Virgin Media Hijack customers browser search options

[Mick Fisher]

Originally Posted by TheDon

The problem with having something like this as opt-in is that the very people it will benefit will NEVER know about it.

It's far easier to have it opt-out as the vast majority of people aren't tech aware enough to know what it is, what it does, or how they could enable it, and if you sent them letters explaining it they'd pass it off as tech gobbledeegook and ignore it.

Instead you stick it as opt-out, with the page explaining very easily how to disable it and what it is, and then the people that don't want it get to see it all of once and can disable it 5 seconds later.

The people that are so against it they'd disable it are far far outweighed by those that would benefit from it, so having it opt-in is by far the best idea as then the people it's actually designed to benefit will get the benefit from it.

Apart from VM just who else will benefit.

It's illegal to sign a form on someone elses behalf unless you have their specific permission therefore why should it be legal for VM to opt me into something I never heard of.

[Traduk]

The Don,

When you start going down the path of for the common good of the technical challenged users, exploitation follows.

The idea of looking after the vast unsophisticated masses in the form of some variation of a "walled garden" approach to internet is a failed business model.

This little irritation of hijacking failed DNS searches is very likely to be just an opening gambit to eventually impose Phorm or something comparable. It is no accident that when the DNS hijack became a imminent reality that a press release popped up that put Phorm etc. back in the frame.

VM could easily use the apparent easy acceptance of DNS hijacking on an opt-in basis as an argument for something altogether much less acceptable. I can see the argument already going along the lines of "the vast percentage of users remained opted-in" which could be used as leverage to do pretty much as they liked.

I subscribe to the school of thought "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile" with VM as in many areas of advertising etc. they spin the truth in to something highly questionable. I want them to give me what I pay for and not mess with it in any way so as to exploit my usage for their enhanced profit. If they cannot come up with a pricing model which gives both them and me an acceptable deal without underhand dealings then they will lose my part of the deal.

[blaklite]

The phrase "Thin end of the wedge" springs to mind.

But like so much in todays society most people just smile and bend over when the "wedge" is being smartly rammed up their backside.

'Smack, thank you sir, may I have another?'

Of course, spelling your search enquiries properly will prevent all this hassle

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

Apart from VM just who else will benefit.

It's illegal to sign a form on someone elses behalf unless you have their specific permission therefore why should it be legal for VM to opt me into something I never heard of.

Who else will benefit? People that throw a fit whenever they see an error message. Which is a huge majority of casual net browsers. Browser errors are not user friendly, if you don't understand them and why you're seeing them they can be confusing, so it's easier for a lot of people to have them replaced with something far more useful.

As for the "thin end of the wedge" argument, I'm a proponent of the wait and see approach, where you judge on not what COULD happen, but what actually is happening. Far too many people throw their toys out the pram based on remote possibilities rather than on what's actually happening. If we spent our lives worrying about what could happen then when would we get time for anything else?

[Milambar]

Traduk actually said what I was thinking, but didn't say out of fear of looking paranoid. Thanks Traduk

[Mick Fisher]

Originally Posted by TheDon

Who else will benefit? People that throw a fit whenever they see an error message. Which is a huge majority of casual net browsers. Browser errors are not user friendly, if you don't understand them and why you're seeing them they can be confusing, so it's easier for a lot of people to have them replaced with something far more useful.

Do you take me for a fool.
Why can you not see that there is nothing benevolent about this at all. It is merely a ruse to get eyeballs staring at a page of adverts to line the pockets of VM.

No more no less.

You can paint it any colour you want but it still smells.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

Do you take me for a fool.
Why can you not see that there is nothing benevolent about this at all. It is merely a ruse to get eyeballs staring at a page of adverts to line the pockets of VM.

No more no less.

You can paint it any colour you want but it still smells.

And the entire reason they offer internet access is to line their own pockets as well, that you actually benefit from them doing so clearly doesn't matter.

Best just cancel all your services! Don't want to be giving them money afterall!

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by TheDon

Who else will benefit? People that throw a fit whenever they see an error message. Which is a huge majority of casual net browsers. Browser errors are not user friendly, if you don't understand them and why you're seeing them they can be confusing, so it's easier for a lot of people to have them replaced with something far more useful.

As for the "thin end of the wedge" argument, I'm a proponent of the wait and see approach, where you judge on not what COULD happen, but what actually is happening. Far too many people throw their toys out the pram based on remote possibilities rather than on what's actually happening. If we spent our lives worrying about what could happen then when would we get time for anything else?

Your argument appears to be based on apparent paranoid speculation on the part of others?. Perhaps you are not aware of the long standing speculation as to which side of the fence VM will actually take regarding Phorm etc. The unknown of their eventual choice has been hanging around for the best part of two years during which time they have said nothing, then said no way and recently maybe.

There is nothing remote, possibility wise, regarding the ongoing assessment of third party advertising add-ons and I suspect that given half a chance they would impose it ASAP. My toys will get thrown out of the pram when and if they implement Phorm or something comparable but in preparation I am doing no more than maintaining a watching brief and avoiding any contractual obligations.

The "wait and see" approach especially in the face of a known prospective change would strike me as apathy. VM will weigh up what they can do against possible churn and my fear is that the DNS hijack which is no big deal may embolden them to the point whereby they make a critical error in judgement.

I actually want VM to thrive and carry on giving me the services I enjoy. If Phorm is implemented it may be that churn will finish them off for all customers. Their SEC filings show ongoing cash raising just to help pay interest on existing debt. One major trip and\or slip and they could be history which does nobody any good.

[Mick Fisher]

Originally Posted by TheDon

And the entire reason they offer internet access is to line their own pockets as well, that you actually benefit from them doing so clearly doesn't matter.

Best just cancel all your services! Don't want to be giving them money afterall!

By your falling back on such well worn rhetoric I take it you have run out of coherent argument to promote the obvious moral shortcomings of VM's dubious, behind the scenes activities.

[BenMcr]

If anyone is interested some additional FAQs have been posted (sorry if it's already been linked to)

http://www.virginmedia.com/myvirginm...k.php#add_faqs

Covers most of the issues raised on this thread I think (including VPN technical stuff)

[rogerdraig]

yep it tries to get every one used to the you have to opt out idea that all companies want the norm to be


just because they dont use data doesnt alter the point that they could and they should have given the option first

or are they going to stat fitting BB in house just so the customer can see what they didnt know they would want but with the option to opt out once they see it there

which they fitted by the way by using the duplicated front door key they had but that ist a problem as they didnt at this point action the option they had to search your house nor did they let any of their parters in to see what you get up to either and the posibilty they could later isnt a proble as they ssy they wont in future action that option either a

any one tell i am in a sarcastic mood tonight lol

oh any one whose read the FAQ will understand the above :p

[Mick Fisher]

Ve vill opt you into our money making schemes because you are all too stoopid to understand vat is good for you.

By Order oF Virgin Media.

Zeig Heil.

[Zee]

thanks a lot... finally been able to switch this crap off, 100% of the time it didn't work properly.

[craigj2k12]

Originally Posted by Zee

thanks a lot... finally been able to switch this crap off, 100% of the time it didn't work properly.

this thread was from 2009