US Cable Support > Comcast HSI > [DNS] Comcast Launches Trial of Domain Helper Service

[DNS] Comcast Launches Trial of Domain Helper Service

See also »www.comcastvoices.com/2009/07/do···you.html
--
JL
Comcast

reply to ctg1701a
What exactly does it do? Cache webpages or something?
Why not just partner with OpenDNS?

Re: [DNS] Comcast Launches Trial of Domain Helper Service

reply to ctg1701a

Re: [DNS] Comcast Launches Trial of Domain Helper Service

reply to jlivingood
great... more advertising. I agree rob and usa2k

reply to ctg1701a
I wonder if Comcast realises this can (read: does) break spam filtering on the client-side if DNS resolution (forward and reverse) is used as a form of validation.

There's numerous other "gotchas" which I can go into if people are curious. But as others have mentioned, other ISPs have tried this and gotten shot down as well.

Also, Comcast rolling this out now puts into question whether or not this individual was telling the truth, and that "ComcastBonnie" who stated publicly "engineering confirms we do not hijack any DNS traffic in our network and certainly not to 3rd party resolvers" was probably lying.

Like others have said: very, very bad idea. Comcast, you will end up rolling this back, so be sure to forward my comments on to whatever managerial or marketing idiot proposed this idea to begin with. :-)

EDIT: Also, there's a problem with the opt-out Emails your opt-out page sends. The Emails themselves contain a multipart attachment (which is fine), however there's no content in the actual mail itself -- the content is only available inside one of the multipart attachments. This is what I'm talking about:

From: Comcast Domain Helper Opt-Out System <comcast-dns-helper-opt-out@comcast.net>
To: user@comcast.net
Date: Thu,  9 Jul 2009 09:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Action Needed: Comcast Domain Helper Opt-Out Confirmation
 
<end of mail>
 

  I     1 <no description>                  [multipa/alternativ, 7bit, 2.1K]
  I     2 `--> <no description>         [text/plain, quoted, us-ascii, 0.8K]
  I     3 `--> <no description>             [text/plain, 7bit, us-ascii, 0K]
  I     4 `--> <no description>          [text/html, quoted, us-ascii, 1.0K]
 

reply to ctg1701a
So how will users who do not opt out of this advertising barrage be compensated?

Will Comcast be willing to decrease the price of their Internet service for these folks as they roll this out nationwide? It seems to me that if Comcast is to make more money off of advertising gimicks like this, they should also be able to use it to offset a portion of their subscribers' costs.

How Comcastic...
--
It took Abraham Lincoln to free the slaves. And it's taking Barack Obama to enslave the free.
The Obama Administration: as transparent as my grandmother's flannel nightgown.

Hey, If it reduces my bill, sign me up!

reply to koitsu

Fair enough, but it does seem a bit suspicious that someone would encounter redirection services on Comcast (and some other people who commented in the blog also were seeing it), regardless of what DNS servers they were using, be told officially "we don't do this sort of thing", then two days later find the anomalous behaviour had disappeared. Fast forward a month, and Comcast rolls out identical in concept in multiple test markets.

I'll read the draft this weekend. And I'm hoping it discloses exactly how (and where) said redirection methodology is being done. I'm crossing my fingers Sandvine equipment isn't involved.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.

reply to ctg1701a
Chris,

Yuck! (I hate errorvertising) but thanks for the thoughtful way this is being implemented AND ESPECIALLY for the leadership of getting this much-needed conversation going in the IETF.

I hope users vote this down, but I doubt it. Sure sounds like the opt-out is easy which would even limit my own objections.

Robb
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5

reply to ctg1701a

reply to funchords
Thanks Robb,

We worked very hard to deliver a seamless opt-out and get this into the IETF to help standardize these things because there are a lot of implementations out there and some not so good. We are aiming to do better with our implementation and also with our DNS systems in general.

Thanks

My gripe with Verizon is their opt-out is simply to hard-code a x.x.x.14 DNS instead of the DNS assignments given for DHCP. It's not an easy work-around for someone not versed in networking.

I'd like to see your paper take on these non-method methods and describe a system (perhaps yours) that is easy on the non-techie customer.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5

reply to AVD

reply to ctg1701a
If you truly are interested in deploying this as something to help your customers then you should consider the superior method of having some client side software (for example, the browser) react to bad domains in a way that is helpful for the customer. That way everyone gets the user experience they expect and you avoid all the negative backlash.

However I'm suspect that this idea is any more than a money grab under the guise of a customer helping tool, since already 99% of the internet users know exactly what to do when they put in a bad domain name. You WILL show your true intentions if there are ANY revenue generating items in the service.

Maybe you should consider doing the same for your voice services. If someone dials any incorrect phone number or maybe one that's not available/busy, you should let it ring into an operator who will offer to help you if you listen to some ads. "I realize you were trying to call Chili's restaurant, may i suggest an olive garden near you?"

Also you should make every channel someone would type into their TV or Cable box, display ads with a little icon suggesting that this is an invalid channel.

reply to ctg1701a

reply to delusion ftl