Mediacom Puts Its Own Ads On Other Websites, Including Google & Apple
from the lawsuit-waiting-to-happen dept
A few years ago, there were stories of ISPs who wanted to use deep packet inspection technology to inject their own content, especially advertising, onto websistes. AT&T even insisted that customers would like it if AT&T did this. Public outcry and Congressional scrutiny seemed to lead many ISPs to shelve such plans... but you knew it was only a matter of time.Broadband Reports is noting that Mediacom, who recently started using DNS redirection to feed ads (rather than 404 pages) to people who ended up on non-existent web pages (and who made its "opt-out" option not really work), has jumped into the fray and is injecting its own ads for its own services on all sorts of websites including those of Google and Apple -- two companies known for caring an awful lot about what their website looks like in each and every pixel:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ad injection, deep packet inspection, isps
Companies: apple, google, mediacom
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure, I can switch to Verizon or AT&T, or a local company that piggybacks on Verizon, but I will be switching to a MUCH slower speed (20mbps vs. 1.5mbps). What a choice!
Honestly, I don't think most people will realize Mediacom is responsible for this. To be honest, I thought it was something new on iGoogle at first, and I don't consider myself a computer slouch.
Gotta love that free market!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: VPN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I also, in Maryland, have Mediacom as my only viable option. Verizon's highest DSL tier would cut my speed from 12 to 7 mbps and jump my price by about $20.
I've dealt with Mediacom's constant disconnects, packet loss, insane pings, and general instability since I've lived here. Nothing ever changes. The DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades just increased speed, not stability.
Can't say I've seen these ads during my own browsing. I guess ABP just wins overall.
I used to have a VPN to encrypt my traffic, I am considering buying one again,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Have you verified your speed with one of the online speed testers? I think there's one at dslreports. Back when I had Verizon DSL (near Boston), I found Verizon's actual speed much more honest, to the point where it performed noticeably better than "faster" cable modem service. You might be surprised at which is actually faster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Internet in phoenix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Look at it this way.
You create something online to share with others:
"I love this country."
Then when your 1 million visitors come to read it, they read
"I hate this friggin country because it doesn't have enough Doritos Low-Fat Nachos chips. All you useless readers can eat my ...."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thus making themselves indistinguishable...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A lot of people don't have that option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have Mediacom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ad block?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that should stop them from interfering with the connection.
use the eff ssl extension (can't remember what it is called) should stop this dead in it's tracks for most sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most sites don't have SSL set up and those that do may require you to manually trust the certificate. Plus, adding sites to the EFF extension involved editing a config file last time I checked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure, people should be aware that it might happen and look to protect themselves, but that doesn't mean they deserve it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's like if newsstands were slipping their own ads for USA Today into the copies of The New York Times...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Exactly how do you expect to get quality information for free if sites aren't able to make money with advertising?
Ad blockers encourage *more* invasive, intrusive, and insidious forms of ads. Like, the subject of this story.
I say boycot ad blockers. They're making internet ads worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still a horrible idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I want, you know, medical people to be watching out for dangerous and harmful food additives or whatever that I don't understand. It's my duty to repay that vigilance in the tech sector where I can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All in all, if there was an alternative option around here I'd be all over it. The fact that there isn't an alternative is what keeps companies like this in business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All you need is OpenDNS - A free, safe, non-evil alternative DNS server.
All you do is change the DNS server settings to the following, either in your router or on each computer:
208.67.222.222
208.67.220.220
As an added bonus, OpenDNS blocks phishing sites so it is a great option for Grandma and Grandpa's computer too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They're using a fairly extensive DPI system that makes you still get targeted ads even if you move to an alternative DNS provider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
8.8.8.8
8.8.4.4
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Using ISP's DNS servers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Back to the Future
I was working in cable TV back in the '80's when the cable companies started putting tape cartridge racks in their head-ends and selling ad time which would override the networks'
It was ruled legal or they worked out some sort of deal because the networks were quite unhappy.
This is why you see crappy, low-budget ads from your local ambulance-chaser even during high-profile events like the Superbole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: illegal
Exactly. It is very similar to a man in the middle attack, which last I heard was illegal.
Remember Phorm? http://www.antiphorm.co.uk/
Let me guess, Boehner is in favor of this and that is why he is lashing out at the FCC proclaiming that there will be no "government take over of the internet".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: illegal
It's only legal if you or I, members of the citizen class, do it. For corporations, members of the ruling class, it is not only legal and accepted, but expected for corporations to keep control of their precious revenue streams (god forbid you get in the way of their revenue streams...that would be punishable of death.)
