Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Charter's Trials of NebuAd Halted

Posted by timothy on from the what-we-meant-was dept.

RalphTheWonderLlama writes "The trials of NebuAd by Charter Communications were halted after it gained the attention of Congressmen Ed Markey and Joe Barton. The online behavioral targeting system has been called "a 'man-in-the-middle attack' and various other unflattering names" but would certainly be an easy way for an ISP to cash in on client profiling." PaisteUser points out MSNBC's coverage as well, according to which the ad-insertion scheme was dropped because of "concerns raised by customers."

97 comments

  1. Customers? by oahazmatt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    PaisteUser points out MSNBC's coverage as well, according to which the ad-insertion scheme was dropped because of "concerns raised by customers." I'm inclined to believe it was "concerns raised by investors" that had more impact, however.
    --
    Those who believe the Internet is private,
    find their privates are on the Internet.
    1. Re:Customers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I'm not inclined to belive it is the investors driving the bus. Investors and stockholders alike are driven by one thing--Profit. If the casual investor is not getting a return on his nickel (i.e.-dividend or share price going up) the investor tends to sell. If, for example that Joe Investor sees his stock price climb for Stock X, he could really not care in the least what the company is doing, so long as his money is "working" for him. More likely is the idea that someone from another competetor (queue X-Files theme music for conspiracy theorists) that they didn't implement it first. If targeting users web-browsing and, more importantly, shopping habits will generate an idea as to how to send advertising to a particular group of users, well, this means more revenue for that ISP due to click-through ads. I submit to you that it is greed/jealousy that it was "leaked" to the representatives to look into the dealings of this provider by interested parties. OTOH, maybe it is a testing of the waters for future implementation when such activities become commonplace.

      Oh, Almighty Dollar, We Worship Thee....

    2. Re:Customers? by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      I'm inclined to believe it was "concerns raised by investors" that had more impact, however.

      I'm not sure what your point is.

      Why would the investors be concerned? Because it would drive away customers. Same fucking thing.

      --
      Maybe not
    3. Re:Customers? by RalphTheWonderLlama · · Score: 1

      They were probably thinking long term in the interest of their stockholders. If they implemented it then they would certainly have a jump in income, but if everyone got mad, then they would definitely lose in the longer term. Charter Communications is the company St. Louisans love to hate. We seriously need some competition here. CableAmerica has a very small grip in the St. Louis suburbs and they seemed like a nice company when I had them. Now AT&T is rolling out U-verse in the area as well so Charter had better behave.

      --
      simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/
    4. Re:Customers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, but investors only make money if there are customers. Charter is still deep in the red from the last decade or so for how it's handled its customers.

    5. Re:Customers? by ejecta · · Score: 1

      No, different thing.

      The investors would be fine if the customers were pissed, but the value of customers lost was less than the value of revenue gained by instream advertising.

      The investors concerns were that the value of revenue gained would be less than the pissed customers leaving.

      Investors don't care if customers get pissed and leave. They care if pissing the customers off and making them leave isn't profitable.

      --
      Two Parts Swash, One Part Buckle
    6. Re:Customers? by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      Well duh. That's what every company cares about, from the tiniest single person company to the massive corporations with hundreds of thousands of employees. At companies with investors, the investors help decide if something will piss off too many customers. What's the big deal?

      --
      Maybe not
    7. Re:Customers? by ejecta · · Score: 1

      Actually, I wouldn't say that's the case at all. I know of plenty of companies who are equally interested in social responsibility, their customers and making an ethical profit.

      So I guess the big deal is that concerns raised by investors was the thing that had the impact, not concern raised by customers.

      In the current age it seems corporations have more rights than people, whereas previously they didn't. If you poison your neighbour you're going to gaol, if a corporation does, there'll be hearings, enquiries, media coverage, fines - but at the end of the day, rarely any cases result in asses in cells.

      So the big deal is, companies should care about what their customers think, not wait until their investors voice concerns.

      --
      Two Parts Swash, One Part Buckle
    8. Re:Customers? by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      Actually, I wouldn't say that's the case at all. I know of plenty of companies who are equally interested in social responsibility, their customers and making an ethical profit.

      No you don't. You know plenty of companies that think they'll make more money if their customers believe they're socially responsible and ethical. You are proof that their plan is working.

      So I guess the big deal is that concerns raised by investors was the thing that had the impact, not concern raised by customers.

      But the investors were only concerned because they thought customers would be worried about it and leave. That's how the system works. If it weren't investors being concerned the program would have been stopped because concern was raised by the CEO, or upper management, or some marketting dweebs or somebody else inside the company. Under no circumstances would the program have been stopped simply because the customers didn't like it. The only say customers have in the running of a company is whether they buy a product from the company or not. If you want to voice your opinion on how the company should be run, buy stock in it.

      In the current age it seems corporations have more rights than people, whereas previously they didn't. If you poison your neighbour you're going to gaol, if a corporation does, there'll be hearings, enquiries, media coverage, fines - but at the end of the day, rarely any cases result in asses in cells.

      What has Charter done that's illegal? Injecting advertising after all of their customers agreed to let advertising injected? Using NebuAd is stupid, and I would never buy internet access from any company that used it, but it's not illegal, and I don't understand why you think it should be. If people decide with their own free will to pay Charter every month, it's their own responsibility to know what they're paying for. The government isn't your babysitter.

      --
      Maybe not
    9. Re:Customers? by ejecta · · Score: 1

      No you don't. You know plenty of companies that think they'll make more money if their customers believe they're socially responsible and ethical. You are proof that their plan is working.

      I think you need to take you tinfoil hat off. Yes, some companies are just out for a dollar - not all are. I run a company that isn't and I have sizeable share holdings in other companies that aren't. I'd say there is a 60/30/10 split out there of good/poor/evil.

      But the investors were only concerned because they thought customers would be worried about it and leave.

      If you are not an insider you won't always have advance knowledge of business moves such as this, leaving the only opportunity to be concerned after the event; leaving two types: those who speak up and those who don't.

      That's how the system works. If it weren't investors being concerned the program would have been stopped because concern was raised by the CEO, or upper management, or some marketting dweebs or somebody else inside the company.

