For any of us who recognize that personal privacy on the web is an illusion, the response to a Congressional inquiry asking how various ISPs and online portals target advertising and collect data will come as no surprise. Aside from the use of deep-packet inspection technology used by ISPs to insert advertising based on surfing habits, Congress discovered cookies and data retention policies. In a shocked tone, the Washington Post reported that Google is using DoubleClick’s tracking cookies to monitor where people go on the web in order to serve ads.
Is this really all that surprising? Wasn’t that one of the reasons Google paid $3.1 billion for DoubleClick? AOL also confessed to using tracking cookies and said relatively few (tens of thousands out of more than 100 million) users opted out of its targeted advertising program. Yahoo said it also uses behavioral ads but noted in its letter that it plans to announce the ability for consumers to opt out of such “customized ads.” It will still track users, though.
Looking beyond the major portals (excluding Microsoft, which hasn’t yet responded), the letters from the companies surveyed by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce turned up a few surprises such as Cable One, CenturyTel and Knowlogy using NebuAd’s deep-packet inspection technology in trials. I also noted that business providers such as Cbeyond, TW Telecom, and even large bandwidth providers Covad and XO Communications don’t use targeted advertising to their customers. Cablevision, Windstream, Comcast and Cox were the rare ISPs who aren’t using any real advertising efforts on their subscribers. Many providers did confess to typo squatting, however.
I’m not impressed by ISPs using invasive measures to track surfing habits to sell advertising, unless users are given some sort of price break and have a choice on whether they can opt-in. To me such tactics are undisclosed and give the consumer few outs if they don’t want to be tracked.
However, for free services, such as Google’s search engine or other web content providers, advertising is their lifeblood, and consumers (and Congress) should expect as much information tracking to take place as the portals can both devise and get away with. In the absence of regulatory protection and any other way of making money, it’s no surprise that advertising has become more invasive. Nothing in life is truly free.
For more on the topic check out these posts:
image courtesy of Congressman Ed Markey

The 700 MHz auction ended yesterday, and the $19.59 billion going to the Treasury looks like a lot until you realize the government’s total budget is $2.9 trillion. But now the waiting (and speculating) can begin. What will happen with the failed auction for the D block, which had been allocated for public safety? Who paid the $4.75 billion for the C block — Verizon, Google (not likely) or AT&T? What will an “open network” look like? As in life, the answer to one question often leads to many more.

The 700MHz auction kicks off today, and like kids waiting for Santa Claus, the technology and business publications are tense with anticipation. But FCC chairman Kevin Martin is keeping a lid on this auction, rather than post periodic updates as was done in the AWS auction in 2006.
While you wait to learn who gets the goods who gets a lump of coal, here’s a quick list of everything you need to know about the upcoming auction and why it matters. Check out all the links, because the bidding doesn’t conclude until March 24 and down payments aren’t due until April 11. You’ve got time.
And like childhood obesity, short attention spans and the general decline of Western Civilization, you can blame all of this controversy on television — the shift from analog to digital TV signals, to be exact.

