ISPs Injecting Their Content Into Websites - Rogers tests new cap warning system, raises neutrality alarms...
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
ISPs Injecting Their Content Into Websites
Rogers tests new cap warning system, raises neutrality alarms...
(old news - 09:01AM Tuesday Dec 11 2007)
tags: business · world · content · net-neutrality · Rogers Hi-Speed
Over the weekend, blogger Lauren Weinstein discovered that Canadian cable operator Rogers Communications has started using a new technology that allows them to inject content into any website a subscriber visits. Rogers is using deep packet inspection and injected Javascript (see code) developed by Perftech. In this case, the warning alerts Rogers customers that they're about to breach their monthly caps. Weinstein, who is behind the recently mentioned network neutrality squad, fears the technology could be used by ISPs to inject their own ads upon Internet content or worse. Perftech's tool has some similarity to an ad-injecting system being tested by NebuAd, which is now being used by smaller operators like Texas's Redmoon. According to Weinstein, these technologies are a clear violation of network neutrality principles: While Rogers' current planned use for this Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) and modification system (reportedly manufactured by "In-Browser Marketing" firm "PerfTech") is for account status messages, it's obvious that commercial ISP content and ads (beyond the ISP logos already displayed) would be trivial to introduce through this mechanism. By the way, PerfTech is even using Google for one of its linked promotional examples on the PerfTech home page. I wonder if they bothered to ask Google's permission for that? Rogers vice president of communications Taanta Gupta has confirmed that Rogers is experimenting with this technology. "We're trying different things, and we'll test customer response," she says. As is the case with DNS Redirection, we're sure we're only just seeing the beginning of ISP-injected content as a way to grab additional revenue.
Related:- Rogers Website Messages Irk Google
- Remember How The Net Neutrality Fight Began
- UK ISPs Whine About People Actually Using Their Product
- Rogers Uses Deep Packet Inspection for DNS Redirection
- Virgin Takes Aim At BitTorrent
- The RIAA Likes Net Neutrality
- Google: We're Blocking Fewer Nun Calls
- Bits Of ACTA Agreement Leaking Out
|
Links: New Topic
Forums »
page: 1 · 2
japimp102 @ 11th Dec 09:08AM:
WOW
All I can say is WOW these ISP's will do anything for extra money.
reply
anon @ 11th Dec 09:09AM:
Another reason
Another reason to block javascript.
reply
Rob @ 11th Dec 09:11AM:
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!
reply
DotMac @ 11th Dec 09:16AM:
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!
reply
jgkolt @ 11th Dec 09:16AM:
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
reply
netposer @ 11th Dec 09:16AM:
Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile.
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"?
reply
anon @ 11th Dec 09:19AM:
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.
reply
Rob @ 11th Dec 09:19AM:
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.
reply
backness @ 11th Dec 09:20AM:
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 :p
reply
TKJunkMail @ 11th Dec 09:23AM:
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.
reply
TKJunkMail @ 11th Dec 09:24AM:
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
reply
DotMac @ 11th Dec 09:25AM:
Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile.
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
openbox9 @ 11th Dec 09:26AM:
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.
reply
megahuts @ 11th Dec 09:27AM:
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?
reply
DotMac @ 11th Dec 09:28AM:
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.
reply
openbox9 @ 11th Dec 09:28AM:
Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile.
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
openbox9 @ 11th Dec 09:29AM:
Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile.
It's absolutely no different than going through a web proxy server.
reply
Jason Levine @ 11th Dec 09:31AM:
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.
reply
openbox9 @ 11th Dec 09:31AM:
Re: Questionable Legality
Look at the screen caps, the ads aren't "in" the copyrighted pages.
reply
Rob @ 11th Dec 09:31AM:
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.
reply
DotMac @ 11th Dec 09:32AM:
Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile.
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
adisor19 @ 11th Dec 09:32AM:
Re: WOW
said by TKJunkMail :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
reply
adisor19 @ 11th Dec 09:32AM:
Re: Another reason
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
reply
openbox9 @ 11th Dec 09:33AM:
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.
reply
DotMac @ 11th Dec 09:35AM:
Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile.
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
Rob @ 11th Dec 09:35AM:
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.
reply
dualsub2006 @ 11th Dec 09:35AM:
Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile.
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
openbox9 @ 11th Dec 09:35AM:
Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile.
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
DotMac @ 11th Dec 09:37AM:
Re: Another reason
Better yet how about ISPs not illegally modify copyrighted works.
reply
openbox9 @ 11th Dec 09:37AM:
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.
reply
openbox9 @ 11th Dec 09:39AM:
Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile.
They aren't "pissing" with other peoples' works.
reply
Rob @ 11th Dec 09:39AM:
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.
reply
anon @ 11th Dec 09:45AM:
If they can inject it... we can "uninject" it.
I'm not against being told when I'm reaching my bandwidth cap, but to be honest, I'd rather get an email. I concur with an earlier commenter who shared their concerns regarding the possible "slippery slope" syndrome this technology could introduce.
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.
reply
DotMac @ 11th Dec 09:46AM:
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.
reply
megahuts @ 11th Dec 09:46AM:
Re: Questionable Legality
Yes, I agree they are not 'in' the copyrighted pages. Good point.
However, they do change the presentation of the webpage. And the presentation of the website is very carefully crafted to optimize ad viewing. Please search "heatmaps internet users", second link from the top for further details.
Therefore, while you have not modified the copyrighted page, per say, you still impact the profits from the copyrighted page. (this is a big legal argument, and Google has been sued for this many times.)
Besides, why would anyone still use Rogers when they could use Teksavvy?
reply
DotMac @ 11th Dec 09:49AM:
Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile.
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
TKJunkMail @ 11th Dec 09:55AM:
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
reply
retrogame @ 11th Dec 09:57AM:
Re: Questionable Legality
Certainly looks like that Yahoo! logo is on the same page to me. Unless you have a different definition of "page" than the rest of us, which on BBR is completely possible :huh:
reply
jimbo2150 @ 11th Dec 10:00AM:
Re: WOW
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
reply
PittsPgh @ 11th Dec 10:01AM:
They might blame the Wrong party for this
The other thing is, the people who don't know what is going on will be blaming the wrong party for these ads. If they don't know Rogers or thier ISP is doing this, they might think it is Google or whichever website they are visiting is doing this.
Paul
reply
DotMac @ 11th Dec 10:02AM:
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.
reply
expert007 @ 11th Dec 10:04AM:
Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile.
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
DotMac @ 11th Dec 10:06AM:
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.
reply
DotMac @ 11th Dec 10:06AM:
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?
reply
DotMac @ 11th Dec 10:07AM:
Re: Questionable Legality
It's the HTML that's copyrighted, not how a browser renders it.
reply
backness @ 11th Dec 10:08AM:
Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile.
sliding it to the side would be a pop under, not a whole new layout to the page
reply
DotMac @ 11th Dec 10:09AM:
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.
reply
DotMac @ 11th Dec 10:15AM:
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.
reply
sbrook @ 11th Dec 10:18AM:
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.
reply
battleop @ 11th Dec 10:18AM:
Re: WOW
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?
reply
nklb @ 11th Dec 10:23AM:
Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile.
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
reply
PhoenixDown @ 11th Dec 10:31AM:
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.
I can't take my business elsewhere -- like many, I have only one choice for a broadband connection.
reply
birdfeedr @ 11th Dec 10:31AM:
Re: Nothing new on this earth!
said by sbrook :
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.
A case can be made for this while accessing a free wifi hotspot.
But I reject the notion that it's legitimate communications over my paid-for service.
The ISP has not delivered what I asked for.
reply
DotMac @ 11th Dec 10:32AM:
Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile.
Unfortunately where one ISP goes, many follow.
reply
neufuse @ 11th Dec 10:43AM:
wow
you have got to be kidding me.... that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen on the internet by an ISP...
reply
patcat88 @ 11th Dec 10:58AM:
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.
reply
Rob @ 11th Dec 11:01AM:
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.
reply
patcat88 @ 11th Dec 11:01AM:
Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile.
said by DotMac :
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.
reply
netposer @ 11th Dec 11:32AM:
Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile.
