said by dvd536 :

Oh NO! dont tell me cox is going to start that verislime crap via dns like other providers are doing[charter anyone?]

said by Gamer :

How is that 'helpful'? That's not a redirection to the correct TLD of .com, that's creating a fake TLD and using it for revenue with completely unrelated results.

If Cox is going to begin practices like that, I'd expect rates to start dropping significantly.

said by BillRoland :

I'm not even sure how anyone can claim that that page is more helpful than the standard DNS error page: neither of them suggest ways to get to where you're going, and both say the same thing: that site doesn't exist.

said by state :

I'm gonna have to agree with you there. Since .con isn't even a valid TLD I'd say that the new system is flawed.

I would expect something like this to either suggest a proper top-level domain, or automatically redirect to the top-level domain in question. Hell, strip off the domain suffix and redirect the query to Google and you've got a system that's 1000% better than what you're working on.

said by justin :

They are following in the foot steps of many ISPs. Verisign failed, but the companies that offer this service, and revenue split with the ISPs, are introducing it from the bottom up by stealth.

Unfortunately regular users, who are in the vast majority, do not realize that if they click on one of the links presented as an alternative to their mis-spelling, it usually not the best choice, and is making both Cox and the substitute DNS provider, a few bucks. If they did this a number of times per month then they are potentially worth to Cox twice what their base subscription fee is. I don't think the regular customer realizes this. I think Cox counts on their ignorance.

So in the example above, the mis-typing of dslreports.com is directing regular users to "top-rated-spyware-removers", who are paying to be on that page. They would be better served by Cox if they were redirected to a google search for the domain -- at least the main, non sponsored, page stands a chance of giving them the best possible result instead of whomever pays this DNS redirector the most money to be there!

Its pretty sad really, ISPs just can't get their minds around being a utility and charging directly for pure service. They just have to get greedy, and jump into the conversation somehow. Today, this site and many others now has to pay money to someone in order to continue to reach these customers, tomorrow, we'll have to pay money in order to reach them at maximum possible speed. The day after tomorrow, we'll probably have to pay to reach them at all.

said by dvd536 :

Ultimately what its going to come down to is 'pay per click' it all comes down to money.

said by robertfl :

I also wonder if this is an example of net neutrality?

Rob

said by state :

... check out the page source in your browser....you'll see that the redirects all go through overture.com ...

said by round_toit :

...
Notice this is not the "Enhanced version" that Coxengr talked about. In the upper right hand corner it says "Enhance error results page".

said by THZNDUP :

And what should the Cox 'Enhanced version' of DNS do? If you get the syntax correct, should it take you to the page requested? If you misspell it or it doesn't exist, will it take you to an 'Enhanced error results page' maybe?

If you reread the OP, you should find that page is in fact what CoxEng was talking about. It substitutes a normal DNS error 'Page Not Found' with the one you posted. In fact he spells out 'enhanced error results' several times.

BTW, using Google as a DNS filter works pretty good. At least it almost always does a better job at speeling than I do....... ;) :D

In fact he spells out 'enhanced error results' several times.

said by round_toit :

I wonder how many "team sessions" were wasted arriving at this piece of junk. I bet they already have the PR team creating advertising for TV espousing this miraculous new feature.

said by coxengr :

... our research definitely does indicate that most people find this helpful ...

said by coxengr :

And as much as it may seem counterintuitive to you, our research definitely does indicate that most people find this helpful.

said by fatness :

... You're doing a difficult job here selling something that people don't like and are not going to like, and I don't envy you ...

said by coxengr :

Again - for those that don't personally like this, there's an opt out option that's "RFC compliant". It will go away and you don't have to see any of it.

said by krod :

IE has this functionally already, it goes to MSN doesnt it?
FF has it too, most are off by default. whyy not change this setting with the cox install software?... that way only the true people needing handholding get this functionality.

said by coxengr :

our research definitely does indicate that most people find this helpful.

said by dvd536 :

... And who are those "most people"? ...

said by coxengr :

Again - for those that don't personally like this, there's an opt out option that's "RFC compliant". It will go away and you don't have to see any of it.

said by fatness :

Earthlink began something similar last August: »Oh No They Didn't!

Unfortunately they didn't even offer the opt-out options until September, after enough complaints built up. »blogs.earthlink.net/2006/09/more···andl.php

said by needforspeed59 :

You know, for all the complaining and concerns about this test, at least Cox is putting out there for feedback.

said by keeska :

This trick Cox is trying to pull makes it obvious they are not interested in providing a good service at a fair price.

said by robertfl :

Just a question is this a result for our $2.00 increase?

said by robertfl :

Just a question is this a result for our $2.00 increase? If so, the price should be lowered $10 dollars then.

It looks like this is here to stay. If you want to block the site from loading, load up admuncher (not free but works well) I can't seem to block the site with my netgear router's "site block" feature and I prefer to have it blocked on a network level vs just one machine.

said by robertfl :

If you want to block the site from loading, load up admuncher (not free but works well) I can't seem to block the site with my netgear router's "site block" feature and I prefer to have it blocked on a network level vs just one machine.

said by CoxAbuse :

That seems like an awful lot of trouble. :) It would be easier just to opt out and set your DNS servers to 68.105.28.13 and 68.105.29.13.

said by Gamer :

If users want a feature like this, make a browser plugin (Such as a cox toolbar) that they can optionally install.

said by fatness :

That would never do. Users can't be trusted to use such a toolbar, even though "research definitely does indicate that most people find this helpful." ;)

said by robertfl :

If Cox wants to climate spam on a network level, then they need to stop this shit. Because if a customer hits an infected site using IE...BOOM (and yes, that CAN happen)

-Rob

said by Gamer :

And if they don't update Windows, it probably already has happened, regardless of the browser they use; I doubt those users would update Firefox either. What that has to do with this thread, however, is beyond me.

said by BillRoland :

... So my challenge to Cox remains: explain for us all, please, how this feature is useful to even the dumbest user of Cox HSI ...

said by robertfl :

... I'll said this once, I'll say it again... this is here to stay ...

said by BillRoland :

... Or I may load up a copy of Windows 2000 server and use DNS on that to bypass all this crap ...

said by NoVA_CoxUser :

Then there are these "curious" Firefox security messages (posted above) which I occasionally receive when connecting to https sites; making me wonder just why OpenDNS needs to establish a secure connection ??? ... IMO "the jury's still out" on OpenDNS.

said by suzyqs1 :

Thank you sooo much! I spent hours on the phone with Cox support because I could no longer access a company server through the VPN. I could verify that the DNS was not resolving but no help from support. After reading your post, I changed the DNS and I'm back in. I was just getting ready to change providers.

said by cob_ :

Well, what I don't understand is why the VPN client would fail to work since it would make a resolution request to the trial DNS, and since it's a valid domain, get a valid IP address.

said by a89643 :

re: VPN
for file shares, if the dns returns NXdomain it'll look up using netbios-ns, else it'll try and connect to that server. (dns first, then netbios)

said by state :

Netbios is only for native windows applications (such as file shares, network neighborhood, etc). It's been blocked inbound and outbound for some time now.

Third party applications (such as SSH - putty, f-secure, securecrt, etc) perform domain name resolution to connect to remote hosts, they don't fall back to netbios.

said by state :

Third party applications (such as SSH - putty, f-secure, securecrt, etc) perform domain name resolution to connect to remote hosts, they don't fall back to netbios.

said by state :

I'm talking about connections across the WAN, nothing has changed there with regards to netbios. What negative impacts are you expecting to see on your local network because of changes to their internet facing DNS servers?

said by a89643 :

so its ok because no one uses any of that stuff right? you don't have other machines you refer to as just "hostname"

said by wierdo :

Read my previous post, in which I stated that the windows name resolution stack will first attempt to resolve a name using DNS, then if that fails, it will use NMB to attempt to resolve the name on the local network. Since Cox's nameserver returns an A record for any invalid name, it never gets to the point of using NMB to resolve the name.

said by state :

Relying on a someone else's DNS server to resolve your private address space probably isn't a really good idea. I think there may be an RFC that addresses that, will look in the morning. I'd recommend adding entries to your hosts file or in your firewall/router if it supports it.

said by state :

Relying on a someone else's DNS server to resolve your private address space probably isn't a really good idea. I think there may be an RFC that addresses that, will look in the morning. I'd recommend adding entries to your hosts file or in your firewall/router if it supports it.

said by NoVA_CoxUser :

In the past, most SciFi writers always presumed that it would be "The Government" who could become the the "Big Brother"

It would appear that MSOs are now positioned to be the more immediate threat.

said by BillRoland :

... Being an ISP/MSO costs a of money? Not my problem, get the smart guys and work sessions figuring out ways to reduce deployment and maintenance costs ...

said by MrBentor :

... What's next - advertisements inserted inline with inbound email? ...

said by NoVA_CoxUser :

C'mon now, you need to embrace the "new lingo" ...

... they'd be called e-mail experience enhancements (a.k.a. Triple-Es)! ;)

said by MrBentor :

If there ads inserted in to pages I own and were served up to requesters, that would give me right to sue. No third party has a right to change my content. It goes the requester as they requested it.