Consider the recently unveiled “any app, any device” initiative by Verizon Wireless in the context of the company’s latest quarterly results.
The wireless unit of Verizon (VZ) reported year-over-year subscriber growth of 12 percent, but a mere 5 percent rise in voice revenues. Data revenue saved the day, surging 63 percent and lifting the company to 15 percent revenue growth overall. Data revenue per user increased 43 percent, while voice revenue per user declined 5 percent — pushing data to 20 percent of revenues from 14 percent.
The same report revealed a 10 percent decline in residential access lines. The voice business of Verizon Wireless, in other words, seems to have entered the same cycle of contraction suffered by Verizon’s wireline business in recent years. Joining the open access bandwagon promises to keep data revenues growing strongly, but CEO Lowell McAdam faces some mighty difficult choices as the 80:20 ratio of voice to data revenues reverses. The legacy pricing model incorporates price discrimination that will prove awkward to preserve.
Consider the lucrative SMS business of shipping 160 character messages for 10 cents each, or roughly $1,000 per megabyte. What happens when all devices cleanly incorporate instant messaging? “Any app, any device” means VoIP-capable devices that transparently support voice and web browsing via data plans. Why would someone pay Verizon an extra $40 per month for voice services? Any data plan that makes video affordable makes voice essentially free.
Does Verizon really have enough conviction to price without discrimination by application type? McAdam said pricing for the bring-your-own-device crowd will be “competitive” and “usage-based.” Even assuming other carriers follow Verizon’s lead to create competition, does “usage” refer to bit volume or application type?
“Any app, any device” sounds like it eliminates the long list of acceptable use prohibitions associated with existing data plans — quite a change of heart for the company. Verizon only recently settled a lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Cuomo for terminating the accounts of customers with so-called “unlimited” Internet plans for unwittingly violating the plans through activities such as downloading movies.
It may already be too late for Verizon to back away from the edge. Anything short of a fully open network, neutral to bit type, seems likely to turn the PR love fest into user backlash. In any case, no one expects Verizon to embrace the “faster, cheaper” mantra necessary to fully earn induction into the infocom future.
We can suspend our disbelief until the pricing details arrive in January, but the unintended consequences of the announcement likely represent the best hope for progress. Verizon’s vision of the future may not have changed much. It just gets easier to read the writing on the wall when your back is up against it.
For the past few months, Google CEO Eric Schmidt has hinted at every opportunity that Google (GOOG) will bid for the auction of the 700 MHz spectrum. So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that they issued a press release today and confirmed that they will bid on the so-called C-block of the 700 MHz spectrum.Big deal — because Google is not in it to win it. Like in an opening move in a game of high-stakes poker, Google will place an opening bet, but is unlikely to raise it.Google CEO Eric Schmidt in the press release said:
No matter which bidder ultimately prevails, the real winners of this auction are American consumers who likely will see more choices than ever before in how they access the Internet.
Excuse me, that ain’t the language of a winner. Chris Sacca, Google’s head of special initiatives, in a blog post continues this “consumer-a-winner” theme, though clearly if Google did win this one, it is the winner first, and maybe…just maybe consumers. [Paint me cynical, but I like this change-the-world-consumer-first drivel from presidential candidates, not from for-profit companies with lofty valuations to protect.]
As I had pointed out earlier, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin included some of the Google proposals as part of the rules for this auction, hoping that would attract Google to the bidding process, and help drive up the prices of the spectrum being auctioned.The other companies playing with some seriousness here are AT&T, Verizon and a bunch of others. AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson confirmed his intentions at a Churchill Club event, while Verizon has been doing its best to ensure its win.
In case you want to know what the whole 700 MHz fuss is all about, here are two posts that tell you everything about 700 MHz.
YouTube co-founder Steve Chen during an onstage chat at our NewTeeVee Live conference responded to our questions about video quality by saying that YouTube will boost the quality of the videos, but not at the expense of user experience. Buffering and video playback delays were an anathema to the popular destination site, and YouTube would be careful about how it tackled the issue of video quality.
The company was experimenting with ways to gauge the speed of broadband connections and improve the video quality accordingly, he said. He told C/Net WebWare that this technology would be available widely over the next three months. Somehow it all got misconstrued into YouTube offering high-definition videos on their site, an erroneous message that was repeated quite a few times, and eventually settling into a debate about high-definition vs. high-quality videos.
What matters more? It all depends on the screen the video is destined for, opined panelists on my Network Makeover panel preceding our conversation with Steve. They were almost unanimous in pointing out that that HD video on a PC screen doesn’t matter.
Verizon’s Jeff Harris summed it up best when he said that resolution is dependent on the destination screen. A big plasma screen should get HD video, but most laptop screens don’t need HD and you can’t really tell the difference between higher quality and HD videos on, say, a 14- or 15-inch screen. Cisco’s Kip Compton rightfully pointed out that the trend is towards higher quality. I think that is something we can all agree upon.
What do you think? What is the minimum acceptable quality you want from your web video?
Related Posts:
As Google (GOOG) and Verizon (VZ) duke it out over the forthcoming 700 MHz spectrum auction, AT&T (T) has decided to spend the money and buy its way into the market. The company has announced that it is acquiring licenses in the 700 MHz spectrum from Aloha Partners, a privately-held spectrum speculator, for about $2.5 billion.
The licenses cover roughly 196 million POPs in 281 markets, including 72 of the top 100 and all the top 10 markets in the U.S., according to the AT&T press release. UBS analysts estimate that this works out to about $1.06/MHz/POP, which is twice the price paid last year as part of the AWS auctions.
The upcoming auction in the A and B spectrum blocks has reserved prices of $0.50/MHz/POP and $0.38/MHz/POP. UBS expects that will rise to at least $1/MHz/POP. AT&T just set that price.
Related Posts: