4 ms·

What he is saying is that they exhausted all other contact methods. If they stopped after the email and let the persons modem stop working, they would have lik

What he is saying is that they exhausted all other contact methods. If they stopped after the email and let the persons modem stop working, they would have likely been livid about that as well. Look, I don’t like Comcast any more than you do. But at some point, you need to recognize your biases when evaluating your enemy. I thought this was some nefarious attack based on the headline, but it’s just a critical system message that was thoroughly explained by an executive and you all are freaking out...

Operyl 9y ago
The problem here is that I've had the exact same thing happen, and zero attempt was given. The stupid part? My modem was not EOL, was a BYOM (bring your own modem) that had many years left before EOL. I'm pretty damn sure they're using this as a "first line of contact," not final.
bo1024 9y ago
(a) It's not critical, it's a marketing message. (b) Pretty sure if the person's modem were to actually stop working, they would get in touch with their ISP. Man-in-the-middle attacks by an internet provider are hacking and a breach of trust, and should be criminal in my opinion.
csydas 9y ago
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.
- jlivingood 9y ago
  > 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.
  - pdkl95 9y ago
    > 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?
creeble 9y ago
I hate to be too cynical, but in today's 'regulatory framework' it's easy to interpret this method of "notification" as merely a test to use for future notifications. Not getting fast enough Netflix? Here's your message, injected every time you go to their site. Not getting the best search results? Try the new Xfinity search, it's faster and won't cost you the $.002 that Google search will cost. This is a very slippery slope, and one that we're already sliding down thanks to Ajit Pai's FCC. Expect to see more of this behavior from Comcast, as no amount of customer outcry can now prevent it.

Operyl 9y ago

The problem here is that I've had the exact same thing happen, and zero attempt was given. The stupid part? My modem was not EOL, was a BYOM (bring your own modem) that had many years left before EOL. I'm pretty damn sure they're using this as a "first line of contact," not final.

bo1024 9y ago

(a) It's not critical, it's a marketing message. (b) Pretty sure if the person's modem were to actually stop working, they would get in touch with their ISP. Man-in-the-middle attacks by an internet provider are hacking and a breach of trust, and should be criminal in my opinion.

csydas 9y ago

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.

jlivingood 9y ago
> 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.
- pdkl95 9y ago
  > 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?

creeble 9y ago

I hate to be too cynical, but in today's 'regulatory framework' it's easy to interpret this method of "notification" as merely a test to use for future notifications. Not getting fast enough Netflix? Here's your message, injected every time you go to their site. Not getting the best search results? Try the new Xfinity search, it's faster and won't cost you the $.002 that Google search will cost. This is a very slippery slope, and one that we're already sliding down thanks to Ajit Pai's FCC. Expect to see more of this behavior from Comcast, as no amount of customer outcry can now prevent it.