So this just popped up while browsing on some random site (game modding site).
I am using Google DNS instead of the default comcast.
What tricks are they using to inject this javascript in the browsing session? They used to do it via DNS injection, but how are they doing this now?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
addons.mozilla.org
wordfence.com
blog.mozilla.org
mises.org
mises.org
twitter.com
Wow, I didn't know how much Americans get fucked in the ass by their ISP.
packet injection/inspection
basically man in the middle attack
only works on unencrypted http
They're MITMing you dude
They just append JS to your HTTP responses
I'd be mildli annoyed if my ISP injected whatever into my internets
Isn't this illegal in America? Dear lord, what a shithole.
This
Use an https proxy, vpn, and/or tor
This. My old ISP in Argentina used to replace your first request whole with a "welcome back" page after reconnecting, which happened annoyingly often, around thrice daily.
>sudo aptitude update
>sudo aptitude upgrade -dy
>goto loo
>goto pc
downloads failed
>sudo aptitude upgrade -dy
>goto bed
>mv /dev/hand /dev/dick
>fsck /dev/dick
>goto pc
>1 download failed
>sudo aptitude upgrade -dy
>sudo aptitude upgrade
I gained a lot of upper body strength
If only they had some organization to keep the ISPs in check.
Oh wait, they did.
what happened
yeah that's pretty impressive.
Trump sent a Pajeet to kill it's corpse.
>be american
>have limited data
For what purpose?, just use your wired connection to download shit
Dang what state are you in? No caps from them down here
>I received this web page from my ISP and they appended some code to it
>HOW?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Stop using and paying for xfinity you retard.
>just looked at my comcast bill
>I'm over 150% usage
>I now owe $378 used to be 134
Kill me now. i'm fucked.
what other options do I have? at&t? HA!
not trump as its been going for a few years now.
but net neutrality is the biggest cause. It calls for an ISP monopoly stronger than it was before, but not as bad as we thought it would become. ISP's before were talking about selling "fast lanes" and "hyper fast lanes" where they just limit your bandwidth unless you pay up more.
But yea, fuck comcast, and chances are there are no affordable+good competitors at the same price range due to the territorial thing.
idk user, my 1gbps at&t feels pretty good after google backed the fuck out of fiber.
Another retard who doesn't understand what the FCC has been doing for the last 10 years.
just call and explain you're not sure why the data usage is that high (maybe state you don't believe it's accurate) and ask for a fee waiver. if you don't believe you actually used that much data you can file a complaint with the FCC.
he's using the tense of "they did" to reflect the new FCC chariman's positions
>signed away the net neutrality/transparency rules wheeler put in
>nixed the plan for standardized cable boxes with two way communication as a real successor to the cable card and cable hardware (digital set top box) hegemony
>generally believes ISPs should be free to do what they want and that any consumer protections should instead be brought by the FCC
Dark times for ISP protections for consumers
Aren't you butthurt about the cap?
Stop living in flyover states.
And shit like this is pretty much why we need HTTPS.
Browser should give HUGE warning boxes on unencrypted websites IMO to convince website owners to upgrade.
It's only Comcast.
What prevents ISPs from injecting their own ads? Like is there a law against it?
It's not like customers care anyway.
wordfence.com
>Starting with the release of Chrome 56 this month, any website that is not running HTTPS will have a message appear in the location bar that says “Not Secure” on pages that collect passwords or credit cards. It will look like this
>blog.mozilla.org
>In order to clearly highlight risk to the user, starting this month in Firefox 51 web pages which collect passwords but don’t use HTTPS will display a grey lock icon with a red strike-through in the address bar.
>To continue to promote the use of HTTPS and properly convey the risks to users, Firefox will eventually display the struck-through lock icon for all pages that don’t use HTTPS, to make clear that they are not secure. As our plans evolve, we will continue to post updates but our hope is that all developers are encouraged by these changes to take the necessary steps to protect users of the Web through HTTPS.
Sounds good. Of course this only affects websites that have an input type password.
The red lock in the URL bar does nothing - the average joe doesn't know what it means.
