Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
 ·Comcast
| Give them an inch, they take a mile.
I want to say that the idea of displaying a warning to the user that they are reaching their quota for the month is a great idea, but I fear that if we accept it, then they'll do as the article says and start injecting ads.
I also want to say that I doubt ISPs in the U.S. would even think about doing this, but I know for sure if they do, there will be a massive uproar and more legislative to attempt to control our Internet.
--
www.rr.cx - My Blog
YourIP.US - It's Your IP .. and more!
|
|
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs: | why dont you just block is with ad block plus or the like?
--
3 free for you/3 free for me: Free Stock Trades : PM Me |
|
netposer
join:2003-02-06
Nashville, NC
| reply to Rob
Isn't that illegal anyway? If you or I "hijacked" a site and displayed a message it would be called "hacking" right?
So if they can do this how do we know that's really google?
And how do you know what you are seeing on a legit website is "real"? |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| reply to jgkolt
said by jgkolt  :why dont you just block is with ad block plus or the like? Why should we have to block something that our ISP shouldn't be doing in the first place?
Why can't ISPs just connect us to the Internet and leave us alone. |
|
DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
| reply to jgkolt
Because that is how the websites pay for themselves. If everyone ran ad blockers no one would buy ads space.
The customers already pay handsomely for their connections and ISPs should not be permitted to interfere with traffic or worse, change someone else's copyrighted work.
This is site vandalism in transit. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to Rob
Because ISPs are in the business of making money, not strictly providing you access to the Internet. If consumers are dissatisfied with what they're receiving for their money, then they need to take action. Block the offending material (if it starts happening) or save their money for something else. |
|
DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | reply to netposer
I can't imagine that changing someone's copyrighted work is legal.
The content providers pay a fortune to attract viewers now to just have the ISPs leech and vandalize their pages...in the prime top of page locations at that. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to DotMac4
Not really changing the copyrighted work if the injects are outside (i.e. top, side, bottom) of the page itself. Looking at the above screen caps, it doesn't seem that the pages themselves have changing, only relocated on the users' screens. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to netposer
It's absolutely no different than going through a web proxy server. |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :Because ISPs are in the business of making money, not strictly providing you access to the Internet. If consumers are dissatisfied with what they're receiving for their money, then they need to take action. Block the offending material (if it starts happening) or save their money for something else. Yes, ISPs are in the business of making money. But I'm already paying them for my connection. It's not like I'm getting anything for free.
We cannot accept this and just say "block the offending material". That is NOT the answer. We need to stop this at the source, the ISP. We've given them so much freedom and they are abusing it. |
|
DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | reply to openbox9
They changed they appearance of a copyrighted work. If I take newpapers off the stand and put ad stickers in the margins I'm changing the page. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to Rob
Yes, you are paying for the connection that is provided to you under the terms that it is provided. Why can't you just say "block the offending material"? I do it right now and it works wonderfully. |
|
DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | reply to openbox9
They should be legislated into not pissing with other peoples' works. What is next, telcos going to have every call you make start only after a 10 second ad spot? |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :Yes, you are paying for the connection that is provided to you under the terms that it is provided. Why can't you just say "block the offending material"? I do it right now and it works wonderfully. Because I will not accept this from any ISP - PERIOD. It's not about blocking the material, it's about that they shouldn't be allowed to do this in the first place. |
|
dualsub2006
join:2007-07-18
Newport, KY
| reply to DotMac4
I don't allow a website to simply loaded ads in my browser because the site is free. There are annoying things that go on and it is up to me to decide if I am willing to sit through those ads or not.
I allow Google and Yahoo text ads. These are generally found on sites that I use the free services from like Gmail. I have even clicked the ads and bought some things.
Graphical or flash ads are a big no-no in my book and I block them. I use Ad-Block Plus and No Script to do it. These ads annoy the hell out of me, consume computer resources and have the ability to be malicious. If any website business model relies solely on ad sales then perhaps the owner should rethink their business plan.
Most people, by far, do not block ads. Most people, by far click those ads or Google and Doubleclick and all of the ad companies wouldn't be in business. Me? I'm not having it.
And I agree. ISP's should not be allowed to do this. It is interference with inter-state communications. Your phone company can't insert a random ad in the middle of a phone call for the same exact reason. That should be a violation of Federal law in the US of A. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to DotMac4
It looks like the copyrighted work is still intact to me, just relocated. It would be the same as sliding the newspaper to the right on the stand and placing an ad next to it, not on it. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to Rob
Back to my original comment. Save your money, or take it elsewhere. That type of action will be what gets ISPs' attentions the quickest. Whining in a forum or hoping for some inept "net neutrality" law to be passed, won't drive ISPs to change their actions. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to DotMac4
They aren't "pissing" with other peoples' works. |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :Back to my original comment. Save your money, or take it elsewhere. That type of action will be what gets ISPs' attentions the quickest. Whining in a forum or hoping for some inept "net neutrality" law to be passed, won't drive ISPs to change their actions. Oh for sure. The minute my ISP (Comcast) imposes this, I will be switching.
But I gotta say Comcast, while it has its "stories", it's pretty good with not getting in my business. But if they happen to impose this, and there is no ability to turn it off on their site for individual customers ("Opt-out feature"), then I switch. |
|
DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | reply to openbox9
Huh? They INJECT the code into GOOGLES CODE! On planet earth that is certainly pissing with someone else's work.
Of course the ISPs think they own the Internet and the cable shills will excuse ANYTHING they do. |
|
