ISPs Injecting Their Content Into Websites > Give them an inch, they take a mile.

reply to Rob

Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile.

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.

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.

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.

reply to openbox9

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.

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.

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?

reply to openbox9

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.

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.

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.

reply to DotMac4
They aren't "pissing" with other peoples' works.

reply to openbox9

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.

reply to openbox9
Uh no. You don't seem to understand how pages get rendered. The ISP has to inspect, intercept and then MODIFY Googles copyrighted HTML to add and locate their content (the javascript which obtains and displays the usage data).

There aren't separate HTML pages. There is one HTML page that the browser loads and that's the one the ISP took upon itself to modify.

reply to openbox9
When we as a company design a website, what happens under that domain is copyrighted, we go to great lengths to ensure that when someone accesses our domain, they see exactly what we want them to see.

How'd you like to be on the phone with a friend talking about good restaurants while someone from the telco listens in and randomly starts suggesting restaurants that advertise with them? Its no different.

reply to openbox9
sliding it to the side would be a pop under, not a whole new layout to the page

reply to expert007
It would be different if Rogers ran, with customer consent, an outside popup program that regularly popped up messages obtained on it's own (eg a popup that runs in the sys tray).

It is a dangerous prescendent when an ISP goes so far as to deep inspecting, intercepting, then CHANGING the actual copyrighted HTML of a content creator for their own purposes. It would be like Borders Books, inserting full page ads (attaching them to the binding just like all the other pages) into the middle of books they sell.

There would be little (aside from copyright law) stopping an ISP from taking the top 1000 websites and injecting HTML banners, not javacript which is easily blocked) into the top 1/2 of all those pages.