Charter Implements Sitefinder-esque AnnoyanceMaking a buck off of mistyped URLs... ( old news - 11:17AM Wednesday Feb 21 2007) tags: business · networkingOur resident Charter forum users alert us that Charter has implemented a DNS redirection service, something that's usually implemented by ISPs eager to make a buck off of mistyped URLs. The move, however, annoys many users on principle, because it breaks useful tools that rely on pure DNS. "Charter's DNS service now returns an IP address to a machine servicing only port 80 for any DNS lookup which fails; not only for unknown TLD's, but also unknown hosts within delegated domains," notes one user. Bad domain queries now send users to this site, replete with plenty of advertisements. "The underlying problem is the corruption of a core Internet Protocol/RFC which states unknown hosts MUST return SERVFAIL," explains the user. "Charter may also claim they have an "opt-out" feature; but this feature only alters the behavior of your web browser experience and doesn't effect their DNS service implementation. Sadly, 'opting out' of the default search return merely makes the intermediate web server redirect you to search.msn.com."The original annoyance began, of course, with Verisign's now scrapped Sitefinder initiative. Their plan to implement wildcard domain records caused no limit of problems, ranging from malfunctioning printers to troubles with anti-spam technology. Ultimately, Verisign yanked the service after legal pressure from ICANN and Internet-wide outrage. ISP implementation of DNS redirects don't get quite the same attention, although Charter isn't the only ISP to offer this "feature." When DSL provider DSLExtreme was purchased by Ikanos last year, the new owners thought DNS redirection would be a good way to make a few extra dollars. Ultimately, users in our forums pulled together to complain, forcing DSLExtreme to scrap the project last April. In late 2006, Earthlink implemented their own DNS redirection service (see example). After our users complained, Earthlink responded, linking to discussion in our forum amongst "ISP geeks," but sticking to their guns. Ultimately, they offered users some "pure" alternative DNS options, though not before many annoyed customers jumped ship.
Related:- Time Warner Still Pretending Core, Last Mile Fiber The Same
- VPN 4 Life: More Anonymity Snake Oil?
- AT&T's 2G Customers See A Downgrade
- New Comcast Throttling System 100% Online
- DOCSIS 3.0 Gets Faster
- VPN4Life is a Scam
- Rumor: Google Cooking Up Own Router
- Verizon's Open Development Initiative? So Far It's A Joke
|
 karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| Net neutrality prevents this This is EXACTLY the reason we need net neutrality laws. A megacorp is attempting to redefine the internet to increase their own profits, at the expense of the end users. Net neutrality specifically prevents this abhorrent behavior by the megacorops to rape the consumer just a little bit more.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
|  | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
 ·Mediacom
| Re: Net neutrality prevents this There is nothing "abhorrent about megacorps raping consumer to increase profits". This isn't a net neutrality issue...yet. The easier and cheaper answer is to simply use alternate DNS servers. If Charter impedes your access to alternate DNS servers, then yes, I agree that it's a potential net neutrality issue. | |
| | | 
raw
War Eagle
Premium
join:2001-01-17
Pasadena, MD
clubs:
| Re: Net neutrality prevents this said by openbox9  :The easier and cheaper answer It's faster, too. I've abandoned Charter's DNS servers over a month ago because they were just plain slow (and extremely prone to failure), and reliability has gone up considerably.
--
[BBR]raw
America's Army
BBR Enemy Territory clan founder | |
| | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL | Re: Net neutrality prevents this Using different DNS servers doesn't put you at any more risk that using your ISP's. I definitely don't expect my ISP's DNS servers to be any more secure or accurate than the Verizon (not my ISP) DNS servers that I use. | |
| | | | | 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: Net neutrality prevents this said by openbox9 :Using different DNS servers doesn't put you at any more risk that using your ISP's. I definitely don't expect my ISP's DNS servers to be any more secure or accurate than the Verizon (not my ISP) DNS servers that I use. Really? Remember, those third-party DNS servers HAVE to be generally reachable to the Internet at large. The ISP ones do not. That means those third-party DNS servers have a significantly higher level of exposure (and possibility of being taken over) than ISP-internal DNS servers do.
