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

271–280 of 498 posts

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

#271

Post by timzentu »

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…

What spec of DOCSIS was your old modem? If it was 1.0, 1.1, or 2.0, sorry you lose all support, the older specs had hard bonded channels that HD TV on them after the swap that they informed people of for 2 years before it happened. And they put TV on them since they were degrading channels due to overuse across the entire network (as in across the country).

The later specs allowed for floating channels based on channel maps, which allowed Comcast to bypass those degraded channels.

Note: I'm not an apologist, but I worked for Comcast and for a subcontractor. Comcast treated (at least in my opinion) their customers like wallets that called and complained, but under the subcontractor I saw that since they didn't rewire 100% of all networks purchased, it was common that the older lines were causing the degradation and also reflection on other RF channels sometimes on the other side of an area even. Now if Comcast invested in their network as opposed to buying other companies and calling it investment, this might have been fixed, but that would be decades vs. having every modem that wasn't compliant to the new spec swapped.

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

#274

Post by rietta »

beamatronic wrote: post #244
nerdponx wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time-Sensitive, Open Immediately You know it's actually an important piece of mail when the envelope isn't imploring you to open it.

The most serious snail mail correspondence is utterly and completely plain.

On the from line - Office of Legal Counsel...that’s getting opened.

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

#275

Post by jopsen »

Xylakant wrote: post #59
izacus wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After all the horrible consumer practices Comcast does regularly you'll still give them the benefit of the doubt? How many times do they have to prove themselves as untrustworthy and consumer hostile that you'll stop sitting there and just hoping that next magical tech will make them stop trying to extract maximum money and inject ads into your stream? Yes, HTTPS is great and should be deployed everywhere. But thinki…

The technical capability to MiTM TLS exists since the very moment TLS was designed. It all hinges on the ability to get a trusted certificate for the domain you want to MiTM. You can do TLS MiTM with Apache if you choose to. Acquiring the Cert has always been the problem and nothing changed in that regard. Strictly speaking, things on that front have become harder since browsers are becoming more and more strict abou…

Not to mention the Certificate Transparency efforts..

Breaking TLS is considerably harder. And forcing a cert upon your customers would be hard to scale... It would be similar to implementing a firewall forbidding TLS and VPNs. That's a hard sell.

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

#276

Post by timzentu »

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…

FCC complaints are usually more effective, never dealt with one in the current shitty administration, but legally the FCC requires resolution within 7 business days, or at least a plan of action if resolution isn't possible for completion. I used to receive the emails and all the people on an FCC chain put pressure on the lower levels.

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

#277

Post by tptacek »

glenstein wrote: post #192
carussell wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the response, "we're not trying to sell you a modem, we're just encouraging you to strongly consider buying a new one" Making up quotes like this is against HN guidelines (and common decency).

My "quote" isn't significantly different from what was actually said, in fact hews extremely closely to it, and is designed for rhetorical purpose of making clear how small a distinction is being relied upon in order to claim the statement is something other than a request for you to buy a new modem. Moreover there's nothing in the guidelines about "making up quotes" (which again isn't a reasonable interpretation of…

If you're rewording something someone else said, even if you're keeping it very close to the original words, don't use quotation marks. Quotes say "this is literally what was said".

I got bit by this a bunch when I first got on HN; it was surprising to me how seriously it was taken. But it is, and it's not hard to work around.

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

#278

Post by Declanomous »

timzentu wrote: post #276
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…

FCC complaints are usually more effective, never dealt with one in the current shitty administration, but legally the FCC requires resolution within 7 business days, or at least a plan of action if resolution isn't possible for completion. I used to receive the emails and all the people on an FCC chain put pressure on the lower levels.

I'll file a complaint with the FCC as well then. I'll probably file one with the City of Chicago too. Might as well put as much pressure as I can on them, because this is ridiculous.

I don't care if the issue is bureaucracy, incompetence, or greed, but I know filing lots of complaints with regulatory bodies generally solves the first and the third issue well, and motivates companies to fix the second issue too.

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

#279

Post by m333t »

pleasecalllater wrote: post #114

You have really pathetic law in the US. After something like that in Europe, the company managers would have really huge problems. And in US people seem to be happy about that. If they wouldn't, it would be changed.

In the US, we have cities with higher populations than your countries. Lots of people care but their opinions are rendered meaningless by the millions of people who don't.

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

#280

Post by convolvatron »

NelsonMinar wrote: post #204
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…

I think it's amazing Comcast documented their MITM attack as an RFC. Are those still literally Requests for Comments? Are the comments collected anywhere?

unfortunately the word 'RFC' has been corrupted from meaning exactly that, a publishing forum for ideas, into a pretty asinine form of technical marketing whereby you can publish an informational outside any normal consensus process and assume the sheen of standardization. that started happening 2 decades ago.
Post reply on HN