keeska
Premium
join:2007-04-06
Sedona, AZ
| reply to THZNDUP
Re: Gulf Coast test info
quote:
Or at least they are for this test phase, I wonder how long they'll support two sets once it goes live........
Doesn't matter Set your DNS server(s) to the public, RFC compliant servers. I did this a year ago when the Cox servers were having problems and never changed it back.
This trick Cox is trying to pull makes it obvious they are not interested in providing a good service at a fair price. |
|
state
stress magnet
Premium,Mod
join:2002-02-08
Hampton, VA
clubs: 
Host:
Webhosting
Sonic.net
UK Broadband
Washington & Balti..
UK Chat
| said by keeska  :This trick Cox is trying to pull makes it obvious they are not interested in providing a good service at a fair price. I'm not sure that's a fair statement to make. Cox has been a great ISP over the years, and they've worked very hard for me in the past when I've have problems with their service.
While this is a horribly asinine idea, I don't think it's indicative of them not being interested in providing good service. At least they announced they were testing this in selected markets and offered a workaround instead of just implementing it and shutting out user feedback. |
|
THZNDUP
Deorum Offensa Diis Curae
Premium
join:2003-09-18
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to keeska
Just idle musings. I have used offnet DNS since the @Home/Work split. A few trips back and forth but usually go back offnet.
Along with the probable time restraints maintaining two sets of servers, how will the compliant servers be advertised if the broken ones are the default?
I can easily envision some struggling with phone support.....
'Sir, we don't use DNS servers. We only use IBM or DELL servers'
--
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything |
|
keeska
Premium
join:2007-04-06
Sedona, AZ
| reply to state
quote:
I'm not sure that's a fair statement to make. Cox has been a great ISP over the years,
I agree completely.
quote:
and they've worked very hard for me in the past when I've have problems with their service.
Here I would partially agree. In the past they have provided excellent support. More recently I have had to call in multiple times to find someone on the other end of the phone who knew what a cable or network was. The first or second call now usually results in the "power cycle everything" and if that doesn't fix it they start blaming me. Once I get to a person who had a clue I would explain the problem to them and they got it fixed.
quote:
While this is a horribly asinine idea, I don't think it's indicative of them not being interested in providing good service.
I think it is. Providing good service would mean they would follow the RFCs and offer this as an opt-in service. In the past I think Cox would have done it that way. |
|
krod
meh
join:2007-04-08
2 edits | reply to coxengr
Would someone in the affected area dig these for me or give me your name servers ip
how does it handle: (RFC2606; they're _known_ and reserved for all intents and purposes.)
*.test
*.example
*.invalid
*.localhost
(well abused/known):
*.local
*.pvt
(ie aseduihsadohds.local)
is it limited to www.* or ww.* or are we hijacking smtp.* anything.* etc also? (proper sub domains)
Argument here: there is more to the _INTERNET_ THEN HTTP! does cox not get this in anything and everything they do?
If you really want to hijack misspelled domains, hijack auto.search.msn.com (im sure thats a large %), as any registered search provider in IE will use that to search(be redirected to the proper search engine).
I dont know who they asked about this... as this is already enabled by default for IE, and is selectable to use different providers... maybe cox should bite the bullet and pay MS to become a search provider, im sure its less expensive then doing all this DNS stuff.
Research conclusion: Research was bunk because it failed to test whether the subject knew wtf you where about, and users where to stupid to realize that they already had this functionality.(here i thought the money theory ppl where a little nuts at first.. like myself but i c...)
Also Hijack www.google.com that is what FF's keywords support uses by default, which will be broken by not getting NXDOMAIN
working with doubleclick im sure they want you to hijack every major ad server on the net and point them at doubleclick.
(sorry for giving cox ideas that are probably just as asinine) |
|
robertfl
Premium
join:2005-10-10
Mary Esther, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
| Just a question is this a result for our $2.00 increase? If so, the price should be lowered $10 dollars then.
It looks like this is here to stay. If you want to block the site from loading, load up admuncher (not free but works well) I can't seem to block the site with my netgear router's "site block" feature and I prefer to have it blocked on a network level vs just one machine.
Rob |
|
Fubar
join:2001-02-20
Phoenix, AZ
| said by robertfl :Just a question is this a result for our $2.00 increase? NO IT IS NOT.... AND YES I AM YELLING!!!!!!!!!!
Rob Please quit with this BS you spew..... |
|
Mark
Premium
join:2001-11-15
Mesa, AZ | reply to coxengr
Didn't Verisign try to do this with unregistered .com domains? Very shady if you ask me.
I really hope I don't have to start running my own DNS servers. |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to robertfl
said by robertfl :Just a question is this a result for our $2.00 increase? If so, the price should be lowered $10 dollars then. It looks like this is here to stay. If you want to block the site from loading, load up admuncher (not free but works well) I can't seem to block the site with my netgear router's "site block" feature and I prefer to have it blocked on a network level vs just one machine. at least you're getting on demand for your rate hike
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
CoxAbuse
VIP
join:2003-04-21
Atlanta, GA
| reply to robertfl
said by robertfl :If you want to block the site from loading, load up admuncher (not free but works well) I can't seem to block the site with my netgear router's "site block" feature and I prefer to have it blocked on a network level vs just one machine. That seems like an awful lot of trouble.  It would be easier just to opt out and set your DNS servers to 68.105.28.13 and 68.105.29.13.
--
The Cox Abuse Team |
|
Gamer
join:2006-12-09
Phoenix, AZ
1 edit | said by CoxAbuse :That seems like an awful lot of trouble. It would be easier just to opt out and set your DNS servers to 68.105.28.13 and 68.105.29.13. And even easier to avoid the problem all together by not forcing unwanted advertising on your users. So far, the redirection has contained results that have absolutely nothing to do with their intended targets. Look at that wonderful example of dslreports.con. If a domain doesn't exist, it damn well should return nxdomain.
If users want a feature like this, make a browser plugin (Such as a cox toolbar) that they can optionally install. |
|
fatness
subtle
Janitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
 ·EarthLink
Host:
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help?
Rants, Raves, and ..
| said by Gamer :If users want a feature like this, make a browser plugin (Such as a cox toolbar) that they can optionally install. That would never do. Users can't be trusted to use such a toolbar, even though "research definitely does indicate that most people find this helpful." 
--
Sure, that'll work.. |
|
krod
meh
join:2007-04-08 | reply to coxengr
by the attitude of all of the techs it looks like they already have the go ahead to spread this as the 'latest and greatest' (the pressure to come up with something this stupid every 3 months must be annoying) |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to fatness
said by fatness :said by Gamer :If users want a feature like this, make a browser plugin (Such as a cox toolbar) that they can optionally install. That would never do. Users can't be trusted to use such a toolbar, even though "research definitely does indicate that most people find this helpful." I love it when providers do this in the name of "The users will love it" when its all about revenue generation.
just give me what i pay for[a dumb pipe]
and let it at that.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
LoveIt
@qwest.net
| "The customers will love it. Our marketing department told them so. And our marketing department knows what they are talking about so the customers will believe them. In fact we told the customers so often that we don't even have to ask the customers any more." |
|
robertfl
Premium
join:2005-10-10
Mary Esther, FL
·Cox VOIP
2 edits | reply to CoxAbuse
said by CoxAbuse : That seems like an awful lot of trouble. It would be easier just to opt out and set your DNS servers to 68.105.28.13 and 68.105.29.13.
Scratch that (see next post)
Yes, were getting OD, I wish you were getting it, too. When I played with it, it was awesome. (in W. Palm Beach)
(Sorry, I screwed up on the quote..)
-Rob |
|
robertfl
Premium
join:2005-10-10
Mary Esther, FL
·Cox VOIP
| Here's one way of opting out (I put in finder.cox.net no http in the router)
-Rob |
|
BillRoland
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL
clubs:
 ·Cox HSI
| reply to coxengr
After reading this thread and thinking about it for a while, I'd like to summarize my thoughts on the matter:
1. Cox is screwing with internet standards they have no business messing with. DNS has served us well for a long time without intervention from Cox. Not only that, the internet is about more than just the WWW. How does this DNS hijacking affect other services? The role of the ISP is to provide RFC compliant DNS servers. Period.
2. Cox has not shown how this is a benefit to anybody other than themselves. Indeed, the Cox "solution" failed to provide ANY useful alternatives in the examples coxengr himself posted. It was going to be a tough sell anyway, after that revelation though, its impossible. This new DNS solution has been shown to consistently fail in providing links to what you're looking for, and instead shows you sponsored links that somebody had to pay for to be put on there. I am not accusing coxengr of dishonesty because I believe him to be only the messenger, but it is rather unethical in my opinion to bill this as a service to help users, when in fact, not one example can be found whereby this actually returned useful results rather than blatant advertising. You broke RFC compliant DNS, for THIS?
3. So what options do we have? Pretty much none, that I see. As has been stated before, DSLR is a very small subset of the Cox HSI user base, and as somebody earlier in this thread said, most average customers are just going to assume this is how the internet works now, because they don't know any better, and in fact it seems like Cox is banking on that. This should be an opt in program, not an opt out, if you insist on offering it at all. How many average users are going to go and input manual DNS settings to "opt out" of this? Those are the same people that run no encryption on the WAPs.
I guess the only thing we can do is complain about it here. Is there a number we can call also to register our dissatisfaction?
--
"Don't steal. The government hates competition." |
|
robertfl
Premium
join:2005-10-10
Mary Esther, FL
·Cox VOIP
| You can try opendns.com, I refuse to use Cox's DNS servers until this problem is fixed. Since the router has been switched, pages have been loading faster.
»www.opendns.com
They have a search page too but it can be blocked on a network level.
But your right, the average person doesn't know what this is and they (Cox) are taking advantage of them.
If Cox wants to climate spam on a network level, then they need to stop this shit. Because if a customer hits an infected site using IE...BOOM (and yes, that CAN happen)
-Rob |
|
Gamer
join:2006-12-09
Phoenix, AZ
| said by robertfl :If Cox wants to climate spam on a network level, then they need to stop this shit. Because if a customer hits an infected site using IE...BOOM (and yes, that CAN happen) -Rob And if they don't update Windows, it probably already has happened, regardless of the browser they use; I doubt those users would update Firefox either. What that has to do with this thread, however, is beyond me. |
|
