Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages • Hacker News Board

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

#431

Post by pvg » Mon, Dec 11, 2017, 2:06 AM UTC

kasey_junk wrote: post #429

pvg wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess I’m far out of the mainstream then. If you put quotes around something and attribute it to someone or some text, I assume you are asserting a verbatim quote, either in the context of web forums, business communications or more formal writing covered by a style guide. In the context of fiction, if you put quotes around something I assume it is to declare that the character is saying exactly what is quoted. Tha…

I appreciate your good nature in taking the time to engage in this silliness but I have a hard time believing your high school teacher or anyone else taught you that. The wikipedia page on it:

"In English writing, quotation marks are placed in pairs around a word or phrase to indicate:

Quotation or direct speech: Carol said "Go ahead" when I asked her if the launcher was ready. Mention in another work of a title of a short or subsidiary work, like a chapter or episode: "Encounter at Farpoint" was the pilot episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Scare quotes used to mean "so-called" or to express irony: The "fresh" apples were full of worms."

Even 'direct speech' is at odds with 'verbatim quote' and that's the first thing there. Direct speech can be completely made up.

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

#432

Post by cookiecaper » Mon, Dec 11, 2017, 2:14 AM UTC

aaomidi wrote: post #312

pooloo1 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

TBH what kind of game doesn't use https...

HTTPS is not free. Game developers are usually very performance-sensitive. If you're not transmitting any sensitive data, it may seem appealing to forgo the seemingly-needless HTTPS overhead.

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

#433

Post by AndyMcConachie » Mon, Dec 11, 2017, 2:19 AM UTC

robterrell wrote: post #187

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #136

TFA mentions a Comcast tech referencing RFC 6108: "[JL] This is our web notification system, documented in RFC 6108 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6108 , which has been in place for many years now." However, RFC 6108 requirement for use R3.1.1 states: R3.1.1. Must Only Be Used for Critical Service Notifications Additional Background: The system must only provide critical notifications, rather than trivial notificatio…

I'm sure the comcast "tech" knows what's in the RFC. Look in the top-right corner; he's one of its authors. He's also replying in this thread.

Do you consider upselling subscribers on modems a critical service notification? I don't.

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

#434

Post by cookiecaper » Mon, Dec 11, 2017, 2:19 AM UTC

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #257

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Snailmail is fine; you try to upsell me constantly through that channel already. Implying you’d probably miss it and, if not you, the customers they’re trying to reach.

Then they ought to stop abusing the communication channels they have. If they send so much email and snail mail spam that the customer automatically ignores it, that's the choice they have made.

What happens when a customer who really does have a modem that is vulnerable or outmoded runs into related issues? Is that customer going to accept "Well, we included it with our junk mail" as an explanation? As for email, does anyone use their ISP-provided email address anymore? Everyone has a third party provider (mostly Gmail).

I don't think there's any fault in logic in presuming that the best way to make sure a customer receives a notification is to insert as near to their known-active stream as possible. I don't condone altering that stream, but I think it would be nice if they could send a page, potentially at the browser or OS level, exclusive for system control and status messages (no sales, marketing, billing, or collection messages allowed).

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

#435

Post by rietta » Mon, Dec 11, 2017, 2:20 AM UTC

rietta wrote: post #306

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Snailmail is fine; you try to upsell me constantly through that channel already. Implying you’d probably miss it and, if not you, the customers they’re trying to reach.

I am so sick and tired of xfinity mailings addressed to me or my wife or former residents of the home address asking us to switch to them for a two year discount that I know they won’t give us because we’re already a customer. They even just jacked my rates yet again.

Along the lines of this. Anyone in the industry, why do they not cross reference the street addresses of their current subscribers and reduce the promotional mailing list or mail relevant promotions? Maybe it seems cheaper to do it this way, but it's actually quite antagonistic to current customers.

Why would they not maintain a clean marketing list!?

