Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages

forums.xfinity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 498 posts

Re: Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages

#151

Post by gech »

jlivingood wrote: post #112
metaphor wrote: post #25

J. Livingood (a Comcast VP) responded to the OP: > [JL] We are not trying to sell you a new one. If you own your modem we're informing you that it is either end of life (EOL) or that you are about to get a speed upgrade that the modem will be unable to deliver. Incidentally, Livingood is a co-author of IETF RFC 6108, which he has conveniently linked. From the RFC's general requirements numero uno: > R3.1.1. Must Only…

> Although I disagree with Comcast's method and categorization, it would be interesting to learn what modem the OP was using. We start telling customers that a modem needs to be upgraded when one of two things happen: either they are about to or just had a speed upgrade that their modem cannot support or the modem has gone end-of-life (EOL) from the vendor. In the former case, if the device is leased, you are send a…

Off topic to this post but can you confirm any details on your company's intentions following the dismantling of net neutrality?

Re: Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages

#152

Post by autokad »

candiodari wrote: post #11

The thing that's so irritating about large telco's is not just that they're evil, but the casual stupidity of their actions, including their evil actions. I mean, look at the code. Look at the function of this code. Look at the business purpose of this code. Look at the security aspects of using this code. Look at the legal ramifications (why the hell is that LGPL thing up top there ?). Look at their internal communi…

i look at some companies and I just shake my head.

Microsoft in the last 10 years, and consider how much talent and budget they have access to.

i remember when zynga had to lay off programmers by the thousands. I was thinking, they had THOUSANDS of programmers and the best they came up with was skins over top of farmville?

Re: Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages

#153

Post by katastic »

paulie_a wrote: post #128
nkrisc wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A mortgage and tuition for kids is a powerful motivator.

The yuppy nuremberg defense. From the excellent movie "thank you for smoking"

You guys sound like you're 20.

You think things in the world are so "obviously" black and white.

Comcast making shitty business decisions is not burning Jews in ovens. And the fact your not immediately laughed out of the room when you make such comparisons is the real sad reflection of society in this thread.

Re: Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages

#154

Post by bunderbunder »

gigatexal wrote: post #129

Let me just drop Comcast like a bad habit. Oh wait. I can’t. There’s not another provider in my area with similar speeds. So I’m screwed.

For my part, I'm quite happy with the not-Comcast I have at home, compared to the Comcast at my coworking space.

The nominal speed is 1/10 as much, but the actual difference in actual experience is much smaller, because the not-Comcast provider does a much better job of actually delivering on the speeds they claim to be selling me. It's really only a noticeable difference when I want to do something like download an OS install image. Which happens infrequently enough that, for me, going with Comcast would have worked out to something on the order of getting that image an hour faster for $200 per time I do it.

More importantly, not-Comcast stays up. The coworking space's Internet service is maddeningly intermittent.

Re: Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages

#155

Post by tolien »

vidarh wrote: post #90
Sharlin wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mean, I know the answer is "government" and government making them a monopoly, but still. WTF. Eh, telco infrastructure is a natural monopoly. No government needed for that.

No, but government could easily have opted for a regulatory regime that prevented it from being a problem, instead of allowing them to continue milking their situation. The EU member states implementation of deregulation of the telecoms sector is far from perfect, but most of them have ended with something that works reasonably well. E.g. in the UK, while the cable operator (there's only one of note left standing) ha…

> ISPs can put equipment in the BT exchanges and get a raw connection, or can pay for "backhaul" to a set of central locations.

It's worth noting this involves two different layers of regulatory separation.

Most ISPs don't run their own LLU operation. They buy access from one of BT Wholesale or TalkTalk Wholesale (who are technically LLUers and both, in turn, use the last-mile network run by Openreach). As you say, the prices which both of the BT Group companies are allowed to charge are regulated and published and companies can "innovate" at quality of service or features offered.

The relevant part here is that the US has never AFAIK had the same wholesale access model. With that, an upstart ISP could have the same coverage as Verizon/Comcast/etc but have the option of not doing these scummy things and/or being as network-neutral as they pleased, within the limits of their business model, without having to spend boatloads of money building a network to access those customers. LLU, on the other hand, requires way more investment so it's not surprising that it never really took off in the US where DSL always seemed like the poor relation compared to the cable networks.

Re: Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages

#156

Post by eternalban »

candiodari wrote: post #11

The thing that's so irritating about large telco's is not just that they're evil, but the casual stupidity of their actions, including their evil actions. I mean, look at the code. Look at the function of this code. Look at the business purpose of this code. Look at the security aspects of using this code. Look at the legal ramifications (why the hell is that LGPL thing up top there ?). Look at their internal communi…

> How can an organisation that executes this badly become this big ? I mean, I know the answer is "government" and government making them a monopoly, but still. WTF.

Because "National Security".

Re: Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages

#157

Post by scottmf »

vidarh wrote: post #90
Sharlin wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mean, I know the answer is "government" and government making them a monopoly, but still. WTF. Eh, telco infrastructure is a natural monopoly. No government needed for that.

No, but government could easily have opted for a regulatory regime that prevented it from being a problem, instead of allowing them to continue milking their situation. The EU member states implementation of deregulation of the telecoms sector is far from perfect, but most of them have ended with something that works reasonably well. E.g. in the UK, while the cable operator (there's only one of note left standing) ha…

There’s a lot to dislike about the UK government, but the way they regulated the ISP market is perfect. We have one of the most competitive ISP markets in the world.

In my time in the US several years ago I was horrified at the cost and quality of internet (and mobile) service compared to the UK.

Any strong libertarian ideals I once had were crushed by the reality of things like this. (Healthcare too but that’s another discussion).

Re: Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages

#159

Post by ninkendo »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #132
dboreham wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You were able to switch in 5 minutes because nothing actually changed except who sent you the bill. In the US this isn't possible because whoever owns the physical wire/fiber into your place gets to bill you, exclusively.

Yes, there is one cable and everyone has to share it, by law. I thought that AT&T was split once in the past to differentiate backbone and service providers - why not in the case of fiber?

Probably because the fox is guarding the henhouse now.
Post reply on HN