dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


how-to block ads

Search Topic:
share rss forum feed




All I can say is WOW these ISP's will do anything for extra money.

Tavistock NJ

said by japimp102:

All I can say is WOW these ISP's will do anything for extra money.
Rogers was sending bandwidth account usage messages to their subscribers. They aren't making any MONEY doing that.



said by FFH:

said by japimp102:

All I can say is WOW these ISP's will do anything for extra money.
Rogers was sending bandwidth account usage messages to their subscribers. They aren't making any MONEY doing that.
They aren't doing any money YET. Give it a few months and you'll see ads in no time.



Euclid, OH
reply to japimp102

I would say that this probably won't last long. Not only are they forcing content to their customers, they are also injecting it into any site. This probably violates many site's TOS. If not, then it probably will soon since some sites have strict guidelines on editing the site and of what content goes on their site. Having ads that violate their company policy injected into their sites by ISP most likely will not fly.

- "Techie" Jim


reply to FFH

You don't think the Rogers/Yahoo logo on top of a competing website (Google) isn't advertising? How about a good old fashion splash page?


1 edit
reply to jimbo2150

It's not an infringement of the site owner's copyright. What the ISP is monkeying with is the customer's copy, which the customer is entitled to do as he wishes with, and the ISP's "Terms of Service" probably say that the customer gives permission for the ISP to do this.

It's offensive and ought to be prohibited, but not for the copyright reason.

Edit: This is the same principle that allows each of us to run software that filter ads out of pages, or save a local copy and change the font or whatever. The site owner is not entitled to have everyone see it the way he/she intends; the site owner has a right to control what's in the published version, and then the viewer gets a copy and is entitled to do as he wishes with it, other than republishing. The ISP can claim to be acting as the agent of its subscriber in this situation.

There is an indirect wrong against the site owner, but the real evil is that the ISP can require the customer to allow the page alteration as a condition of service. This is what needs to be prohibited by law.

reply to adisor19

How do you know they aren't making money at this?

The example we have an image of is pretty egregious, but using the same technology the ISP could be inserting its own ads alongside the legitimate ads that the website owners have been paid for. Can you tell which ads are inserted at which point as the page travels to you?

What is far worse, this same tech also enables alteration of news stories, search results, and other content, and it would be hard to tell whether we're getting what the publisher intended, or edited or rewritten text instead.

This has to be outlawed before it goes any further. I'm going to write to Congresspeople here in USA. Anyone else who cares about freedom of communication, please do the same.

Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus

Cheyenne, WY
reply to battleop

If you run firefox you don't have to put up with this crap.
Eat pork chops for Allah!

Ajax, ON
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to swhx7

I actually see something done similar to AdBlock etc...

But instead of replacing Ads with 'nothing' you replace them with your own Ads.

Now Rogers Cable (Part of Rogers) does this already through perfectly legal means for TV ads. They will replace a chunk of Ads on a US Station with Canadian based Ads or Public Service time.

Soon, they will be putting in "Ads" between clicks perhaps... just a Commercial Break. You know, the Internet is replacing TV...


Pickering, ON
reply to Transmaster

Any proof for that?


reply to swhx7

IANAL, but copyright violation is always spoken with respect to distribution. Thus, end users can modify copyrighted works without legal repercussions because they are end users. However, anyone who is retransmitting the copyrighted webpage would be violating copyright if they modify it. And if they're using it to make a money, it's a criminal violation.

Injecting advertisements is definitely illegal for this reason. Injecting status messages is a gray area. Any revenue made from the injection of status messages is likely to be indirect. Hence, while Google can sue for copyright violation, it would be in a civil court, and only for lost revenue, possibly for defamation, defacement, what have you.

Also, there are agreements between providers that prohibit discrimination of data. So if data goes through a certain provider from Google to your ISP before getting to your computer, there's likely a violation of that agreement.

It's not a net neutrality issue per se, but there are still legal issues to consider.