Isn't that whole blog AGAINST network neutrality (regulation of the internet that prevents technologies like the ISP Ad insertion from being applied)?
quotes like this make me think so:
'Someone once said that a libertarian is a conservative who's just been arrested. Probably true. But in that same spirit, it will be interesting to hear how the net neutrality crowd describes one of its favorite bogeyman, deep-packet inspection, the next time it helps stop a major denial-of-service attack.'
deep packet inspection is a relative of the ad insertion technology.
I guess also that most would consider free services a good thing. Most free things on the net are supported by ads. Why can't Internet access be free? If you can make money (as an ISP) and give your service awy for free, you have on hell of an incentive to get your service anywhere you can. Free ad supported internet in airports and other public areas could actually work (vs. the crappy for fee stuff you have to signup for.).
Also I would rather have my ISP gain revenue by running ads on content than some other means they have at their disposal that cannot be detected by a script. At least this is not the secretive gathering of all web activity and selling it to the highest bidder. Many ISPs (and search) already do that. If I want privacy or unadulterated content I can use Tor or some other service. There is no privacy on the web anymore. There are too many ways to connect the dots. That fact will not change until there is widespread adoption of encryption and anonymization technologies for all transactions on the web.
I understand the first knee jerk reaction people have with the concept of ISPs sticking ads on content. Kind of a NIMBY thing. However if you think about it, people have been making money out of other people's content for a long time in the Internet. What's a search engine really but a way to generate ad revenue by organizing other people's content? This reminds me of when content providers were complaining that search engines' tactics of deep indexing their sites was allowing the users to bypass their home pages (where the ads were hosted).
I understand why ISPs are going to be moving in this direction. Just compare the market valuations of the big 'Internet' plays with those of the large ISPs. Why should Google's market cap. be 158.38B and Comcast's 88.20B? Google and other companies like it honestly have done very little but leech off of other people's content (Search, News, Groups, Images, Videos, etc.). Their business model is to provide ads. (content providers: where is the outrage here?). What type of company would you miss more if it were to disappear tomorrow (search engine vs last mile ISP)?
Comcast and the other providers in comparison have made a massive investment in infrastructure that they have to both innovate and maintain. Look at Verizon and FIOS as an example. Do you see Google spending B's to roll out fiber? To some degree they have been left out. They are are in an industry where their product has become a commodity where people make decisions largely based on price. These technologies give these companies an opportunity to change the nature of the game. Sure its greedy, that's capitalism, but its not evil. Nor is it illegal if done properly. Its an agreement between two parties, one the provider, the other the consumer who wants a FREE/cheap (cost) Internet. If you want 'free' Internet you are going to have to pay for it somehow. Either through the government through taxes, or though something like ads. Personally I prefer the ads, if I do not like them I can pay (time or $$) for the option to not have them.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that whole blog AGAINST network neutrality (regulation of the internet that prevents technologies like the ISP Ad insertion from being applied)? quotes like this make me think so: 'Someone once said that a libertarian is a conservative who's just been arrested. Probably true. But in that same spirit, it will be interesting to hear how the net neutrality crowd describes one of its favorite bogeyman, deep-packet inspection, the next time it helps stop a major denial-of-service attack.' deep packet inspection is a relative of the ad insertion technology.
I guess also that most would consider free services a good thing. Most free things on the net are supported by ads. Why can't Internet access be free? If you can make money (as an ISP) and give your service awy for free, you have on hell of an incentive to get your service anywhere you can. Free ad supported internet in airports and other public areas could actually work (vs. the crappy for fee stuff you have to signup for.).
Also I would rather have my ISP gain revenue by running ads on content than some other means they have at their disposal that cannot be detected by a script. At least this is not the secretive gathering of all web activity and selling it to the highest bidder. Many ISPs (and search) already do that. If I want privacy or unadulterated content I can use Tor or some other service. There is no privacy on the web anymore. There are too many ways to connect the dots. That fact will not change until there is widespread adoption of encryption and anonymization technologies for all transactions on the web.
I understand the first knee jerk reaction people have with the concept of ISPs sticking ads on content. Kind of a NIMBY thing. However if you think about it, people have been making money out of other people's content for a long time in the Internet. What's a search engine really but a way to generate ad revenue by organizing other people's content? This reminds me of when content providers were complaining that search engines' tactics of deep indexing their sites was allowing the users to bypass their home pages (where the ads were hosted). I understand why ISPs are going to be moving in this direction. Just compare the market valuations of the big 'Internet' plays with those of the large ISPs. Why should Google's market cap. be 158.38B and Comcast's 88.20B? Google and other companies like it honestly have done very little but leech off of other people's content (Search, News, Groups, Images, Videos, etc.). Their business model is to provide ads. (content providers: where is the outrage here?). What type of company would you miss more if it were to disappear tomorrow (search engine vs last mile ISP)? Comcast and the other providers in comparison have made a massive investment in infrastructure that they have to both innovate and maintain. Look at Verizon and FIOS as an example. Do you see Google spending B's to roll out fiber? To some degree they have been left out. They are are in an industry where their product has become a commodity where people make decisions largely based on price. These technologies give these companies an opportunity to change the nature of the game. Sure its greedy, that's capitalism, but its not evil. Nor is it illegal if done properly. Its an agreement between two parties, one the provider, the other the consumer who wants a FREE/cheap (cost) Internet. If you want 'free' Internet you are going to have to pay for it somehow. Either through the government through taxes, or though something like ads. Personally I prefer the ads, if I do not like them I can pay (time or $$) for the option to not have them.
Thats funny. It makes sense for the economist to devolve in to goblins, they are already halfway there.