airhead
@bellsouth.net
| reply to rahlquist
Re: [HSI] Charter to monitor surfing, insert its own targeted ad
@rahlquist, well said and absolutely correct...
Such action is equivalent to them intercepting network produced ad-based television signals, and replacing that million-dollar super bowl ad with their own (for example). In that case, networks would just "cut them off". In this case, it's messier, because you could consider every website as a 'network' of sorts.
I personally have a very large number of google ad-based websites. Wouldn't the internet look funny if every site just "cut them off" and dropped all of Charter's IP addresses in iptables? Probably wouldn't happen on the internet like it would tv... which I guess is why they think they can get away with it. Time for the FCC to step in and do something about this. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by airhead :
I personally have a very large number of google ad-based websites. Wouldn't the internet look funny if every site just "cut them off" and dropped all of Charter's IP addresses in iptables? Probably wouldn't happen on the internet like it would tv... which I guess is why they think they can get away with it. Time for the FCC to step in and do something about this.
how do you feel about people like other posters here that use adblock where they visit your website and your ads can't even be seen because they are blocking them? Imagine your income if 100% of your visitors were using adblock? |
|
clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| reply to BF69
There will always be people who block ads. Those who are savvy will figure out ways to do it, whether it is web sites or television channels.
The number of people who do block ads is an important metric because it indicates the obtrusiveness of the ads being displayed. As ads become annoying (and let's face it, marketers know no bounds in this category), more people will install ad blockers. As the number of ads increases, more people will resort to ad blocking.
As far as the other post, it is no one's business whether or not his daughter has her own account. That's not addressing the problem and that is there is a likelihood that this wonderful "targeting" technology will still be sending inappropriate ads. And while Nebuad has taken great pains to stop abuse and mis-targets, if Nebuad is successful, there will be others. And they will likely be run by misfits like Sanford Wallace or Phillip Kaplan.
This deep inspection of packets shows a total disregard for customers. The opt-out process is wholly inadequate. |
|
airhead
@bellsouth.net
| reply to BF69
ad-blocking is done at the individual level, i.e. each person does it. It's akin to people hitting that pause on the tv, then skipping over the commercial. Before the DVR pause, someone could have just recorded tv on tape, then fast-forward over the commercials. There's really nothing a content-provider can do about that.
But this is a bigger deal. This is a company sitting between the provider and consumers, replacing ads (if that is actually what is happening... perhaps everyone is reading a marketing statement as a legal statement... no offense, but salesmen generally aren't as high on the logical-reasoning meter as lawyers and engineers...)
If allowed, then all ISPs will eventually follow suit. Why wouldn't they? It's like free easy money just sitting there on the table. And the end effect? ... will have to think more... but at first, I would guess I'm looking at another 10k/year for SSL certs to put on all my sites... ugh |
|
haplo2112
join:2003-05-12
Charlton, MA
| reply to BF69
I'm not opposed to ads embedded unobtrusively into websites, what I am talking about is the pop-up ads, the pop-under ads, the ones that you get redirected to while yo are on the site or before you can even enter, that crap.
Everyone deserves to make money, my ISP makes it from the cash I pay for my connection, except for on their own portal page they should not be in the ad business.
The part about the kids is an extreme, but relevant example. In my case our only child isn't old enough yet to even do much more than stare at the monitor. Eventually she will have her own computer and not even be allowed into the room in the basement where my computer and network equipment is kept for quite sometime. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to clickie
said by clickie  :There will always be people who block ads. Those who are savvy will figure out ways to do it, whether it is web sites or television channels. The number of people who do block ads is an important metric because it indicates the obtrusiveness of the ads being displayed. As ads become annoying (and let's face it, marketers know no bounds in this category), more people will install ad blockers. As the number of ads increases, more people will resort to ad blocking. No it's an indication of a worsening welfare attitude where everything is supposed to be giving for free with ZERO expectations. I'm not sure if there's a way for websites to detect if someone is using adblock but if there was I would use it if I was relying my income on advertising. That person is just wasting my bandwidth. Why should I allow him on my site? Charter replacing ads that would make me money with their own is just as bad. Both would be stealing food off my table.
Most websites are not run by big corporations. People have a cow if GM or some other big corporation lays off 10,000 workers. If everyone blocked ads the number of people that would lose income would dwarf that number. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to haplo2112
said by haplo2112 :I'm not opposed to ads embedded unobtrusively into websites, what I am talking about is the pop-up ads, the pop-under ads, the ones that you get redirected to while yo are on the site or before you can even enter, that crap. Unfortunately adblock blocks the "unobtrusive" ads. And frankly if you don't like the ads on a site because they are obtrusiive then don't go to that site anymore. Sure I run into a lot of sites that I think have ads that bother the hell out of me. I don't go using adblock and still visit that site. I stop visiting that site. |
|
airhead
join:2008-05-14
Acworth, GA
1 edit | When considering the ad-block topic, there is a variance in the user-base, which is why it's not completely destroying ad-based websites. Sure, if 100% of all users blocked ads, a lot of content would disappear. Just like tv. If EVERYONE had a dvr, watched shows 15 minutes plus after the download, and clicked that forward-30-second button over the commercials, the entire tv network system would collapse (or find another way to survive).
That's not what is going on here (if we are reading it correctly). This is just plain THEFT. Comcast, by simply being a part of the pipeline, is STEALING ad-space, apparently replacing ads in the content. And if not replacing, adding to all existing content, thus diluting the original content.
Imagine UPS selling advertising to companies, then taking their stickers and putting them on the boxes they deliver to you. That's what this is like... crazy.
EDIT: I thought about this more... let me rephrase. UPS selling ads, then putting the stickers on the box they deliver, would be like Comcast sticking a section on every page that displays Comcast ADs to their users. This latest act by Comcast is worse than that, if they are REPLACING ads on sites. That's akin to UPS opening up every box, taking out any additional ads contained in the delivered product, and replacing that with their own. It's out-right STEALING... no other way to describe it. |
|
haplo2112
join:2003-05-12
Charlton, MA
2 edits | reply to BF69
Often you have no choice, and what about that first visit, when you don't know what crap they are going to toss up!
What about when I am at work and I follow a link from google that promises to have the solution to a technical problem we are having. However that site is run, but some idiot that thinks sponsoring his site with NSFW content is the way to go...nope ad blocking is definitely required.
If one's revenue stream is ads on a web site they need to get a better revenue stream anyway.
ed: One of my thoughts wandered off there, corrected... |
|
airhead
join:2008-05-14
Acworth, GA
1 edit | Regarding BF69 vs haplo2112....
C'mon guys... what's up with the ridiculous statements?
No BF69, it is not wrong for individuals to block ads/commercials, and any plea to have the whole world accept ads to keep the system running is so not going to happen, why even suggest that? There is VARIANCE in the user-base. For every person that blocks ads, there are 10+ that don't.
And haplo2112... i get revenue from ads on websites. Unobtrusive of course, (i hate those as well). Just simple little google ads here and there. And as long as there are potential competitors like you who think it's a bad way to make money, the longer I will continue to make money doing it. thanks.
But this is broad-based theft going on here. It's UPS opening up our packages, seeing what we are buying, recording that to send us unsolicited ads for more, as well as flat out removing any existing ads in the box, to replace with their own. All after you have already paid them to have the package delivered. crazy! |
|
haplo2112
join:2003-05-12
Charlton, MA | Uh, actually I have no problem what so ever with google ads. |
|
airhead
join:2008-05-14
Acworth, GA
1 edit | @haplo2112, then we are the same. I hate that obtrusive stuff, use adblocker for them myself, and never use them on my sites. But if the entire world blocked all ads (obtrusive and unobtrusive) all the time, then the 'free' content would of course disappear. There's a balance somewhere.
Allowing companies in between the producer and consumer to spy and tack on additional ads, perhaps even replacing existing ads... that's just mind-blowing crazy sounding to me. And something the 'community' can do something about imo. |
|
haplo2112
join:2003-05-12
Charlton, MA
| In fact in general I have no problem with ads of any kind that are built to the page, by the page owner. I have developed such pages myself. I use many web sites that have such ads everyday (slashdot, arstechnica, and many others) and in fact have even bought stuff from sites linked from those ads (newegg, thinkgeek). They are there they don't get in my face, they were put there because they have an ad relationship with the site owners, no problem.
As an aside I remember before slashdot went all corporate and it didn't have ads, but hell I got used to them.
I have a problem with the in your face bring up extra windows, get in the way of the site content, and affect functionality type of ads. I have issues with anything that tracks what I am doing. In fact, I find google's index and track the world mind set somewhat disturbing, but to use their other services I put up with it so far...at this time form some strange reason I am willing to trust them.
I am NOT willing to trust Charter. Give me bits and leave me the hell along after that, that is the extent of our relationship. |
|
airhead
join:2008-05-14
Acworth, GA
| (down with obtrusive ads, agreed).
I went back and read the original Charter posting. Notice they never actually say they are going to replace ads with their own. They have a q-a like:
Q: Will I see more ads now than I used to see?
A: no.
Now to a reasoning person, that would imply replacement. But sales people many times think differently. It's feel-good vs feel-bad, not true/false that matters.
Notice that the following question does not appear:
Q: Will you be replacing paid advertising from the site being viewed with ads of your own?
A: ?
If they said yes, all hell would break loose (from the site provider side). If they said no, they would get flooded with questions from the reasoning portion of the population about how their statements make no sense.
So like many early in this thread were indicating, maybe they are actually going to do something different than what would reasonably be deduced from reading their statements? lol |
|
haplo2112
join:2003-05-12
Charlton, MA
1 edit | I think we have gotten a little off course in the discussion. Ads I personally don't care about I like most others that care have the tech to deal with those and make them go away. Its the tracking I take issue with and their opt-out isn't really an OPT-OUT. From everything that is indicated, and pretty much from a common sense view of how they intend to do the opt-out, it seems that yes you can opt-out, but your only opting-out of the ads...NOT the tracking, your privacy is still being violated.
I want to OPT-OUT of the whole damned thing. DO NOT analyze my traffic, do not keep track of where I have been and what I do on the web. |
|
clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| reply to BF69
Your argument that there is a worsening attitude is invalid. For decades people have used commercial breaks on television as an opportunity to grab a snack or take a bathroom break. They were, effectively, blocking the advertisement.
Since this has been happening for decades, there can not be a worsening attitude.
I understand your point, believe me, I *really* understand your point because I work in an business with a revenue stream that is 100% advertising supported.
Advertising supported content is a quid pro quo concept; the viewer gets free content/entertainment in exchange for slices of their time for advertisers. Unfortunately, when advertisers try to tip the equation more into their favor, by running more advertisements (commercials per hour), more obtrusive advertisements (loud commercials, pop-overs, pop-unders, flash ads, ads with annoying blinking colors), the viewer rebels. It's happened on broadcast TV with VCRs and Tivo, and it's happened on the web with pop-up and adblockers.
The solution is *not* becoming more onerous in the marketing equation by taking even more ad time and space and making more offensive and intrusive.
Now, as far as Charter stealing ad space from web sites, that's bunk. It's untrue. There have been numerous reports since this story broke that state Charter is using Nebuad and Nebuad is using data collection to be used for ad syndicators. Read it on Wired, read the past articles on DSLReports about Nebuad. They don't replace ads, they ostensibly make the ads more targeted.
With that said, I still don't want to be tracked via DPI. It's none of these people's business just like it's none of Doubleclick's business what sites I visit. What Charter and Nebuad is doing is going around my own privacy practices and essentially assigning me a cookie that I can never, ever delete because it's not on my computer. And if I want to opt out of this nonsense, I still get tracked, I just have to keep their cookie handy to not have that data used to serve me ads. Which helps people like Doubleclick, who wishes we never delete cookies; ee Nebuad's CEO lamenting about cookie deletion on a previous DSLreports article. |
|
Bad charter
@rcn.com
| reply to cjhorh
How does one go about removing (opt-out) from other devices such as Xbox, Playstation, AppleTV, TiVo, etc.? They don't accept cookies in the traditional way. Opt-out should be done at the device level, such as their cable-modem not individual computer accounts ! (they have the MAC addresses of the cable modems in their database and all traffic goes through it - they could place opt-out users on a different IP range).
I know I don't get ads with the above devices, but would not like profiling information to be used. Then you get junk email and/or postal mail from other parties based on the information they supply to others.
I see it coming, network traffic issues when that system fails to inject an ad, the web page stalls (some ads do that).
Opt-out systems always fail. Information gets leaked eventually, perhaps in the future someone discovers a copy of database of logs. |
|
no good charter
@rcn.com
| reply to cjhorh
Will someone buy Charter Communications, please ?
Run them out of your town if possible.
Choose a different provider if possible.
They are desperate now with "user profiling" and "advertisement injections".
It is only a matter of time.
Hopefully they will go bankrupt soon and perhaps someone can pick them up for pennies on the dollar. |
|
noesis
join:2008-05-14
| reply to clickie
I concur,
NebuAd likely is providing some big advertisers such as ValueClick with some form of the information they gather on our internet activity so the existing ad space is more tailored to our perceived interests.
The idea that other firms ads would actually be replaced is very naive due to the legal implications.
The information being gathered is so valuable to advertisers that ISPs are being paid to install this equipment on their network so their users internet activity can be data-mined.
This is indeed a very serious invasion of privacy as these firms CAN NOT be trusted with the information they are being provided;
so we must make it clear that this kind of behavior by our ISPs will NOT be tolerated. |
|
clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| It really needs to be brought to the attention of the FCC and Congress that this is an outrage.
The problem is that I think all ISPs are doing it to some degree. And if the ISPs want to use lower prices as an incentive, then fine, I'll opt out. I'll replace the $5 they reportedly get per month out of my pocket and those that want to save it, can be tracked.
But to unilaterally track all customers is heavy handed, and there needs to be laws against it.
When Charter adds it to Michigan, they're done here. They'll lose all my business. |
|
