from the the-slippery-slope-gets-steeper dept.
Comcast has begun serving Comcast ads to devices connected to one of its 3.5 million publicly accessible Wi-Fi hotspots across the US. Comcast's decision to inject data into websites raises security concerns and arguably cuts to the core of the ongoing net neutrality debate. A Comcast spokesman told Ars the program began months ago. One facet of it is designed to alert consumers that they are connected to Comcast's Xfinity service. Other ads remind Web surfers to download Xfinity apps, Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas told Ars in telephone interviews.
The advertisements may appear about every seven minutes or so, he said, and they last for just seconds before trailing away. Douglas said the advertising campaign only applies to Xfinity's publicly available Wi-Fi hot spots that dot the landscape. Comcast customers connected to their own Xfinity Wi-Fi routers when they're at home are not affected, he said.
AdBlock and NoScript remain your friends.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @04:13PM
I stuck dick in my own butt!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Alfred on Tuesday September 09 2014, @04:25PM
However on the bright side:
Yes. Very Yes.
Don't leave home without them.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday September 09 2014, @04:43PM
I'm sure this works nice on a laptop, but whats the solution on mobile / tablet?
I'm confused by the arguments on the play store about privoxy on android needing or not needing root. I would guess privoxy would take care of this problem?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by cafebabe on Tuesday September 09 2014, @05:20PM
If you don't have the root password for your device then you don't truly own it and you should expect to get screwed over on a regular basis. It sucks to be you but I wouldn't put up with it.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday September 09 2014, @06:01PM
Well, yeah in general, but in this specific instance...
Another bright idea I just came up with is VPN back to my home connection where I already have prixovy etc, assuming they don't categorically block VPN traffic.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Tuesday September 09 2014, @06:46PM
No buts. No exceptions. You just get caught with stupid stuff like this. You don't get user access plus one exception. You either control the device or you don't.
1702845791×2
(Score: 1, Troll) by BasilBrush on Tuesday September 09 2014, @07:27PM
Are you saying I don't own my Nintendo Wii? It sure feels like mine. Will I get in trouble if I sell it on ebay then?
Or is it perhaps that you've fallen hook line and sinker for RMS's bullshit. Saying you don't own a device if it doesn't have the ability to swap to arbitrary software is as ridiculous a misuse of words as saying media piracy is "theft", and that GPL is "viral". You're a victim of propaganda.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday September 09 2014, @08:08PM
You are reducing the argument down. For example, your argument wouldn't work for most home owners. They may live in their houses and "own" them but truly the bank owns the home and lets the "owner" do as they please.
The whole "you don't own it unless you have root" is for a total ownership. For example, if Nintendo decided to disable your Wii with a firmware update then there is nothing you could do and it would have zero resell value. If you had root access to the device then you would just re-enable the device and play your games. Or put a N64 emulator on there to play some old games. Or a multitude of other things that you currently are not allowed to do. That Wii is your property, yes. But you don't own all aspects of it and are at someone else's mercy.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Tuesday September 09 2014, @10:20PM
That Wii is your property, yes.
Thank you. You've confirmed my point that it is wrong to say it's not your property just because you can't root it.
That it's a useful feature to be able to swap OS software if you want is also true. But that's all it is, a feature than some products have and some don't. A bullet point on feature lists. A thing that would go on a pro and con list if you were to write out the product choice process formally.
For example, your argument wouldn't work for most home owners. They may live in their houses and "own" them but truly the bank owns the home and lets the "owner" do as they please.
But a mortgage is a contracted arrangement specifically about the ownership of an asset. It's not the slightest bit like whether or not there's a facility for replacing the OS on a computerized device. You example has nothing to do with my argument.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cafebabe on Wednesday September 10 2014, @12:40AM
You own your hardware but you license the software. Both are required for a functioning system. However, the software can be varied or revoked at any time. It does not matter if this is unlikely at the time of purchase. You may be left with something which is worthless or does not meet your requirements.
For books, LPs and CDs, this wasn't a major issue. You owned the physical embodiment but there were reasonable restrictions on the content, like not broadcasting CDs. Furthermore, this was generally done on an honesty basis. However, with network upgradable devices (or game authentication servers which disappear when a new version of the game is released) your purchase can become worthless at any moment.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Friday September 12 2014, @11:11PM
You own your hardware but you license the software.
