No. The fault lies with CenturyLink. They're the ones who decided to implement this in the most repulsive way allowed by law.
The law only required notification using normal communications methods, not disruption of services. CenturyLink is the one who chose disruption of services.
For example, they could all wear yellow vests and block the entrance to the CenturyLink parking lot.
Their customers can't do that without incurring ridiculous early termination fees. And many of them don't have any other option for broadband anyway.
Further, I suspect boycotts very rarely work even against companies that aren't quasi-monopolies.
Second, most of them do have other options for broadband and in fact use an alternative provider every day.
Third, well organized boycotts commonly work well. Even a 10% drop in revenue really gets the attention.
Are you sure? I don't know anything at all about the market in that part of Utah, but I do know that in almost every place I've lived, there has been exactly one broadband ISP available. If you don't want to use them, then you don't get broadband.
If a consumer is abused by their vendor and continues to fund their abuser, who should be blamed? Obviously the abuser is to blame for the abuse. But shouldn't the person funding the abuser also get some blame? Or is it all the government's fault? Blame the police.
It seems to be a common response to consumer abuse to blame the government while continuing to fund the abuser. That strategy has made Wells Fargo number one. And Century Link number one. And Facebook number one. And the list goes on.
If you can't live without their service for one week, maybe their service isn't so bad. If you're not willing to lift even the smallest finger the smallest amount, just keep belly aching to the wind. That will fix the problem.
> If a consumer is abused by their vendor and continues to fund their abuser, who should be blamed?
If the consumer does not have a reasonable choice in vendor, then the vendor should be blamed. That's kinda the whole point of this thread.
> If you can't live without their service for one week, maybe their service isn't so bad.
That makes no sense. If you can't live without their service for one week, that says nothing about their service, it just means the product is indispensable.
> If you're not willing to lift even the smallest finger the smallest amount, just keep belly aching to the wind. That will fix the problem.
What choice do people have? If there's no alternative ISP you can use, or if the only alternative is just as bad as what you already have, then there's very little you can do except complain.
Fine. Let's define 5 options as the bare minimum to inspire healthy competition. Now we can decisively say that they don't have that many options, with no squishy words.