Is this actually a thing in America? I can't remember the last time I had a limit on my home internet usage.
Time warner was experimenting with injected ads I think. Last year I was going crazy over them, but lately I haven't noticed ones that are obviously them.
If you want the government to be involved in every part of your life, move to North Korea, cuck. The government needs to stay as far away as possible from the internet
>comcast
into the trash can the router goes
Yeah but who remembers anymore
This is what you get for voting trump.
This is just the start.
The government should be setting up rules that protect against abusive natural monopolies/oligopolies, there's a reason basic utilities are regulated.
>the solution to failure of government is more government
found the retard
Yeah, let's put all of our trust into unregulated businesses who can't be held accountable are driven purely by profit, even if it means being unethical or harmful to people and the environment. The free market will sort them out, right?
I swear, free market tards are the most unintelligent people you'll ever meet.
>being this retarded
>no counter-argument because I don't have one
Sad, but not unexpected.
Step in the right direction, but it should say not secure on all HTTP sites.
HTTP is a cancer that should be removed.
Browsers should simply stop supporting HTTP.
>the failure of corporation means you should have more corporation
>implying you provided any argument to counter
fucking idiot
>no counter-argument because I don't have one
Sad, but not unexpected.
I'm too podunk to even get Comcast/AT&T. The trade-off is my "up to" 3down/1up connection with no cap.
Those jews are gonna have to improve the infrastructure in the US before they'll give me data limits, and they're too worried about the cucks already on the hook to ever improve us as a nation when it comes to telecommunication.
No counter argument because there's no argument to counter.
Checkmate, atheist.
Then how do you prevent this kind of shitty monopolies? By not buying their services? What if they're the only ISP available?
Lol datalets, when will they learn?
That was low blow
According to free market fags, you would just not use the internet at that point. What a great solution.
Lol, buttfucked by carrier in the browser, and by datacaps. You should def. switch carrier. Oh wait, you might not be able to. My bad!
>They used to do it via DNS injection, but how are they doing this now?
MITM. Changing the markup before sending it to you. It doesn't happen on HTTPS sites because they'd have to break the encryption, which the browser would catch.
this.
have you tried not living in a third world country ?
>It doesn't happen on HTTPS sites because they'd have to break the encryption, which the browser would catch.
Some AV install their own certificates to do that and include reputation icons next to links.
That's dying down with recent controversies over Superfish and such, and with the proliferation of certificate pinning.
Have you tried not have down syndrome? Retard.
>tfw not getting fucked in the ass by cox because they're actually a decent ISP
Sorry couldn't quite hear you over the sound of my 30 bucks uncapped internet connection
I honestly feel so sorry for you guys, I can't comprehend why the usa is so much behind internet connectivity wise.
I live in a third world country in eastern europe.
uncapped 1000/200Gb/s for $25/mo here.
Thinking I could reach that limit in 2 hours makes me laugh.
Americans seem to love circumcized kike cock deep into their assholes since they hate the very idea of small local ISPs popping up. That's why there is all regulation that makes it impossible for competition to start because that would upset their jew overlords, Israel, and the 50 trillion.
>I can't comprehend why the usa is so much behind internet connectivity wise.
>I live in a third world country in eastern europe.
Did you starve in early childhood? It would explain your mental development problems.
USA had internert before everyone else.
Their infrastructure is old.
Much older than in fucking Romania (or whatever shithole happen to live in) that learned about the existence of the thing called "Internet" 5 years ago.
Add well established media giants forming oligopolies with each other left and right and there you go. Shit internet is not a problem in large cities, where there are plenty of local ISPs competing with each other. It's a problem in rural bumfuck nowhere where there's just one ISP
its probably from the router
>USA had internert before everyone else.
This doesn't change the fact that the US is behind in internet access and speeds now.
>the infrastructure is old
not a fucking excuse, the ISP's should be making it better and newer but they fucking arent
>not a fucking excuse, the ISP's should be making it better and newer but they fucking arent
Do they teach reading comprehension in the glorious land of cheap internet?
What fucking incentive does the ISP have to improve service if they don't compete with anyone?