Correct.
However, the software can be varied or revoked at any time.
Incorrect.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday September 10 2014, @02:03PM
I'll bet you have a "contracted arrangement" with your Wii as well, you just didn't read it. It is your property but you do not have permission to do anything you want with it. If it was completely yours, wouldn't you be able to do anything with it? Pretty simple question. Even music CDs you have bought are not completely yours. You couldn't make legal copies of the CD, for example. Complete ownership is not as simple as you having your hands on it. It is also having the ability to do whatever you want with it.
You quoted me out of context. Never did i say it's wrong to say it's not your property. I said you didn't completely own it, even if it is your property. I think both our minds are made up : ) Truce?
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Friday September 12 2014, @11:08PM
I'll bet you have a "contracted arrangement" with your Wii as well, you just didn't read it.
No, I just bought it. No need to sign anything.
It is your property but you do not have permission to do anything you want with it.
I can do anything with it that it is capable of doing. Which includes all the things that it was advertised as doing, all the things it said on the box and everything it says in the manual. You can't expect any product to do things that were not promised when you bought it.
I absolutely own my Wii. Any suggestion that I don't is silliness, originating from RMS. It's a cult. It's no more real than scientology.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by tibman on Sunday September 14 2014, @09:48PM
Okay : )
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Tuesday September 09 2014, @08:41PM
You're conflating issues in a manner that RMS advises not to. I would hope that you know that games consoles have DRM. So, in this case, can you run your own software on your own hardware? No. Do you truly own it? No.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Tuesday September 09 2014, @10:11PM
You've just confirmed that you are simply parroting the propaganda of RMS. As I said it's as wrong as the two other examples I gave of misuse of words.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Tuesday September 09 2014, @11:41PM
What is wrong with Richard Stallman's philosophy? He's a selfless person who has done a significant amount to avoid a distopian future. When The Right To Read [gnu.org] was published in the Feb 1997 issue of the Communications Of The ACM, people thought it was outlandish, speculative fiction. Now, people have their book licenses revoked [theguardian.com].
If you have issue with the GNU license, please reconsider your use of this forum. All of the server kernels are GNU licensed. Likewise for the database and forum script. You may also wish to disconnect your router because that may be GNU license too. That may be a bit extreme because the GNU philosophy is tolerant of intolerance. For example, it is understood that there is a place for proprietary software and dual-license software. The philosophy is that everyone should have the right to license their work on their own terms. But equally, everyone should have the right to accept work on reasonable terms or seek viable alternatives.
Bundling of hardware and software has been a significant setback to this philosophy. And there have been numerous GNU license violations in routers, televisions and other devices. Some people think that license terms are optional when no money changes hands but it is outright copyright violation. This is distinct from theft or piracy because the original author retains the work even if its value is diminished through criminal activity. If you don't like this, contact your legislator, devise a better license or devise your own implementation.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday September 10 2014, @04:45AM
What is wrong with Richard Stallman's philosophy? He's a selfless person who has done a significant amount to avoid a distopian future.
That's it, right there! Stallman is a DFH! Anything he says is propaganda, and admitting he is correct means I don't actually own my console/smartphone/kindle/toaster/car-of-the-future! But that is just crazy talk! Just because I can only use my property in the way that my corporate overlords deem fit does not mean that I am not free! Just because I cannot sell, modify, fold or spindle it does not mean that I can't do whatever I want with it! Darn commie DFHs, anyway. Why can they not just accept that freedom is doing what our corporate masters tell us to? Why do the constantly have to question things and make my head hurt just when I had decided not to question anything ever again?
(It was the rats, room 101, you never ask questions after that.)
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Friday September 12 2014, @11:28PM
How good is your free software games console? What's the best game it has?
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday September 13 2014, @03:26AM
Actually, it is much better than any proprietary console, since in theory, and legality, I can run any game I want on it!! The best game it has is called "real life". There are many options and upgrades, only problem is that there are no do-overs.
