 | | WOW All I can say is WOW these ISP's will do anything for extra money. | |
|
 |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: WOW 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. | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·Acanac
| Re: WOW said by Linklist: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.
Adi | |
|
| | |  swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | Re: WOW 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. | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| Re: WOW 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... | |
|
| | | | 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? | |
|
| | |  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | Re: WOW If you run firefox you don't have to put up with this crap.
--
Eat pork chops for Allah! | |
|
| | | | | | Re: WOW Any proof for that? | |
|
| | | 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 | |
|
| | swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
1 edit | Re: WOW 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. | |
|
| | | | | Re: WOW 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. | |
|
| | Another reason Another reason to block javascript. | |
|
| LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: Another reason said by rob in mi :
Another reason to block javascript.
Or use something like the FF NoScript addon where you can decide what javascripts you will or won't allow to run.
»noscript.net/
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
|
| |  DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | Re: Another reason Better yet how about ISPs not illegally modify copyrighted works. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Another reason they didnt modify copyrighted works the insert wasnt in an edited page but a frame type page they added on their own network. they're not doing anything illegal
Its actually nice of them to tell you that you're abot to reach your limit. | |
|
| | | | DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
4 edits | Re: Another reason That isn't what happens.
Rogers using Preftech's methods has to modify Google's HTML to insert the instruction to execute the script. The browser receives the modified HTML with the added SCRIPT line which executes Roger's Preftech doc write-ins filled script which then adds all the crap you see added to Google's page.
Without the original modification of Google's copyrighted HTML to insert the execution line, the execution of Preftech's javascript can't occur.
This is nothing new, this Preftech has been around for years. But in an age where ISPs with break whatever they want or mooch after whoever they want, I see ads coming next. And Preftech advertises their stuff as such.
There is also nothing stopping Rogers from just inserting HTML banner ads instead of java execution commands, making those banners impossible or virtually impossible to circumvent..since you can't tell who added it if it was added at all.
This is just bad all around. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Acanac
| said by rob in mi :
Another reason to block javascript.
LOL, this isn't Javascript ! This is the HTML file being modified on the fly before it gets to your computer. No JavaScript involved.
Adi | |
|
| | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: Another reason said by adisor19:said by rob in mi :
Another reason to block javascript.
LOL, this isn't Javascript ! This is the HTML file being modified on the fly before it gets to your computer. No JavaScript involved. Adi Maybe you missed this in the BBR news story above:
»lauren.vortex.com/isns-code.txt
The javascript that was used.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
|
| | | DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | Re: Another reason They have to modify the HTML to insert the Javascript. It's javascript that obtains and displays the usage data, but the HTML is what contains the instructions on executing the javascript and where it goes on the page.
The ISP is taking it upon itself to inspect, intercept and then modify the HTML page to include their javascript. The modified page then runs the javascript and you get the giant banner. Google's HTML is copyrighted so I don't see how this can be legal. | |
|
 RobIn Deo speramus.Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3 | 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!
| |
|
|  jgkoltPremium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. 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 | |
|
| | RobIn Deo speramus.Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3 | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. 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. | |
|
| | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. 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. | |
|
| | | | RobIn Deo speramus.Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3 | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. 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. | |
|
| | | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. 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. | |
|
| | | | | | RobIn Deo speramus.Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3 | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | RobIn Deo speramus.Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3 | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | RobIn Deo speramus.Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3 | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | |  PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. Unfortunately where one ISP goes, many follow. | |
|
| | | | DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | 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? | |
|
| | | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. They aren't "pissing" with other peoples' works. | |
|
| | | | | | DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. 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. | |
|
| | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by DotMac4: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? Good idea, quick, someone get a business patent. | |
|
| | DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | 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. | |
|
| | |
See 8 replies to this post |
| | | 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"? | |
|
| | DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. 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. | |
|
| | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | It's absolutely no different than going through a web proxy server. | |
|
| | | DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. 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. | |
|
| | | |
| rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | There are better ways to do this. When you connect to WiFi hot spots, they redirect your request to a login page. After you login, you proceed to your original destination.
The bandwidth limit warning could be handled in exactly the same manner without any net neutrality objections. | |
|
| |
| | DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. Then they wouldn't get to test their new ad revenue mechanism. | |
|
|  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by Rob: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 ... Why not just provide the information via a periodic email to the user? | |
|
| | RobIn Deo speramus.Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3 | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. said by RARPSL:said by Rob: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 ... Why not just provide the information via a periodic email to the user? That would work, except you would have the folks say "I never got the email" like they do in the Comcast forum "I never got a call". | |
|
| | | RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. said by Rob:said by RARPSL:said by Rob: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 ... Why not just provide the information via a periodic email to the user? That would work, except you would have the folks say "I never got the email" like they do in the Comcast forum "I never got a call". There is a SMTP Server log to show that the message was retrieved (although there is no way to insure that the message will actually be viewed or to acknowledge its viewing [DNT can be turned off or bypassed]). On second thought, the suggestion of the WiFi Hotspot intercept might be a better way. The first time you connect to the Web each day, present it (or maybe on some other timed basis so long as it is NOT every new first connect). | |
|
DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | This is only the beginning It is the next logical step to inject advertising and the greedy suck ass providers will do it. We have already seen them charge QoS fees and break DNS. They are already trying to charge twice for content delivery. Cox is running ads claiming that net neutrality is a scheme of Silicon Valley fat cats.
