Thanks to all...

[Ian Batten]

>
> That said, the fundamental moral right to not partake in a statistical
> exercise (other than mandatory demographics under the Census Act) I =20=

> think is

Funny you should mention that.  The next census is due in three years' =20=

time, and since the last one public trust in government attitudes to =20
security has fallen.  I would expect an outbreak of passive =20
disobedience, involving either dragging heels over submission or =20
ticking the first box for everything.
>
>
> What I don't buy is the idea that Phorm will bring additional online
> advertising revenue above what is already there, it will just allow =20=

> the ISPs
> and Phorm to take a cut.

Or more to the point it will allow someone who isn't Google to make a =20=

small cut.

>
>
> But the ISPs in taking cash from this start to be influenced by =20
> commercial
> interests in the same way that traditional media is.  What would ITV =20=

> be like
> without any regulation?  Lowest common denominator.

Wrong.  The problem with the lowest common denominator is it's a =20
crowded space and the margins are thin.  There's no regulator for the =20=

advertising in The New Yorker, but there's not a lot of junk food and =20=

loan consolidation in there.  Advertisers don't, in general, want =20
people to look at their adverts; they want people who are potentially =20=

interested in the product and potentially able to access it.  Daytime =20=

TV is full of adverts for debt consolidation because there's no point =20=

in advertising Saabs to people without jobs; The West Wing is full of =20=

adverts for Saabs not because the debt consolidation people can't =20
afford the rates, but because the set of people who want to marry =20
Donna Moss _and_ get a =A310K loan secured over their house is null and =20=

therefore even zero is too much to pay to advertise loans in that slot.

Hill Street Blues was famously renewed on the back of disastrous =20
ratings, because the advertising companies were killing each other to =20=

sell to its demographic, and that's probably the turning point in =20
(sounds of whalesong in the distance) narrowcasting over broadcast =20
infrastructures.  Kent's point about advertisers not just having to =20
throw it all against the wall was well-made, and should have been made =20=

more often rather than some of his other, weaker, points.  Advertisers =20=

will pay a lot more for the ability to target adverts at people who =20
are interested (and that's why they are happy with the TPS and MPS --- =20=

why waste money on people with their hands over their ears?)

The question, of course, is if the targeting Phorm are offering is the =20=

targeting advertising agents want: I suspect not, but that's a market =20=

issue for the market to decide.
>
> I really believe a neutral platform is better for society as a =20
> whole, as it
> counterbalances to some extent the influence money currently has =20
> over the
> traditional media.  To maintain neutrality means keeping advertisers =20=

> out of
> the infrastructure, although what is the lesser evil: ad-subsidised =20=

> free
> internet access or internet beyond the reach of a significant =20
> minority of
> the population?

I don't know if I've explored this riff on this list, but those who =20
know who I work for will know why this is a hot topic.

``What would make 100Mbps Internet a compelling proposition?''

Kent seems to think that enables HDTV.  It does, and so much more: it =20=

enables at least eight parallel channels of substantially more than =20
DVD quality with H.264.  Copyright infringing music?  It's 60 channels =20=

of un-compressed CDs, ~300 channels of 320Kbps MP3.  What are the =20
applications which make this compelling?  If you know, now's your =20
chance to get rich...

So that aside, existing broadband performance is perfectly acceptable =20=

at current prices for the vast majority of the population --- as =20
witnessed by takeup, and by the fact that about 1% of the users are =20
about 90% of the traffic.  An ISP that can't provide for the 1% should =20=

just politely ask them to go elsewhere, rather than loading more =20
`cost' (in the shape of privacy invasion) onto my bills to fund the =20
1%.  I doubt I download more than a few megs a day, on average.  =20
Aiming at the many, rather than the few, may upset autistic IT geeks =20
with collections of TV programs such that 24/7 viewing would take =20
years, but for normal people?  Not so much.

ian

ian