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

[dav]

If, as some are suggesting, targeted advertising is 'inevitable' then I would like to offer my own simple solution. Let me manage what ads I see. I'll willingly tell VM what sectors I wish to receive ads from. Supply me with a page on the selfcare pages with a load of tick-boxes that I can enable ads for cars, holidays, insurance etc. Over time, I'll change these as different things become more relevant to me. The big advantage with this is that I, the user, have been engaged, informed, given control and have not had my browsing redirected and my habits profiled.

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

With respect ISPs are turning a profit there are scores of ISPs out there who are "mature" companies and doing quite well. Yes they might want to make more profit but who doesn't? That doesn't mean it is ok either legally or morally to categorically invade people's privacy.

The biggest problems ISPs faces in the UK are almost entirely regulatory based. OFCOM have failed the country so often with regards to BT's control over the telephone network's infrastructure that is goes far beyond unacceptable. BT holding back ADSL as long as they could in order to monetise on the significant investment they made into their failed ISDN product didn't help matters either.

LLU has been made as difficult as possible by BT in order to try and keep their grip on the infrastructure and the cost of BT Wholesale products to the ISPs is a farce (made worse again by OFCOM).

However, BT will be having a bit of a shock soon because they simply cannot keep up. With use of the sewer systems to deliver high speed broadband coupled with LLU some of the larger industry members will soon be in a much stronger position to genuinely compete with BT not just through the provision of data products but also voice which until now has very much been BT's domain due to their control over PSTN.

Alexander Hanff

I don't disagree with any of that Alex. Although I think on the provision only area there are not so many doing as well as you might think. ( my wife is a senior finance director with ties to D&T and I see more reports than are made public )

Having said that I have not argued for the ISPs to be able to avoid any regulatory statutes or even be allowed to circumnavigate guidelines.

I'm totally with and behind you in this camp. I just think that some people need to accept that with our ISP ( NTL in the most part on this forum ) they have a huge debt, they are providing a service that is as of yet not a utility and that they can be expected to turn a profit. I'm all for making money, it's my reason for being. I'm all for others making money. I'm just not happy that companies like Phorm want to use me to make money when there are better options for me and the people I have contracts with that don't include a former spyware company that came so late to this market that they have had to jump into the poorer UK market because they are already squeezed out of the US market.

bottom line. Your response implied I thought that it was ok for companies to invade our privacy to make money and I'd like to make it clear that nowhere, in any of my replies, have you seen anything that hints to me believing that.

---------- Post added at 18:29 ---------- Previous post was at 18:25 ----------

Originally Posted by dav

If, as some are suggesting, targeted advertising is 'inevitable' then I would like to offer my own simple solution. Let me manage what ads I see. I'll willingly tell VM what sectors I wish to receive ads from. Supply me with a page on the selfcare pages with a load of tick-boxes that I can enable ads for cars, holidays, insurance etc. Over time, I'll change these as different things become more relevant to me. The big advantage with this is that I, the user, have been engaged, informed, given control and have not had my browsing redirected and my habits profiled.

I'm with you on that. Give me choice to be involved either fully or allow manageable ways to be involved partially but also give me the option to be fully uninvolved if this is my wish. Find a solution that does not mean you break UK law to use my data to achieve these ends then I'll just carry on as I do, seeing no adverts and not worrying that my data is being profiled for profit ( I don't care if it's profiled for security. I really don't and it annoys me that some people do for no other reason than they like the sound of their own complaining )

[ceedee]

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

I think it is inevitable that targeted ads will come ( as they already do on TV )
I don't actually have a problem with that ( as said above ). There just has to be a legal and acceptable ( to all parties ) way of doing it.

Advertising is the biggest industry in the world, one of few still growing and targeting your customer precisely with items relevant to him is the number 1 factor in being a success. It's not even something to be scared of if we as consumers are given a little more respect than has previously happened.

