This seems bad, but the warning (exceeding your bandwidth quota) seems valuable. I can't think of another, better way to message this.
This seems bad, but the warning (exceeding your bandwidth quota) seems valuable. I can't think of another, better way to message this.
But yeah, if you have service with Comcast they have your home phone, email addresses, and physical address. They can get in touch with you every way that every company that CAN'T read all of your internet traffic already gets in touch with you.
The method they've chosen is terrible for at least the following reasons: - The alert will not work on many platforms & devices. - The alert may not reach the account owner. - The alert will not work on SSL traffic. - There is no record that the customer saw the alert (contrast with phone call) - There are serious privacy issues involved in parsing user's web traffic.
If you look at what Comcast does on the TV side, things like adding ads to the guide so it's barely usable, you can see where this is going. But the federal regulators of the monopolies are asleep at the switch, we can't even get network neutrality passed. The monopolies know how to play the lobbying game as well as how to slowly turn up the heat so the users aren't all outraged at once. But we can expect more abuses, more ads, more monitoring, more restrictions, more unwanted 'value adds' as time goes on.
| It's extremely bad. The fact that ISP monopolies
| are not regulated in favor of consumers is slowly
| going to destroy the openness that has made the
| web so successful.
This is a little over the top. Whether or not to use this to notify users of time-sensitive information could be a question posed at even a small ISP without such 'evil ambitions.'It's probably more useful to discuss the pros/cons of this approach to notifying users than it is to decry over-arching problems with the entire industry. These (over-arching industry issuse) have been discussed ad nauseum, and action is more useful than discussion at this point (at least on technical forums such as this).
| But the federal regulators of the monopolies
| are asleep at the switch
Look up regulatory capture.1. They could email you. 2. They could send you a SMS. 3. They could let you view your bandwidth usage by logging into their site. 4. They could provide an application (desktop or mobile) to keep track of your bandwidth and alert you at certain points.
They still send interstitial content warning me that I've exceeded my fair-use limit. It's a bit annoying because I very carefully checked what the limits were before I signed up.
What's worse is that they use weird, broken, IP addresses and horrible proxies for image mangling.
EDIT: Here's a pastebin.
(http://pastebin.com/k6ddD0sJ)
EDIT: Here's a Security \\\stack Exchange question about it: (http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/9368/mobile-carr...)
I wonder isn't there any law in US that forbids carriers from fiddling with messages?
They can do pretty much whatever they want to.
The right way would be to ask the customer when they sign up for service what method they would like to receive service notices through. Phone, email, SMS, lettermail, twitter, Facebook, there's a million better ways than to modify my data.
Since you're a comcast employee, maybe go ask the guys running your SMTP/POP3/IMAP servers. I have faith that you guys can come up with some way to communicate with the people using them.
Injecting into a webpage is unacceptable.
// Intended use is to display browser notifications for critical and time sensitive alerts.
I imagine you can rack up a fair amount of usage before checking emails, only to find you went over your cap a few hours ago.