That's not a frame or outside the browser. I bet if you looked at the source for that google page the JavaScript would be embedded into the HTML page served to you from google.com.
So what they did is intercept what google sent to you, injected the JS into the source and then gave it to you. So by any definition that is changing the content without google's consent.
reply
rradina @ 11th Dec 11:38AM:
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.
reply
anon @ 11th Dec 11:40AM:
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!!!!
reply
rradina @ 11th Dec 11:44AM:
Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile.
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.
reply
aSic @ 11th Dec 11:55AM:
Re: Questionable Legality
said by openbox9 :
Look at the screen caps, the ads aren't "in" the copyrighted pages.
You must be new to the game.
"in the page" is defined as anything within the <html> </html> tags. Since its being rendered by the browser, its obviously inside those tags, which is obviously "in the page".
With the ISPs having this ability, there is really nothing stopping them from "adjusting" the results you get from google to include those advertisers with the local ISP looking as a legitimate search result. Such as searching a political candidate in the future, getting redirected to a competitors site.
The ISP is a provider... in other words, the pathway to the internet. What is happening here is mangling the pathway to suit their (big ISP) interests. Its not being forced on the ISP in any way. Although this is just a "test", its just one step away from injecting ads, or whatever else the ISP "deems appropriate" into whatever page you try to look at. No different than a newspaper having two different prints with an "a" and "b" story on the front page, and delivering you whichever they think you'd prefer, instead of purely reporting the news.
Now, OTOH, Rogers is in *.ca correct? So, really, what do I care about it? If this begins in the *.us, I'm sure theres gonna be an issue...
--
Teamwork is a lot of people doing what I say.
Who is Ron Paul?
reply
RainWind @ 11th Dec 12:08PM:
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.
reply
Gogo1 @ 11th Dec 12:50PM:
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.
reply
ksuderman @ 11th Dec 12:52PM:
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.
reply
sbrook @ 11th Dec 01:05PM:
Re: Nothing new on this earth!
And paid hotspots.
This is only a notification that you're approaching your cap. It's how they can get away with ensuring that you're notified and can't pull the "I didn't know" trick.
I think it would be better if they did it like the hotspot folks do and bring up a separate intercept page rather than injecting code into the page.
reply
djrobx @ 11th Dec 01:07PM:
Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile.
They should probably just use a DNS redirect or a temporary port 80 filter to do this sort of thing (much like a Wifi hotspot provider intercepts traffic until authentication or payment is made). That method seeems to be just about as effective, and far less panic-inducing to neutrality purists. Alerting users to their bandwidth use is a good thing for sure, but they should make it disableable and also offer email alerts and an online status page.
--
Laser eye surgery rocks! I love frickin' laser beams.
reply
mattei @ 11th Dec 01:07PM:
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.
reply
DotMac @ 11th Dec 01:13PM:
Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile.
Then they wouldn't get to test their new ad revenue mechanism.
reply
digitalfreak @ 11th Dec 01:48PM:
Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile.
Go away, shill.
reply
mrchris @ 11th Dec 01:55PM:
lol
Silly Canadian ISPs..
reply
swhx7 @ 11th Dec 02:25PM:
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.
reply
swhx7 @ 11th Dec 02:32PM:
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.
reply
anon @ 11th Dec 02:52PM:
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.
reply
Transmaster @ 11th Dec 02:59PM:
Re: WOW
If you run firefox you don't have to put up with this crap.
--
Eat pork chops for Allah!
reply
hottboiinnc @ 11th Dec 03:01PM:
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.
reply
RARPSL @ 11th Dec 03:15PM:
Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile.
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?
reply
Rob @ 11th Dec 03:16PM:
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".
reply
DotMac @ 11th Dec 03:20PM:
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.
reply
RARPSL @ 11th Dec 04:27PM:
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).
reply
Devanchya @ 11th Dec 05:39PM:
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...
reply
anon @ 11th Dec 06:47PM:
Re: I can't wait...