We see more and more that net neutrality would do quite the opposite and stop the stupid get rich quick schemes of the telcos and cable companies he'll bent on providing only their own version of the Internet.
And like the cable shills tell us that price increases are good for consumers and that ISPs should be charging twice to deliver the same content, they'll come up with some lame logic justifying the modification of another company's copyrighted work.
Net neutrality NOW.
--
Help keep cable rates low; support "Big Cable" in their fight against the extortionists at the NFL Network! | |
|
| | | Re: This is only the beginning if you look at the picture, you can see it says "Robbers YAHOO" already
Didn't take long to put in some advertisements  | |
|
| | Not suprising, ISP's are being pushed.... hard to deliver more and charge the same or less. If you want cheap internet, this is one path that might be necessary. Contrary to popular belief, it takes money to run an ISP.
Don't like it? Use AdBlock and NoScript. | |
|
| DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
1 edit | Re: Not suprising, ISP's are being pushed.... And when they just inject HTML ads instead of HTML that runs their javascript...how do we block that? | |
|
| | Questionable Legality If you are adding ads to a website, wouldn't this be a 'derivative' work? (And for profit!)
And since the copyright holder must approve/ be compensated for derivative works, wouldn't this be illegal under copyright law? | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
| | Phishing possibility Leaving aside the bad ramifications of ISPs injecting content (possibly ads) into other websites, I can see great potential in this for Phishing. To use the Google example that was shown in the summary, a Phisher could make a Google clone site (perhaps that even pulled search results from the real Google) but put a "you're going over your bandwidth" message at the top. Include a free offer to up the user's bandwidth. The user, having been accustomed to content being injected by their ISP, assumes that this is legit. Once the user clicks to accept the offer, standard phishing ensues (prompts to enter usernames, passwords, SSNs, etc). The user is then given a "Congrats! You have more bandwidth!" message and the phisher laughs maniacally. | |
|
| |  If they can inject it... we can "uninject" it.
To be honest though, most of us should be running some form of packet-inspection / IPS capable gateway in our homes. The gateway I run has the option to dynamically strip javascript or other code from websites as they load. And as someone else mentioned, simply blocking javascript in your browser will fix the issue regardless.
Thats not to say Net Neutrality isn't important, just that until we convince ISPs to change their ways, there are things you can do to minimize the crap you have to put up with. | |
|
| DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | Re: If they can inject it... we can "uninject" it. Not easily. In this instance they modify the HTML to run their own javascript but they could just as easily inject their own HTML to display traditional banners which would be virtually impossible to undo 'cause you couldn't tell if it was the ISP or the site operator.
Even in this instance, we only know it's Rogers 'cause the banner says it is. If it were just an ad, you wouldn't know unless you had a second ISP that didn't display the banner. | |
|
 sbrookPremium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:4
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| Nothing new on this earth! This is done already by wifi hotspot companies ... enter any page in your browser and you're either hijacked off to their page or they inject stuff to open a new page or some do exactly this and inject content into a loaded page.
This is nothing new. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
| | wow you have got to be kidding me.... that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen on the internet by an ISP... | |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Will this force the net to HTTPS? A potential solution is for sites to use HTTPS for ALL of their traffic (including images because that's probably the next target!) This would represent a burden for all but the consumer. I'm reasonably sure my computer doesn't care one bit if the second CPU has to spend a few cycles decrypting an HTTPS web page or image before displaying it.
Wouldn't this really hammer content providers and ISPs though? Don't ISPs use proxy caches to minimize Internet bandwidth and keep requests local? Isn't HTTPS traffic also difficult to compress if they employ compression to minimize bandwidth? Won't providers get hammered by the extra cycles the HTTPS traffic requires? I know there are reverse-proxy appliances that can off-load HTTPS encryption demands but it's still extra infrastructure and cost.
Should we all buy Akmai stock?
If I was an advertiser and I paid to have my banner first, I'd be upset if my banner is suddenly second. If ISPs continue down this road, content providers will be forced to use HTTPS.