-tom
--
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis | |
| | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| Re: Net neutrality prevents this If you're talking about external vs internal DNS servers with a trust (inside and outside of Charter's boundary) then yes, I'll give you that. Is that how Charter's network is setup...or any ISP for that matter. My point still stands. My ISP's DNS servers are not any more secure or accurate than the Verizon DNS servers that I use as a "third-party". If you choose to use "phishmynetwork.com"'s DNS servers instead of your ISP's, then I guess you get what's coming to you. If you use a trusted set of DNS server, then life if good. After all, DNS is hierarchical and you've got to trust external servers sometime  | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| Re: Net neutrality prevents this Ok, I guess we'll agree to disagree. The threat difference between "internal ISP DNS servers" and "external 'trusted' DNS servers" is minimal at best. We could always throw out DNS and use the IP addresses if the world's DNS system is so potentially insecure and unreliable. | |
| | | | | | | | |
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: Net neutrality prevents this said by openbox9 :Ok, I guess we'll agree to disagree. The threat difference between "internal ISP DNS servers" and "external 'trusted' DNS servers" is minimal at best. Then you're REALLY underestimating the threat differential.
If the nameserver I consult - public or private - is compromised, then potentially every query can produce a bad result
If, however, a nameserver that is authoritative for a given domain is compromised - the delegated trust you speak of - then only queries for that domain can produce bad results.
Where the difference comes in with public vs. private nameservers is the relative likelihood of compromise. Each is open to compromise to anyone that the nameserver is available to. A public/third-party nameserver is available to the Internet at large for attack. A private nameserver is available to a lot smaller set of sources for attack.
said by openbox9 :We could always throw out DNS and use the IP addresses if the world's DNS system is so potentially insecure and unreliable. Yeah, that's a reasonable response to your misunderstanding of my post. 
-tom
--
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis | |
| | | | 
thender
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY | Re: Net neutrality prevents this --- LIES It does not.
4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2 would never do this. | |
| | | | | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| Re: Net neutrality prevents this It's their DNS, they can do what they want with it as long as they don't poison the larger DNS. Who cares if the common customer is exploited by this "DNS hack". The common user sure doesn't. My response was to the Marxist that this is not a net-neutrality issue so long as Charter doesn't impede your ability to use alternate DNS servers. You are still free to choose and therefore the network is neutral in this instance. | |
| | | | | 
hobgoblin
Sortof Agoblin
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
clubs:
| Re: Net neutrality prevents this said by openbox9 :It's their DNS, they can do what they want with it as long as they don't poison the larger DNS. and lots of people find it very useful, rather than getting "Page can not be displayed"
People just like to whine.
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
| |
| | | | | | 
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL | Re: Net neutrality prevents this If they find it useful then they can opt in. Charter could even make some marketing hoopla about it, maybe even charge extra for the "service". But, making it the default is just plain wrong.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | | | | 
Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA | I'm pretty sure anyone that uses more than HTTP will care. There's a world of difference between a timed out FTP or SSH connection attempt and a refused one against Charter's web server. | |
| | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| Re: Net neutrality prevents this The common user has no idea about timed out vs refused connections and they definitely don't know or care about SSH...FTP maybe, but most likely not. Once again, for a majority of their customers (e-mail and surfin' da web), this will be a non-issue. | |
| | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| said by karlmarx :This is EXACTLY the reason we need net neutrality laws. A megacorp is attempting to redefine the internet to increase their own profits, at the expense of the end users. Net neutrality specifically prevents this abhorrent behavior by the megacorops to rape the consumer just a little bit more. No it doesn't, because there are no net neutrality laws in existence. And even if there were, it won't prevent this. All this is is a change to an implementation of DNS procedures. And an RFC has no legal effect when broken.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | | karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Re: Net neutrality prevents this But that's what Net Neutrality IS. Net Neutrality FORCES the megacorps to follow the RFC's. i.e. they can't prioritize, they can't provide optimized routes, they can't degrade a service or protocol.
Again, I state, this problem wouldn't exist if the megacorps were FORCED to provide WHAT THEY ARE SELLING. We are buying INTERNET ACCESS, we are NOT BUYING 'charter access' or 'verizon access'. When you pay for internet access you should get internet access, not some bastardized version of it. If you want 'fake internet', use AOL.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| Re: Net neutrality prevents this Actually, net-neutrality has nothing to do with following RFCs. The commonly discussed implementation has to do with prohibiting or impairing consumers' abilities to use alternate and/or competing services. It also has absolutely nothing to do with your "megacorps". Net-neutrality would apply to everyone from 1-man ISPs to large corporate entities. And finally, your are buying "Charter access"...at least in accordance with you TOS. Go with it, or find a different provider. | |
| | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Net neutrality prevents this What if you have no choice but to use Comcast, Charter or some other single provider offering high speed access?
I agree with you if there's a choice. If not, then regulation is the only protection offered by the consumer.
I'm not blaming Charter. They are a corporate out to make money for their share holders. In fact they have an obligation to do so. But as any entity with power that is unchecked (i.e. lack of competitive forces), the quest to make profit has no bounds and then requires regulation. | |
| | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| Re: Net neutrality prevents this Then you have no choice. Realize that fact, suck it up, and move on in life. That is a competitive market issue and is irrelevant in regards to potential net-neutrality legislation. Any net-neutrality laws would apply to everyone regardless if competition exists in a marketplace or not. Once again, as long as Charter isn't impeding your ability to use an alternate/competing service (DNS in this situation), net-neutrality isn't a concern. | |
| | | | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Net neutrality prevents this So you believe genuine competition exists in some markets? I recall Microsoft using that same argument but their 85% lock on the desktop was still considered a monopoly even though everyone could have purchased a Mac. Not just some customers who happened to live in an area where Macs were sold. | |
| | | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL | Re: Net neutrality prevents this Where are you getting the discussion about competition. Competition has nothing with the topic of this thread (alternative DNS exploitations for profit) or the net-neutrality tangent that this part of the thread is on. | |
| | | | | | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Net neutrality prevents this Net neutrality is regulation. Regulation is generally imposed when competitive forces do not adequately address consumer issues. It's clear that neutrality is about competition. It's also how I originally responded to your post:
quote:
I agree with you if there's a choice. If not, then regulation is the only protection offered by the consumer.
...
But as any entity with power that is unchecked (i.e. lack of competitive forces), the quest to make profit has no bounds and then requires regulation.
...
It's my belief that in addition to this new scheme, Charter should offer standard DNS to its customers. It's customers should not be required to leech from another ISP.
I'm sure in some middle/upper management circles they justify this as customer service because "NOT FOUND" messages are a thing of the past. | |
| | | | | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| Re: Net neutrality prevents this Yes net-neutrality will may be legislation. Legislation can be imposed when anti-competitive issues arise in a market, but if there is no competition, there's no necessary reason to legislate. If a competitor attempts to start a business and the incumbent becomes anti-competitive, then by all means, legislate the environment to foster the competition.
Now, for what you said about net-neutrality being about competition....maybe sort-of, to a certain extent. The net-neutrality concept is to prevent and/or control anti-competitive nature, not necessarily create competition where competition didn't exist before. Totally separate issues in my mind.
Back to Charter's DNS situation. It's still there DNS and as long as they aren't preventing or discriminating traffic if their customers attempt to use alternate DNS servers, then net-neutrality isn't an issue. The fact that Charter may, or may not, have local ISP competition in their markets is irrelevant in this whole discussion, imo. | |
| | | | | | | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Net neutrality prevents this said by openbox9 :Now, for what you said about net-neutrality being about competition....maybe sort-of, to a certain extent. The net-neutrality concept is to prevent and/or control anti-competitive nature, not necessarily create competition where competition didn't exist before. Totally separate issues in my mind. Not sure what your point is. Regulation is what the government does to protect consumer interests when competition doesn't exist. Sometimes it has the spirit of fostering competition such as the 1996 telecom act that forced the ILECs to lease copper to competitors at a wholesale rate. Other times it doesn't seek to create competition. It just tries to protect the consumer.
When there is no competition, consumers always need protection from corporations. By law, corporations must seek to maximize shareholder interests. Without competitive forces, that means reducing service and/or raising prices. Innovation is risky and much more costly and therefore not in the shareholder's best interests -- unless the threat of regulation outweighs the easy path. Then the corporation can justify the risk since regulation seeks to compensate for the absence of competitive forces. | |
| | | | | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| Re: Net neutrality prevents this said by rradina :Not sure what your point is. Regulation is what the government does to protect consumer interests when competition doesn't exist. Sometimes it has the spirit of fostering competition such as the 1996 telecom act that forced the ILECs to lease copper to competitors at a wholesale rate. Other times it doesn't seek to create competition. It just tries to protect the consumer. I agree, if consumers are being hurt or there is an anti-competitive force working in a marketplace, then yes, regulation/legislation is necessary to correct the situation. Still totally off-topic from Charter's use of DNS as a revenue stream and the net-neutrality tangent that we ventured down. What exactly is your point? | |
| | | | | | | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Net neutrality prevents this You started this when you said (I emphasized the key phrase):
quote:
Actually, net-neutrality has nothing to do with following RFCs. The commonly discussed implementation has to do with prohibiting or impairing consumers' abilities to use alternate and/or competing services. It also has absolutely nothing to do with your "megacorps". Net-neutrality would apply to everyone from 1-man ISPs to large corporate entities. And finally, your are buying "Charter access"...at least in accordance with you TOS. Go with it, or find a different provider.
To which I replied:
quote:
What if you have no choice but to use Comcast, Charter or some other single provider offering high speed access? ...
To which you replied and affirmed your position (again, I emphasized the key phrases):
quote:
Then you have no choice. Realize that fact, suck it up, and move on in life. That is a competitive market issue and is irrelevant in regards to potential net-neutrality legislation. Any net-neutrality laws would apply to everyone regardless if competition exists in a marketplace or not. Once again, as long as Charter isn't impeding your ability to use an alternate/competing service (DNS in this situation), net-neutrality isn't a concern.
I'm not sure how lack of competition can be irrelevant with respect to net-neutrality. Before the baby bells were permitted into the long distance market, didn't the FCC require them to show substantial ILEC competitive penetration? Did the FCC let them get into long distance when they showed that one city in their territory had competition?
The kind of crap Charter is pulling and the lack of competition is exactly why we need to:
1) Foster competition so that folks have a choice and can vote by leaving Charter
2) Regulate the service by providing definition of terms, truth in advertising speeds, elimination of port blocking, etc, etc, etc, etc,
#1 is the best choice but how feasible is it? Probably the best we can hope for is a monitored oligopoly unless we socialize the last mile and allow competitors to provide backbone services at government designated concentration points. By process of elimination, #2 is probably the best we can do. | |
| | | | | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| Re: Net neutrality prevents this Ahh, ok, now I see why you're stuck on the competition thing. To answer your lack of competition issue, you've always got satellite
I still don't equate lack of competition with net-neutrality. I'm wholeheartedly behind fostering competition in any market place. As for regulating the service, I think people need to be extremely careful in what they're asking for. | |
| | | | | | | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Net neutrality prevents this I agree. My hope is that some form of wireless or other revolutionary technology (blimps, soup cans with strings...) provides last-mile competition for Internet access and eliminates the need for government oversight.
The last thing we need is some B.S. fee to fund more government oversight. | |
| | 
phxmark
What Country Are We Living In?
join:2000-12-27
Glendale, AZ
| I am on Cox and I use my own DNS server. I do not use Cox's as they have been unreliable. Sometimes not able to get lookups on valid domains. Haven't had any issues with my Win2k DNS server.
--
High speed is dangerous. Too many MP3s, not enough time. | |
| 
EvelKub
Kitty is crazy
Premium
join:2002-03-17
Mesa, AZ | OpenDNS is different? I use OpenDNS myself, but don't they do the same thing? | |
| | 
yock
Eschew the False Dichotomy
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH | Re: OpenDNS is different? Yes they do. I was about to point out the very same thing. | |
| | | | | 
GlenQuagmire
Giggidy Giggidy Giggidy Goo
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Grand Rapids, MI
| Glade I am not with Charter When ever I think Comcast is carp all I have to do is to look at Charter and Comcast is not so bad. Also, I am lucky in the fact that my apartment in on the line that separates Comcast's market from Charters. The landlord could just have easily went with Charter
--
Yes, its stuck in a windows this time. | |
| | 
BIGDOG_3
join:2002-09-27
Belleville, WI | Re: Glade I am not with Charter Aything for money, Charter would do it. Pretty soon we will be seeing out of the blue popup advertisements that charter sends. It is too bad Charter is the only cable choice where I live.. | |
| | Darkk
join:2003-10-03
Almont, MI
·Charter Pipeline
| What Charter has done is nothing more than to fundamentally break how Internet name resolution works for Charter customers.
Customers should expect standards-based safe and secure DNS service from Charter. Charter has broken a trust with it's customers and added a redirect to someplace the customer did not want to go. All apps that need DNS services, including browsers, are now broken.
It isn't about only net neutrality, it is about not re-inventing the Internet is a way that you can profit, while breaking the Internet standards that any app that needs Internet name resolution to work depends on.
This is unthinkable and inexcusable.
Shame on you Charter!!
With bad offshore tech support and now this DNS scam, Charter has really dropped the ball. You would think they would have learned from the mistakes other ISPs and VeriSign have made in going down this DNS redirect path, and avoided it.
Come on Charter, back this out. | |
| 
RideRed
Vista needs a popup blocker for Vista
Premium
join:2005-06-18
USA | Can't use a different DNS? Charter, annoying whores? Sure but what stops subs needing "pure DNS" from using someone else's DNS servers (like Verizon's)? | |
| | | 
FiL
Premium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD
| Re: consistently disappointing oh that's nasty.
From first look, I would have thought that "re-direct" site was Malware Heaven.
This is a scumbag move on the part of Charter...
How is this different from spyware on servers? Redirect here, take your info and place it over there...
They've prolly got a huge list of queries...And the next move is the data swap-meat.
This is ridiculous... | |
| 
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
join:2005-01-03
Riverside, WA | Use your own Use your own DNS servers.
Anyone want mine from my lovely dumb-pipe ISP? | |
| | Darkk
join:2003-10-03
Almont, MI
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Use your own Is anyone getting any satisfaction out of Charter Corporate Escalation:
I haven't been able to get past voice mail after getting a letter that they "failed to contact" me in the mail after I complained to corporate. No call, no cellphone message, no cellphone voice mail, no email, but they've pulled this before.
Here's the Charter complaint number to register your dissatisfaction:
888-561-1030 x28377
Call and raise your complaint against this terrible practice! | |
| | |
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
join:2005-01-03
Riverside, WA | Re: Use your own They "failed to contact you," but you can't get past their voicemail. Excellent customer service.
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del. | |
| | | | Darkk
join:2003-10-03
Almont, MI | Re: Use your own It's right up there with their offshore tech support.
(I really miss their NA support folks.) | |
| 
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs:
| openDNS I have been using openDNS for a while and it has worked pretty good. I didn't know i could use another isp's dns server if I was not a customer. What dns servers (company preferred, not an IP that could be a fake or fraudulent) would you guys recommend?
--
www.LakeSemaJ.com | |
| 
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN | What is the problem? Just don't use their DNS. | |
|
|
|
·