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Saturday September 13 2014, @09:53PM
In other words there are no viable free software alternatives to a Wii. And there never will be, as it takes man years of work to produce a modern game of the quality of commercial releases. That's the most extreme example, but the general point applies to all consumer software. There is little or no free software approaching the quality of commercial consumer software, because like any other job programmers and others in development teams need to earn a living.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday September 14 2014, @08:15AM
Yes, but I fail to see how this is a bad thing! Maybe you could explain. Game consoles (of which one I have never owned) promise games, but only on their own hardware. OK, I get that, I just do not buy their games or their hardware. So that means that all their engineers and programmers starve to death? I can live with that. Die, Mario Brothers! And your damn mushrooms! But when you say, and I can only interpret this as hyperbole, that there is no free software approaching the quality of commercial software, I have to ask, what planet are your from? (In case you are slow, and do not realize the depth of the insult, let me spell it out: if you say this, some commercial interest must be paying you to say it. Now I am not saying that this is the case, only that it is the most likely inference to be made from your post. Balls in your court.)
Yes, earning a living is good. But if it was based on value produced, most programmers would deserve to die. Yes, I know that it is often not their fault, they are required to write crap code in order to make a living, but that is the problem right there: the profit motive (and even the attenuated wage motive) motivate against good code, produce really bad crap that has to be replaced in the next release cycle, but is only replaced with equally bad crap, only now it is 8.0!
My point, originally, is that games are no standard of programming, or of freedom. I hope you find your dungeon pleasant, and never realize that there is a way out. (Take a look at Plato's Allegory of the Cave in the Republic, it may blow what you have left of a mind. )
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Sunday September 14 2014, @07:07PM
You can't get away from the inability of the Free Software world to fill a vast category with software by telling me of your personal lack of interest in that category.
But when you say, and I can only interpret this as hyperbole, that there is no free software approaching the quality of commercial software
You've missed the word "consumer" from that. I repeated the word several time so you wouldn't miss it. But I can't make you recognise it.
As I already explained there are business dynamics that mean that server software, and public sector dynamics than that mean that academic software can have people working on free software whilst being paid, and thus producing quality software. These dynamics do not work for applications intended for the general public. Thus free software in this category is of poor quality.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Friday September 12 2014, @11:26PM
What is wrong with Richard Stallman's philosophy?
It's a recipe for killing the computer programming industry. It opposes software quality and it opposes people making living from creating software. It doesn't say that, but those are the effects.
If you have issue with the GNU license, please reconsider your use of this forum.
No. This is not a site about free software. It's a tech news site. And even if it was about free software, all discussions need both sides. Having an echo-chamber of faithful cultists is a bad idea.
All of the server kernels are GNU licensed.
Are you telling me that you don't use any site that is implemented with commercial software? If so you're as much of a fruitcake as RMS. I couldn't give a shit what software a web site uses so long as it works. Likewise I'd be just as happy using a console that used only free software, providing it was a quality product. But there's no such thing - people working for free don't create quality software.
Of course Linux has been good for servers but that's because the people working on it have other sources of salary - academics paid by government, or businesses that make heavy use of use of servers, or those selling support. None of this works for for consumer software. With very few exceptions free software applications for consumers are shit.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @06:42PM
Firefox mobile supports addons, at least the Android version does. NoScript doesnt exist for mobile, but Ghostery and Adblock do.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Leebert on Tuesday September 09 2014, @04:56PM
Your number is probably just about right on the number of alienated customers, but it's out of tens of millions. People in general just don't care.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Tuesday September 09 2014, @05:35PM
People see it and assume that it has been checked with lawyers and therefore there is nothing that can be done about it. Some people aren't even sure where the boundaries are with services. For example, an ex-housemate thought that his email provider was giving him recommendations for porn sites. At the very least, he figured that if the messages arrived then they were endorsed by his email provider. Other people think that spam is a legitimate business practice because they see others doing it. (Which leads to the question of "Is Internet advertising profitable? [soylentnews.org]" Not if millions of lemmings are doing it because they see each other doing it.)
Anyhow, people would care more if they weren't conditioned to accept it and/or weren't completed baffled about the InterTubes.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Tuesday September 09 2014, @05:31PM
What they're doing here is selling off YOUR internet and letting strangers use it for free. The people they're showing the ads to are the users of the "free" service. Those people by definition aren't "customers" you're afraid of losing - they're not paying you in any OTHER way. The actual customer (who pays for the bandwidth they're merrily giving away) couldn't care less if you give their connection away with or without ads.
Who are you contending these ads "alienate"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @05:50PM
> What they're doing here is selling off YOUR internet and letting strangers use it for free
You've fundamentally misunderstood the situation. The comcast wifi hotspot uses bandwidth above and beyond that sold to the person with the cable modem. The home user still gets the full bandwidth they paid for. In fact, a particularly clever user could log into both connections on their home router and thus get more bandwidth than they had officially paid for.
I am no fan of comcast, I literally moved to a new apartment in order to dump them as my internet provider. And I think any tampering with internet traffic is unacceptable. But the generalized hate for their hotspot service is entirely misplaced.
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Tuesday September 09 2014, @06:12PM
Bullsh*t.
That would in theory be true IF Comcast customers consistently got the advertised speeds (you know, the speeds they're paying from). But they don't. Because it's an "up to" speed. And it's a "shared connection" to the central office, so they don't have to do anything about it.
I NEVER get advertised speeds from my ISP, and I doubt very much Comcast's customers do.
So, yes, putting someone else on my connection DOES take away bandwidth from me. It's yet another consumer on the actual bottleneck (the shared central line) which is pretty much always maxed out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @07:05PM
You appear to be conflating your general dissatisfaction with cable modem service with this wifi hotspot service.
The comcast hotspot uses an entirely distinct docsis channel for the connection between the modem and the head-end.
Your bitching would be just as applicable if comcast set up physically distinct modems on the poles instead.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Tuesday September 09 2014, @07:32PM
In addition to using your bandwidth budget to provide this service, the ISP is using your electricity to do it.
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @07:51PM
> In addition to using your bandwidth budget to provide this service, the ISP is using your electricity to do it.
Absolute worst case - under test conditions with obsolete equipment, no one using the private wifi link and someone maxing out the hotspot 24x7x52 was $8/year.
Yeah, that's terrible. If only electricity weren't in such short supply.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Tuesday September 09 2014, @08:34PM
Hackers have been arrested for using less electricity. So, please don't defend corporations in a criminal matter.
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @08:44PM
> Hackers have been arrested for using less electricity. So, please don't defend corporations in a criminal matter.
Has anyone ever told you that you are fucking nuts?
You couldn't have done a better job of illustrating exactly just how crazy the opposition is if you tried.
There is no criminality here. The hotspot requirements are part of the contract the subscriber agrees to.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Tuesday September 09 2014, @09:08PM
We expect a certain level of civil discourse from our anonymous users. Otherwise this privilege may be removed. This would be a shame because many people use this channel to contribute useful factoids.
Return to topic, I accept that some users would like the quid pro quo convenience of reciprocal connectivity and especially so if they are least likely to be disrupted. However, I purchased my equipment for my use only. Indeed, I paid extra for a router without WiFi which could be reflashed. If I chose to make connectivity available to the public, it would be on my terms. For example, bandwidth limits which vary with my likely usage. I do not accept a unilateral variation of terms which requires my resources for implementation.
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @09:26PM
> We expect a certain level of civil discourse from our anonymous users. Otherwise this privilege may be removed.
Hahahahah what a pathetic little child you are. Not just fucking nuts but with delusions of grandeur to boot.
> However, I purchased my equipment for my use only.
The hotspots only exist on rented equipment.
Keep it coming though, I love it when someone is so fucking wrong that they think the only path forward is to double down on the dumb.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Tuesday September 09 2014, @09:46PM
Regarding discourse, politeness is merely a common courtesy. I would have provided an example of an acceptable threshold but I don't think it would have consensus. Likewise, we don't have consensus with anonymous contributors but I am concerned that your contributions are evidence against having this channel. Please be more polite if you wish to use this channel in future.
Regarding rental, I believe that your assertion is consistent with mine [soylentnews.org].
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @09:51PM
> Please be more polite if you wish to use this channel in future.
Doubling down on the dumb! You just can't help yourself can you, fucko!
> Regarding rental, I believe that your assertion is consistent with mine.
That appears to be a 100% admission that you've been wrong all along. Thanks!
(Score: 4, Informative) by Leebert on Tuesday September 09 2014, @04:34PM
Southwest Airlines does this on their in-flight Internet, although it's not to serve ads (as far as I've seen). It's *really* annoying, and forces me to use encryption for things that I'd otherwise not care about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @05:18PM
> forces me to use encryption for things that I'd otherwise not care about.
Nowadays a VPN is practically mandatory for any hotspot access, and at least a good idea for any other kind of access like through your cell carrier or even at home.
Thankfully, the MAFIAA's Six Strikes campaign [dslreports.com] has made VPN service cheap and ubiquitous. You can easily find a VPN provider for less than $4/month and most of them permit 3-5 devices to connect simultaneously under one account so all of the phones in your family can be protected.
(Score: 2) by AlHunt on Tuesday September 09 2014, @04:45PM
So, is this Xfinity something customers pay to access, or is it a free, public hotspot? TFA doesn't make it clear. If it's "free", there ain't no such thing as "free". If it's part of a paid Comcast subscription, then piss on Comcast.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @05:12PM
> So, is this Xfinity something customers pay to access, or is it a free, public hotspot?
It is pay-to-access in that you must log in using account information associated with your comcast cable-modem account.
> If it's "free", there ain't no such thing as "free".
Even if it were "free" Comcast is flirting with disaster here because they are redistributing modified versions of copyrighted works. If comcast were to start replacing the commercials on the broadcast channels that they retransmit over their cable-tv network they would be in court post haste. Doing the same thing to web pages should be at least as illegal.
(Score: 1) by tecnomo on Tuesday September 09 2014, @05:26PM
Its bundled if you have Comcast and Xfinity account. i don't know if you can access it with just an Xfinity account. i have a feeling it is thought.
(Score: 1) by efernsler on Tuesday September 09 2014, @05:34PM
I think, with Xfinity, when you buy their service, you get your own wifi (without ads) and you can access everyone else's wifi with Xfinity (with ads every 7 minutes rammed down your throat).
So it is a part of your paid subscription, but the ads to not appear (yet) on your own wifi service.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by BradTheGeek on Tuesday September 09 2014, @05:34PM
Comcast Wifi if free.. but you have to have a comcast/xfinity account to login, so not completely free. It just gives you more places to use internet when away from your home connection. Cox and Time warner do it to, and apparently you can use the login from any of the three to get in to any of the others hotspots.
I pay for Comcast business class and last I checked, even though I pay more, my account isn't eligible to use these devices.
More interestingly, why isn't injecting unrequested data into a data stream between tow entities not a violation of the computer fraud and abuse act? It doesn't matter if I own the pipe. Lets look at an analog analouge. You have water provider A. Service company B who owns/maintains the pipes and pumps. Municipality C who connects to end users. And D the customer. Would it be legal for B or C to inject things into the water other than for maintenance purposes, say poison? Confetti? Harmless bitter liquids?
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Tuesday September 09 2014, @05:37PM
Fluoride?
(Score: 2) by iwoloschin on Tuesday September 09 2014, @06:59PM
Could we get the guys in Group B to exchange the line that provides me water with a line that provides beer instead? I'd be ok with that. I'll just install a rain barrel to collect enough water for the occasional shower.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Tuesday September 09 2014, @09:02PM
That's OK, even though you pay more, you're not eligible to use IPv6 either.
The mind. It boggles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10 2014, @08:39AM
> The mind. It boggles.
Don't boggle. The explanation is simple - when there is no competition there is no need to have a sensible, or even coherent, product.
(Score: 2) by tonyPick on Wednesday September 10 2014, @08:14AM
why isn't injecting unrequested data into a data stream between tow entities not a violation of the computer fraud and abuse act?
And on a related question; how is modifying a (third party) copyrighted work and redistributing the derived work to your customers, for profit, not a copyright violation?
(Score: 1) by resignator on Tuesday September 09 2014, @07:33PM
http://noscript.net/ [noscript.net]