massive lawsuit from all the customers, and then, after
acquired by other sane ISP.

------
mproud
You can choose to opt out of their DNS ads with a phone call. That’s what I
did a long time ago.

------
dreamcompiler
This is an example of why the FCC needs to regulate ISPs and enforce net
neutrality. CenturyLink needs to be fined $$$ per incident for stunts like
this. Their shareholders need to feel the pain.

------
bogomipz
Wow this is a new low. Can someone say is CenturyLink a monopoly is most of
the state? Can these customers vote with their wallet and go elsewhere for
Internet? I really hope.

~~~
nhumrich
Really depends on the city and area. In some places, there is a plethora of
options. But I currently cant vote with my wallet. They are the only provider
in my neighborhood.

------
arnonejoe
5G will put century link out of business.

~~~
inetknght
I'll believe that when I see it. Until then, I believe that any wireless
communication is inherently inferior to wired communication.

~~~
paulcole
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.

~~~
rthomas6
True, nobody eats homemade soup.

~~~
inetknght
Especially not at home.

------
emilfihlman
The bill is the issue.

------
crispyporkbites
Why is this so surprising? You pay for your internet from this service
provider and this is the trust you're putting in this private company. All
your communication that goes down this channel is subject to their rules, and
unless you encyrpt it they can do what they like.

I think these kind of crappy implementations just surface a bigger problem
underneath. If you don't choose your own DNS servers, if you don't have proper
DNS security, https by default everywhere etc. etc. you don't have a secure
connection.

~~~
westbywest
Your reasoning would be fine, were it not for the fact that an ISP's mere
existence in an area, no matter how crappy, generally satisfies FCC's mandate
to promote/fund broadband penetration. So, Crappy-ISP, LLC existing and being
able to pencil-whip FCC filings about minimum speed expectations across its
coverage area means the FCC will make no effort to provide funds for Less-
Crappy-ISP, LLC or Moderately-Crappy-ISP, LLC to come in and fill gaps.