Regarding HTTPS, I know it's reasonably secure given the 128bit key length but if it was possible to decrypt and use deep packet inspection on HTTPS traffic, can the ISP do that legally?
For that matter, the more I think about this, how is what they are already doing legal? Why isn't this treated like a telephone conversation? Eves dropping isn't legal without a court order, right? I know 9/11 changed that for foreign calls but this isn't just eves dropping to gather information. Hell, the ISPs and content providers have been doing THAT for YEARS! (That's B.S too but we seem willing to tolerate if we remain anonymous...) This new tactic is almost James Bondish in that the ISP is modifying the content to provide it's own message on top of the original source.
I thought DNS redirection was borderline. In my opinion, this crosses the line. | |
|
| | | Re: Will this force the net to HTTPS? If everyone goes to HTTPS, expect the cost of a broadband connection to go up by about 30% and the speed of fetching Web pages to go down. Why? Because HTTPS can't be cached. It's a tremendous waste of bandwidth for anything that does not truly need to be encrypted. | |
|
| | I can't wait... I can't wait for a US provider to toss their common carrier status out the window, this opens up a HUGE opportunity for revenue when people pirate my products!!!! | |
|
| | | Re: I can't wait... The MPAA and the RIAA would be in heaven if an ISP ever did this. They would be the first to file lawsuits. | |
|
| | | said by yawn :
I can't wait for a US provider to toss their common carrier status out the window, this opens up a HUGE opportunity for revenue when people pirate my products!!!!
Ask and you shall receive...
»online.wsj.com/article/SB1196901···imary_hs | |
|
Gogo1
join:2004-05-27
Brooklyn, NY | They definitely intend to deliver ads So instead of just easily setting up an automated email system to inform users they are close to their cap, they spend time and money testing this system? Just to deliver a message about the status of an account? Yeah right.
They have every intention of using this for delivering ads later on. They are introducing this tech gradually though to get people used to the idea. They are trying fly beneath the radar.
They cant possibly hope to justify this as the best method for informing a customer. What about if I dont open my browser for a few days whilst im reading binary newsgroups or downloading via bittorrent? How do I get warned then?
This has nothing to do with helping customers stay informed, and everything to do with plastering the screen with ads at some point later. No doubt about it. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| It makes me want to... It makes me want to start up my own ISP so I can inject some kiddie porn into the Rogers web site. I wonder how they'll feel about their wonderful new technology then!
I also wonder how long it will be before the ISPs start injecting code into each other's web pages? For example, an AT&T customer visits a Comcast page, clicks "Sign up" and gets redirected to an AT&T page explaining how great AT&T is and how much Comcast blows (or vice-versa).
--
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. | |
|
 matteiModerated, now muzzled
join:2001-03-19
Canada | Silly Ted, ad insertion is for cable TV Eligibility
said by »laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs···odese:16 :16. (1) A Canadian carrier is eligible to operate as a telecommunications common carrier if it is a Canadian-owned and controlled corporation incorporated or continued under the laws of Canada or a province. Content of messages
said by »laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs···-gb:s_36 :36. Except where the Commission approves otherwise, a Canadian carrier shall not control the content or influence the meaning or purpose of telecommunications carried by it for the public. | |
|
| MrShag
join:2006-07-09
Hamilton, ON | Re: Silly Ted, ad insertion is for cable TV Sounds like grounds for class action. Not to mention false advertising about the internet connection. | |
|
 GlaiceStill around herePremium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | lol Silly Canadian ISPs.. | |
|
| | What about web 2.0? Putting aside the morality/legality of this practice, what about the technical impact? This could potentially have adverse effects on some new style web site operation. Sites using XMLHttpRequest may have to change some practices on the server side to ensure that anything returned that isn't a full HTML page doesn't have the text/html header, otherwise the behavior of thier website could be broken.
That is, assuming the ISP is only modifying/injecting HTML pages, what is next? XML? JSON? Binary files such as images? In my view this is simply a man-in-the-middle attack on my use of the web which I have already paid for. | |
|
| | This sucks Holy crap...
Rogers keeps sinking to new lows.
The value of the service continues to drop. | |
|
estover4Premium
join:2004-03-16
Valencia, PA
kudos:1 | I told you! I said this was going to happen in a thread about the DNS redirector crap. That is why I am getting a T1 into the business.
I can not trust cable/DSL providers to give me the Internet and nothing more. | |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Pay more for better service... This is the ISP's prerogative, and the consumer's prerogative is to either accept this aspect of the service specification, go elsewhere, or do without. Sentiments along the lines of "I deserve Internet service free of such ads" are nothing short of entitlement mentality. We're entitled to what we're promised. We don't get to unilaterally impose service specifications on a business arrangement. Both sides have to agree, or the alternative is, again, parting ways. | |
|
|
|
·
·