      Generally the investors have given a good roadmap of where they wish to head and hire a leader (Managing Director or CEO depending upon size) who fits this description so in theory an idea that doesn't align with that vision shouldn't be implemented.

      If it's been deployed then chances are the program has already been by the company analysts and the desertion factor has been allocated a value which was lesser than the projected revenue increase. This leaves only the outsider investors to voice concern.

      Under no circumstances would the program have been stopped simply because the customers didn't like it. The only say customers have in the running of a company is whether they buy a product from the company or not. If you want to voice your opinion on how the company should be run, buy stock in it.

      Not really. Most companies listen to their customers some even go so far as to encourage feedback. I myself called Heinz and started the ball rolling that got the Oatmeal & Apple baby food label changed, they were also nice enough to send me two jars, one old one new. Working in the bankassurance industry for over a decade I've also seen several programmes started and stopped based solely on customer feedback.

      Sometimes the customer is just right.

      What has Charter done that's illegal? Injecting advertising after all of their customers agreed to let advertising injected? Using NebuAd is stupid, and I would never buy internet access from any company that used it, but it's not illegal, and I don't understand why you think it should be.

      I made no comment on the legality of their actions. I merely said that in the current age it seems corporations have more rights than people, as in the power of a corporation to inflict a patently bad idea onto the general populus is a sorry one; That seems to be your principle gripe too. You know previously corporate charters were closely regulated by the individual states and the law fell heavily in the interest of the general public, not favouring the interests of corporate shareholders or the corporations. They were also required to comply with the charter - or face closure/jail time. If this was 1840 they'd be shut down by the government for breach of charter.

      How times have changed.

      The government isn't your babysitter.

      Well, the government used to be the babysitter of corporations, that is until some states saw the dollar signs of corporate registrations. Some people also need babysitting - otherwise monopolies wouldn't develop.

      --
      Two Parts Swash, One Part Buckle
    10. Re:Customers? by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      I think you need to take you tinfoil hat off. Yes, some companies are just out for a dollar - not all are. I run a company that isn't and I have sizeable share holdings in other companies that aren't. I'd say there is a 60/30/10 split out there of good/poor/evil.

      So are you saying trying to make money is "evil"? Or something Charter was doing is "evil"?

      Not really. Most companies listen to their customers some even go so far as to encourage feedback.

      But the point is that the customers aren't controlling the company. Somebody inside the company is reading the feedback and making decisions. That may be investors, marketting people, the CEO, or somebody else, but the customers are not making the decisions, they're just giving feedback. The company isn't obligated to take action on customer feedback.

      I merely said that in the current age it seems corporations have more rights than people, as in the power of a corporation to inflict a patently bad idea onto the general populus is a sorry one; That seems to be your principle gripe too.

      My gripe is that I paid a shitload of taxes last year and its being spent babysitting irresponsible morons who couldn't be bothered to read the agreements they got into. Do you honestly believe this wasn't covered in the terms of service that every single Charter subscriber had to agree to? Maybe if congress wasn't wasting their time and our money on bullshit like this they could cut taxes a tiny fraction of a percent.

      As for corporations having "more rights" than people, I don't know what you mean. It's completely legal for me to redirect or inject content into the HTTP connections of people who use my wireless access point without my permission. I don't even have to let the people know or ask if they find it acceptable. It's also legal for me to tell people "You can use my wireless access all you want, but I may modify the content of sites you view." Are you saying I need to start a corporation to do that because it requires some special rights? When did that happen?

      --
      Maybe not
  2. Probably killed by the Government... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They weren't ready to let the private sector take jobs away from DHS.

  3. Delayed != Halted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the article:

    Charter has now agreed to delay any further rollout, though it won't abandon the plan entirely.

    Elsewhere, I have read predictions that up to 10% of Internet traffic was going to be commercially monitored by the end of the year. It might be good for everybody to let friends and family know and to start making privacy-enhancement software easy to use and ubiquitous.

    If people don't know about it, they're unlikely to raise a fuss and then we're all sunk.

    1. Re:Delayed != Halted by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      I'll take a delay, and let the issued get aired, even if it is in Congress, who can't be trusted with those Internet Tubes.

      Seriously-- Charter has no right, and it would take expensive and long term litigation to get them to stop it. I hope they learn, and others learn by the example, and that the sum is that it slows it all down.

      Nonetheless, while I'd prefer that traffic payloads aren't analyzed, I fear they already are, in McLean Virginia.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    2. Re:Delayed != Halted by QuantumHobbit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would prefer they just went ahead with it and caused a huge PR meltdown. Now they'll simply wait until Congress isn't paying any attention and try it again. They'll keep at it until this becomes the norm for internet service and their customers stop complaining.

    3. Re:Delayed != Halted by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      A PR meltdown would be juicy, but wouldn't stop them. An implementation delay is as good as it gets for now, in the absence of litigation. The data is just too valuable.... and there's little privacy legislation preventing its nefarious use.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    4. Re:Delayed != Halted by QuantumHobbit · · Score: 1

      You're right the information is too valuable. We can only hope enough representatives take notice and pass good privacy legislation, but I don't think anyone here is going to hold their breath for that.

    5. Re:Delayed != Halted by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      None of us were kidding ourselves to think we had privacy anyway, but fighting the good fight is still worth it. I would prefer that the current legislature do something, but it's filled with cowards, and not champions of the people that voted them in.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    6. Re:Delayed != Halted by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      Seriously-- Charter has no right,

      Nice try, but Charter DOES have the right. It's almost certainly in the terms of service that their customers agreed to when they signed up. If the customers didn't like the terms, they shouldn't have agreed to them.

      I hope they learn, and others learn by the example, and that the sum is that it slows it all down.

      If you want the companies to "learn", stop buying their services when you don't like the terms they put on it. No amount of lawsuits, legislation, and congressional bullshit will ever be as effective as not buying products and services you don't want to buy.

      --
      Maybe not
    7. Re:Delayed != Halted by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      Nice try, but Charter DOES have the right. It's almost certainly in the terms of service that their customers agreed to
      Yeah sure, but still Charter's actions don't feel right for the customers. You just state facts, but people feel cheated anyway.
      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    8. Re:Delayed != Halted by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      Yeah sure, but still Charter's actions don't feel right for the customers. You just state facts, but people feel cheated anyway.

