[drvdevd]

It's interesting to think of it this way. Clearly, the attackers (being ISPs in this case) don't see it this way or don't want to see this sort of MITM this way. Following one of the links in the article [1], you get some great quotes:

> Comcast injects ads into unencrypted traffic, because "it's a courtesy, and it helps address some concerns that people might not be absolutely sure they're on a hotspot from Comcast".

So maybe someone out there actually feels this way when they find content has been directly injected in their unencrypted browsing session. I sure don't.

[1] https://konklone.com/post/were-deprecating-http-and-its-goin...

[literallycancer]

I'd expect the PR/marketing people to laugh at "the plebs" as they make up press releases like that :)

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I can't imagine anyone believing that ads are a "courtesy".

[mtgx]

Anything can be spun to look more positive, or more negative. But that's BS. There are other ways for Comcast to inform their customers that it's a Comcast Wi-Fi. And even if there weren't, are they even working with the Wi-Fi Alliance to create a "perfect protocol" to do this in a secure way?

[wolfgke]

Let's assume Comcast really thinks it is a feature that many people will like (I personally rather think it is a feeble excuse, but don't want to completely exclude this possibility). But why doesn't Comcast enable people to opt out of this "feature" then?

[jwatte]

Yes, because a fake Comcast hotspot surely wouldn't display Comcast ads to make the fake complete?

Comcast understands that politics works on money and connections, not facts, and had learned to play that game to great profit for themselves.