Infest is a good word. To begin with...
"To users Novarra grabs content and compresses it for mobile browsing - reducing colour depth, removing unsupported plug-in data and that kind of thing, based on the device being used and resulting in faster mobile browsing. To network operators Novarra allows them to stick a branded "navigation" bar on every page, and show adverts while pages are being loaded, as well as reducing the bandwidth used."
To users, Novarra hijacks your request, fiddles with the content - regardless of whether the original author (or you) wants them to, resulting in a false impression of what the original page author intended.
To network operators, they can take the web page that you carefully constructed for your audience, cause it to be reformatted and then add their own adverts.
This is breaching the basic principle of copyright. No permission is being sought to do this from the site authors and *if* end users are getting a choice, it's unclear and heavily biased towards letting the network operators do as they please.
What this article is missing is what Novarra is does for web page authors, especially those creating mobile sites. As far as those publishers are concerned, they are ignored. Recognised standards (such as HTTP headers, like User-Agent) are not passed through correctly, so you can't adapt content yourself. There is no control over what adverts and other pollution are added to your pages.
This has been going on too long and these bastards are getting away with it because the only people who understand what they're doing are being ignored.
Let's have some more articles on this revealing the details. In the end, it's as bad as Phorm.