      I'm sorry, don't let pesky facts get in your way.

      If people feel cheated, it's their own fault for agreeing to the terms they didn't really agree with.

      In any case, it's a 5 minute phone call to cancel your service, so why waste everybody's tax money by getting congress involved?

      --
      Maybe not
    9. Re:Delayed != Halted by postbigbang · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The TOS that people sign don't abrogate their right to privacy, especially with other individuals with whom they communicate who are not party to the TOS in any way. The Charter TOS may in fact be illegal. IANAL, but deep inspection is a radical and unexpected step!

      Charter, unlike say AT&T, is usually the sole provider in their own markets for cable, and so there is no competition; it's not a matter of hey-- let's go with TW, Cox, Comcast, etc. That's not the way cable plays, although an attempt to do this years ago was tried.

      Litigation does work. Legislation is iffy. Scaring the hell out of people in congressional hearings is a joy in circumstances like this.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    10. Re:Delayed != Halted by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      Charter, unlike say AT&T, is usually the sole provider in their own markets for cable, and so there is no competition; it's not a matter of hey-- let's go with TW, Cox, Comcast, etc. That's not the way cable plays, although an attempt to do this years ago was tried.

      That's unfortunate, but I don't see why it matters. If you're willing to sign over your privacy for internet access, then your privacy isn't that important to you. You still voluntarily agreed to the TOS. It's not like you'll die without internet access. If enough people said "I don't like the privacy invasion, I'm not using Charter, even if they're the only provider here," Charter would stop doing it.

      Also, before you start crying about monopoly, realize it was probably your local government that granted Charter their local monopoly in the first place. It would be 1000x more effective to take it up with your city council or write some letters to your local politicians asking them to revoke Charter's franchise or open the market to competition. Congress isn't the right place to settle your local bullshit that 99.9% of the country doesn't care about.

      --
      Maybe not
    11. Re:Delayed != Halted by atraintocry · · Score: 1

      It's not that simple. Municipal and regional governments rarely let in secondary cable providers. The vast majority of ares with cable TV in the US are served by a single company.

      Love it or leave it is great for normal companies, in normal markets. It does not work on companies like Charter who enjoy local monopolies.

      That said, I did threaten to leave them if they rolled it out nationwide. Doubt they gave a crap. It'd hurt me more since I don't live close enough to the CO for DSL.

    12. Re:Delayed != Halted by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of ares with cable TV in the US are served by a single company.

      I'm well aware. Here are two solutions to the problem that are better than involving Congress:

      • Contact your local government and complain loudly that they should grant the monopoly to a different company
      • Contact your local government and complain loudly that they shouldn't be granting monopolies at all

      Personally, I like the second option.

      Unless you live in a very large city, the chances are good that a couple dozen people complaining to the city council and some local politicians can make a big difference.

      --
      Maybe not
    13. Re:Delayed != Halted by Elldallan · · Score: 1

      A subscriber to Wide Open West (WOW!) gave Topolski remote access to his machine, and Topolski then verified that WOW's NebuAd system was planting its own cookies when users visited Google and Yahoo, among other sites. After examining the TCP/IP packet data more closely, Topolski concluded that the NebuAd box was simply appending its cookies to the HTML code served up by Google and Yahoo.
      So lets look at this from the senders point of view, what the NebuAd system is doing is essentially modifying their page and inserting things they didn't intend to be there.
      Charter's customers might have signed away their rights but page owners most likely have not.

      This action is essentially a violation of the page owner's copyright and imagine what would happen to Charter if say Google sued Charter for copyright violations and demanded similar compensation per violation as the AA's do. That means every time somone loads Google Charter violates Google's copyright and that is alot of violations which would force Charter to file for bankruptcy very fast.
    14. Re:Delayed != Halted by quanticle · · Score: 1

      That's unfortunate, but I don't see why it matters. If you're willing to sign over your privacy for internet access, then your privacy isn't that important to you.

      Or, y'know, some of us aren't interested in drawing false dichotomies between privacy and Internet access.

      Congress isn't the right place to settle your local bullshit that 99.9% of the country doesn't care about.

      Except for precedence. If Charter gets away with this kind of shit, then there's nothing stopping Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, et. al. from implementing the same system. We need a national precedent (in the form of a court ruling or legislation) set early on in this, and Congress is a perfectly valid place to pursue that.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    15. Re:Delayed != Halted by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      Or, y'know, some of us aren't interested in drawing false dichotomies between privacy and Internet access.

      It's not a false dichotomy. If Charter only sells internet access that violates the user's privacy, your only options for buying internet access from them are "Buy it" or "Don't buy it". Internet access without privacy violation isn't a product Charter sells. You shouldn't be able to take them to court and force them to sell something any more than I should be able to take you to court and force you to sell your house.

      Except for precedence. If Charter gets away with this kind of shit, then there's nothing stopping Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, et. al. from implementing the same system. We need a national precedent (in the form of a court ruling or legislation) set early on in this, and Congress is a perfectly valid place to pursue that.

      Set a precedent that companies will actually pay attention to by not paying them for products and services you don't want.

      --
      Maybe not
    16. Re:Delayed != Halted by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't be able to take them to court and force them to sell something any more than I should be able to take you to court and force you to sell your house.

      Sorry, no. Charter Communications is a corporation; it's very existence is a privilege, not a right. In a sane system, people should be able to petition the government that created a corporation to make said corporation behave in a manner congruent with the public interest.

      You and I are natural persons and have natural rights to live more or less as we please. Corporations are artificial creations of the state and have no natural rights; the fact that the law grants them most of the same rights as natural persons is one of the great destructive absurdities of the industrial age.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    17. Re:Delayed != Halted by quanticle · · Score: 1

      By that logic, we shouldn't be regulating any industry that doesn't sell "necessities". Ford sells cars that blow up and roast their occupants alive? Oh well, don't buy Ford. Get cancer from the asbestos in your house? Should have thought of that when choosing your builder.

      I'm sorry, but I'd rather live in the 21st century, not the 19th.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
  4. Possible to Block? by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've seen plenty of coverage on this, but no technical details on how it would actually be implemented beyond there being a mysterious "box" at the ISP. Is it, or will it be, possible to block or restrict this device from tampering with traffic? Or are we pretty much at the mercy of the providers here?

    --

    I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    1. Re:Possible to Block? by oahazmatt · · Score: 3, Informative

      In order to block the "feature", you had to install a cookie. For each browser. On every machine. Once the cookie was removed for whatever reason, back to the URL to download it again.

      --
      Those who believe the Internet is private,
      find their privates are on the Internet.
    2. Re:Possible to Block? by cstdenis · · Score: 1

      Unless you encrypt, you are at their mercy.

      --
      1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.
    3. Re:Possible to Block? by baldsue · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm a charter customer and received a letter in the mail with instructions how to opt out. It was fairly easy but did require a few minutes to do. Woulda been much nicer had it been an opt-in option, instead.

    4. Re:Possible to Block? by QuantumHobbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've heard that they would probably just ignore the cookie. That or redirect the cookie tagged traffic to the NSA saying "We found another tin-foil-hatter for you."

      Your only hope would be to encrypt your traffic, which would raise a few flags if they are really watching you that closely.

    5. Re:Possible to Block? by RalphTheWonderLlama · · Score: 1

      I didn't get one of those, but maybe they weren't testing in my area. From previous comments it sounds like the opt-out method isn't very effective anyway.

      --
      simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/
    6. Re:Possible to Block? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
      Woulda been much nicer had it been an opt-in option, instead.

      I'm pretty sure that "opt-in" option wouldn't get exercised much, hence the opt-out requirement. Seriously, who chooses to be spied on?

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    7. Re:Possible to Block? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who voted for the current US president...

    8. Re:Possible to Block? by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      Right, but if you read deeper, it sets a cookie on your browser to not display targeted ads. It still tracks your behavior, just doesn't show the ads. Charters privacy policy also states that they will turn over any and all information to law enforcement or a subpoena. Also, if you ever clear your cookies (as many, many people do, and tools like spy-bot do) you will have to remember to fill out that form again.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    9. Re:Possible to Block? by atraintocry · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that the ISP creates profiles of its users by recording the URLs they go to and breaking them down into keywords. Mostly they are interested in what you type into search engines. Those profiles get sent to NebuAd, who has relationships with ad houses. I don't know who specifically, but I'm guessing Doubleclick & the like.

      Those ads, which are already third-party and are not served by the domain you're visiting, are chosen based on the profile from the ISP rather than traditional methods (like scanning the text of the page the ad is on or asking the site owner to pick out relevant ad keywords).

      You can set a cookie to say, "no thanks, just give me the ad that would have been there". You cannot set a cookie to opt-out of having your communication listened to, because cookies are domain-specific, and for the ISP to see the cookie at all, they'd have to scan your traffic anyway.

    10. Re:Possible to Block? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what you are looking for: http://www.freepress.net/files/NebuAd_Report.pdf

    11. Re:Possible to Block? by dr.badass · · Score: 1

      It isn't a "would be" implemented. It's already done. Basically, there is no way to prevent your ISP from altering your traffic, because everything that comes over the wire passes through them. You have no way of telling whether the ads served on a website are the ads that that website sold or whether the ISP inserted them without controlling both ends of the communication.

      Dan Kaminsky developed a method to detect this kind of tampering , which at least can prevent ISPs from hiding the fact that they're doing this. It's in the second half of this talk, from last year: http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2393.en.html

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
  5. Scurry under a rock by lazyDog86 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I particularly like the little bit about how they will hold off on implementation while these important privacy concerns can be addressed.

    Who wants to bet that addressing this means waiting under a rock until no one's looking and then going forward with substantially the same nonsense?

    --
    my insights may be modded Funny, but at least some of my jokes are modded Insightful
    1. Re:Scurry under a rock by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1

      Anyone remember TIA? That's basically what happened there, too.

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    2. Re:Scurry under a rock by Toll_Free · · Score: 1

      I particularly like the little bit about how they will hold off on implementation while these important privacy concerns can be addressed.

      Who wants to bet that addressing this means waiting under a rock until no one's looking and then going forward with substantially the same nonsense?

      I would be more inclined to believe that to be read as "they will hold off until privacy concerns can be addressed" should be "they will hold off until laws have been enacted ensuring no immediate action(s) can be taken against Charter".

      --Toll_Free

    3. Re:Scurry under a rock by KnightMB · · Score: 1

      I particularly like the little bit about how they will hold off on implementation while these important privacy concerns can be addressed.

      Who wants to bet that addressing this means waiting under a rock until no one's looking and then going forward with substantially the same nonsense?

      I agree, it will be a "wait until they forget" approach or "wait until we pay off enough people that no one can do anything regardless" instead.

      Either way, if it should someone make it out, then the best way to fight back is to attack the wallet and make all the data collected "useless" in a sense.

      This site uses a small script and the clients who visit with their web browser as a tool to visit junk, random, or non-existent sites so that they won't be able to collect any meaningful data. Get enough people doing it on the ISP and fill their log files with garbage all day.
      This site to pollute nebuad like devices at the ISP: http://wanip.org/anti-nebuad/
  6. Hundreds of angry customers vs. 2 Congressmen by chiph · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The trials of NebuAd by Charter Communications were halted after it gained the attention of Congressmen Ed Markey and Joe Barton.
    So, hundreds (possibly thousands) of angry complaints by your customers get ignored, but as soon as someone from Washington calls, things start happening?

    What awesome customer service!
    Chip H.
    1. Re:Hundreds of angry customers vs. 2 Congressmen by QuantumHobbit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The congressmen can actually do something. The customers are stuck in a high speed internet monopoly. My parents have Charter internet and it basically works when it feels like it. But their other options are dial-up or satellite. Charter doesn't care about the customers because it doesn't have to.

    2. Re:Hundreds of angry customers vs. 2 Congressmen by flacco · · Score: 1

      My parents have Charter internet and it basically works when it feels like it. But their other options are dial-up or satellite. Charter doesn't care about the customers because it doesn't have to.


      I have charter internet, and actually it's pretty fucking awesome.

      When I heard about Charter's disgusting NebuAds plan, I signed up for ATT's least expensive DSL plan - 768k for $20/mo, simultaneously with my Charter account. After a month I intend to choose one. My desire is to switch to ATT, first in order to punish Charter for their unacceptable profiling, and second because they've been creeping up the price (granted along with the speed) over time, and I'd rather have a little less speed for less money.

      I've had the DSL modem working for less than a day, but I have to say that the 768k is miles behind Charter's 5mbps package, even while running the charter connection through an encrypted ssh socks5 proxy. I'm going to bump up the ATT plan up one or two steps and see if that's any better. As much as I don't want to give my cash to Charter because of their colossal NebuAds fuck-up, i might decide to stick with it and continue to run all my traffic through the encrypting proxy (which is off-site) to thwart them, at the very least.

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
  7. Re:Notes on Liberalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol this is a trip it reminds me of my ex girlfriend. I think she has the liberal disease. She was very happy when 9/11 happened and the funny thing is now she works for NASA. She claimed her plan was to take down the US government. Notice why she was an ex...if only i would not have stopped her from killing herself :(

  8. Paul Allen by victorl19 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I remember reading that Paul Allen's investment in Charter had already cost him billions. Anyone know if there is anything more to this?

    1. Re:Paul Allen by monxrtr · · Score: 2, Informative

      From a high price of $16 a share in January 2002 to closing at $1.12 today, a loss of 93%! Not too far away from being just another Worldcom or Enron. Clearly this is a company that knows what it's doing, and means business!

      --
      "From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
  9. Not just eavesdropping, but spoofing by algorithmagic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Looks like NebuAd isn't just eavesdropping on user behavior, but actively creating fake traffic: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/23/topolski_takes_on_nebuad/ As if the Post Office were not only to read your mail, but to rewrite it for you on the sly. That's beyond Orwellian.

    1. Re:Not just eavesdropping, but spoofing by ncryptd · · Score: 1

      It's also illegal.

    2. Re:Not just eavesdropping, but spoofing by RalphTheWonderLlama · · Score: 1

      Geez, what the hell!

      I invite everyone to make their opinion on this matter known to Charter via their support web chat, email form, or whatever:
      http://www.charter.com/customers/contactus.aspx?contactus=7

      I am pretty sure their support people are here in STL and not India.

      --
      simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/
  10. The internet is a utility by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If ISPs are going to keep their de facto monopoly status, they should be prevented from doing anything buy carry data, by legal means if necessary.

    1. Re:The internet is a utility by Gat0r30y · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The utility analogy is especially apt. This is like if the local water utility started to transmit waste in the water lines.

      --
      Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    2. Re:The internet is a utility by Toll_Free · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No ISP that I know of has a Monopoly. You always have the option of Dialup (9 of 10 times, if you don't have a phone line (wired), it's your fault or choice.... Either you didn't order or want one, or you chose to live where you do, and if there is no phone service there, that's your CHOICE). In cases such as the one cited above, AT&T offers me internet via my cell phone for 40.00 a month now. Unlimited. Fast, no, but it works, and gets me internet anywhere I have a cell signal. My wifes phone does the same, for the same 40.00, but is high speed (she has a Black Jack II, I have a HTC Wizard).

      No cell service, go satellite. That's pretty much available everywhere.

      DSL is an option, albeit not everywhere.

      WiFi (long haul) is becoming an option in some areas as well.

      There are options NOT listed above, but those cover the majority of instances. Between long range wifi, dialup and satellite, cable companies don't have a monopoly on providing internet service almost anywhere.

      --Toll_Free
      (And yes, I do know what I speak of. I am in a Comcast area, use DSL by choice, and my vacation home is serviced by Microwave. I had to figure it out for myself (I am serviced by a Hotel WiFi vendor, but pay 50.00 a month for three quarter megabit service) in order to get it, get the service, etc., but it wasn't too hard. Go to the hotels in the area and find out what services them for high speed.

      Incidentally, the only other options we have are Satellite (Wild Blue and DirecPC) and DSL. I'm too far from the C/O for DSL, so this was my only low-latency option.

      Get's a little old, however, hearing people throwing around the term "monopoly" or "monopolistic" when they really don't know what the FUCK they are talking about.

      --Toll_Free

    3. Re:The internet is a utility by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      If ISPs are going to keep their de facto monopoly status, they should be prevented from doing anything buy carry data, by legal means if necessary.

      "I didn't try to download any child porn! Charter put it there!"

      Let Charter, DHS, and pissed off moms battle it out - hopefully they'd annihilate each other.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    4. Re:The internet is a utility by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 1

      Choosing between cable, dsl, or satellite, or dial-up, and pretending this is competition is ridiculous.

      This is like claiming only Ford cars can drive on the main roads in certain cities, and Toyotas must grow wings and fly instead.

    5. Re:The internet is a utility by Toll_Free · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, actually, it isn't.

      It's called reality. And making an analogy akin to flying cars is well.... Not reality.

      Welcome to the real world. Where actually having a choice is NOT akin to NOT having a choice.

      Call it flamebait, call it trolling, call it whatever you want. It's still a fact, if you have more than one or two completely different (companies, technologies, etc), nobody has a monopoly. Granted, it isn't coming over the same cable line or phone line (but, remember, you can get other DSL companies to give you your ISP, but it is still the "phone company" giving you the last mile), but wireless / satellite / cellular technology means you don't HAVE to be tied to the last mile now.

      I've used satellite and I've used wireless. WiFi was / is just as good as wired internet for anything except gaming. As is Satellite. The latency is overcome the second information starts to come down.

      My wifi location was almost 3 miles from the central node in SoCal. In Oregon, it was 4.5 miles. So, I am speaking real world.

      Satellite, I wouldn't want again, just because of the modem / isdn backhaul. BUT, it does work, and if you have no other ISP capable of servicing you, it's higher speed than two cans and a string.

      Funny, though, how I'm modded flamebait for stating a fact. There is little to no monopoly on internet in the US of A. Just because you don't like the only company servicing your community in your town in the technology you want doesn't mean there isn't another ballgame or technology around. It might not be as good, but........

      Truth hurts, and it hurts those who stretch it to fit their own agenda best.... But you can't stretch the truth to be another truth, and a monopoly we don't have, not on the internet. (car analogy: You can choose a bus or a compact, but you will still get to the same store. Or another. I guess we have a monopoly on gas in the USA, eh? Since we only have a handful of gas companies.) Any other idiotic claims of monopoly are referenced to the Rockefeller's and gasoline (specifically Standard Oil).

      --Toll_Free

    6. Re:The internet is a utility by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 1

      In many areas the local government has granted specific companies exclusive rights to operate coax runs, that's a monopoly on cable internet service in that specific area, no other company can come in and offer cable internet service. The same is true of DSL, whoever owns the lines can jack up prices and neglect to upgrade their network, and they do.

      The effect is that you don't have true competition, in any given area you have at most 2-3 competitors between classes of service, and its obviously not enough. You can claim there is no monopoly on "internet service" but that's not the point, there are still damaging effects on the market.

      An example, Comcast is only rolling out DOCSIS3 in areas where FiOS is a threat, and Verizon is only rolling out FiOS in areas where other services are a threat. If they were forced to compete with other providers for the same service type they wouldn't be playing these fucking games.

    7. Re:The internet is a utility by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Get's a little old, however, hearing people throwing around the term "monopoly" or "monopolistic" when they really don't know what the FUCK they are talking about.

      Most of the places I've lived, there was only one choice for terrestrial high-speed connections. The only other "option" was something like IDSL, expensive and slower than high speed offerings. Satellite is an option for anyone that doesn't mind round trip times of 1 second that creep up to 3 seconds in high-usage time, often with really low caps and are quick to throttle you if you use it for more than viewing static pages and downloading text emails. If you think that's an equivelent option to 20+ Mbps ADSL 2+ or 10+ Mbps cable offerings, then I think you are making an unreasonable range of equivelency. That's like saying that the post office didn't have a monopoly (even though it was defined as a monopoly and technically is still a monopoly by law) because you could always walk 1000 miles to deliver the message yourself. Technically true, but practically worthless, and it does nothing to change the monopoly status of the Post Office.

      Yes, I agree that people often mean duopoly when they say monopoly, but the point is the same. There are, in almost all locations, only one or two choices for high speed Internet. Most of those carriers have or still do receive direct payments from the government for services provided or increasing availability. Because choices are limited to one or two real choices, and those choices are funded by the government, people believe the government should step in and make sure the government-supported monopolies play fair.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    8. Re:The internet is a utility by Toll_Free · · Score: 1

      In many areas the local government has granted specific companies exclusive rights to operate coax runs, that's a monopoly on cable internet service in that specific area, no other company can come in and offer cable internet service. The same is true of DSL, whoever owns the lines can jack up prices and neglect to upgrade their network, and they do.

      The effect is that you don't have true competition, in any given area you have at most 2-3 competitors between classes of service, and its obviously not enough. You can claim there is no monopoly on "internet service" but that's not the point, there are still damaging effects on the market.

      An example, Comcast is only rolling out DOCSIS3 in areas where FiOS is a threat, and Verizon is only rolling out FiOS in areas where other services are a threat. If they were forced to compete with other providers for the same service type they wouldn't be playing these fucking games.

      1. So, to draw a conclusion from your own post, you can see that most companies are rolling out new technologies where they have to to stay competitive. Sounds like sound business premise to me, but what do I know.

      2. As far as companies being granted de facto use of the lines they themselves paid to have laid, and in some cases have to lease from other utility companies, that's called incentive. They don't > to come in, at the cost of millions, and either acquire the rights of way to install the equipment to provide infrastructure, nor do they have to even decide to do business in a community. It DOES cost, MILLIONS, to come in and put cable in, and in most cases of above ground, they end up paying a lease on the "tower space" on the poles from another utility. Explain to me how they should be forced to give another company access to their lines they took the risk of investing in. (Some cable companies have actually gone BROKE and are currently OUT OF BUSINESS because of attempting to provide broadband, so it isn't an unheard of risk).

      I forgot, (and this will surely be popular) slashdot is usually of the opinion that nobody owns anything, and as long as you pay homage to the people your "borrowing" from, it's OK. Well, in the real world, where millions of dollars of other people's money (investors) are involved, the whole open source concept won't go too far, especially when it comes to utilities.

      Still, if you have more than one or two options, and you just decide they all suck, that doesn't mean there is a monopoly. And as such, you shouldn't have the rights to come use lines I paid and took risk in installing "just because you want to 'give it a shot'".

      Just my two cents worth, and of course, your mileage seems to vary.

      --Toll_Free

    9. Re:The internet is a utility by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 1

      You turned this into a rant against open source in only a few posts. Nice.

      First, most of the coax and copper rolled out was put in place a LONG time ago, and the costs for doing so have been recovered many times over by the owner. Second, there was a rule that phone companies had to at least lease the lines at fair prices to other providers, not free as you tried to slip in to the argument, but fair competitive prices so that the line owner was compensated while still allowing for competition. That is gone now and what everyone knew would happen, did. There is one DSL provider in most areas if not all areas, and they ALL FUCKING SUCK.

      Competition between classes is not a solution, nether is dial-up so don't even try to pretend its relevant anymore, and satellite has ~800ms latency which is not acceptable, not to mention its ALSO slower than DSL anyway. You can pretend latency doesn't matter but it shows you are being short sighted, try working on a remote server with SSH and tell me 1 second latency doesn't matter.

    10. Re:The internet is a utility by mpe · · Score: 1

      Satellite is an option for anyone that doesn't mind round trip times of 1 second that creep up to 3 seconds in high-usage time,

      Also in order to use this you need a large antenna which has line of sight to the satellite. In some cases this might be physically impossible. In other cases landlords/local government may make the installation difficult.

    11. Re:The internet is a utility by Toll_Free · · Score: 1

      You turned this into a rant against open source in only a few posts. Nice.

      First, most of the coax and copper rolled out was put in place a LONG time ago, and the costs for doing so have been recovered many times over by the owner. Second, there was a rule that phone companies had to at least lease the lines at fair prices to other providers, not free as you tried to slip in to the argument, but fair competitive prices so that the line owner was compensated while still allowing for competition. That is gone now and what everyone knew would happen, did. There is one DSL provider in most areas if not all areas, and they ALL FUCKING SUCK.

      Competition between classes is not a solution, nether is dial-up so don't even try to pretend its relevant anymore, and satellite has ~800ms latency which is not acceptable, not to mention its ALSO slower than DSL anyway. You can pretend latency doesn't matter but it shows you are being short sighted, try working on a remote server with SSH and tell me 1 second latency doesn't matter.

      Well, I can tell we will have to disagree on the subject, since you won't let anything else be relevant on the matter, it can't be.

      Satellite doesn't exist. DSL doesn't, either. Cable modems, according to you, are useless in the areas they are in, as is any other type of internet connection.

      Amazingly, I USE both AT&T DSL as well as a microwave link. I'm happy with both. I'd be happier with Comcast for my internet (I've not had any issues with packet dropping, etc., but then again, I don't really use Bittorrent or any other technology designed for noobs. FTP encrypted works fine for me, and no speed problems, either), but my wife decided to get a "package deal", and it's OK here.

      Dialup, I use it, on the road, for my business. My tethered pocketPC operates on EDGE speeds, so I know what dialup is, still use it, etc.

      As to DSL providers sucking, exactly what is your bitch against them, as well? Again, I don't have a problem with mine, consistently get a meg and a half throughput downstream and 384K upstream (which, magically, is what we pay for). I've HAD shitty service. Speakeasy, based out of Seattle, after a year, bought me my home theater system due to the fact that my total uptime on the Redback was 30 days for 365 days of service on a business class line. They "partnered" with Covad, which blew balls. Of course, I have enough intelligence to understand that if I purchase my Inet line through the company that actually owns the lines, I'll probably get better service when I need it, but Speakeasy was "recommended" by a friend. I now go to AT&T to get DSL. Other companies can be had in the Ca Bay Area for DSL, but why?

      Sorry, I don't share your views that a company should be forced to lease, rent or otherwise give away infrastructure they paid to implement. How about, after you finish paying off your house, I move in and tell you, fuck you, there is nothing you can do about it. You already recouped your monies by living here since the inception of your mortgage. Yeah, I thought so. The companies that put those cables in, did so at a risk. Some cable operators are OUT of business trying to roll out HS internet. Some companies didn't know what the internet WAS when they started laying cable. Regardless, telling a company they "have" to rent their lines to another company with absolutely NO expenditure during the buildout process is communistic and / or socialistic. If you honestly believe that, thank GOD your not someone making laws or enforcing them where I live. I'd like to be able to make business decisions based upon my own interest, thanks. Otherwise, I'll go to work for someone else.

      I have no beef with open source, thanks. I have a beef with someone / an ideal / etc. that believes anyone who wants to profit from their ideals / ideas / inventions / etc. is wrong. A company / business has a right to exist. It should NOT have to share everything in and of itself, if it doesn't want to (and

    12. Re:The internet is a utility by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 1

      Jesus you're a moron, i never said anything about socialism, nor did i say various services don't exist.

      I said dialup isn't relevant anymore and satellite is in fact too delayed to be useful, despite the fact that you claim latency doesn't matter, it fucking does.

      "As to DSL providers sucking, exactly what is your bitch against them, as well? Again, I don't have a problem with mine, consistently get a meg and a half throughput downstream and 384K upstream"

      You answer your own fucking questions....you are defending these morons who are completely anti-competitive while you are perfectly happy with a 1.5m/384k line. This is fucking 2008, thats ridiculous.

      Stop fucking pretending this is some kind of socialistic movement, i specifically told you they should be forced to RENT the lines at fair market prices, that means profit you moron. The only reason NOT to do so is to prevent competition, there is NO OTHER REASON to exclude anyone else from using the lines but to lock an area into your business and the services it provides.

  11. Gotta agree by Fizzl · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    PaisteUser points out... God forbid if it was SabianUser I would have had to disagree. Good thing /. ers have good taste all around.

    Protip: Paiste means "shine" or "glow" in Finnish. (Or even one odd presens case of "to fry [ambiguous]")
    PS. Protip has nothing to do with Paiste/Sabian thing.
    PPS. I demand +mods for most convoluted post in ages.

    --
    Bot Assisted Blogging
  12. Just fool them by Kludge · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.mrl.nyu.edu/~dhowe/trackmenot/

    1. Re:Just fool them by atraintocry · · Score: 1

      The solution should not require playing games. Rather, it should involve kneecapping Charter's officers. Also, maybe whoever did the kneecapping could scream over and over, "you're just a pipe, you're just a pipe."

  13. Welcome my son, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    To the machine.

  14. Detailed explanation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A detailed explanation is in progress on the Security Now podcast at www.grc.com/securitynow hosted by Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte.

    Part was covered last week, a lot more to come in tomorrow's episode.

    Well worth following along.

  15. Re:Notes on Liberalism by fastest+fascist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, no wonder you in the US seem to have such a hard time weeding the liberalist cancer out of your system, since those damnable liberalists - Thomas Jefferson, James Madison et al. - were infecting your nation with the ideas of, among other liberalist thinkers, John Locke and Adam Smith, from the very beginning.

    (sorry for feeding the trolls, I just couldn't quite pass this one by. I can't fathom how the term "liberal" can be so mangled in contemporary USA.)

  16. All you need to know abut NebuAd by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Informative
    From El Reg:

    Last week, we pointed out that NebuAd shares five high-ranking employees in common with notorious spyware outfit Claria Corp. (nee Gator Corp). And now we've learned that they share a sixth. NebuAd's Washington DC counsel, Reed Freeman, was Claria's chief privacy officer.
    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:All you need to know abut NebuAd by RalphTheWonderLlama · · Score: 1

      Gator strikes again!

      chief privacy officer, aaaaaaaa

      --
      simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/
  17. Routing around the Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Solution: http proxy thru SSL.

