--- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 22:44:13 +0100 From: R e m b e r t O l d e n b o o m <rembert@floating-point.nl> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> Subject: Re: [Politech] Belkin responds to router-advertisement controversy [sp] Hi, Jeezz... here in the Netherlands we have a saying: 'turning a musquito into an elephant'. That's just what's hapening here. I've installed numerous Belkin routers and yes, I've seen the Parental advertisement. I've always regarded this as an optional feature during the installation process. Although I *hate* spam and do fight spam actively I haven't thought about this being spam for even a split second. Couldn't that usenet group find more important isuses to make a fuzz about? Besides, one can argue if this is spam after all. I don't think it is and I have no complaints towards Belkin regarding this (nor regarding their hard/software btw and their support is great). Rembert Oldenboom Netherlands --- From: "Thomas Junker" <tjunker@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:04:20 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Politech] Belkin responds to router-advertisement controversy [sp] On 11 Nov 2003 at 9:32, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Belkin Responds to Customers' Concerns Regarding Routers > > Belkin offers firmware upgrade to eliminate browser redirect from all its > routers Declan, The problem created by Belkin has been extensively discussed on slashdot. What has been published here on Politech and the statements issued by Belkin have obscured what the real problem seems to have been: not spam in the sense of email, but periodic hijacking of HTTP requests by their router, redirecting the HTTP requests to a Belkin page offering their parental control option. Rather than the annoyance factor, what caused the firestorm of outrage was the stupidity and arrogance of a router manufacturer to presume to hijack an HTTP session and redirect it for advertising purposes. The nearly universal opinion in the slashdot community is that a router should route, period, and should not interfere with the packets it handles except as it may explicitly be configured to do by the user or, in cases of firewall functions, clearly stated blocking of classes of traffic, which may often be active by default. Had Belkin responded immediately in a completely straightforward manner, they could have defused much of the impact and earned some measure of respect. While it's to their credit that they seem eventually to have found a Clue Store and bought a few, they weaseled their way to their present position, including cancelling a USENET post by their Eric Deming that had admitted to the hijacking "feature." Attempts to suppress information are treated by the Internet community with all the respect owed to wet farts in a crowded elevator. The cancelled post is now mirrored, including here: http://www.tjunker.com/belkin.txt Since Belkin did not immediately respond in an honest manner, some have suggested that they since had time to gauge the impact on their sales, certainly their direct online sales, and that that may have affected their decision to mollify the outrage, rather than any innate sense of ethics or right or wrong. The number of people on slashdot who foreswore every buying *anything* made by Belkin was somewhat astonishing. Some even claimed to have countered their same-day plans to buy a Belkin after reading of the problem. I have little doubt that Belkin saw an immediate effect on their sales, and since they didn't do The Right Thing immediately, they can now never prove that they didn't eventually act out of nothing more than crass commercial interest. I buy a lot of gear and I have taken an approach that has served me well with all types of vendors: when a vendor pisses me off I levy a fine against them and collect the fine from budget I may otherwise have sent in their direction in the form of purchases. In Belkin's case I am fining them 100% of all purchases of any of their products for one year. After that time I will review how, in the final analysis, they handled this, and on the basis of that I may or may not lift the fine. Nothing they do in the days or weeks following the firestorm will affect my decision. It will only lay a foundation for possible later reinstatement in my purchasing portfolio. I include purchases of resale items in this policy, which has the effect of depressing resale prices and causing resellers to be less pleased with their original decision to have bought the brand in question. Stupidity should have consequences. As individuals the most powerful tool we have for inflicting consequences is our purchasing power. If the local laundry sends my shirts back with black smudges on them (yes, this has happened), I deny them business for a year. If the local pizza place serves me something unacceptable or closes early when I am driving there with intense pizza anticipation, I deny them my business for a year. The cable TV company here that began sharing a channel between C-SPAN and a local UHF home shopping channel under the Clinton FCC's election-time enforcement of the "must carry rule" lost my business the same day and never got it back. Interestingly, they never even tried to get my business again, ignoring the basic rule of sales that one's best prospects are one's former customers. But we always knew that cable companies were brain dead, didn't we? I am as ruthless and brutal with my spending decisions as I can be because that is the only effective weapon I have for dealing with clueless, incompetent, arrogant, abusive or dishonest businesses. It is also very satisfying because it is in direct contrast to the helplessness we usually feel at the hands of businesses. I am the plaintiff attorney, the judge, the jury and the fine collector. There is no appeal. As the business world becomes increasingly infested with weasels, clueless MBAs and executives focussed solely on their bonuses, we have to fight back, and fight for keeps. I hope that in the future investigative reporting will move to identifying the actual individuals responsible for stupid and destructive corporate policies and programs so each of us can do his part to make sure those people never again work above the level of "Fries with that?" Regards, Thomas Junker tjunker@private (no need to de-spamify -- anyone who spams me pays a very heavy price) _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Nov 12 2003 - 22:18:41 PST