I understand your fears, but really this is ye old security by obscurity argument plus PBX's are not main exchanges.
A home/smb PBX still has to connect to a main secure backbone exchange and as far as I remember they should validate your allocated range of callerID numbers or simply only allow a single switchboard callerID to be sent out.
ISP's and Telecom's companies like cut deals and flog "authorized/validated/authenticate" hardware, but really that is more about signals strengths and kick backs than a secure box. User premises equipment must be assumed to be inherently hackable - end of story. The server/exchange side interface (ie. trusted telephone exchange) is where hacks are supposed to be caught.
Sure in theory you could spoof the exact callerID within your range, but you can argue any 3rd party home PBX system could be capable of that. At least if the source is open, there is more change of reviewing whether it is definitively possible or not, before or after an incident. With closed systems, you are completely trusting the vendor and even with court action it would be hard if not impossible to get access to their source to prove it either way.
What your home/smb does with its local PBX side is its own biz and you have to trust that yourself, just as you had to blindly trust some 3rd party PBX manufacturer of the past.
I think you had the right idea by having an ad-free option, but I really think its not done in a way that works for all parties.
Its true what some other comment said, its your loyal visitors that really bring you the revenue, cause they spread the word.
They gave you free advertising, cause you must have had something to offer in the first place.
So if you *know* it pissed off most of your loyal regular customers, why insult them further with a fee.
What I came to learn, rather recently in fact, is that many people actually like (or at least don't mind) ads. Who knew !:)
Some just love the lucky dip of ads. But on the flip side, sites seem to think that is a good excuse to neglect the wishes of many other regular visitors.
Things have changed since the output only medium of free-to-air TV and radio, where they had no choice but to blindly push ads equally to all content viewers.
Along came talk-back radio, allowing the interaction with their listeners/customers to actually be the content and to reach a wider audience and better target their ads.
Now with the internet, we have reasonably high interactivity. At least the ability of real time choice of content.
But nearly all sites are still hanging on to the old mentality of forcing all customers to view ads.
To be blunt, IMO its mainly out of fear and greed. Fear of not sustaining business in another manner and greed for thinking they can milk it without concern for others.
Google leads the way in non-obtrusive, targeted ads that shows that a better ad harmony is a popular option.
Conversely, Flash is being touted by advertisers and some web-devs as some kind of savour for site owners cause they will be able to totally control their content.
Content really meaning "forced ads". I am not a Flash expert, but I see more and more full flash websites. Its an impressive platform in many ways.
The flash binary client engine won't allow end users to filter anything (at a browser level AFAIK).
Unfortunately, the bottom line is that the majority of sites can not be trusted to keep the ad levels at a happy level, or we wouldn't be talking about this already:)
Yeah its easy to say, just don't visit that site, but lets not bury our heads in the sand about this and be a bit more symbiotic about this.
If sites can't keep their advertising to Google'esk levels, then this is my simple suggestion:
By default ALL/MOST advertising is OFF. Yes OFF ! The page header can have a SWITCH button that simply toggles ads on/off.
Turning ads on could be promoted by saying "Please support our site by allowing free ads" or "Lots of great products with ads on" or whatever.
Something that respects the visitors choice and plays on their curiosity or loyalty.
Ads can be loaded into sidebar (best), interlaced in content, whatever.
Your average user would have cookies turned on. Its a safe bet that the ones that have issues with cookies are mostly likely the ones not interested in your ads anyway, so you'd keep them happy with no ads (don't forget they are the content lovers who prob spread the word about your site).
Forced-Ad haters and first time visitors get to your content quick. Sites don't waste bandwidth on Ad haters, and visa versa. Most importantly, visitors respect your site's attitude towards their wishes/needs. If ads interest them in any way, and its simple to do, more than likely they'll turn em on. Curiosity and allegiance are as strong traits as frustration and defiance, which is building in end users.
Well I for one am glad these masterminds put that little theory to rest.
Who would have thought all these ad bombardments and flickering scene changes would have caused attention problems or difficulty in relating to boring real life.
I am shocked I tell you, shocked !
Next it will be jingles are catchy and ads are only there to sell us stuff. mmmmmmm
Slashdot Mirror
A home/smb PBX still has to connect to a main secure backbone exchange and as far as I remember they should validate your allocated range of callerID numbers or simply only allow a single switchboard callerID to be sent out. ISP's and Telecom's companies like cut deals and flog "authorized/validated/authenticate" hardware, but really that is more about signals strengths and kick backs than a secure box. User premises equipment must be assumed to be inherently hackable - end of story. The server/exchange side interface (ie. trusted telephone exchange) is where hacks are supposed to be caught.
Sure in theory you could spoof the exact callerID within your range, but you can argue any 3rd party home PBX system could be capable of that. At least if the source is open, there is more change of reviewing whether it is definitively possible or not, before or after an incident. With closed systems, you are completely trusting the vendor and even with court action it would be hard if not impossible to get access to their source to prove it either way.
What your home/smb does with its local PBX side is its own biz and you have to trust that yourself, just as you had to blindly trust some 3rd party PBX manufacturer of the past.
Its true what some other comment said, its your loyal visitors that really bring you the revenue, cause they spread the word. They gave you free advertising, cause you must have had something to offer in the first place. So if you *know* it pissed off most of your loyal regular customers, why insult them further with a fee.
What I came to learn, rather recently in fact, is that many people actually like (or at least don't mind) ads. Who knew ! :)
Some just love the lucky dip of ads. But on the flip side, sites seem to think that is a good excuse to neglect the wishes of many other regular visitors.
Things have changed since the output only medium of free-to-air TV and radio, where they had no choice but to blindly push ads equally to all content viewers. Along came talk-back radio, allowing the interaction with their listeners/customers to actually be the content and to reach a wider audience and better target their ads.
Now with the internet, we have reasonably high interactivity. At least the ability of real time choice of content. But nearly all sites are still hanging on to the old mentality of forcing all customers to view ads. To be blunt, IMO its mainly out of fear and greed. Fear of not sustaining business in another manner and greed for thinking they can milk it without concern for others.
Google leads the way in non-obtrusive, targeted ads that shows that a better ad harmony is a popular option.
Conversely, Flash is being touted by advertisers and some web-devs as some kind of savour for site owners cause they will be able to totally control their content. Content really meaning "forced ads". I am not a Flash expert, but I see more and more full flash websites. Its an impressive platform in many ways. The flash binary client engine won't allow end users to filter anything (at a browser level AFAIK).
Unfortunately, the bottom line is that the majority of sites can not be trusted to keep the ad levels at a happy level, or we wouldn't be talking about this already :)
Yeah its easy to say, just don't visit that site, but lets not bury our heads in the sand about this and be a bit more symbiotic about this.
If sites can't keep their advertising to Google'esk levels, then this is my simple suggestion:
By default ALL/MOST advertising is OFF. Yes OFF ! The page header can have a SWITCH button that simply toggles ads on/off. Turning ads on could be promoted by saying "Please support our site by allowing free ads" or "Lots of great products with ads on" or whatever. Something that respects the visitors choice and plays on their curiosity or loyalty. Ads can be loaded into sidebar (best), interlaced in content, whatever.
Your average user would have cookies turned on. Its a safe bet that the ones that have issues with cookies are mostly likely the ones not interested in your ads anyway, so you'd keep them happy with no ads (don't forget they are the content lovers who prob spread the word about your site).
Forced-Ad haters and first time visitors get to your content quick. Sites don't waste bandwidth on Ad haters, and visa versa. Most importantly, visitors respect your site's attitude towards their wishes/needs. If ads interest them in any way, and its simple to do, more than likely they'll turn em on. Curiosity and allegiance are as strong traits as frustration and defiance, which is building in end users.
and thats all I have to say about that :)
Well I for one am glad these masterminds put that little theory to rest. Who would have thought all these ad bombardments and flickering scene changes would have caused attention problems or difficulty in relating to boring real life. I am shocked I tell you, shocked !
Next it will be jingles are catchy and ads are only there to sell us stuff. mmmmmmm