Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

[mark777]

Originally Posted by R Jones

So if we link to the Phorm site from any of our own pages, we could make sure it is via the sponsored Google paid for link, and not the plain url, then everyone who goes there from OUR links will cost Phorm money - in fact, will transfer a little money from Phorm to their enemy google. It's a sort of reverse OIX - using google to cost phorm money as a little protest against the way they plan to use Webwise to take traffic and visitors away from our websites.

Any legal problem with that?

Just take a moment for anyone with website links set up to Phorm, to change them from phorm dot com to the sponsored link.

Anyone have any idea how much a 'click' is likely to cost Phorm?

[rryles]

Originally Posted by R Jones

So if we link to the Phorm site from any of our own pages, we could make sure it is via the sponsored Google paid for link, and not the plain url, then everyone who goes there from OUR links will cost Phorm money - in fact, will transfer a little money from Phorm to their enemy google. It's a sort of reverse OIX - using google to cost phorm money as a little protest against the way they plan to use Webwise to take traffic and visitors away from our websites.

Any legal problem with that?

Just take a moment for anyone with website links set up to Phorm, to change them from phorm dot com to the sponsored link.

I think there is a technical problem. Google have systems to prevent exactly that kind of activity. The referrer will be wrong and the link should change every time too.

I don't think that's a good route to go down ethically either.

[tarka]

Originally Posted by R Jones

So if we link to the Phorm site from any of our own pages, we could make sure it is via the sponsored Google paid for link, and not the plain url, then everyone who goes there from OUR links will cost Phorm money - in fact, will transfer a little money from Phorm to their enemy google. It's a sort of reverse OIX - using google to cost phorm money as a little protest against the way they plan to use Webwise to take traffic and visitors away from our websites.

Any legal problem with that?

Just take a moment for anyone with website links set up to Phorm, to change them from phorm dot com to the sponsored link.

I think that could well be classed as click fraud. Probably best not to go any further down that route.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_fraud

[lucevans]

Originally Posted by R Jones

So if we link to the Phorm site from any of our own pages, we could make sure it is via the sponsored Google paid for link, and not the plain url, then everyone who goes there from OUR links will cost Phorm money - in fact, will transfer a little money from Phorm to their enemy google. It's a sort of reverse OIX - using google to cost phorm money as a little protest against the way they plan to use Webwise to take traffic and visitors away from our websites.

Any legal problem with that?

Just take a moment for anyone with website links set up to Phorm, to change them from phorm dot com to the sponsored link.

I like it unfortunately, I think it doesn't serve our campaign to become as dishonest as Phorm

[madslug]

Originally Posted by R Jones

So if we link to the Phorm site from any of our own pages, we could make sure it is via the sponsored Google paid for link, and not the plain url, then everyone who goes there from OUR links will cost Phorm money - in fact, will transfer a little money from Phorm to their enemy google. It's a sort of reverse OIX - using google to cost phorm money as a little protest against the way they plan to use Webwise to take traffic and visitors away from our websites.

Any legal problem with that?

Just take a moment for anyone with website links set up to Phorm, to change them from phorm dot com to the sponsored link.

The phrase 'click fraud' comes to mind.

What would be perfectly legal, if they have included content in the ad options, is to write a page about 'phorm' without providing any links and then add AdSense to the page. The advantage being that you will then earn from any clicks if an ad for the phorm site appears. [There is also the option to exclude certain sites from the content option, so earnings may not last once the page is discovered.]

On the other hand, the OIX wants to help monetise sites which have been written for no other purpose than to earn money by make them attractive for displaying ads ...

[BetBlowWhistler]

Originally Posted by Deko

@betblow congratulations you just volunteered to update the wiki page with more info about the copyright issue :-)

Madslug has kindly pointed my blind old eyes at the link.

[/slopey shoulder]

I've never updated a wiki page before and I hesitate to start now. I hate computers.

[HamsterWheel]

Originally Posted by R Jones

So if we link to the Phorm site from any of our own pages, we could make sure it is via the sponsored Google paid for link, and not the plain url, then everyone who goes there from OUR links will cost Phorm money - in fact, will transfer a little money from Phorm to their enemy google. It's a sort of reverse OIX - using google to cost phorm money as a little protest against the way they plan to use Webwise to take traffic and visitors away from our websites.

Any legal problem with that?

Just take a moment for anyone with website links set up to Phorm, to change them from phorm dot com to the sponsored link.

The problem with that is that Phorm will not be paying on a per click basis, but via a periodoc fixed fee. Google has more than one way of charging, loads in fact. So you'll probably be wasting your time, and no doubt letting Google know what you're up to. But if you're happy to have them invading your privacy......

[icsys]

News stories continue to appear through the 'lesser' news channels.
Is Phorm getting to BT?

Market analyst Gartner even suggests that telco's should gain revenue from advertising and application services based on what they know about their customers.
Delcroix, a Gartner research vice-president, said the issue of customer profiling was overblown. "Telcos do not know as much about their customers as Google or FaceBook know about theirs," he said. Gartner called for regulators to allow telcos to compete on level terms with search and social network firms.

All these comparisons to Google, it has to make you wonder why although google says 'we are not phorm', they still imply that it frowns on the Phorm/NebuAd model - which does not require an opt-in.

Note to Google - Phorm technology does require an opt-in. This is because BT would need to get permission from their customers in order for the trial to take place.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

The problem with that is that Phorm will not be paying on a per click basis, but via a periodoc fixed fee. Google has more than one way of charging, loads in fact. So you'll probably be wasting your time, and no doubt letting Google know what you're up to. But if you're happy to have them invading your privacy......

Hammy to get the debate rolling since you love our company so much pray tell us a little more on how Phorm will protect my privacy. When all links show Phorm as being a company of may paths, mirror servers and most placed outside the EU?
How having an adserver based in China protects me from unanted invaision of my privacy?
How intercepting my browsing gives me a choice when the interception is ISP side?
Why if this is soo good you Haven't launched your own ISP with this as the main attraction for cheaper Internet surfing ?( This taken from words Kent has spoken no ISP has ever said they would lower prices for acepting this)
If a customer doesn't opt-in is the browsing still going to be intercepted?

Answer those without PR spin and we can have a meaningful debate.

[tarka]

Market analyst Gartner even suggests that telco's should gain revenue from advertising and application services based on what they know about their customers.

Telco's... short for telecommunications provider... not advertising provider.

[HamsterWheel]

Florence

When all links show Phorm as being a company of may paths, mirror servers and most placed outside the EU? THAT IS JUST EARLY SUPPOSITION - WAIT UNTIL WEBWISE IS PROPERLY LAUNCHED TO CONDEMN IT FOR THAT.
How having an adserver based in China protects me from unanted invaision of my privacy? AGAIN, JUST EARLY SUPPOSITION.
How intercepting my browsing gives me a choice when the interception is ISP side? WHO CLAIMED IT GAVE YOU A CHOICE ? YOU HAVE A CHOICE NOT TO USE IT.
Why if this is soo good you Haven't launched your own ISP with this as the main attraction for cheaper Internet surfing ?( This taken from words Kent has spoken no ISP has ever said they would lower prices for acepting this)
If a customer doesn't opt-in is the browsing still going to be intercepted? NOW YOU'RE BEING SILLY - HOW CAN I TAKE ON BT WHEN BT INVESTED BILLIONS ?

Answer those without PR spin and we can have a meaningful debate. I'M NOT A PR PERSON

PS, YOU'D COME ACROSS A LOT BETTER IF HALF OF YOUR POSTS DIDN'T HARP ON ABOUT BT'S BOSSES PAY. THAT IS A MATTER FOR THEIR SHAREHOLDERS - IF YOU'RE NOT ONE, THEN FRANKLY THAT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

Florence

When all links show Phorm as being a company of may paths, mirror servers and most placed outside the EU? THAT IS JUST EARLY SUPPOSITION - WAIT UNTIL WEBWISE IS PROPERLY LAUNCHED TO CONDEMN IT FOR THAT.
How having an adserver based in China protects me from unanted invaision of my privacy? AGAIN, JUST EARLY SUPPOSITION.
How intercepting my browsing gives me a choice when the interception is ISP side? WHO CLAIMED IT GAVE YOU A CHOICE ? YOU HAVE A CHOICE NOT TO USE IT.
Why if this is soo good you Haven't launched your own ISP with this as the main attraction for cheaper Internet surfing ?( This taken from words Kent has spoken no ISP has ever said they would lower prices for acepting this)
If a customer doesn't opt-in is the browsing still going to be intercepted? NOW YOU'RE BEING SILLY - HOW CAN I TAKE ON BT WHEN BT INVESTED BILLIONS ?

Answer those without PR spin and we can have a meaningful debate. I'M NOT A PR PERSON

PS, YOU'D COME ACROSS A LOT BETTER IF HALF OF YOUR POSTS DIDN'T HARP ON ABOUT BT'S BOSSES PAY. THAT IS A MATTER FOR THEIR SHAREHOLDERS - IF YOU'RE NOT ONE, THEN FRANKLY THAT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

Since the amount of control Shareholders have over this company is in doubt the amount the BT Execs are paid is partly relevant to this debate.

How about some facts, instead of more spin & rhetoric?

[Florence]

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

Florence

When all links show Phorm as being a company of may paths, mirror servers and most placed outside the EU? THAT IS JUST EARLY SUPPOSITION - WAIT UNTIL WEBWISE IS PROPERLY LAUNCHED TO CONDEMN IT FOR THAT.

This is not superstition this has been proved the domain names have jumped from IP to IP on more than one occasion.
Could you explain why webwise.bt.com was hosted in America for a while at planet?

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

How having an adserver based in China protects me from unanted invaision of my privacy? AGAIN, JUST EARLY SUPPOSITION.

This has been posted on a forum so I presume they had proof of this at some time has Phorm ever used an add server in China?

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

How intercepting my browsing gives me a choice when the interception is ISP side? WHO CLAIMED IT GAVE YOU A CHOICE ? YOU HAVE A CHOICE NOT TO USE IT.

Then you have to agree that Phorm on the ISP exchange is nothing like Google?
Since I can choose with Google to join and login or not plus visit other websites without Google monitoring me.

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

Why if this is soo good you Haven't launched your own ISP with this as the main attraction for cheaper Internet surfing ?( This taken from words Kent has spoken no ISP has ever said they would lower prices for acepting this)

Think you accidently dropped the answer down here Hammy to the one below. Many small ISPs take on BT and win them on Tech support, amount of monthly caps so add this your fantastic security you would be on a winner unless there is something missing.

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

If a customer doesn't opt-in is the browsing still going to be intercepted? NOW YOU'RE BEING SILLY - HOW CAN I TAKE ON BT WHEN BT INVESTED BILLIONS ?

What an interesting answer so if a customer doesn't opt-in there browsing will still be intercepted?

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

Answer those without PR spin and we can have a meaningful debate. I'M NOT A PR PERSON

Possibly not but the answers that have been posted all over the Internet for months have been nothing more than copy and paste from some PR information never answered the questions asked.

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

PS, YOU'D COME ACROSS A LOT BETTER IF HALF OF YOUR POSTS DIDN'T HARP ON ABOUT BT'S BOSSES PAY. THAT IS A MATTER FOR THEIR SHAREHOLDERS - IF YOU'RE NOT ONE, THEN FRANKLY THAT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

Must be your bad day as perhaps you haven't read all my posts I am one of the unfortunate shareholders that BT felt implementing Phorm by stealth even not informing shareholders about it.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

PS, YOU'D COME ACROSS A LOT BETTER IF HALF OF YOUR POSTS DIDN'T HARP ON ABOUT BT'S BOSSES PAY. THAT IS A MATTER FOR THEIR SHAREHOLDERS - IF YOU'RE NOT ONE, THEN FRANKLY THAT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

I think you'll find she is, and you look silly.

[HamsterWheel]

[QUOTE=SelfProtection;34619794]Since the amount of control Shareholders have over this company is in doubt the amount the BT Execs are paid is partly relevant to this debate.

QUOTE]

How is it in doubt ? They've just had their AGM where all the resolutions were passed with at least 90% support. A tiny 3% of voters voted against adopting the remuneration committee's report. 92% were in favour.
If Florence is a BT shareholder, she is in a tiny minority who don't agree with the bosses pay. If she doesn't like it, she can always sell her shares.