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

#436

Post by virtuallynathan » Mon, Dec 11, 2017, 2:48 AM UTC

justrobert wrote: post #391

phil21 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> customers should not be subsidizing the cost. Can you please explain to me how you think this is a thing? Are you really that concerned about the extra watt or so of power usage a virtual SSID uses? Or are you operating under the misconception that this somehow impacts your bandwidth allocation? It's by far the most innovative and awesome thing Comcast has ever done. And they get ultra-hate from people who should a…

Except comcast has datacaps for total transfer per month. I don't use comcast so I do not personally know if they charge for excessive data usage, but I know cox does. Besides the point of potential cost, why should a user who is paying for the service subsidize comcast. They are not getting a discount for offering the wifi to customers.

The data used by other customers on Xfinity wifi does not count against your data cap

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

#437

Post by virtuallynathan » Mon, Dec 11, 2017, 2:50 AM UTC

notyourday wrote: post #357

jlivingood wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It usually means you are about to get a speed upgrade that will go beyond what your modem is capable of delivering. In that case it is possible you could have a 1st generation 4x4 modem (so it can bond 4 downstream and 4 upstream channels).

Comcast does not provide any speed on residential lines that DOCIS 3.x cannot accommodate. It is like requiring Formula car to drive on a gravel road in Alaska.

Different modems can use different numbers of DOCSIS channels. A 4x4 DOCSIS 3 modem is only capable of, at most, 150Mbps and on average 75-100Mbps. A new DOCSIS 3.1 model can do >1.2Gbps.

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

#438

Post by virtuallynathan » Mon, Dec 11, 2017, 2:52 AM UTC

aaronbrager wrote: post #247

jlivingood wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Can you discuss why DOCSIS 3.0 users get this notice? I have a 3.0 modem, and received the notice, but it looks like my modem will still support my speed tier (75mbps in Chicago)

A 4x4 channel 3.0 modem should really only be used for ~75-100Mbps tiers, and is capable of at best 150Mbps. The more channels you have available the more capacity you can pull from — higher peak speeds and potentially better speeds at peak time.

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

#439

Post by pacificmint » Mon, Dec 11, 2017, 2:56 AM UTC

justrobert wrote: post #391

phil21 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> customers should not be subsidizing the cost. Can you please explain to me how you think this is a thing? Are you really that concerned about the extra watt or so of power usage a virtual SSID uses? Or are you operating under the misconception that this somehow impacts your bandwidth allocation? It's by far the most innovative and awesome thing Comcast has ever done. And they get ultra-hate from people who should a…

Except comcast has datacaps for total transfer per month. I don't use comcast so I do not personally know if they charge for excessive data usage, but I know cox does. Besides the point of potential cost, why should a user who is paying for the service subsidize comcast. They are not getting a discount for offering the wifi to customers.

> Except comcast has datacaps for total transfer per month.

The extra access point doesn't count towards your data cap.

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

#440

Post by cookiecaper » Mon, Dec 11, 2017, 3:14 AM UTC

mcherm wrote: post #268

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #66

When reading about Comcast I was always wondering why they have no competition when everyone who comments is complaining. I live in France and use Orange as my fibre provider. 1 Gbps/250 Mbps without constraints. I used to have Free which was great but did not offer fibre when fiber was installed. I switched to Orange in 5 min via a web page. I have another possibility (SFR) but they are despicable liars and for this…

> When reading about Comcast I was always wondering why they have no competition when everyone who comments is complaining. Suppose you were a major company with big dollars to spend on offering internet service... someone like Google, for example. Then suppose you wanted to provide service in Louisville, Kentucky. How many years do you think it would take to get permission to attach your lines to the existing teleph…

I think this is really a critical thing to get integrated into the American public dialogue. Pro-business and pro-competition does not mean zero governmental oversight or regulation. My opinion is that if there isn't substantial churn or upheaval in the market at least a couple of times per decade, there is something broken in the market, and we should be looking at what kind of actions would be useful to allow fresh, new entrants to make an impact (without explicitly picking winners or issuing subsidies).

Example: the online marketplace for social, search, and email is stagnant for obscure legal reasons. We should identify these (copyright and the CFAA) and remove the barriers.

Megacorps have exploited core conservative values to guilt people into believing that they're commies if they refuse to write a blank check for any big company that wants one. We can make real progress, and it's important progress, by highlighting to Republican/conservative-leaning voters that selling their country to corporate raiders is not a pre-requisite for being pro-business or pro-small-government.