dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search Topic:
uniqs
6711
share rss forum feed


Rob
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL
kudos:2
Reviews:
·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
Avon, OH
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
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

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
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
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
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
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
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to netposer
It's absolutely no different than going through a web proxy server.


Rob
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL
kudos:2
Reviews:
·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
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
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
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

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
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
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
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
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
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to DotMac4
They aren't "pissing" with other peoples' works.


Rob
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL
kudos:2
Reviews:
·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.


DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA

2 edits

1 recommendation

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.

expert007

join:2006-01-10
Buffalo, NY
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.


DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
reply to openbox9
All a proxy server does is forward requests to other servers. It is not foregone that a proxy server molest HTML the way Rogers is.

backness

join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
reply to openbox9
sliding it to the side would be a pop under, not a whole new layout to the page


DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
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.


nklb
Premium
join:2000-11-17
Ann Arbor, MI
kudos:2
reply to dualsub2006
said by dualsub2006:

That should be a violation of Federal law in the US of A.
Just remember, the ISP that is doing this in the article is Canadian
--
for all your Linux questions


PhoenixDown
FIOS is Awesome
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
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.
I can't take my business elsewhere -- like many, I have only one choice for a broadband connection.


DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
Unfortunately where one ISP goes, many follow.

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to Rob
said by Rob:

Oh for sure. The minute my ISP (Comcast) imposes this, I will be switching.
To what, what are you going to do if AT&T/Verizon/Embarq are doing this? FCC killed line sharing.


Rob
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by patcat88:

said by Rob:

Oh for sure. The minute my ISP (Comcast) imposes this, I will be switching.
To what, what are you going to do if AT&T/Verizon/Embarq are doing this? FCC killed line sharing.
Even if I did switch, I could only switch to AT&T since they ripped out the copper in my area and replaced it with Fiber.

When the time comes, then I will decide. But I doubt Comcast would do it.