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
reply
MrShag @ 11th Dec 09:21PM:
Re: Silly Ted, ad insertion is for cable TV
Sounds like grounds for class action. Not to mention false advertising about the internet connection.
reply
Tristan @ 11th Dec 09:46PM:
This sucks
Holy crap...
Rogers keeps sinking to new lows.
The value of the service continues to drop.
reply
estover @ 12th Dec 07:30AM:
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.
reply
bicker @ 12th Dec 08:51AM:
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.
reply
Shark_615 @ 12th Dec 10:19AM:
Re: WOW
Any proof for that?
reply
anon @ 12th Dec 05:43PM:
Re: Nothing new on this earth!
Why does it make a difference how much you're paying?
To quote an old joke:
A man approaches an attractive woman in a bar, and asks, "Would you sleep with me for $10 million?"
The woman considers the offer for a second and says, "Yes, I would."
"Well, then, how about $10?" asks the man.
"No way," says the woman. "What do you think I am?"
"We've already established what you are," says the man. "Now we're talking price."
In other words, if it's OK for hotspots or "free" services to do it, it's OK for paid services to do it. You do get ads on cable TV, don't you?
reply
SuperWISP @ 12th Dec 04:48PM:
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.
reply
SuperWISP @ 12th Dec 05:27PM:
This has nothing to do with "network neutrality."
Network neutrality means not using one's control of the pipe to disadvantage competitive content or service providers. For example, if you're a cable company that offers VoIP, network neutrality means not blocking customers' use of other VoIP providers.
Network neutrality does not mean that a provider can't "frame" pages (as do many providers -- especially those like Juno which provide inexpensive or free service) or send them informative messages via their browser.
Let's take a look at what Rogers is really doing here. They need to get a message to a customer. Like any experienced ISP, they know that there's a good chance that e-mail won't be read in a timely way, if at all. (We, as an ISP, find that our customers constantly change their addresses -- often after revealing them online and exposing them to spammers -- without any notice, and often let the mailboxes that we give them fill up, unread, until they exceed their quotas.) The Windows Message Service once worked to send users messages, but only worked on Windows and is now routinely blocked because it's become an avenue for pop-up spam. Snail mail? Expensive and slow... and the whole point of the Internet is to do things faster and more efficiently than that. Display a different page than the user requested? Perhaps, but that certainly comes much closer to "hijacking" than what Rogers is doing. Display a message in the user's browser window (where we know he or she is looking) along with the Web page, and let the user "dismiss" it as soon as it's noticed? Excellent idea. A wonderful, simple, unobtrusive solution to the problem.
Now comes Lauren Weinstein -- known for drawing attention to himself by sensationalizing tempests in a teapot -- claiming that the sky will fall if ISPs use this nearly ideal way of communicating with their customers. Contrary to the claims of his "network neutrality squad" (who have expanded the definition of "network neutrality" to mean "ISPs not doing anything which we, as unappointed regulators, do not approve"), this means of communication does not violate copyrights.
Why? First of all, the message from the ISP appears entirely above, and separate from, the content of the page in the browser window. It's not much different that displaying it in a different pane (which, by the way, the browser might also be able to do -- but this is better because it's less obtrusive). The display can't be considered a derivative work, because no human is adding his own creative expression to someone else's creation. A machine -- which can't create copyrighte works -- is simply putting it into the same browser window.
It isn't defacement, because the original page appears exactly as it was intended -- just farther down in the window. And it isn't "hijacking," because the user is still getting the page he or she requested.
What's more, there's no way that it can be said to be "non-neutral." The proxy which inserts the message into the window doesn't know or care what content lies below. The screen capture in Weinstein's blog showed Google, but it just as easily could have been Yahoo!, or Myspace, or DSL Reports.
In short, to complain that this practice is somehow injurious to the author of the original page is akin to an author complaining that his book has been injured by being displayed in a store window along with someone else's.
