[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by feesch

But Google Mail is doing just this, and where is the huge outcry? Facebook did just this with Beacon - and haven't pulled it, merely adapted it.

John, sorry, but it it is an advertising argument – and you telling me you can block all ads everywhere – you are having a laugh! Everything will have a digital connection – your Mobile, PC, TV, Outdoor – so pop-up blockers are going to have to get a lot more specific to block out all ads you are exposed to during your day…

I hear your frustration, and equally share it – but I also want you to see the much bigger picture (without negating any of your valid views)

Netscape floated in 1995 and started the dotcom rush. No-one could turn data into hard cash and hence dotcom crash. Google stood up with pay-per-click and turned the tide – and look at the superbrand they have become as result. And what happened to the ISPs – Like, where is Compuserve now?! AOL were forced to change their model too as people would not pay huge rates for accessing media/content online. Advertising was (as always) the basis for releasing content to the masses.

The internet was not designed to cope with huge volumes of video based content – and video is where the big money is. Big money to create and big money to distribute. Communication is an aspect of digital growth, entertainment content is the core desire – and hence why communication companies like BT, Sky and Virgin are becoming quad-play (communication, access, content, gaming).

Now BT Vision is about taking those media streams and making them dynamic and personally relevant. Dynamic advertising insertion that will be personable to the user is equally key as we all watch TV very different to how we did 40 years ago, which is when the TV model was born. We have more choice, which means harder for advertisers to lock-on to any person so broadcast TV is under threat as advertisers won’t pay as can no longer target based on viewing habits, users don’t want to pay BBC license fees, and as result no money coming in to create and distribute content – that is why they are looking for smarter alternatives, such as mobile phone in’s and crap reality programmes to create revenue to create decent TV programmes..

That is why they want Phorm - not just for 'website traffic' but to track what you are doing when you are communicating, surfing and watching TV content (hence Sky requirement of telephone line to supplement a receiver dish) and not only serve you relevant content from the plethora of channel choices out there now, but also to insert targeted and relevant ads into those TV streams, and as a result are happy to give away (eventually) free web access. (BT is planning on rolling out free wi-fi).

Google and Microsoft spent billions last year on acquiring ad technology for a reason. I know I work for their competitor. And all of us are in discussions not with website owners, but TV and mobile operators about how to maintain quality content that users want – and results show that people will choose ads over paying for content if given a choice.

Create demand, drop the price, fuel the masses… Look at iPhone G3 for a case in point. Its marketing.

So human rights, privacy issues are all thrown into this argument (and rightfully so I equally want to make sure these are given adequate consideration and why I personally went to a Parliament debate last month) but the bottom line is if you want to carry on watching TV – and Hi-Def TV – someone has to pay for it. So unless you have some clever argument of why you will pay thousands a year for internet access to cope with the video demands, and can prove others will do likewise, the only result is to look to advertising. No one likes crap or irrelevant ads, so how can web 3.0 create automated ways of doing just that? Welcome to the Phorm debate – as I said, it is DoubleClick cookies (content - web 1.0) and Facebook Beacon (communication - web 2.0) leading to Phorm (convergence – web 3.0).

So you think Phorm will die? Did DoubleClick when they were taken to court for tracking people in the 90’s – urrrmmm how much did Google pay for them last year?!

I have no huge answers, but you are not going to stop this (completely) as long as people want quality and relevant content – so surely will be better if we can think how can we ensure that there is an acceptable line for all parties that delivers relevance whilst maintaining (a degree) of anonymity?

Isn't that how we will win?

you are taking things out of context like phorm and BT

we all know we can't block ALL advertising , but we can serverly limit the amount we are exposed to as it is wasted screen space and bandwidth to most of us

the google pay per click argument is irrelevant as google only serve adverts on the own and affiliate sites the same with their tracking only works in those sites.

phorm spies on everything as it is imbedded in your (suposedly unmonitored) pipe to the net

we agree that there needs to be investment in core internet infrastructure by the ISP as the current infrastructure was not designed to handle the vast array of sevices, content and sheer volume it has to cope with these days.

but Talk Talk for instance offering a £299 laptop and reduced broadband line rental to try and get customers is not the way to generate the income required, the sums just do not add up, as we have said all along the likes of BE, Zen and co offer UK call centres, no gimicks, no discounts, no long term contracts and they make a reasonable profit and provide excellent quality of service so it can be done.

the likes of BT, VM and TT etc all try to lock you into multiple services on long contracts and have to realise poeple are getting wise to these smokescreens and tricks

as to privacy and how much you give up for a particular reason is a personal choice and should not be taken away from the individual by a company or government.

phorm is removing ALL PERSONAL PRIVACY as you can't bypass it other than leaving your ISP and hoping the new one does not get bought out by a phormette ISP

the ISP Partners of phorm need to completely change the model that phorm / BT Webwise is using, to give control of privacy back to the stakeholder / end user / client, but in doing this there will not be sufficient revenues for phorm to make a profit due to reduce data for them to sell (AAAWWWW SHAME)

and no we are all realistic on here and realise phorm will not die, but hopefully go away and return with a more acceptable product that does not remove a person basic right to privacy if they wish to have any.

peter

---------- Post added at 09:32 ---------- Previous post was at 09:24 ----------

Originally Posted by Graham M

Virus risk, how do you figure that? And it's only a security risk imo if you put your full address down

ok let me rephrase that as malware risk. there are numerous reports of social network pages being laced with malware, some adware, some trojans and a few viruses

and my 9 an 15 year old daughters are banned from them , due to the above policy and the fact only my wife and i are admins on the PC's in the house all the computers in my house are clean and only have had viruseprotection alerts on my own PC due to some of the websites i visit to research things for work


peter

---------- Post added at 09:41 ---------- Previous post was at 09:32 ----------

Originally Posted by feesch

Agreed! DO I agree with Police having access to little black boxes at ISP level, What about your boss monitoring what goes on via your exchange server? So you look at something online, against company rules, and you get sacked. How would that stand in court? That is generally the thrust of that argument.

Snip

I am answering your question to show their side, as opposed to endorsing methods, here.

again you are trying to blur facts and service

my employers content monitoring systems monitor me at work or when i connect to services via the VPN to our offices. this is totally different to monitoring EVERYTHING AS PHORM / BT WEBWISE does. to that is a totally irrelevant argument

also we have to agree to a monitoring policy as part of our employment contract, not have some change slipped into small print via a click on a website

and the content is not routinely monitored

this is relevant to the topic as it shows smoke and mirrors being deployed to try and confuse issues by pro-phorm community is not comparing like with like, to try and justify the spyware boxes ISP's and phorm are trying to foist on unsuspecting punters

peter