Comment by csydas | Hacker News Reader

Comment by csydas | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I sincerely disagree, especially as per the report Comcast's own second level confirmed there was no need to replace the modem. It was an automated advertisement done in a very not good way; Comcast's own billing system notifies you of just about everything else; you can forward your billing statements and other such information to other emails, why not this?

The reason everyone is freaking out is because they feel pretty darn strongly that the ISP should not be injecting code into webpages delivered, especially not in an automated way without some oversight. If this is to be a service, the bar for what is necessary for such information must be far higher than "an automated system decides it's time." We get into really scary territory just by doing this in the first place, but to use it for advertisements or basic maintenance? That is a misuse of such technology.

And no, I don't think people would be as livid as you suggest if the modem just broke; ISP modems are fragile little things, and it's not uncommon to go through them. I don't think I've had a single ISP where I didn't have to eventually, and the natural progression for each one (Comcast included) was:

1. I called the ISP

2. We did some test with support

3. Once we did the Speedtest / reboot song and dance, a new modem was issued that day.

This is expected; if I had asked for such a service from Comcast, this would be a different discussion entirely (an Opt-In service), but as it is, it's a pretty lame reason to suggest that Comcast needs to be able to inject data into pages I load.

And I rather liked Comcast for the year I had it - I wasn't keen on being on them since I would rather have been with our Municipal, but the place I was at was not yet in a service area for the municipal. More or less, even with my support and canceling experience, I was fine with the service I received. This would have upset me considerably.

> I sincerely disagree, especially as per the report Comcast's own second level confirmed there was no need to replace the modem.

I am skeptical of this - maybe we made a mistake in telling the customer that. The people that are sent notifications are carefully checked to match the EOL/EOS modem criteria or speed mismatch criteria and would not be sent otherwise. It is sometimes the case that a customer has recently upgraded their device but their old device remains provisioned and on their account (and needs to be removed), which sometimes explains this.

> It was an automated advertisement done in a very not good way;

It was not an ad - it was a request that the customer replace/upgrade their device. They can buy that anywhere, whether used on eBay or new on Amazon, etc.

> Comcast's own billing system notifies you of just about everything else; you can forward your billing statements and other such information to other emails, why not this?

We've been working to greatly simplify billing, as customers have told us for some time that we were packing too much info into those statements and it was sort of information overload.

> The reason everyone is freaking out is because they feel pretty darn strongly that the ISP should not be injecting code into webpages delivered,

Available alternatives are not great, such as using DPI everywhere, DNS modification (we use DNSSEC), or a walled garden (all service disrupted while in walled garden). These methods tend to be more costly and cause more disruption for customers. As noted elsewhere, we're working on better methods and part of that might depend on Internet-wide standards rather than something Comcast-specific (which is always my personal preference).

> If this is to be a service, the bar for what is necessary for such information must be far higher than "an automated system decides it's time." We get into really scary territory just by doing this in the first place, but to use it for advertisements or basic maintenance? That is a misuse of such technology.

It's not basic maintenance - that should always be transparent to customers. This is about moving to new technology from outmoded technology. A good example of a key concern for modem upgrades is that the vendor does not support it any longer and the software/hardware is 8 - 10 years old.

> It was not an ad - it was a request

As a Comcast customer, I request you discontinue this injecting of javascript into webpages for ANY reason, unreasonably limiting an INFINITE RESOURCE and monopolizing localities so you are the only viable choice. This should not be the behavior of the largest telecom provider in the continental US. We deserve better.

Well, thank you for the response, but I am not very satisfied with the answers.

The crux of disagreement is the method of delivery and the importance of the upgrade requiring this sort of injection. You write:

> Available alternatives are not great, such as using DPI everywhere, DNS modification (we use DNSSEC), or a walled garden (all service disrupted while in walled garden). These methods tend to be more costly and cause more disruption for customers.

I'm still not convinced as to why a phone call or an email would not suffice. What information is specifically being cited by customers as "information overload"? Why can this not simply be a notification as a part of the Xfinity main page? Why isn't an email that only has information on the EOL of a modem is less obstructive than yet another pop-up for users who are trained to ignore pop-ups?

The case for an injection isn't really made simply because other intrusive methods are more intrusive; the presentation of the message itself is just more information in a sea of information, and the criticality of the issue isn't sufficiently justified either. This is not the appropriate way of communicating information that has no such urgency. It's a very nice thing to phase out modems that are EOL, sure, I will grant that. But the information is not so urgent that it needs to be delivered right now or injected into the webpage. That is not something the ISP should be doing, which I suspect is another point of contention that will be had.

> Available alternatives are not great

You admit alternatives exist, but decided to modify webpages anyway? Adding your own modifications to a copyright protected work (e.g. any web page) creates a derivative work. Generally only the copyright holder of the original work can create or authorize derivative works. Unless you have a license the copyright holder for each webpage you are modifying, this is copyright infringement. Why did your legal department approve a plant that might make the company liable for up to $150,000 per work infringed?

The arrogance is unreal. Your difficulty communicating with your customers is not my problem. Keep it out of my website.

This is a perfect example of the culture problem at Comcast. You seem to have worked yourselves into believing that you're something other than a dumb pipeline. Now you feel entitled to stick your fingers into the content.

I suspect this mass-psychosis is coming from the top, and the need to move into higher-margin businesses. Keep your messages on xfinity.com.

Just a small note that as a customer I would prefer to be redirected to a notice hosted on your website so there is no confusion about the source of the notification. If I saw this pop up on a website I visited daily I would probably think it was spam and ignore it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com