If you don't believe this, take a look at the Sony Backdoor case, where if any one of us did what Sony did, we'd be in jail for 20 years to life...but they get a free pass and free advertising to boot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a long standing precedent for this in TV land
I'm talking about TV networks and local stations putting their logos, and/or advertisements for other programs, right over top of a currently-airing program. Not only is this annoying and distracting, it often obscures vital parts of the main show's content.
If TV networks can get away with it, why not ISP's? Conversely, if the ISP's are forced to abandon this practice, then the TV networks and stations should be treated to the same rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's a long standing precedent for this in TV land
Yeah, that's right - why not banks? They could inject ads during your ATM transactions, something like (Say, looks like you need some quick cash - check out our payday loan store just around the corner)
Or why not your doctor, lawyer, or SO ..... the sky is the limit when everything is for sale, the only problem is - one really should have a choice in the matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There's a long standing precedent for this in TV land
ISPs, on the other hand, are the means of transaction but not the source (apart from the ISP's own company web pages, of course); they transport the content but do not produce or own the content, hence they are NOT free to mess with it. While you could probably make the case that customers of the ISP explicitly grant the ISP the freedom to interfere in their side of the transactions in their contract, the web sites that publish the content do NOT give the ISP such rights to modify their content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There's a long standing precedent for this in TV land
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: There's a long standing precedent for this in TV land
Point is, no one wants some slimball all up in their business - know what I mean? These people want carte blanc to gather and analyze your everyday activities in order to make a buck. Do you think they give a crap about you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There's a long standing precedent for this in TV land
Can you imagine someone popping up on your phone conversation to pitch a new product because you mentioned soap or something?
LoL
That would be scary, is basically what the ISP is doing, they are listening to your communications and sending ads down the pipe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There's a long standing precedent for this in TV land
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privoxy(Powerfull website filter)
TorButton (Warning: By default it disables all scripts when using Firefox in TOR mode, if you want to watch HULU or something you need to disable the no-scripts option first and limit the access nodes to only U.S. nodes which is not that difficult to do is just annoying.)
Ad Block(Firefox)
OpenDNS or the GoogleDNS, I use both OpenDNS as primary and Google as secondary, because I figure they both can't be down at the same time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:s
Shouldn't there be plenty of new competitors popping up if that were the case? In comparison where I live (sweden) I have 8-10 somewhere ISP's to choose from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: :s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: :s
What happens all too frequently in .us is an internet service provider is given a government-provided monopoly to a location's citizens.
In the case of MediaOne, they've either been given exclusive access to an area, or the competition in that area offers a highly inferior experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: :s
As laying down new cables is hugely expensive, the cables are essentially a natural monopoly, and as such it's rare that a competitor will feel it can justify the expenditure to invade the turf of an existing carrier. Usually such upstarts are not new companies but cities that decide (by a vote of the people) to lay their own infrastructure to escape a predatory monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law Suit Waiting to Happen
It is completely illegal, and very similar to what Phorm did to thousands of BT customers in the UK in 2006 (injecting Javascript into web pages).
An ISP is not a broadcaster, and does not licence content from the source. Therefore the television analogy does not apply.
An ISP is a communication service provider.
If you cannot trust your communications provider to respect the law or the privacy/security/integrity of your communications, you need to switch ISP as soon as you possibly can (because encryption only offers so much protection against someone you know is malicious threat).
Definately in the right department; lawsuit-waiting-to-happen dept.
My guess would be MediaCom are going to get stripped naked for this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Possible update of matter based on comment posting
>> data interception and modification.. bad, very bad.
>> After talking with Mediacom's Legal dept ....
It then says how Mediacom is saying it was an internal communications error and they are working to correct the problem ASAP. A phone number is provided (for "Tom" at Mediacom) to complain if you notice this problem still ongoing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Old news
This is not to say that redirection of non-existent domains isn't obnoxious from a technical standpoint (my previous job was coding internet applications).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Opening the mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In responsive to the European commenter, the US generally has more rural areas than many parts of Europe. This leads to fair coverage in urban areas but it just doesn�t make sense for more than one ISP to service rural areas due to cost. From the Wikipedia article, MediaCom has a niche market of �serv[ing] primarily smaller markets.� This means they go into areas that don�t have existing cable service and hold a de facto monopoly.
Until MediaCom started the DNS redirects I had no problems with their Internet service. Most of my problems are with the phone and traditional cable. If another competitor comes into my area I will likely jump ship if they have comparable Internet speeds. The only other cable provider that is even thinking of serving my area only has 2 Mbit down compared to my current 10 Mbit which would make the switch painful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a good thing!
for details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MEDICOM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]