The really big money is waiting to be able to deliver ads to your mobile phone targeted on your location -- tracked either by gps or by mast triangulation!
(I suspect this is why Google are investing heavily in developing and promoting the Android mobile OS -- the worldwide mobile ad market is expected to dwarf even tv advertising in coming years.)

If this gets packaged properly so that it's useful for the user (try searching for pizza on Google Maps, for instance, or train station) and helps the mobile telco to keep prices falling, then that's fine by me.

But selling my number and frequent visited locations to the highest bidder (like Phorm) would be unacceptable and I'd transfer my mobile to avoid it.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

Your response implied I thought that it was ok for companies to invade our privacy to make money and I'd like to make it clear that nowhere, in any of my replies, have you seen anything that hints to me believing that.

No of course not, that wasn't the intent of my reply at all, it was a merely a point of reference relevant to the discussion.

The problem the large ISPs have is in their acquisitions. By constantly swallowing the competition in order to try and take more market share and take advantage of economies of scale but failing to invest significantly in their infrastructure, they have been their own worst enemy.

Many ISPs offer BT Wholesale and LLU products at a competing price range and even those who are a little more expensive have very loyal followings. Customer churn is far more common in big name ISPs than it is in the smaller more client orientated ISPs such as Zen and ENTA Resellers. They don't engage in price wars, they sell an honest product at an honest price that people are prepared to pay and as a result they do ok.

The whole sewer system debate which is ongoing at the moment could be a huge step towards bringing this country up to speed with Europe and Scandinavia on broadband delivery and at a comparable price. Also 4G is in the wings and 3G is already looking like a popular alternative to traditional wired broadband especially with new pricing models which have become available in the last couple of months.

Competition breeds innovation so hopefully ISPs and the public have good prospects for the future.

Alexander Hanff

[Bonglet]

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

Regardless of the fact that we pay more the hard truth is that we do not pay enough to allow the providers to make a profit and if you think that you have the right to take services without the provider making his end then you are naive.
If I built your house for you and after I gave you the price you then demanded that I still provide the house at that price despite the fact that you have added way more content to the design than the scope of the budget can manage would you still expect me to work at a loss? ( think torrent files )

I know it's a poor analogy but it is the area in which my business operates and one that makes sense to me.

Isp's are making a profit belive it or not, and i never said for one moment isp's shouldnt make a profit, if an isp thinks they need a better profit as with many they increase prices yes? not throw some illegal data mining operation with features of Targeted (lol) advertising and bigger lol phising.

If i supplied you a budget for a house and you built the house with inferior materials to do it and between certain hours of the day i'd have to redesign your house by pulling the odd wall down for a period of hours a day or leave you with no bathroom till the end of the month (as in aup but thats another subject) would this be a fair reflection on the price you paid for the house? or could you just stay honest and increase your budget to pay for this instead of mis-selling.

Im off to the retarded paranoia school again for a while to chat to like minded people and leave the more well informed and more educated people to spin how advertising rocks and forget about the real issue.

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by ceedee

The really big money is waiting to be able to deliver ads to your mobile phone targeted on your location -- tracked either by gps or by mast triangulation!
(I suspect this is why Google are investing heavily in developing and promoting the Android mobile OS -- the worldwide mobile ad market is expected to dwarf even tv advertising in coming years.)

If this gets packaged properly so that it's useful for the user (try searching for pizza on Google Maps, for instance, or train station) and helps the mobile telco to keep prices falling, then that's fine by me.

But selling my number and frequent visited locations to the highest bidder (like Phorm) would be unacceptable and I'd transfer my mobile to avoid it.

Indeed. There is already a company ( forgive my vagueness, I'll look it up after I type ) who are offering UK students free mobile phones and free minutes in exchange for nothing more than accepting texts from advertisers.
That again is acceptable to me, there is a clear benefit for all parties and there is choice. ( take it or leave it )

I'm with O2 and I get a few texts from them regarding 02Active content that I have no interest in. ( if they had any kind of profiling they would realise that I'm 42 years old and use an XDA exec and might think why on earth I would want ringtone downloads of the latest snoop diggity dong and wallpapers of rough girls younger than my daughter and then discontinue that spam) but to be honest I see less than 3 a month.

