Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / ATT Wireless / June 2008
Here comes the cell phone ad disaster!
|
|
Thread rating:  |
4phun - 16 Jun 2008 10:42 GMT Here comes the cell phone ad disaster http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleI d=9097878&pageNumber=1
Fascinating article
"Here are just some of the conduits through which advertising will enter into your cell phone:
Unwanted calls. Recorded advertising voice mails. SMS ads that ring your phone. MMS ads that ring your phone. E-mail ads. Advertiser-supported software and services. Web pages that force you to view an ad before you can see the page. Location-based advertising -- you'll walk by a store, and it will ring your phone to tell you about a sale. Viral videos. Text, e-mail or Web-based ads that encourage you to "click to call." Search ads tailored for phones. "
"The problem isn't that somebody out there is looking for innovative ways to leverage your cell phone to sell you something. The problem is that everybody is doing it. The result will turn your cell phone into an annoying, interrupting, commercial idiot box that combines all the worst qualities of TV, telemarketing and spam.
We have nowhere to go. The disaster is coming, and there's not much any of us can do about it ."
Larry - 16 Jun 2008 11:59 GMT 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:56c8948e-fe25-4e83-956b- 7ffb2a4e3cbb@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
> "The problem isn't that somebody out there is looking for innovative > ways to leverage your cell phone to sell you something. The problem is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > We have nowhere to go. The disaster is coming, and there's not much > any of us can do about it ." Hasn't that become true of every other piece of entertainment hardware you own? I call television "the ad billboard in your living room". That's EXACTLY what television has become. I turned mine off for the last time in 1992 and never got another one. I'm not going to PAY some company to deliver advertising to me....i.e. cable TV.
I believe the American public is so starved for entertainment free of adverts is the reason for YouTube's fantastic success. You can watch several minutes of YouTube without being spammed, usually. It has also kept usenet hopping. The downloading has gotten so heavy that ISPs are looking for a way to stop the downloading so the users will go back to watching "the ad billboard in your living room". Time-Warner is eliminating Usenet service this month. Others are sure to follow.
Look at you, right now! You're sitting there reading this ADVERTISING FREE message your cable or telephone company isn't getting paid double to deliver to you! How terrible, how unAmerican!...(c;
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 16 Jun 2008 19:44 GMT [snip]
> Look at you, right now! You're sitting there reading this ADVERTISING > FREE message your cable or telephone company isn't getting paid double to > deliver to you! How terrible, how unAmerican!...(c; Meanwhile, in related news, Verizon moves to block access to the alt.* newsgroup hierarchy. Others to follow soon?
 Signature Paul Hovnanian paul@hovnanian.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Have gnu, will travel.
Steve Sobol - 17 Jun 2008 00:49 GMT ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
> [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Meanwhile, in related news, Verizon moves to block access to the alt.* > newsgroup hierarchy. Others to follow soon? As much as I'd like to believe that had something to do with Larry, it didn't, it was at the request of the (IIRC) New York State attorney general's office regarding some kiddie porn incident.
 Signature Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol
Larry - 17 Jun 2008 01:41 GMT "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paulh@seanet.com> wrote in news:4856CFA8.946AE2E5 @seanet.com:
> Meanwhile, in related news, Verizon moves to block access to the alt.* > newsgroup hierarchy. Others to follow soon? It won't work. The newsgroup providers are way ahead of them.
"Encrypted UseNet Access
UsenetServer has deployed 256 bit encrypted UseNet access service by utilizing SSL (Secure Socket Layer) encryption. UsenetServer's deployment of encrypted Usenet access comes in response to customer feedback and growing support in news client software for SSL. Encrypted Usenet access allows UsenetServer's customers to securely access Usenet newsgroups. All data passed from UsenetServer's servers to the customer's computer is encrypted. This includes all username, password, articles and posts.
Encrypted Usenet access is available to all UsenetServer customers as a free service. To access Encrypted UseNet, setup your SSL aware news client to access: secure.usenetserver.com Port 563, 443 or 8080."
"2. What port should I connect to? Port 119 is the default NNTP port, but we support ports 23, 25, 119, 1720, 3128 and 8000. Secure.usenetserver.com only allows encrypted SSL connections on ports 443, 563 and 8080."
256-bit SSL encrypted on many ports. What they gonna do, block 'em all? Pfat Chance....
I don't think it will matter much when Verizon follows RR and starts selling bandwidth by the byte, again, like the old days. You'll get 5GB/month then pfffft....until your next check clears.
EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com - 21 Jun 2008 15:38 GMT In alt.cellular.verizon Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> I call television "the ad billboard in your living room". > That's EXACTLY what television has become. I turned mine off for the > last time in 1992 and never got another one. I'm not going to PAY some > company to deliver advertising to me....i.e. cable TV. Get a TIVO. Problem solved.
I just got Verizon FIOS with a DVR. Now, if we are watching TV and a commercial comes on, we say "What the hell are we doing!?" and we switch to the DVR.