There are sure to be some folks -- perhaps BitTorrent users who are disappointed at having their bandwidth hogging behavior throttled -- who will take this as an opportunity to lash out at their ISPs. But most customers, I think, will recognize this as a good and sensible way for a company to contact its customers. Our small ISP is looking into it. In fact, because the issue is being raised, we're adding authorization to do it to our Terms of Service, so that users will be put on notice that they might receive a message through their browsers one day. I suppose it's possible that one or two rabid customers might dislike this mode of communication and go elsewhere, but I suspect that most of them will appreciate it.
reply
popper @ 12th Dec 06:27PM:
Re: Nothing new on this earth!
quote:
You do get ads on cable TV, don't you?
I've accepted the ads.
It's the constant logo and/or using the lower 25-30% of the screen to run spam during the actual program. This area should be reserved for close caption use only.
This practice has left me no other option than to watch local news only. If something else is worth watching I'll pick it up when it comes out on DVD.
reply
sbrook @ 12th Dec 07:09PM:
Re: Nothing new on this earth!
This is the same essentially the same problem as verio's DNS hijacking throwing up pages you don't want.
reply
Chrisfromkyk @ 12th Dec 09:51PM:
Sad
I don't know why anyone would say this is acceptable. It seems scary and on top of that it wouldn't it lower your bandwidth and speed...?
My biggest problem I have with this is that ok if they are allowed to do this isn't that saying that they can simply remove things they don't want me to see? Say I am browsing CNN and they don't let me see the latest news...can't they do that? Can't the block the site entirely? I find it very disturbing...
reply
SuperWISP @ 12th Dec 10:13PM:
This has nothing to do with "network neutrality."
quote:
I don't know why anyone would say this is acceptable. It seems scary and on top of that it wouldn't it lower your bandwidth and speed...?
The reason why it seems scary is because Lauren is trying to make it seem scary. It's actually a good idea. As for your speed: Why would it affect it? The message at the top is being generated locally.
quote:
My biggest problem I have with this is that ok if they are allowed to do this isn't that saying that they can simply remove things they don't want me to see?
That's very different from what they're doing. All Rogers is doing is putting a message in your browser window, above the Web page you retrieved. That's all.
quote:
Say I am browsing CNN and they don't let me see the latest news...can't they do that?
I wonder if they could. How would a machine tell that it was the latest? Or even the news? (Artificial intelligence isn't that good.) Also, if they did it for anti-competitive reasons, it would violate the true definition of network neutrality -- and, more importnatly, laws prohibiting anticompetitive conduct. The authorities on both sides of the border would come down on them rather hard, as the FCC here in the States has already done on one occasion. I don't think that a courteous, informative message from Rogers Cable to their users should be ballyhooed into scare stories about Big Brother. Don't fall for the hype!
reply
birdfeedr @ 13th Dec 04:47PM:
Re: Nothing new on this earth!
said by Lets be real :
Why does it make a difference how much you're paying?
In other words, if it's OK for hotspots or "free" services to do it, it's OK for paid services to do it. You do get ads on cable TV, don't you?
Actually, I didn't say it was ok for paid hotspots. You probably mean hotspots at the airport where you pay $8 for the day. Nope, don't use them.
And I do not have cable. I do have FiosTV, but only the local channels. There, I am paying for the delivery of what already has ads in it.
If VZ starts to enhance that delivery, I'll cancel it.
My protest has a lot to do with the creeping acceptance of intrusive advertising.
Like someone posted earlier, I hate it when captions are overlaid by the channel bugs. Makes it hard to read.
Intrusive.
reply
Armour @ 14th Dec 02:03PM:
Re: This has nothing to do with "network neutrality."
I completely agree with you it is a Clear Quick means informing the user.
Many have complained in the past that there is no easy way to see their usage and raised hell that they were charged for exceeding the limit. Then you have people complaining that the invisible caps got them disconnected for exciding them. Now you have a system that answers to both and people complain.
I'm not a huge fan of Rogers but this time I have to say this is a service that is right on target to inform non tech savvy people when they are approaching a limit that exceeding will cost them money.