>Saying a phrase such as "Much older than in fucking Romania that learned about the existence of the thing called "Internet" 5 years ago."
>Thinking the other guy is the uneducated one
Next you're going to say you were only emphasizing to get your point across.
>not a fucking excuse
>hey dude why does your Golf Mk2 makes only 70 horsepower?
>it's a pretty old engine dude
>not a fucking excuse.
this is how you look.
go pick potatoes or die from alcohol poisioning or whatever you do in your free time in EE
i strongly agree (i wouldn't advise anyone to move tho, we still at least to pretend to respect natural rights unlike anywhere else)
>tfw 1Gb/s with no data caps for 20eur/month
how does this make you feel?
monopolies are not natural to the market.
mises.org
>all these people complaining
t. rednecks living in flyover states
Don't have any of these problems. Got 150/150 internet from FiOS for $75 a month, unlimited, and they don't give two fucks what kind of servers you're running.
Hope you enjoy ISP fisting; keep on smiling, Chuck from Missouri, while the president you voted for shreds every last consumer protection around.
>while the president you voted for shreds every last consumer protection around.
Bb-b--b-b-but he was supposed to send the mexicans back!
I swear it's the government propping up mega corporations with patents and copyright
Yes, more red tape, so we will certainly never have any competition in the isp market. The market is already so fucked up from red tape and comcast and att bribing local communities to not let competators lay cables. Only way to fix this is cut legislation and put YUGE fines or even arrests (preferable) for anti competative bribing that protects their monopoly. Tellin comcast they have to shaee the wire they own and not address the system that stops others from laying wire is not a solution.
? this explains that somilia has done better without a government than ever with one
>If, for instance, the defendant refuses to comply with the verdict without appealing his case to a higher court, he can be tied to a tree covered with black ants until he agrees.
Giggled audibly.
Good read though
I understand the appeal of small government and free markets (within reason), I really do, but going full ancap is really dumb. That article tries to imply Somalia has done better than their neighbors with bigger governments when they really haven't. They have a few token things like a better cell network because of the free market, but that's it.
The article is just written by some guy whose pussywhipped by his Somali wife.
>that fucking feel
I hate these Comcast kikes so much
I get this for free because I live with my parents. They pay $130 a month for a bundle with TV and a home phone (my dad works from home and actually need it). I don't think it has a cap, I don't see anything about a cap on Cox's website and I've never run into it if it is there.
>you are 18% more likely to get killed in Kenya, a country with central democratic government than in Somalia, a country where warlord shenanigans are part of everyone's everyday life
Why are they able to get away with this? Can anyone explain?
Ancap is dumb and not what american was founded on. The founding fathers would certainly be unhappy with what our "limited government" has become. I am sure they wouldnt be trilled with having half the plantation taken by the state. Pretty sure the king wouldnt even raw dog you that hard
Comcast has has been doing this for years. I was getting a similar warning for not paying my bill. This has nothing to do with President Orange-a-tan.
Deaths from war aren't counted in the homicide rate.
Time to move out of Texas and into a real state, Cleetus.
we're talking about net neutrality and in order to counter the article on natural monopoly you find an unrelated article about somilia to criticize
You're fucking retarded and that metaphor is trash.
America the fucking best 1st world country on earth has shit internet and using "well the infrastructure is old" as an excuse for having some of the worst service and coverage of any country save for third world shitholes like most of africa.
>can't spell Cletus right
>while making fun of him for being stupid
The biggest myth of all in this regard is the notion that telephone service is a natural monopoly. Economists have taught generations of students that telephone service is a "classic" example of market failure and that government regulation in the "public interest" was necessary. But as Adam D. Thierer recently proved, there is nothing at all "natural" about the telephone monopoly enjoyed by AT&T for so many decades; it was purely a creation of government intervention."[54]
Once AT&T's initial patents expired in 1893, dozens of competitors sprung up. "By the end of 1894 over 80 new independent competitors had already grabbed 5 percent of total market share … after the turn of the century, over 3,000 competitors existed.[55] In some states there were over 200 telephone companies operating simultaneously. By 1907, AT&T's competitors had captured 51 percent of the telephone market and prices were being driven sharply down by the competition. Moreover, there was no evidence of economies of scale, and entry barriers were obviously almost nonexistent, contrary to the standard account of the theory of natural monopoly as applied to the telephone industry.[56]
How do they determine deaths from war if Somalia has no central government, therefore hasn't got an army, therefore there's no distinction between military death and civilian death and all parties engaging in a conflict are civilians?
