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

411–420 of 498 posts

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

#411

Post by DrScump »

voidwtf wrote: post #334
fuzzieozzie wrote: post #252

Comcast forced me to upgrade a perfectly acceptable modem so I would have to option to have higher speed service (which I do not want)! Here's what they did: 1. asked me to upgrade the modem (emails and letters) 2. Inserted a filter on my line so I lost my connection 3. I bought a new modem (not realizing they stuck a filter there) 4. They removed the filter I guess this approach does not scale as well as the 400 lin…

I don't understand the general attitude against forced modem upgrades. If you lease your modem it's as easy as walking into a Comcast store and swapping it for a new one. If you own your modem, pick the newest model of modem that fits your needs. The newer modems support more channels and newer modulation/technology. This isn't just about supporting newer speeds. In order for them to support those newer speeds for ot…

  it's as easy as walking into a Comcast store and swapping it
If you have an Xfinity store nearby, and if they don't have lines over an hour long much of the day, and if you get a rep who knows what s/he is doing.

I live about 6 minutes from one, and it can still be a multi-hour adventure.

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

#412

Post by cies »

betterunix2 wrote: post #69
cies wrote: post #44

So how exactly is this not criminal?

They are not blocking, throttling, or interfering (in any way that harms functionality) with legal applications; in a nutshell that is 2015 requirement. Now, if that Javascript happens to interact badly with some particular web page, then you could complain to the FCC as long as the 2015 rules remain in effect (which is more than a week, for what that's worth).

I think I've sent an envelope. Digital envelop. They're the mail service. And they secretly mingle with it. That's illegal in my book.

I guess the EFF has tried this defense of our freedoms...

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

#413

Post by pvg »

agar wrote: post #399
pvg wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a weird HN-ism, though, not how writing or paraphrasing works anywhere else. The goal is understandable and laudable but 'redefining the meaning of quotes' is a thing only hardcore lispers can love.

I think you're missing an important distinction. When paraphrasing a group of people or stating a cultural zeitgeist, quotes are acceptable: > The gist of the HN community's opinion is, "don't use quotation marks when paraphrasing." > Lately the Democrats approach has been, "oppose Trump at every turn." However, when paraphrasing a specific individual, it is frowned upon at best[1][2], and considered intentionally mi…

That exhaustingly (if not exhaustively) describes a number of important distinctions that never come up when some hapless commenter gets told off they're using quotes wrong. It's a Talmudic absurdity to apply to a message board. We don't have 70 comment threads about the proper use of "it's" vs "its", with MLA citations (which, it's worth recalling, "specifies guidelines for formatting manuscripts and using the English language in writing")

It's just a dumb, arbitrary rule. It serves no purpose beyond facilitating righteous rebuke. You can make a better rule dealing with the underlying behaviour while oxygen deprived from screaming at dang about HN's political bias.

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

#414

Post by jis »

Centime wrote: post #377
paultopia wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait wait WHAT? This standard seems like a terrible mistake. Isn't this exactly what malware creators want? To condition users to click the browser pop up that says "YOUR COMPUTER IS INFECTED WITH MALWARE, CALL THIS NUMBER/INSTALL THIS HORRIBLE THING TO FIX IT?" Why on Earth would anyone issue a standard that says that ISPs should deliver that kind of notification, thus training consumers to believe them?

They're the ones who issued the standard. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6108

Just to be clear. This is not an IETF Standard that has gone through the standards process. It is an "individual submission" published as an informational document. The IETF does not endorse documents classified as "informational."

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

#415

Post by glenstein »

agar wrote: post #399
pvg wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a weird HN-ism, though, not how writing or paraphrasing works anywhere else. The goal is understandable and laudable but 'redefining the meaning of quotes' is a thing only hardcore lispers can love.

I think you're missing an important distinction. When paraphrasing a group of people or stating a cultural zeitgeist, quotes are acceptable: > The gist of the HN community's opinion is, "don't use quotation marks when paraphrasing." > Lately the Democrats approach has been, "oppose Trump at every turn." However, when paraphrasing a specific individual, it is frowned upon at best[1][2], and considered intentionally mi…

Do you feel that my paraphrase was intentionally misleading, or even confusing, or innacurrate? Even unintentionally? Does anybody? Does anybody think the norm currently being debated yielded any actual tangible value in this thread? Did it save someone from misunderstanding Comcast's position?

A lot of zeros and ones are being spilled on behalf of the abstract principle how quotes can be hypothetically used abused and interpreted, but none of the 40+ comments beneath my now-flagged paraphrase of Comcast's statement is actually arguing that my paraphrase was in any way distorting or misleading.

So I question the value of this norm, if the practical way it tangibly cashes out is in the form of extremely long derailments substantively unrelated to the the comment that caused the rule to be invoked.

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

#416

Post by davrosthedalek »

phil21 wrote: post #388
StudentStuff wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Verizon has poor service in many places, eg Hawaii or when roaming up near the Canadian border. They still haven't figured out how to support international roaming reliably, half my family was w/o service for our few hours in Canada. Service in SoCal seems to be one of their last strongholds, but even then voice calls sound like a robot.

Verizon is far and away the market leader in international roaming and it isn't even remotely close. At least in my experience. Source: Tried to get away from VZW for a decade now - international roaming always being the ultimate decider. Curious who you've found to be better. Verizon has always been that shit-tier company ran by borderline criminals which happens to have the far superior network and hard product.

Have you tried t-mobile? They seem to have excellent coverage everywhere I go, which is mainly Europe. /And/ free (but slow) data.

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

#417

Post by pvg »

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.

I was refuting his claim that no one expects that quotes imply an assertion of verbatim quote.

I don't understand how you've refuted that while also saying they sometimes don't. Are we arguing about contexts here? My claim is almost trivial - nobody reasonably familiar with English thinks quotes imply a verbatim quote. That's just not what quotes are for.

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

#418

Post by exikyut »

octalmage wrote: post #262
exikyut wrote: post #4

The gigantic image: https://i.imgur.com/kN2rMhK.jpg (source: http://comcastsupport.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/imag... - URL manually edited to display largest possible size) I paged through the JS curiously, and found the URL bnpsa.g.comcast.net/images/mydevicealert/browser/. I wondered what would happen if I hit that from my ISP in Australia. I was surprised: I got an NXDOMAIN back. But I discovered that goog…

When you run code on a website you don’t own you have to be extremely careful. You’ll learn this quick building WordPress themes and plugins. They’re pretty careful not to directly affect the website by running their JavaScript in a scoped context and using IDs in the CSS selectors, but there is nothing to prevent the website front modifying their pop up. For example if my website had the .closebn class with display:…

This is indeed true, and IIUC using Shadow DOM would be a workable mitigation.

Btw, ignore caniuse etc - Firefox _technically_ does support Shadow DOM, just version 0, which it has apparently supported for a little while now. It's better than nothing in a pinch.

Chrome et al are at Shadow DOM v1, which is what caniuse tests its support/no-support metrics against.

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

#419

Post by glenstein »

mirimir wrote: post #397
pvg wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think paraphrasing is limited to fiction any more than metaphor or hyperbole or idiom are. And those are in online forums all the durned time!

Sure, but it's polite to say when you're not quoting literally. Because that's the default expectation.

You don't need to fall back to a "default expectation" when usage is adequately indicated by context and by good faith efforts to interpret a statement in it's most reasonable form. Nobody confused it for a literal quote, nor did anybody feel it caused any misunderstanding, and those realities preempt any need to appeal to a default expectation.

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

#420

Post by carussell »

glenstein wrote: post #389
dang wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making up a weaponized quote that's close to what was originally said is actually worse, because then it's harder for passers-by to tell apart and more injurious to the original statement. By 'weaponized' I mean altering it to sharpen the point for indignation or snark purposes. It's a harmful internet practice that we've asked to users to abstain from. You're right that it isn't explicitly mentioned in the site guid…

How about to sharpen the point for brevity and clarity in order to convey a perfectly legitimate point? Arguing against something doesn't mean that you interpreted it uncharitably and doesn't merit the exaggerated description of being weaponized (and the comfort level with such exaggerations as "injurious" and "weaponized" is amusing in the context where the concern is about insufficient proximity between a statement…

> I don't think I twisted or misrepresented anything, and no one seems to be suggesting the anything was actually misrepresented

No, that is what I'm suggesting. Your comment reads as a quote. After reading it, I went to the linked page and looked around for the context. Turns out, there was no context for that quote, because it's not a quote, because those words aren't actually in the original text.

Post reply on HN