Advertising can't be fought, it is the reason we have so much product and choice these days. Regulation is the only way to keep advertisers in line and we have to maintain pressure to see that advertisers stay on side.

---------- Post added at 18:50 ---------- Previous post was at 18:42 ----------

Originally Posted by Bonglet

Isp's are making a profit belive it or not, and i never said for one moment isp's shouldnt make a profit, if an isp thinks they need a better profit as with many they increase prices yes? not throw some illegal data mining operation with features of Targeted (lol) advertising and bigger lol phising.

If i supplied you a budget for a house and you built the house with inferior materials to do it and between certain hours of the day i'd have to redesign your house by pulling the odd wall down for a period of hours a day or leave you with no bathroom till the end of the month (as in aup but thats another subject) would this be a fair reflection on the price you paid for the house? or could you just stay honest and increase your budget to pay for this instead of mis-selling.

Im off to the retarded paranoia school again for a while to chat to like minded people and leave the more well informed and more educated people to spin how advertising rocks and forget about the real issue.

That's just silly and a poorly aimed personal attack.

If you have financial reports for the ISPs showing the profit then please show me that in the single area of direct service provision NTL are making a profit. I know they are not and it is this company i'm talking of.

And again, you imply that because I accept advertising as inevitable that I also accept that malpractice is acceptable. That again is insulting.

I'm not getting into the house analogy now because it strays too much from the debate and what you have said actually has no relevance to my original comment.

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

... Cut

BT holding back ADSL as long as they could in order to monetise on the significant investment they made into their failed ISDN product didn't help matters either.

LLU has been made as difficult as possible by BT in order to try and keep their grip on the infrastructure and the cost of BT Wholesale products to the ISPs is a farce (made worse again by OFCOM).
...Cut

Alexander Hanff

Slightly off subject but..

Although I am not a BT lover, in a small defence, years ago BT (When they had a hat of respectability on) were for years prevented into going into the optical cable / TV business by Oftel to actively promote other competition (competition never really came).

During those years BT had wads of money to spend and had they been allowed to go into the cable business, we would all be on a full Optical cable connection now and we could have had a 1st world telecommunications / TV system now.

I blame Maggie T. for that one. We should have let them invest in the infrastructure and then perhaps unbundle, but that would have left less money for the investors. Oftel then was controlled then by the politicians of the day, just like their successor OFCOM, which I agree with you, makes a mess of everything.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by warescouse

Slightly off subject but..

Although I am not a BT lover, in a small defence, years ago BT (When they had a hat of respectability on) were for years prevented into going into the optical cable / TV business by Oftel to actively promote other competition (competition never really came).

During those years BT had wads of money to spend and had they been allowed to go into the cable business, we would all be on a full Optical cable connection now and we could have had a 1st world telecommunications / TV system now.

I blame Maggie T. for that one. We should have let them invest in the infrastructure and then perhaps unbundle, but that would have left less money for the investors. Oftel then was controlled then by the politicians of the day, just like their successor OFCOM, which I agree with you, makes a mess of everything.

I agree completely I class OFCOM and OFTEL as one in the same which is why I said the problems in the broadband industry in the UK are primarily regulatory based.

Alexander Hanff

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

I disagree. I think it is inevitable that targeted ads will come ( as they already do on TV )

Advertising on TV is not targeting to you it is targeted to a demographic that fits the channel, just like current web advertising targets the demographic that visits the site not you personally.

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Advertising on TV is not targeting to you it is targeted to a demographic that fits the channel, just like current web advertising targets the demographic that visits the site not you personally.

Well yes but it is still targeted. and I think that is all I said.
It is a growing market and as more of us use digital TV it will be easier to compile viewing habits to better provide adverts targeted at programme breaks but more specifically at the viewer of those programmes.

http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/80...ad-break-peak/

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

Well yes but it is still targeted. and I think that is all I said.
It is a growing market and as more of us use digital TV it will be easier to compile viewing habits to better provide adverts targeted at programme breaks but more specifically at the viewer of those programmes.

http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/80...ad-break-peak/

Indeed... when it is TV on demand they will know you are watching a load of DIY or House Makeover programmes... they will show more relevant ads at your home. Same as this Phorm/Webwise really?

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Advertising on TV is not targeting to you it is targeted to a demographic that fits the channel, just like current web advertising targets the demographic that visits the site not you personally.

Totally agree and if the advertising annoys me I can switch channels to another demographic. With targeted advertising like Phorm (even if it was legal), the demographic adverts would hound me regardless of which channel (or website) I switch to and other users of my PC could get my demographic fit.

So in reality target advertising claims are a bit misleading and to also infer that they are somehow 'better' for you is also misleading?

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by warescouse

Totally agree and if the advertising annoys me I can switch channels to another demographic. With targeted advertising like Phorm (even if it was legal), the demographic adverts would hound me regardless of which channel (or website) I switch to and other users of my PC could get my demographic fit.

So in reality target advertising claims are a bit misleading and to also infer that they are somehow 'better' for you is also misleading?

claims that anything, in this case targeted advertising, is better than something else as always reverts to nothing more than a personal opinion unless backed up by a spot of science or at least some acceptable collected data.

It can only be misleading if you, as the recipient of these opinions choose to accept it as fact rather than collect information in that area yourself so as to evaluate as much data as possible and form your own opinion. Which again, is only your opinion but given some diligence on your part it could at least be called an informed opinion.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

That's not quite true.
We may pay more than other EU countries but we do that for almost all consumer products in the UK. This has much to do with out unwillingness to enter the EU monetary markets as a partner rather than an objector as it does to do with individual business practices.

This is true but since I moved to my new ISP I pay less for my BB but have to add the line rental in. This is worth every penny to be free of phorm.

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

Regardless of the fact that we pay more the hard truth is that we do not pay enough to allow the providers to make a profit and if you think that you have the right to take services without the provider making his end then you are naive.

Well to take this the right way NTL did start to make a profit then the bean counters took chare large bonuses were paid to high fat cats and staff laid off where they were needed instead of laying of a fat cat or two,

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

Indeed. There is already a company ( forgive my vagueness, I'll look it up after I type ) who are offering UK students free mobile phones and free minutes in exchange for nothing more than accepting texts from advertisers.
That again is acceptable to me, there is a clear benefit for all parties and there is choice. ( take it or leave it )

The students have something for allowing this unlike what is on the table here plus unlike the internet the person is not being searched, profiled etc.

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

Advertising can't be fought, it is the reason we have so much product and choice these days. Regulation is the only way to keep advertisers in line and we have to maintain pressure to see that advertisers stay on side.

Advertising can be fought when it will be at the expense of freedom to see all advertising. The adverts you would get would be only the ones on their platform these might not be the best deals on the internet and no doubt phorm will block your access to see the best deal if it wasn't in their portfolio.

I block all adverts unless I am actually looking for something then I am willing to look, I do not pay for internet access to be treated like TV and forced to watch adverts to fund my connection. ITV showmore adverts than most channels but to watch the programs on ITV are free.

Will I get free internet to allow them to profile me for adverts?

Originally Posted by warescouse

Totally agree and if the advertising annoys me I can switch channels to another demographic.

Yeah, you can NOW, but TV will be a data stream like web and it will be to your house and you will be profiled by the programmes watched in your house and your ads will be targeted more specifically to you, not just on the channel. Therefore the channel will not sell the space (or they might... but your provider could inject their adverts instead... sounding familiar?)

Maybe not yet, but it'll come unless (and I think Alexander said this) - unless the Government get their act together now and deal with the privacy issues now and for the future.

Hank