    If the ISPs are going to trample over their customers privacy, the market will respond with Proxy servers delivered via SSL. There's a lot of opportunity here for proxy implementers who offer products that enable users to take back their privacy.

    There's always a technical solution.

  18. Re:Notes on Liberalism by PitaBred · · Score: 1

    Crazy sex is so totally worth it, though.

    --
    My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
  19. Easy work-around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do it anyway and declare the project "Trade secret".

    That's what the drug companies do with their bribes to doctors and hospitals.

  20. Time For Something Serious? by stooops · · Score: 1

    Is it time for the web to move to HTTPS for everything? Or will NebuAd launch MITM attacks against that too?

  21. This means... by seandiggity · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...one less complaint I have with Charter (maybe). Almost every Charter customer I've ever talked to has horror stories.

    I have no other choice for broadband where I am, so I've just been putting up with it for ~5 years. So I don't want to hear any of this "vote with your wallet" crap.

    --
    Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
    1. Re:This means... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think my favorite argument that comes up from time to time is "DUDE if you don't like it why don't you just start your own company."

      It takes the stupidity that "vote with your wallet" presents in this type of situation and compounds it with the concept of thousands of dissatisfied customers creating start-ups and individually stringing Ethernet cables to every house in town.

      No, Fred's Discount Broadband Emporium is not and never will be valid competition to (literally) entrenched ISPs. But that doesn't seem to stop brave and mentally simple people from offering this piece of useless advice.

  22. Tagging by VeNoM0619 · · Score: 1

    Doesn't this deserve the "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" tag?

    BTW, who does the tags? Can one with mod points add tags or is it only cowboy editors named Neal?

    --
    Disclaimer: I am not god.
    We may not be created equal
    But we can be treated equal.
    1. Re:Tagging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe just subscribers can add tags.

      And, no, it doesn't deserve "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" since they're only delaying it, not halting it.

  23. Re:Notes on Liberalism by steelfood · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When the average of your population reads at a basic or below-basic level, it is quite fathomable indeed.

    To quote the late great George Carlin, "half of them are even stupider!"

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  24. Executives Need Advertisements Too by monxrtr · · Score: 1

    Privacy will only prevent people like us from advertising to the families of cable company executives. We need 24/7 surveillance of all their activities, where their children go to school, what their wives buy on-line and in grocery stores. We can analyze that data on an open public website. Send out google vans to record their every movement, and inundate them with your advertising messages. Roll out billboard trucks to park in front of their houses.

    Fight fire with fire. Fight the RIAA laws with laws. Fight invasions of privacy with invasions of privacy.

    From the people that brought you the Ron Paul Blimp, introducing a new and improved advertising business model. For the low low basic price of $1.00 my business model will let you send whatever message you desire to VIP elite corporate executives and their family members. Whether they are on vacation in the Bahamas, or watching Juinor's first piano recital, or attending Church for a daughter's wedding, paparazzi ad men are standing by with bull horns, mobile advertising boards, whatever you need! Don't Delay, ACT NOW! We deliver the POP, pop-ups, pop-unders, pop in burning brown bags on door steps. Move your advertising needs into the 4th Dimension with highly targeted, extremely efficient gorilla broadcasting techniques.

    Now you can show them your middle finger, whenever you want. Sirens, flashes, fireworks, bells and whistles cost extra. With are first Class A share offering we intend to hire the football "Gggggoooooooooooooaaaaaaalllllllll!" guy, and the "Let's get ready to rumble!" guy to appear in infomercials touting our services, and possibly as part of the available content advertising content. Ask your broker for a Prospectus today!

    --
    "From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
  25. A good first step. by howdoesth · · Score: 1

    Now all they need to do is stop breaking DNS with their SiteFinder ripoff. It was a bad idea when Verisign tried it, it's a bad idea today.

  26. Empires run by Fascism are a Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this were World War 2, the United States would be Germany.

    I'm the guy saying, "I don't think it's a good idea to attack Russia."

    This country is run by dumbfucks who don't learn from history, but they couldn't do it without dumbfucks like you who support the government as it robs you blind to feed a few well connected chronies and their fascist agenda.

  27. Another angle of attack by camperslo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When dealing with a company that is generally not responsive to customer feedback, the only thing that they're likely to pay much attention to is lost business. If subscribers cancel their accounts and tell them why they are canceling that may be noticed. Those who can't cut the cord with them completely (due to lack of competing options) might still be able to reduce the customer count by arranging for neighbors to share connections via WiFi etc.

    If they are selling advertising and there is a way to tell which ads are from them, pressure can be brought on and then from the advertisers. Simply contact the advertisers and tell them you'll not be buying any of their products/services because they are supporting Charter who is....(detail sins)

    If inserted ads are not easily identified while mixed with those normally present, perhaps pressure could be brought on other connected advertisers. If Charter sets users up with a default startup/home page, any advertisers there or on connected pages would be fair game for example.

  28. legitimated? by Tired+and+Emotional · · Score: 2, Funny

    What I need is an ISP that filters out egregious neolisms. Gack!

    --
    Squirrel!
  29. I am old school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I prefer Avedis Zildjan. He's turkish. Like in a prison movie.

    When he arrives, it's always with a splash or a crash. The girls like to ride him when he wears his high hat.

     

  30. Re:Notes on Liberalism by music_man_420 · · Score: 1

    Bobette, Lorena.

  31. Oh no... by sporkme · · Score: 1

    Not again!

    Certainly not that Edward Markey!

    Christopher Soghoian loves hearing the name Edward "barking rabid" Markey even more than I do.

    --
    FairTax baby!
  32. While the corporation SUE us like criminals.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... They use their money to do illegal thing or at least thing that at against the constitution.

    For all the crime on internet, a "internet regulation services" is really need.

    Thing like Net-Neutrality, Net-Privacy, Net-Consummer-Protection should get covered up like any other "tech" seal of approval before going in the wild.

    And please for GOD sake, a Software Developer Order is really need to give those developers an ethic code that they can't mess with unless they get kick out from it.

    Those freaking developers that don't get "social consciousness" should be regulated.

  33. I blame it on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    on our edumacation system. If folk can no follow logical argumint, theys should no get to vote!

    But I don't think our politicians want a population that can follow logical arguments.