No longer do we ever plonk ourselves on the couch at the predetermined hour to see a show - we watch whatever we want, whenever we want.
No longer do we select the least boring show currently available. Instead, we have a large library of the best shows on TV, along with a dozen movies or so.
Regular TV is dead to us.
> I believe the American public is so starved for entertainment free of > adverts is the reason for YouTube's fantastic success. Naw. That's not the reason.
> It has also kept usenet hopping. Usenet is dying.
 Signature The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. -- Bertrand Russel
Larry - 22 Jun 2008 00:54 GMT EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote in news:g3j3om$h2o$1 @reader2.panix.com:
> Usenet is dying. I popped up a chat with the bored duty support tech at Usenetserver.com and asked him what the current load was at 8PM on Sat night, now. 49,722 customers were bleeding the server farm at about 44Gbps as I type this. Usenet isn't even wounded. I've given up trying to download everything on alt.binaries.movies.divx. 7Mbps just isn't enough bandwidth to get all the good movies 24/7. I download the prime meat then scour the MP3 groups. Even then it overruns my RAID storage capacity and DVD burners to archive.
Usenet isn't even wounded and the downloading from UNS goes on ad nauseum....
No time for TV or TIVO....
Todd Allcock - 22 Jun 2008 04:53 GMT > Usenet isn't even wounded and the downloading from UNS goes on ad > nauseum.... Depends on your POV, I guess. For those of us that view Usenet as the discussion medium it was created as rather than a file-sharing one, it's certainly dying. If people started using typewriters as boat anchors, it wouldn't be fair to say PCs didn't kill typewriters because X million are still in use at sea... ;-)
DTC - 21 Jun 2008 17:19 GMT > Hasn't that become true of every other piece of entertainment hardware > you own? I call television "the ad billboard in your living room". > That's EXACTLY what television has become. I turned mine off for the > last time in 1992 and never got another one. I'm not going to PAY some > company to deliver advertising to me....i.e. cable TV. Back in the '70s, my parents would turn on the TV around 5:30 in the early evening and kept it on until Johnny Carson was over.
I called it "video wallpaper". I haven't watched commercial TV or cable in over twenty years.
As for TiVo...I bet its all a matter of time before the RIAA comes up with a tactic prohibiting its use.
DrumStick - 21 Jun 2008 19:50 GMT DTC presented the following explanation :
>> Hasn't that become true of every other piece of entertainment hardware you >> own? I call television "the ad billboard in your living room". That's >> EXACTLY what television has become. I turned mine off for the last time in >> 1992 and never got another one. I'm not going to PAY some company to >> deliver advertising to me....i.e. cable TV.
> Back in the '70s, my parents would turn on the TV around 5:30 in the early > evening and kept it on until Johnny Carson was over.
> I called it "video wallpaper". I haven't watched commercial TV or cable > in over twenty years.
> As for TiVo...I bet its all a matter of time before the RIAA comes up > with a tactic prohibiting its use. It's not just avoiding the commercials... There is absolutely nothing worth watching... What may be worth watching always has some talking head telling me about what I can see for myself or telling me how smart the talking head thinks they are...and I'm supposed to pay for this????
Back to topic: Last I heard ads were not coming to cell phones...has that changed?
Larry - 22 Jun 2008 00:58 GMT DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in news:nS97k.9334$xZ.6798 @nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com:
> As for TiVo...I bet its all a matter of time before the RIAA comes up > with a tactic prohibiting its use. I believe in response to heavy pressure from the advertisers, cable company tivo equipment is already hobbled to prevent ad bypassing. Users must get their own unhobbled units....just like SELLPHONES!
EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com - 22 Jun 2008 03:49 GMT In alt.cellular.verizon Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> I believe in response to heavy pressure from the advertisers, cable > company tivo equipment is already hobbled to prevent ad bypassing. > Users must get their own unhobbled units....just like SELLPHONES! Wrong.
 Signature The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. -- Bertrand Russel
Larry - 22 Jun 2008 05:13 GMT > In alt.cellular.verizon Larry <noone@home.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Wrong. I guess you are right and all these guys are crazy: http://blogs.chron.com/techblog/archives/2005/09/copy_protection.html http://w2.eff.org/IP/pnp/cablewp.php http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.11/view.html?pg=3 http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=388960 http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/the-broadcast-flag-rears-its- ugly-head/ http://www.boingboing.net/2006/10/11/tivos-selfdestruct-b.html https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?JServSessionIdr009 =g9zf2ia3y4.app6a&cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=261 http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/200411/msg00188.html ....etc, etc, etc.......
EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com - 22 Jun 2008 17:03 GMT In alt.cellular.verizon Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> > In alt.cellular.verizon Larry <noone@home.com> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > Wrong.
> I guess you are right and all these guys are crazy: I didn't look at the cites. Instead, I glanced over my shoulder at my brand-new, fresh from the cable company DVR. It allows skipping forward and back, and you can set the time interval from ten seconds to a few minutes for each. I set the Forward for 30 seconds, and the back for 10. The feature is designed specifically to zap commercials.