What good is an email alert when I goes to an account in a multi user home and the person that is currently using the service is not the person that pays the bill and hold the email account? I know people that didn’t even know they had an email account with their provider because they always have used hotmail or some other long standing free email service.
reply
anon @ 15th Dec 12:11AM:
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.
reply
ankh @ 15th Dec 01:30PM:
Re: This has nothing to do with "network neutrality."
The technology is being demonstrated using innocuous messages.
But this is a 'man in the middle' attack.
Suppose your government decides certain people shouldn't see certain kinds of information -- so they intercept the outgoing request, compare it to a list, and edit the outgoing request before it goes on out to the world.
World answers back, man-in-the-middle captures the incoming information, edits it, and sends it to your machine.
Basically this is the workflow for censoring paper communications, just rewritten to be done electronically and automagically.
No?
reply
anon @ 15th Dec 03:54PM:
Website intercepts
Rogers does not appear to be only hijacking websites, it is dropping the web site's IP addresses, and replacing them with its own using Akamaitechnologies. This gives Rogers total control over the websites content, not to mention the ability to monitor and track their customer's Internet surfing.
This also involves overstepping their explicit authority as an ISP into the realm of security and privacy related issues.
reply
Stewy @ 15th Dec 04:20PM:
Re: This has nothing to do with "network neutrality."
Well it seems that they forced and infiltrated their way into and intercepted and/or took partial control over a user's personal interaction with web activity, without the user's informed or approved consent.
According to Wiki
Hijacking - means to take over by force.
Spyware - to intercept or take partial control over the user's interaction with the computer, without the user's informed consent.
Malware - is software designed to infiltrate a computer system without the owner's informed consent.
It seems that Hijacking, Spyware and Malware all seem to fit the bill here in some way or another.
In other words, anything that unscrupulously WebJacks a users personal internet experience by a third party Grayware without the users personal consent should be treated as malicious and unethical.
Shame on Rogers, but somehow not surprised.
reply
SuperWISP @ 15th Dec 09:54PM:
This has nothing to do with "network neutrality."
quote:
Rogers does not appear to be only hijacking websites, it is dropping the web site's IP addresses, and replacing them with its own using Akamaitechnologies.
Actually, it's Akamai that does this, and it does it throughout the Internet as a way of speeding up access. It has contracts with hundreds of ISPs, including Rogers. What it does is not hijacking, because the content provider actually pays Akamai to do it. It works by causing domain name queries to resolve to the IP address of Akamai's cache. Nothing wrong with it at all; in fact, it makes many sites much faster than they would be otherwise.
Of course, the misguided minions of Mr. Weinstein would probably not approve of any caching or Web acceleration and say that any such mechanism was against their Orthodox End-to-Endian religion. They would rather have you pay double or triple for a slower Internet connection than see this sacred doctrine violated. ;-)
reply
Mele20 @ 16th Dec 08:05AM:
Use the Proxomitron
This is just another example of why everyone should be using the Proxomitron. See the web the way you want to see it ...not how your ISP or a particular website or anyone else wants you to see it.
reply
anon @ 16th Dec 01:55PM:
Re: This has nothing to do with "network neutrality."
Quote:
____________________________________________________
Actually, it's Akamai that does this, and it does it throughout the Internet as a way of speeding up access. It has contracts with hundreds of ISPs, including Rogers. What it does is not hijacking, because the content provider actually pays Akamai to do it. It works by causing domain name queries to resolve to the IP address of Akamai's cache. Nothing wrong with it at all; in fact, it makes many sites much faster than they would be otherwise.
____________________________________________________
Then the contract between Rogers and deploy.akamaitechnologies.com must be using IP's: 24.153.0.0 to 24.153.31.255
If you happen to be a Roger's customer then try blocking them, especially IP's: 24.153.19.0:0:80 to 24.153.19.255:80
Then visit primarily news and medical related sites, or sign-into your hotmail account then observe the sort of traffic that has latched-onto your browser, and your Internet connection. If that doesn't smell of spying on customer's interests and surfing habits then I don't know what does.
For me, unblocking those IPs do not make "many sites much faster than they would otherwise". "Nothing wrong with that at all", you say, well I don't buy it.
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC
