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

401–410 of 498 posts

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

#401

Post by glenstein »

kasey_junk wrote: post #371
glenstein wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with pvg. The notion that a comment on HN is, in some sense, in poor form because it doesn't adhere to AP/MLA/CMS specifications is ridiculous. Nobody agreed to that, and I doubt anyone would even agree that that's accepted informally as a norm.

I didn’t mean to imply that the web should follow those style guides (and said as much). I was refuting his claim that no one expects that quotes imply an assertion of verbatim quote. I certainly default to assuming it does and in many contexts it is an explicit rule.

So you don't think that a comment thread like this one is a context where MLA guidelines would yield the most reasonable interpretation of what someone is saying?

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

#402

Post by tatersolid »

pooloo1 wrote: post #226
_jal wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, thanks for participating. Second, I am a Comcast customer who will never see these messages precisely because you do things like MITM unprotected traffic. Because I can't trust you to leave my traffic alone, all my traffic is tunneled. So at the very least, if you feel this is a critical service you are offering (as implied by the RFC), you need an alternative communications channel for people like me who don'…

I second this, in addition, the injection is not only related to EOS/EOL for modems it is also for when you are approaching your data cap. Which is rather annoying because it actually can halt your gaming or netflix experience oddly. I have had both happen, one I was playing PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds and the game crashed. Since the game itself uses web based tools, for its menu system, upon restarting the client…

I think it’s funny you’re approaching your data cap and they add 400 lines to the size of each web page you visit. I hope pages they tamper with are subtracted from your cap.

This is exactly why Comcast is still the most hated company in America [1], and the only reason you have any customers is due to the monopoly deals of dubious legality you or your acquisitions bribed local officials to create back during the infancy of cable. We hate you, but we don’t have any choice.

It’s worth noting that government regulation created Comcast by allowing long-term monopoly contracts with municipalities. Remove the regulations which prevent competition in local internet and TV services; don’t add more regulations.

  [1]: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/america-most-hated-companies-110032495.html

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

#403

Post by serf »

JoBrad wrote: post #205
santoshalper wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you probably wouldn't read it, because lots of people don't read their email (at least partially because of the junk).

Yes, but if you don’t get the speed Comcast promises you, and you paid attention to that, then you’d call them up, and find out that way. More work, but way less scummy.

regional monopolies have never cared about scummy behavior.

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

#404

Post by Dylan16807 »

exikyut wrote: post #24
Buge wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Reading through, this outlines a way to avoid using deep packet inspection by using Squid and Tomcat instead. Huh? It sure seems to be using deep packet inspection to me. If it's looking at the data section of your packet, that's deep packet inspection. And Squid and Tomcat do that. They're not just inspecting the packets, they're altering them, creating new packets, splitting packets, etc. The "RFC" seems to be out…

Hmmmm. > Pre-established TCP sessions on port 80 are identified by the SMB and forwarded with no impact. (SMB = Session Management Broker) How does the system identify a "pre-established session"? This seems to corroborate what you're saying

That part just requires looking at the TCP header. So I guess the answer is "no deep packet inspection until it picks a connection to inject, and then it inspects everything in that connection". Which simplifies to "yes deep packet inspection".

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

#407

Post by gnicholas »

Declanomous wrote: post #266

I'm annoyed by this on several levels. The biggest issue is that I'm using an Arris SB 6121 and I'm getting notifications that my modem is EOL. However, the SB6121 is listed as a supported modem for my speed level on their supported modems page. If I go to their supported modem page, I literally get a page where my current modem is shown as not supported, and the exact same modem is shown next to it as "supported." I…

Instead of going to the AG, I would recommend contacting the FCC. This prompts quick action and even just telling a Comcast rep that you're going to contact the FCC can be helpful.

Comcast makes it very difficult to get support if you don't lease one of their modems. Literally every time I call they insist that the problem is my modem, and of course it never is. All of my issues have been either outages or congestion-related, but Comcast reps can't fix the former and will never admit to the latter. So instead they blame your modem and ask for 10 bucks a month to lease a modem from them.

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

#408

Post by pvg »

tptacek wrote: post #395
pvg wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's as generous an interpretation of the rule as mine is overly literal. But it's worth comparing it to some of the other rules: Don't be an ass. Don't call other people asses. Don't complain about votes. And then: Some weird thing about quotes we can't even sort out as well-intentioned nerds who love to talk about rules. I don't think that's a good rule. I think what it's trying to address is probably a good rule…

It is also the case that this was something Paul Graham was idiosyncratically peevish about; at one point, he attempted a unified definition of trolling that amounted to "forcing one to rebut something they hadn't said" --- which obviously isn't the definition of trolling.

Yep, 'idiosyncratic' is a good way to summarize it. At the end of the day, it's just another dumb thing to yell at people about - it doesn't improve discourse or 'stimulate intellectual curiosity'. As an inveterate rule-yeller myself, the fewer of these the better.

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

#409

Post by gpm »

exikyut wrote: post #12
ksk wrote: post #7

I wonder if a website could sue Comcast for copyright violation.

Unfortunately if this were to happen and it succeeded, the precedent would kill the Web Archive. :(

The Internet Archive is undoubtedly claiming fair use, even if you suppose the works they create aren't derivative works they are still creating copies of and distributing copyrighted material, which violates copyright law absent fair use.

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

#410

Post by masonic »

vm wrote: post #406

All the more reason for ISP competition. The government will be slow to (or just won't) police this behavior so the ideal is to enable customers to quickly replace awful service providers with alternatives.

  All the more reason for ISP competition
Agreed, and decreasing competition is one negative impact if pure net neutrality is enforced. Nobody is going to build out (or improve) an ISP infrastructure only to have Netflix/Hulu/Youtube suck up most of your bandwidth from 5PM to midnight local time, forcing you to continually expand your infrastructure on your own dime.

Google foresaw this, hence Google Fiber / Alphabet build-outs being stopped 14 months ago.

Post reply on HN