dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2008-04-24 14:56:50: Canadian cable provider Rogers recently gave American cable users a possible glimpse of the future when they started charging data consumption overage fees for their capped and throttled broadband service. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Why would you block bandwidth overage warnings?

Why bother blocking anything? - unless and until they send ads instead of bandwidth overage warnings.



Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

2 edits

How is this not a violation of copyright?

They modify the site owners HTML to inject their javascript execution line then forward the modified HTML to the user (whose browser then renders the HTML along with the freshly injected executes the javascript).

The HTML of site owners like Google is copyrighted and it's a violation of copyright law to modify copyrighted works without permission of the copyright holder, especially for profit.



Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

1 edit

Ottawa's Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) made a similar argument last year:

quote:
"When Rogers modifies the html file in their cache and sends it to its subscribers, it means the Web page has become a derivative work of the original page under copyright,"; McOrmond said. "So if the licence for the particular Web site being modified does not allow for derivative works, Rogers would becomes a pirate. This is a modified work which is considered a worse violation of copyright than verbatim distribution for free."
Don't know how effective that argument would be in court given they're essentially using a frame and no original content is distorted. ISPs might not want to risk a fight with the courts or network neutrality brigades though.

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

1 recommendation

reply to Dogfather

because its not replacing anything on the website. its being put along in another frame- as pictured above; or above the actual web site content.

Not everything is a violation of copyright laws. Especially this because as i stated; its not actually altering the website content.



en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
reply to Dogfather

I agree.
Even though this appears to not change the function of someones content by opening another frame, it IS modifying the basic content. This would make users assume that the modified data is from the page source, and not an ISP attempting to leach off someone elses content for ad revenue.
--
Canada = Hollywood North


hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

1 edit

very true. that part about leaching is true if the ISP does use it for such. I don't see a problem with the system though if its a very low speed tier that the ISP is giving away for dollars a month- such as maybe 96k by 56k for say like $10 per month- i wouldnt see a problem with it then.

Although i would like to know when i would reaching my monthly cap and this could be very usfull for such a thing or Amber Alerts or such.



en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
reply to hottboiinnc

and where is that frame's source located ?
Its basically taking a page, and rendering it as a frame within a page. Its very borderline legal.
I.e. If my page is to be rendered as a page, and suddenly, I find my page loads as a frame with ad ridden content beside/ontop of it, this could be seen as an attempt to hijack content.

Eg. If I went to www.nsa.gov, and found the page split in 2 with a video of Obama as a good samaritan ontop, some one's going to be in trouble.
--
Canada = Hollywood North



wruckman
Ruckman.net

join:2007-10-25
Northwood, OH

Linux

All the more reason to use a Linux system as your home router.



en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
reply to hottboiinnc

Re: How is this not a violation of copyright?

Why not simply have another window open... oh wait.. pop-ups for ad content provider revenue tried this in the past, where hundreds of redirects and pop-ups would invade your screen.
--
Canada = Hollywood North



chd176

join:2003-01-10
Winfield, AL

no thanks

If my ISP injected Ads into my browser then I don't expect to pay anything for the service. That's IMO, although companies are already doing this (Directv with the H20 are starting to inject ads into the H20's guide and prices increased...ironic) I guess pay more for less is the "in" thing these days...
--
1.5/256 CenturyTel PPPoE DSL line



why82923

@sbc.com
reply to Dogfather

Re: How is this not a violation of copyright?

said by Dogfather:

They modify the site owners HTML to inject their javascript execution line then forward the modified HTML to the user (whose browser then renders the HTML along with the freshly injected executes the javascript).

The HTML of site owners like Google is copyrighted and it's a violation of copyright law to modify copyrighted works without permission of the copyright holder, especially for profit.
You mean that HTML that Google stole from the site owner in the first place to build their index?



en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
reply to chd176

Re: no thanks

I think I'll be going OTA HD soon enough, with TV prices soaring. I'm able to get 19 OTA HD channels with a pair of amplified rabbit ears.
--
Canada = Hollywood North



adisor19

join:2004-10-11
Reviews:
·Acanac
reply to FFH

Re: Why would you block bandwidth overage warnings?

Because there are BETTER ways to inform users of the overage warnings. You know, stuff like e-mail.

When a requested HTTP page from my bank account somehow contains something that was not coming from the bank server, there is something REALLY bad going on.

Adi



adisor19

join:2004-10-11

1 recommendation

reply to hottboiinnc

Re: How is this not a violation of copyright?

Huh ? It IS altering the website content. When i request an HTML document, i expect that HTML document to be what i requested. If the contents change, whether it's in a separate frame or not, then we have a BIG problem.

Adi


hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to why82923

especially when they cache versions of the websites on their own servers all around the world. Google is basically taking from someone. And their actually keeping it until they refresh to save again.


hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to adisor19

Re: Why would you block bandwidth overage warnings?

And as far as using email; who would read an email from their ISP? or who checks their ISP email? Especially if its full of AT$T Yahoo!, Rogers Yahoo! or Verizon Yahoo! ads trying to sell you something you already have. Plus yahoo itself doesnt provide that that great of an email service let alone us an ISPs.



Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
reply to hottboiinnc

Re: How is this not a violation of copyright?

said by hottboiinnc:

especially when they cache versions of the websites on their own servers all around the world. Google is basically taking from someone. And their actually keeping it until they refresh to save again.
robots.txt

cornelius785

join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
reply to wruckman

Re: Linux

well if you ignore power, money, and time, then sure.



biff420
Premium
join:2002-01-26
Berkeley, CA
reply to chd176

Re: no thanks

said by chd176:

If my ISP injected Ads into my browser then I don't expect to pay anything for the service.SNIPPED
If they're going to charge you by the byte, then
it's possible their own ads and whatever else they
"inject", can put you over the cap.

What a deal! They put you over, then charge you for it!

Can you say Hosts file?

ddevilduck
Premium
join:2002-07-26
Minneapolis, MN
reply to en102

I only do OTA HD I live 30 miles from Minneapolis and get 10 HD channels and 21 digital channels that are rebroadcasts of SD channels. Screw paying cable or dish to see what I can get for free or pay a small monthly fee to get in my mail.



en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
reply to biff420

said by chd176:

If they're going to charge you by the byte, then
it's possible their own ads and whatever else they
"inject", can put you over the cap.

What a deal! They put you over, then charge you for it!

Can you say Hosts file?
Exactly...extra consumption to put capped users over the top.
These days, its all screwed.
a) Throttled/filtered (Bell / Comcast)
b) Capped (Rogers / Time Warner)
Now add injected ads to consume MORE bandwidth... oh wait, they're making profits on both ends.
- Overages
- Marketing
--
Canada = Hollywood North


woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA

question??

Would a SPI Firewall block this? as the "packet" is not the same as the one that is expected? It is altered by the injection? Curious
--
BlooMe



en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
reply to ddevilduck

Re: no thanks

I can probably do better if I get a 'real' antenna (I'm 30 miles + 1 mountain range away). My inlaws in the San Fernando Valley get 53 HD OTA channels.
--
Canada = Hollywood North



sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to hottboiinnc

Re: Why would you block bandwidth overage warnings?

One of the big problems is that the bandwidth warning is out of date by the time you receive it! It can be at least 8, but more likely 24 hours or more behind. Moreover, Rogers bandwidth measurements are often so wrong it's laughable. Like the guy who was away on vacation for an entire month and consumed over 80GB.

But the bottom line issue is that this is the thin end of the wedge. ISPs want to make more money and they'll try every way they can ... they wanted to charge the sender ... they wanted us to get to the internet through an ad infested portal ... and next it will be injected ads.



sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
reply to Dogfather

Re: How is this not a violation of copyright?

This is one of the reasons that many sites do not permit referrals ... so that their page cannot be framed inside another as we often see.



