Just been reading this article

As it mentions BT I hope that PlusNet won't also be involved.

[Moderator's note by Peter (PJ): Changed title of merged thread]

Hi John,

It's certainly nothing that I've heard anything about.

And we don`t want to hear about it on Plusnet...... UNLESS there is an option for us to turn off the adverts permanently, then those who want to be bombarded with useless advertising can enjoy them.... perhaps there could be a "divert my adverts to another user" key.....?

use  Firefox and dump adverts.

Which extension do you use? I am yet to find one which is efficient and not time consuming...

Adblock, sometimes you have to get the advert and then, right click so that Adblock remembers it

I've just installed Adblock Plus and Adblock Filterset.G Updater. Wow! Very impressive! 

We get asked about whether we are interested in doing things like this from time to time by various companies. BT and PlusNet do operate independently though and any decision we made about using a technology like Phorm would be very different and separate from the one BT make.

I actually do believe there is potential in this sort of technology provided it is used openly and with the buy-in of the customer, and provided the majority of benefit is given back. If it were no different to the deal you get when you read your free copy of the Metro on the train or from the free search results provided by Google, then it has potential. At the core though has to be complete transparency and a choice for the user.
For some people I know, if they could get a reduced cost in their Broadband subscription by opting into this type of technology it could be very compelling indeed.

Ian

Data Protection Act ?

quote]

For some people I know, if they could get a reduced cost in their Broadband subscription by opting into this type of technology it could be very compelling indeed.

unquote]

Why should the customer who wants to use extra bandwidth by opting in for being bombarded by adverts, have a reduction in their  subsciption?

 Surely it would be better for the person who uses less bandwidth to have the cheaper option...?

Because the adverts generate revenue, which pays for the reduction in subscription


That is the situation today isn't it - why would that change?

I guess the model I see, 3 or 4 years down the line, is a completely subscription free broadband service, offered on a Pay As You Use basis. I further then see basic, advertising funded usage remaining free, but if people want advanced, high demand or advert free services then they have the option to pay extra for that (And it would probably still be a lot cheaper than today).

As I say, I don't think it's a bad thing provided the advantages are shared with customers and nothing is done without the knowledge of the customers affected.

Ian

I remember when I had unlimited dial-up access for £25 per annum on the basis that a separate browser window appeared showing banner ads.

It wasn't hard to stick a spanner in the works of the banner ads to stop them intruding on my screen that time...

But why should anyone have to pay for NOT having adverts....?   That` s like saying you must pay extra road tax on your car for NOT using your bicycle.....

Years ago we were happy to use X-Stream for free.

You are today, in effect, paying for not having advertising based on that logic  .

I'm not suggesting prices would go up under any circumstances, just that it seems a perfectly sensible idea to use advertising revenue to contribute towards the cost of a connection (thereby reducing the price the customer pays). I'd rather see customers get the benefit of the huge amount advertisers are willing to pay to get their products in front of the right eyes at any rate.

Ian

Libertysurf was 24 hours a day.

I think they bought X-Stream eventually.

All academic now.