U.S. ISP injects ad code into subscribers' browsers across all platforms

[Nergal]

Wow, just wow

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/how-a-banner-ad-for-hs-ok/

[Winapp2.ini]

Oh yeah, I spotted this the other day. I was stunned that an ISP had the audacity to do that.

 

I don't even like seeing commericials on cable TV. I should not have to see advertisements on a service I already pay for (/opinion)

[hazelnut]

Oh dear

 

I didn't like this bit

 

Update: CMA Communications' Terms of Service now contains a section on "Internet Advertising" that is "effective as of April 4, 2013"—a day after Henkel's reddit thread and the same day that I asked them questions about the practice. The section says, in part, that R66T will use a "digital layer which enables aggregated, curated, and created multimedia content and digital information presented in many digital formats" for "the purpose of inserting Information that is informational, promotional, entertaining, location-based, and generates advertising and sponsorship revenue for R66T and CMA." R66T's system is called BlueSky, and CMA has "entered into a contract with R66T to provide the services."

 

The terms require that users waive all rights to sue R66T—arbitration is the only allowed recourse.

[mta]

DAMN !!!!

that's just plain wrong...

[eL_PuSHeR]

Agreed. They should be sued.

[Andavari]

The subscribers can simply fight back merely by cancelling their service with that ISP and switch to another. Imagine if they were to loose say 50,000 subscribers per month over it.

[Nergal]

90% of them won't notice the injection.

 

it'd be relatively easier to spoof their squid server and inject your own though...if you happen to be malware. Plus it's just dern dishonest.

 

 

edit:

Update 2: Two readers who use CMA tell us that they now no longer see the ads in question and suspect that CMA has halted the project. One reader thanked Henkel for bringing the issue to light, saying, "It has directly impacted the thousands of people that subscribe to CMA."

 

Also I love this from the comments (warning, may be tl:dr)

I have been dealing with for awhile. I did like the others and blocked the r66t sites in my routers firewall. I took the steps to contact them also, only I got a reply back. Here is the email from 03/13/2013

 

"Mr. ***********,

 

CMA is in the process of trying to find ways to drive income from our internet service in new ways. These new ways would allow us to expand our service offering and maintain the cost of the current residential and business internet services.

 

We’ve been testing a new service which allows us to overlay / insert some local advertisement on certain web pages. A company called Route 66 is our partner. Right now, you’re barraged with a lot of internet advertising, popups, etc… This has become part of the internet experience. At the core, we’re simply trying to better customize some of this experience. And possibly give you access to highly relevant local advertising.

 

Having said that, I’ve recently become a little more familiar with what some of these ads look like and how they operate. I will concede that I’m not sure they strike the perfect balance between being information and non-invasive. Like I mentioned, we’re involved in a test and the feedback we’re getting from the test is helping us to refine and improve how (or if) we’ll continue here.

 

So I’m stopping short of saying that we’ll be ceasing this type of internet advertising experiment. But I do want you to know that your feedback has resulted in the beginning of a pretty intense internal dialogue.

 

Thanks for your feedback.

 

Julie Ferguson

CMA Communications"

 

Heres is what I had sent them.To whom it may concern,

 

Recently I have noticed on my personal internet connection that your network has begun to inject java script ads into the websites I visit. I wanted to make sure that you guys understand this is a form of copyright infringement, when you alter the content of a website that is copyrighted. It is a frustrating experience for me as a consumer since I am paying for this service and you are trying to use me to earn more money. Do we have the option of a lower subsidized bill for service since you are injecting these? I have spoken with your support personnel who were of no help at all. I understand how pop up ads work, I understand how ad blockers and add-ons work. I also know how to view and compare HTML code from webpages that are presented through you guys and through an unadulterated internet connection. I understand that you are a business and have the desire to increase profitability, but you should never do it at the expense of existing customers. I wanted to note that I have sent a notice to Google.com as to how you are modifying their page as well as a copy of the modified HTML code. I just want the service I pay for to be provided the way it is promised. A response would be greatly appreciated."

 

Edited April 9, 2013 by Nergal
added stuffs

[mta]

there should at the very least be an opt-out or unsubscribe choice.

 

I take it someone will write an add-on for your favourite browser to just stop them displaying. (he says crossing his fingers)

[Andavari]

From that quote Nergal posted:

At the core, we’re simply trying to better customize some of this experience.

 

That is typical advertiser jargon b.s.

 

One would think what they charge for broadband in the U.S. that they would have enough money (especially if they re-invested it in their own company) so as to not try and obtain more in the dubious usual way of screwing over the little guy.

[mta]

you would at least hope, to cover their legal backsides, that they have changed their service agreements to somehow state those changes.

similar to what Instagram and Facebook did recently with their privacy/content changes and subsequent backflips.

[Andavari]

Yeah it's shocking isn't it! Big companies usually will always have the legal bit already done up. It's public outcry, and negative news articles that will pressure them to think otherwise.