Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages
J. Livingood (a Comcast VP) responded to the OP:<p>&gt; <i>[JL] We are not trying to sell you a new one. If you own your modem we&#x27;re informing you that it is either end of life (EOL) or that you are about to get a speed upgrade that the modem will be unable to deliver.</i><p>Incidentally, Livingood is a co-author of IETF RFC 6108, which he has conveniently linked. From the RFC&#x27;s general requirements numero uno:<p>&gt; <i>R3.1.1. Must Only Be Used for Critical Service Notifications. Additional Background: The system must only provide critical notifications, rather than trivial notifications. An example of a critical, non-trivial notification, which is also the primary motivation of this system, is to advise the user that their computer is infected with malware, that their security is at severe risk and&#x2F;or has already been compromised, and that it is recommended that they take immediate, corrective action NOW.</i><p>As composed as Livingood&#x27;s response was, a modem at EOL and&#x2F;or incapable of supporting an incremental speed upgrade doesn&#x27;t strike me as <i>critical</i>. To be sure, Comcast is scheduled to increase speeds by 12&#x2F;19 (at least in my region): 10Mb-&gt;25M, 25M-&gt;60M, 75M-&gt;100M. Although I disagree with Comcast&#x27;s method and categorization, it would be interesting to learn what modem the OP was using.<p>It would also be interesting to learn if the OP received this message on multiple instances. If yes, it would be in violation of its own requirement--in particular, <i>R3.1.8. User Notification Acknowledgement Must Stop Further Immediate Notifications</i>, which itself is contradictory in its use of <i>must</i> and <i>should</i>:<p>&gt; <i>Additional Background: Once a user acknowledges a critical notification, the notification should immediately stop.</i><p>EDIT: Apparently, Livingood is an executive.