DeeplyShrouded

@comcast.net

Blocking unwanted content

Well, there was an article on DSLR a while back about a guy
who was blocking FireFox because people were blocking the
ads on his site. Well, my response to him was, if you can't
afford to run a site, then you shouldn't.
(Sarcasm on)
Yes people really do become rich from that .000000000001 cent
click!
(Sarcasm off)

I also stated to him the following analogy:
I pay for a telephone line. No telemarketer has the right
to use that line, and my time to try to make money for
themselves.

The same thing applies here: My computer. I bought it, and I
paid for it. My ISP, I pay a monthly fee for that too.
As long as my bill is paid in full and on time, that is
all the ISP should have to worry about.

I'll gladly pay "overuse fees" when my ISP stops all the spam
that comes into my email box, filters all the probe attempts
on my IP address, and kills all the flashing banners and
other useless crap I don't need to see.

A good example is the front page of Google.
Their logo, a search box, two buttons. That's it.
No ads, no news, no flashing banners, no flash animation.
It's a simple page made to do one thing. Accept information
for a search.

How about an ISP disconnect any PC that's sending massive
amounts of spam? How about they disconnect anyone that has
a PC running a rouge bot and is part of a botnet?

"Our users are using too much bandwidth" they cry.
Well? If you cut out the spam, probes, botnets, and crap
like that off your network, less bandwidth would be used
wouldn't it? Just give me the content from the page I'm
on and THAT'S IT. Simple solution!

It would also be nice for Yahoo's email filter
to be able to filter *.domain. After all, I'm in the USA,
I don't know anyone in Africa, Nigeria, or any other country
that decides to tell me that out of the billions of people
on the net, that I have inherited millions of dollars from
Prince Whatthefuck'shisname."
Yeah, and I was born yesterday too. Give me a break!

It's an unfortunate situation that people have to defend
their PC's with routers, firewalls and virus protection,
but it's a fact of the internet these days.

The bottom line is, most if not all ISP's are aware of
botnets on their networks. Does it really cost all that
much to block the ports those bots are using?
Oh wait, that takes time, time that has to be paid for.
I know! Let's send out more ads to make up for it!



MrMoody
Free range slave
Premium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC

Raise your hands

How many people think that ISPs will reduce the cost of your internet when they start injecting ads?
--
The public is a poor business manager.


Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

1 recommendation

reply to cornelius785

Re: Linux

Corne

You will have to translate that for me. Most of the linksys routers can/do run linux so I do not see power or money being an issue. As far as time goes I do the same things as I did running XP but have none of the headaches. Not one virus since switching. I only have to reboot when I change kernels ( used to be twice a day on XP). I have not had to reinstall once due to OS flaking out (averaged once every three months with XP). All on the same hardware. Linux has saved me weeks of time per year.



en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
reply to DeeplyShrouded

Re: Blocking unwanted content

and this is where 'net neutrality' and 'network management' come to play.
Net Neutrality: Give me a pipe, unthrottled where I am free do do what I want. Be it a bittorrent, VoIP that is not owned/preferred by the ISP or any other app. I never said I needed 20Mbps, but I'd better be able to use that 1.5Mbps as I see fit.

Network Management: We own the network, and don't want useless crap that isn't making us rich in the process (i.e. ads/spam is legal, as long as we get our cut). We'll sell you 20Mbps and throttle it down during peak hours, or put caps. The 1.5Mbps connection will have a 1GB cap, the 20Mbps connection will have a 60GB cap. 1.5Mbps users don't need a cap... its just to get you off the lower tier.
--
Canada = Hollywood North



dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4
reply to biff420

Re: no thanks

said by biff420:

said by chd176:

If my ISP injected Ads into my browser then I don't expect to pay anything for the service.SNIPPED
If they're going to charge you by the byte, then
it's possible their own ads and whatever else they
"inject", can put you over the cap.

What a deal! They put you over, then charge you for it!
Corporate GREED at its finest!
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee