Comments Page 2

Comments Page 2
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·

Links: New Topic
Forums »
page: 1 · 2
canreo @ 25th Jun 10:48AM:
Strike Back

As web developers, we should write code that not only detects and disables Fair Eagles' ads if they are launched on one of our sites, but also throws up a warning in it's place that says:

"WARNING: Your ISP is attempting to place advertisements without your direct consent. Click here to complain to your ISP. Click here to view a list of ISPs in your area that do not promote this practice."
reply

otis_sh @ 25th Jun 10:50AM:
Re: You can opt out of this

It's not really an opt-out. If I have to have a cookie enabled that's not really opt-out.

Opt-out means you don't do it to me. Requiring me to use cookies when my browser specifically allows me to "never accept any cookies from anyone" breaks the functionality of my browser.

There is no way to opt out without breaking the functionality of my browser. Although I think the permanent solution lies in the court system, a useful stop-gap measure until these machines get outlawed would be a browser extension that filters the incoming html and removes the inserted code.
reply

Bharat @ 25th Jun 10:52AM:
whole new spin on net neutrality

that's why it's good to use stuff like:
openNIC
SSL
TOR
Firefox and Adblock Plus
etc
--
webstandards.org
reply

cbs228 @ 25th Jun 10:52AM:
Copyright Infringement

And I love... love-love-love... l love those blip-blip-blipverts.

Altering another author's work and distributing it is known as making a derivative work and is illegal under U.S. copyright law. These derivative works are not protected under fair use since the entire work is used for commercial benefit at the expense of the author.

Any ISP that participates in this program should expect lawsuits landing on their desks right about now.
--
"If you stare too long into the abyss the abyss stares back at you." -Nietzsche

GENERAL FAILURE READING ©: DRIVE
(A)bort, (R)etry, (F)rivolous Lawsuits, (B)ribe Congress?
reply

cork1958 @ 25th Jun 10:57AM:
what are ads?

Haven't seen many ads anywhere in ages!
This would REALLY suck for ISP's to do this though.
reply

ablack6596 @ 25th Jun 11:07AM:
Re: Ever Heard of Content Filters?

The sites I visit depend on that advertising to stay up. I like to actually support sites that I like.
reply

TurtleFan @ 25th Jun 11:09AM:
Re: ISPs that greedy?

So does this mean that if my site, which is currently add free, gets viewed by someone on a Verizon connection, an add will instantly pop up?

Good God commercialism has gone to far. These companies can not POSSIBLY be hurting that badly to consider injecting even more adds into a society that already ignores them.

Where do I go to bitch about it?
reply

TurtleFan @ 25th Jun 11:17AM:
Re: fight back

This is what happens when big business gets too big. There should be some kind of law that limits the powers of business that get to be this size so they don't screw over the average consumer. Sadly, this won't happen so long as most politicians are rich business men.

So, does anyone have any addresses we can write too to complain? I was going to post it on my myspace page, and web blog, but figured it would be good to have that info first :).
reply

Necronomikro @ 25th Jun 11:25AM:
Re: Strike Back

Unfortunately, this would be a man in the middle attack. Writing a site that would let you know would be practically impossible. It is possible, however, that you could come up with a javascript script that would display something to the customer if it's being blocked. it would not, however, talk back to you... (without the browser sending data back, which is unsafe and thus would be turned off by default). This may not be impossible, but, it's pretty close to it.
reply

ColorBASIC @ 25th Jun 11:29AM:
That's insane

If Verizon and TWC do this I'll simply cancel and not use internet service at home.

Meanwhile ICANN needs to step in and stop companies that do this sorta stuff (break DNS, modify web pages in transit).

At the same time content providers should immediately file suit against the ISP for modifying (inserting the ads) and republishing (passing on this new page with the ads) their copyrighted work.
--
Macintosh Users Group Serving the Inland Empire
reply

ColorBASIC @ 25th Jun 11:32AM:
Re: Copyright Infringement

Amen!
reply

FiL @ 25th Jun 11:36AM:
Re: ISPs that greedy?

"These companies can not POSSIBLY be hurting that badly "

Thats my whole point right there... Layoffs, payoffs, greed schemes; from a multi-billion dollar industry. They tell you their hurting, yea, hurtin' for more n more cash. These companies make money then outsource the labor once stockholders are paid off. Employees get dick returns on investment because their not outside investors, Shit is all a game, but we blame the Mexicans for the lacking economy.

Eh, its the American Way...

I hope if ever comcast does this, avast!and zone-alarm nuke the shit outa the ads.
reply

dentman42 @ 25th Jun 11:37AM:
Re: ISPs that greedy?

said by TurtleFan :

So does this mean that if my site, which is currently add free, gets viewed by someone on a Verizon connection, an add will instantly pop up?

No, but it means someone on a Redmon (the ISP mentioned) will see an ad on the page (not a popup from the wording in the article - they actually modify the page source to, uh, add the ad). Verizon is using a DNS redirection service so if you mistype a URL that would otherwise be 404, you get a site-finder type page.

I suspect the people whose pages are being modified will be the end of this via lawsuits. That's how one of the spyware vendors got nailed (Gator maybe?) - they were popping up competitor's ads over the ads on a page. I think it was 1800Contacts that went after them. I also think an ISP that modifies the page before their suscriber recieves it should lose their common carrier status.
reply

kyler13 @ 25th Jun 11:37AM:
Collapse of the internet?

I didn't see anyone touch on this, and maybe I'm mis-interpreting this new "feature", but are they implying they would superimpose their own ads over top of the ads on a website? Think about all the big ISPs out there and if they all did that. It would render advetising directly on a site useless and would cut off revenue streams for sites that depend on it for support. Then everything would trend towards subscriptions. No thanks. This would be a case of big business squashing small business and I don't see it happening.
reply

dentman42 @ 25th Jun 11:43AM:
Re: Copyright for all

said by Jason Levine :

I've got to agree. If I'm providing my page ad-free what gives the ISP the right to put ads into my page? My page is a copyrighted work which I'm granting the user a license to view, print, etc. The ISP is merely the pipe between the user and my server. If I shipped a document via FedEx, should they be allowed to print ads all over it because it "opens new revenue streams"?

1. Put a note on your page saying it's ad free and if the end user is seeing ads, they need to check for a malware infestation or a shady ISP. Include an article on this new annoyance on your site and link it in your note.

2. FedEx may be able to get away with putting ads on the outside of the package, but not inside it. Thanks for giving them ideas. :D
reply

ossito16 @ 25th Jun 11:45AM:
Re: You can opt out of this

said by deadi :

The opt out is not fair to the average consumer. Most have no clue what a cookie is.

I agree with you. This is why we i.e techies and dslreport users need to teach the public. I am looking into getting a grant to fund a free class to teach people in the community about internet and the whole process of information gathering. I urge others in these forums to do the same.
reply

pokesph @ 25th Jun 11:56AM:
Re: Collapse of the internet?

said by kyler13 :

I didn't see anyone touch on this, and maybe I'm mis-interpreting this new "feature", but are they implying they would superimpose their own ads over top of the ads on a website? Think about all the big ISPs out there and if they all did that. It would render advetising directly on a site useless and would cut off revenue streams for sites that depend on it for support. Then everything would trend towards subscriptions. No thanks. This would be a case of big business squashing small business and I don't see it happening.

why not.. the cable companies already do this .. sell and replace network ads with local ads.. whats to stop an greedy ISP for trying the same BS tatics.

As for me, I'm with the other web developers who think this may be closer to a copyright issue.. or at the very least a 'web-attack thus illegal.
who/what gave/gives them the right to change my site's design by inserting (forcing) an unwanted and layout-breaking ad. no one did, period.
--
Webmaster - Steve
- - - - - - - - - - - -
»ppnhosting.com
»www.1-gb.net
»pokemonpalace.net
reply

ctceo @ 25th Jun 12:01PM:
Re: ISPs that greedy?

It's not 'bout hurting. It's about the possibility to make more greed, ahem, I mean Green.
reply

Kearnstd @ 25th Jun 12:02PM:
Re: Collapse of the internet?

what cable companies do is different, there is allotted time in network and normal cable broadcasts from the host network for the cable company to play localised ads.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
reply

John Galt @ 25th Jun 12:02PM:
Re: Collapse of the internet?

said by kyler13 :

I didn't see anyone touch on this, and maybe I'm mis-interpreting this new "feature", but are they implying they would superimpose their own ads over top of the ads on a website?

Maybe both ads get served to the subscriber. Everybody gets paid!

Woo-hoo!

How about this? Do advertisers get paid when a subscriber uses ad-blocking software to send the ads to the bit bucket?
--
A is A
reply

dentman42 @ 25th Jun 12:06PM:
Re: Collapse of the internet?

said by pokesph :

why not.. the cable companies already do this .. sell and replace network ads with local ads.. whats to stop an greedy ISP for trying the same BS tatics.

I believe the cable companies have agreements with the stations they carry defining at what times the cable co gets to insert their own advertising.
reply

swhx7 @ 25th Jun 12:07PM:
Re: Ever Heard of Content Filters?

said by ablack6596 :

The sites I visit depend on that advertising to stay up. I like to actually support sites that I like.

Then you should be against this too. The ad-insertion services offer *removal* of ads that that the site owner has put in the pages and advertisers have paid for, while it replaces them with its own.
reply

anon @ 25th Jun 12:10PM:
others are in the works

see »www.adzilla.com, for example.

for search, »www.tybit.com
reply

Jason Levine @ 25th Jun 12:12PM:
Re: Copyright for all

said by dentman42 :

1. Put a note on your page saying it's ad free and if the end user is seeing ads, they need to check for a malware infestation or a shady ISP. Include an article on this new annoyance on your site and link it in your note.

Except that a lot of users don't bother reading. I have an Intranet application I've developed and, for security reasons, the user has to confirm their login with their Date of Birth. Right next to the fields is a prompt to enter your DOB in MM/DD/YYYY format. I can't tell you how many times I get users saying "I entered the month but now the stupid thing won't let me enter anything else." After I tell them to enter it in MM/DD/YYYY format, and they try that, it "magically" works.

A "This page is Ad Free" note would either a) have to be big enough to be noticeable by all users but in doing so would annoy most of my users or b) be small enough to not annoy most of my users but would then be overlooked by the users most likely to complain about the ads that "I" added to my page.

Also, this doesn't address the situation of me actually putting ads on my page, but having their value reduced by the ISP's ads.

As a side note, I wonder if this could cause contract disputes. Say I run a very popular website and Company X wants to advertise on it. They pay me a hunk of money to be the sole advertiser on my website. Now someone at Company X goes home and happens to browse my website. They see the ads that the ISP puts on the page and proceed to call their company lawyers. The lawyers take me to task for breaking the terms of our contract ("sole advertiser").

Depending on the contract, Company X might a) pull their advertising (depriving me of future income), b) demand a refund (depriving me of already-earned income), or even c) take me to court (costing me time and money). Even in the best case scenario of me recognizing what has happened and explaining it before it gets out of hand, the ISP's ads could cost Company X and me time and energy to sorting the whole matter out.
reply

swhx7 @ 25th Jun 12:24PM:
Re: Strike Back

There's no way you could strip out the spam-box content, because it gets added at the last step before the browser gets the page. However, it would be possible to fight back with Javascript as canreo suggests.

Put a script in your page to parse thru the page and detect any elements or strings that are characteristic of the spam-box hijack stuff. A user who doesn't have Javascript turned on won't see the spam-box stuff anyway, and if they do have JS on, your script can alert them, and provide a link to report it to you. It could even report without user interaction, via XmlHttpRequest, though that would be sneaky.

If this became common, the result would probably be an "arms race" as the spam-box companies would either strip the page author's countermeasures, or make their own code harder to spot.
reply

deadi @ 25th Jun 12:25PM:
Re: You can opt out of this

Yep, This is in conflict with the new requirement to keep cookies for your bank if you use online banking. There really is no way to manage cookies easily, especially when they are named strange and unrecognizable.

The public needs to be educated but the majority basically do not care or have the time to learn. I applaud anyone that takes the time to teach and or learn about such things.
--
We learn through the exchange of information, tell me more......
reply

Pashune @ 25th Jun 12:27PM:
Treewalk..

Gives me another reason to love my Treewalk DNS + the fact it has built in ad-blocking (if you configure it to do so)

:D
reply

swhx7 @ 25th Jun 12:39PM:
Re: Copyright for all

said by microserf :

I'll show them expenses.

Who cares about user annoyance when you've progressed to theft? If I publish a page and some click-streaming jackdaw of an ISP tries to usurp my ad revenue, I'll be a knockin' soon.

This was what I thought too, at first glance, but unfortunately I don't think you would have a case.

Consider the worst case. You publish a page and advertisers are paying you to place their ads; the spam-box outfit removes your ads and replaces them with its own. You find at least one person who is a visitor to your site and a subscriber of the ISP that has hired the spam box, who will testify that he wanted your page unmolested, with ads that you intended. And you sue for at least (a) interference with contract and (b) copyright infringement, because they altered your page withough permission. Maybe you get your advertisers as co-plaintiffs.

Looks good right? But wait, the web user has a right to do what he wants with the page once he receives it, right? For example using Proxomitron to filter unwanted content. And the users can hire the ISP to filter things on their behalf. So the defendant ISP makes the subscribers "agree" to "terms of use" which say that the subscriber requests the ISP to do this. The subscriber doesn't *really* want this but has to "agree" to it in order to use the ISP.
reply

nixen @ 25th Jun 12:49PM:
Defacement

As a web site owner, this would strike me as being in a similar vein to someone hacking my site and defacing it. After al, the design I've carefully crafted and put together is essentially being altered by someone else.
--
Everyday, thousands of new cars are delivered to their new owners with poorly-selected radio station presets.
reply

TurtleFan @ 25th Jun 12:51PM:
Re: Defacement

You know, would this effect commercial websites as well, like news organizations pages, or just the lowly consumer pages like ours?

If it does, maybe a few kind letters to ABC, CBS or NBC news would help get the word out..
reply

jsouth @ 25th Jun 01:35PM:
Class action

I would suggest a class action lawsuit against the first ISP to try this. If the ISP realize that they will be hit hard in the pocketbook then they may not try this.
--
Bush bashing is old. How about more solutions instead?
reply

anon @ 25th Jun 03:20PM:
Re: Class action

I am a webdesigner and webmaster of 3 sites. This is actually illegal because they are infringing on the copyright of the webdesign itself and the webpages. If I have a wepage designed a certain way and they "inject" their ads into that webpage they violated copyright infringement by changing the way the site is laid out and designed. One lawsuit will shut this kind of stuff down quickly.
reply

ablack6596 @ 25th Jun 03:20PM:
Re: Ever Heard of Content Filters?

I'm against it, I was responding to karlj1.
reply

Time4aNAP @ 25th Jun 03:24PM:
"Fair Eagle"?

With a name like "Fair Eagle", you know that it's time to put on the hip waders, 'cuz there's going to be a lot of male bovine excrement coming your way.

When (and if, no premature chicken calculations please) there's a much-needed regime change in the White House, I think that the top domestic agenda item should be reform of the currently nonexistent business practices oversight. That would include a complete overhaul of the FCC, and eliminating the CRB, putting all IP matters at the USPTO, where they belong. Any company that wants to bill itself as an "Internet Service Provider" will be required to adhere to certain criteria, such as providing Internet services--unadulterated.

Companies that choose to go ahead as something less than a real ISP could do so with the knowledge that each and every one of their existing franchise agreements in all US markets could be revoked instantly by the local governments who contracted for what was ostensibly an ISP. Non-ISPs would have to spell out precisely what their business practices are, both to the governments granting franchises, and to all customers, existing and prospective.

If people want to buy sub-ISP service, that's their right. But they must know what they are and aren't getting.

Any variation from the stated TOS during the term of the contract would allow local governments to revoke their franchise, and open the non-ISPs up to criminal prosecution for fraudulent business practices. If the company's scope crosses state lines, that would include federal prosecution, and jeopardize their entire business.

If private citizens must adhere to strict legislation in order to drive an automobile, own a home and so forth, then Big Business should not be exempt.
reply

keyboard5684 @ 25th Jun 03:36PM:
Re: ISPs that greedy?

"Common carrier status"? WTF is that? As far as I know all ISPs in the US are not regulated in any way. They can do what they want, serve pages how they want, modify content, just do whatever they want to with no regulation.

While I agree that no customer base would stand for this, smaller ISPs may get away with it. Also, many people simply would not notice something like that, believe it or not, and would just dismiss them as simple ads.

One of the sad things about how the US regulated things. The big ISPs, like Verizon, were regulated a little while the mom and pops where not which let them pave the way for the ad type crap but let the big guys take over after the small guys did some of the "nasty stuff".
reply

robo_mojo @ 25th Jun 03:44PM:
Simple solution for website owners

Use SSL
reply

Time4aNAP @ 25th Jun 03:54PM:
Re: Simple solution for website owners

said by robo_mojo :

Use SSL

Not so simple when you factor in the additional processing power (CPU or dedicated encryption card) required to serve up all-SSL websites.
reply

otis_sh @ 25th Jun 04:29PM:
Re: Strike Back

Encrypting the entire website sounds like it might be a good idea. Just have the whole website be https. Might cost a little more for the certificate, but this would be one way around it.
reply

swhx7 @ 25th Jun 06:35PM:
Re: Strike Back

said by otis_sh :

Encrypting the entire website sounds like it might be a good idea. Just have the whole website be https. Might cost a little more for the certificate, but this would be one way around it.

Actually, if you're in control of a transparent proxy that all the users' traffic goes through, you're in a perfect position to execute a man-in-the-middle attack. This would give them full access to encrypted data.

They'll probably promise not to do this, and I hope they would be sued into bankruptcy or prosecuted if they do. I'm just pointing out that technically, customers of these compromised ISPs have no security against it.

I keep discovering new aspects of how evil this whole scheme is. Anyone who's been sold out to one of these services, if you object, tell your ISP and if they don't back it off, go to another ISP and tell yours why you're leaving, and warn others. We should all write to our legislators and ask for laws against this sort of thing.
reply

linicx @ 25th Jun 06:51PM:
INJECT THIS, ISP!!!

Injected ads = SPAM and that equals NO SALE! The sooner we call this nasty stuff what it is, the sooner it will be gone.
--
Mac: No windows, No gates, Apple inside
reply

tschmidt @ 25th Jun 07:43PM:
Re: Ever Heard of Content Filters?

said by swhx7 :

Ad-blocking may be a solution if all you care about is the advertising. For me, it would be unacceptable to have all my traffic going through this third-party service's proxy.

Traditional ad-blocking will probably not be effective. Since everything goes through the ISP they could hide the real URL of the advertisement, perhaps make it look like everything was coming from the ISP. Or they could play whack-a-mole and vary the URL.

When you are the man-in-the-middle you have a tremendous amount of power to modify pages that are going to be hard to detect or defeat.

This is not a happy situation.

All I want from my ISP is to deliver the bits, no more no less.

/Tom
reply

jp10558 @ 25th Jun 08:51PM:
Re: Treewalk..

How does Outpost's DNS plugin compare to Treewalk for DNS service?

How often do the host ad blocking break sites?
reply

anon @ 25th Jun 09:02PM:
Re: ISPs that greedy?

the easy solution

thwart them by using firefox with ad block pro
reply

dvd536 @ 25th Jun 09:10PM:
Re: Copyright Infringement

Isn't this what the gator spyware did?
reply

dvd536 @ 25th Jun 09:11PM:
Re: ISPs that greedy?

said by TurtleFan :

So does this mean that if my site, which is currently add free, gets viewed by someone on a Verizon connection, an add will instantly pop up?

Good God commercialism has gone to far. These companies can not POSSIBLY be hurting that badly to consider injecting even more adds into a society that already ignores them.

Where do I go to bitch about it?

MONEY talks and bullshit walks. good luck getting anyone to listen.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth
reply

dvd536 @ 25th Jun 09:15PM:
Re: Collapse of the internet?

said by John Galt :

said by kyler13 :

I didn't see anyone touch on this, and maybe I'm mis-interpreting this new "feature", but are they implying they would superimpose their own ads over top of the ads on a website?

Maybe both ads get served to the subscriber. Everybody gets paid!

Woo-hoo!

How about this? Do advertisers get paid when a subscriber uses ad-blocking software to send the ads to the bit bucket?

Many sites now are adding code to render them useless if you are blocking the ads. i've *NEVER* bought anything i saw on a banner or popup ad.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth
reply

jester121 @ 26th Jun 12:05AM:
Re: fight back

Yeah, monoliths like Redmoon and Fair Eagle sure have become household names... :uhh:

This has nothing to do with the size of the company, and everything to do with calculated risk -- they figure that the revenue they earn will offset the small percentage of users that get pissed off.
reply

Doctor Olds @ 26th Jun 07:57AM:
Re: ISPs that greedy?

said by keyboard5684 :

"Common carrier status"? WTF is that?

Actually it is coveted and keeps the IAP (Internet Access Providers) from being sued as accomplices/enablers of IP theft.

quote:
Section 202(a) of the Communications Act. Section 202(a) of the Communications Act provides:

It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.

§ 741. Common carrier status of corporation; laws applicable to corporation; common carrier activity; conflict of laws
»www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/···00-.html

quote:
The corporation shall be deemed to be a common carrier within the meaning of section 3(h) [1] of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and as such shall be fully subject to the provisions of title II [47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.] and title III [47 U.S.C. 301 et seq.] of that Act. The provision of satellite terminal station facilities by one communication common carrier to one or more other communications common carriers shall be deemed to be a common carrier activity fully subject to the Communications Act [47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.]. Whenever the application of the provisions of this chapter shall be inconsistent with the application of the provisions of the Communications Act, the provisions of this chapter shall govern.

More brain food:

Common Carrier at wiki
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

Telecommunications Act of 1996
»www.fcc.gov/telecom.html

Opinion: The ISP—The Uncommon Carrier
»www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac···ier.html

Enjoy the awakening. ;)
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time?
reply

Kearnstd @ 26th Jun 09:28AM:
Re: ISPs that greedy?

watch if you block it somehow you get a nastygram from the ISP because they will work it into the TOU that you cant block their ads.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
reply

patcat88 @ 26th Jun 08:46PM:
Re: Copyright Infringement

Yes
reply

jfmezei @ 29th Jun 01:05AM:
Re: Ever Heard of Content Filters?

The population as a whole MUST not accept these tactics because their local software compensates for the sillyness of the ISP or DNS server.

The population must send a strong message that it is totally unacceptable for an ISP to thinker with content of pages and or DNS redirection.
reply

Time4aNAP @ 29th Jun 12:32PM:
Re: Defacement

said by TurtleFan :

...maybe a few kind letters to ABC, CBS or NBC news would help get the word out.

The irony with that is that network TV programming uses a very similar technology to place local advertising into network shows. The Chyron-generated words "Insert Commercial Here" are a common sight in local network affiliates and O&Os. They even make it to air from time to time, when a mistyped entry into the master control automated tape loader causes the local commercial to start late or end early.

Cable companies go as far as actually substituting their own ads for the ones that go out OTA from local TV stations. The big difference is that it's a practice that has been previously agreed-upon by all parties. National and local advertisers get a slight discount to allow their late-night ads to be preempted, and cable advertisers get the chance to place their commercials on a major network channel at a rate they can afford.
reply

Time4aNAP @ 29th Jun 12:38PM:
Re: Collapse of the internet?

said by John Galt :

Do advertisers get paid when a subscriber uses ad-blocking software to send the ads to the bit bucket?

The ads don't get sent anywhere. Ad-blocking software prevents your browser from making the IP connection to the ad host in the first place. No hit, no pay.
reply

NOCMan @ 15th Sep 06:09PM:
Re: ISPs that greedy?

Sue them in court for putting ad's in your site without paying you. You have a right to what ad's you run. How would you feel if they were putting political ads on your site that was against your site's message.

Seriously someone needs to stand up to this and nix it in the butt now. This is revenue stealing and in some cases worse.
reply