If I get shot by a stray bullet during a firefight between two niggers is my death counted as death from war or just regular homicide?
The eventual creation of the telephone monopoly was the result of a conspiracy between AT&T and politicians who wanted to offer "universal telephone service" as a pork-barrel entitlement to their constituents. Politicians began denouncing competition as "duplicative," "destructive," and "wasteful," and various economists were paid to attend congressional hearings in which they somberly declared telephony a natural monopoly. "There is nothing to be gained by competition in the local telephone business," one congressional hearing concluded.[57]
The crusade to create a monopolistic telephone industry by government fiat finally succeeded when the federal government used World War I as an excuse to nationalize the industry in 1918. AT&T still operated its phone system, but it was controlled by a government commission headed by the postmaster general. Like so many other instances of government regulation, AT&T quickly "captured" the regulators and used the regulatory apparatus to eliminate its competitors. "By 1925 not only had virtually every state established strict rate regulation guidelines, but local telephone competition was either discouraged or explicitly prohibited within many of those jurisdictions."
>aha if i point out his spelling error, it'll make me feel better for living in a redneck shitstain state filled with bigotry and hatred :^))))
>who needs old people
>less faggots = less aids
>cheaper healthcare (based free market prevails)
>irrelevant stat since it's doesn't involve purchasing power and since Somalia is a free state it's high as fuck
>weak should fear the strong
>suck it ecoterrorists, less regulations doesn't mean less eco
>with this growth all our cars will be running on electricty before 2020
>free society = peaceful society
moving to Somalia lads.
Cable television is also a franchise monopoly in most cities because of the theory of natural monopoly. But the monopoly in this industry is anything but "natural." Like electricity, there are dozens of cities in the United States where there are competing cable firms. "Direct competition … currently occurs in at least three dozen jurisdictions nationally."[47]
"The theory of natural monopoly is an economic fiction. No such thing as a 'natural' monopoly has ever existed."
The existence of longstanding competition in the cable industry gives the lie to the notion that that industry is a "natural monopoly" and is therefore in need of franchise monopoly regulation. The cause of monopoly in cable TV is government regulation, not economies of scale. Although cable operators complain of "duplication," it is important to keep in mind that "while over-building an existing cable system can lower the profitability of the incumbent operator, it unambiguously improves the position of consumers who face prices determined not by historical costs, but by the interplay of supply and demand."
Also like the case of electric power, researchers have found that in those cities where there are competing cable companies prices are about 23 percent below those of monopolistic cable operators.[49] Cablevision of Central Florida, for example, reduced its basic prices from $12.95 to $6.50 per month in "duopoly" areas in order to compete. When Telestat entered Riviera Beach, Florida, it offered 26 channels of basic service for $5.75, compared to Comcast's 12channel offering for $8.40 per month. Comcast responded by upgrading its service and dropping its prices.[50] In Presque Isle, Maine, when the city government invited competition, the incumbent firm quickly upgraded its service from only 12 to 54 channels.[51]
In 1987 the Pacific West Cable Company sued the city of Sacramento, California on First Amendment grounds for blocking its entry into the cable market. A jury found that "the Sacramento cable market was not a natural monopoly and that the claim of natural monopoly was a sham used by defendants as a pretext for granting a single cable television franchise … to promote the making of cash payments and provision of 'in-kind' services … and to obtain increased campaign contribution."[52] The city was forced to adopt a competitive cable policy, the result of which was that the incumbent cable operator, Scripps Howard, dropped its monthly price from $14.50 to $10 to meet a competitor's price. The company also offered free installation and three months free service in every area where it had competition.