> http://blogs.chron.com/techblog/archives/2005/09/copy_protection.html OK, I looked. The article doesnot deal with zapping commercials. I won't bother with the others, as you seem to be confusing different things.
> http://w2.eff.org/IP/pnp/cablewp.php > http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.11/view.html?pg=3 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > people/200411/msg00188.html > ....etc, etc, etc.......
 Signature The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. -- Bertrand Russel
George - 22 Jun 2008 17:59 GMT > In alt.cellular.verizon Larry <noone@home.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > few minutes for each. I set the Forward for 30 seconds, and the back for > 10. The feature is designed specifically to zap commercials. Actually that feature is designed to skip back and forth by whatever increment you set. Commercial skipping is a different thing. I have a DVR I built that uses opensource software and it runs a commercial detection job after the recording and makes a table of jump points. You can program it to edit out the commercials by itself or just hit a button on the remote which skips over the commercial whether it is 11 seconds or 4 minutes 11 seconds long.
>> http://blogs.chron.com/techblog/archives/2005/09/copy_protection.html > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> people/200411/msg00188.html >> ....etc, etc, etc....... George Kerby - 23 Jun 2008 00:13 GMT On 6/22/08 11:59 AM, in article O4Wdna-tnuJwGcPVnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@comcast.com, "George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In alt.cellular.verizon Larry <noone@home.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > button on the remote which skips over the commercial whether it is 11 > seconds or 4 minutes 11 seconds long. ReplayTV? It runs circles around TIVO. Too bad it was bought by DirecTV and shelved.
marx404 - 24 Jun 2008 15:11 GMT Just FYI to add to this interesting thread...
A certain American car company wants to start viral cellular SMS ads and text message ads. Hopefully they will see the potential legal and privacy issues and abandon this very stupid idea.
If somehow advertisers weasel their way to SMS message spam, my solution would be to either block incoming messages, block all phone calls not from my address book and /or purchase an older basic cell phone that does not have those capabilities like the Moto F3 for example.
 Signature marx404
_________________
> > On 6/22/08 11:59 AM, in article [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > and > shelved. Jer - 24 Jun 2008 15:36 GMT > Just FYI to add to this interesting thread... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > my address book and /or purchase an older basic cell phone that does not > have those capabilities like the Moto F3 for example. My recommendation would be for you to start shopping for that F3 right now. Considering the revenue stream the cellular companies would earn on this deal, there's no way in hell they'll be interested in developing a method for their own customers to filter anything. A good example of their performance for this issue would be their own history, which is exactly and sadly nil.
 Signature jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Kurt - 24 Jun 2008 16:34 GMT > On 6/22/08 11:59 AM, in article > O4Wdna-tnuJwGcPVnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@comcast.com, "George" [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > ReplayTV? It runs circles around TIVO. Too bad it was bought by DirecTV and > shelved. Tivo was great with DirecTV, it's DirecTV's crappy branded version that's the problem.
 Signature To reply by email, remove the word "space"
George Kerby - 24 Jun 2008 18:15 GMT On 6/24/08 10:34 AM, in article labolide-8BF43A.08340224062008@news.giganews.com, "Kurt" <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/22/08 11:59 AM, in article >> O4Wdna-tnuJwGcPVnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@comcast.com, "George" [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Tivo was great with DirecTV, it's DirecTV's crappy branded version > that's the problem. "Tivo was great with DirecTV"
What?!?
Two different things altogether...
George - 24 Jun 2008 16:42 GMT > On 6/22/08 11:59 AM, in article > O4Wdna-tnuJwGcPVnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@comcast.com, "George" [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > ReplayTV? It runs circles around TIVO. Too bad it was bought by DirecTV and > shelved. MythTV
Ron - 16 Jun 2008 12:31 GMT >Here comes the cell phone ad disaster >http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleI d=9097878&pageNumber=1 [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >We have nowhere to go. The disaster is coming, and there's not much >any of us can do about it ." Easy fix. Set your general ringtone to an inaudible sound. Set audible ringtones for the folks in your address book you're willing to accept calls from.
George - 16 Jun 2008 14:12 GMT > Easy fix. Set your general ringtone to an inaudible sound. Set audible > ringtones for the folks in your address book you're willing to accept > calls from. Not really, I get numerous calls from people where it may be the first time I have seen that particular CID. I would find it totally unacceptable to get unsolicited marketing calls especially since I am paying for the call.
The link that "oxford" provided is written in the same style he would write with "may happen" instantly morphing into "will happen" so who knows.
4phun - 16 Jun 2008 16:50 GMT > >Here comes the cell phone ad disaster > >http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBas... [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The iPhone rings and virbrates at the same time. Even a silent ring will still produce a buzz 0n your belt or in your pocket. It even thunks if you get new email.
Richard B. Gilbert - 16 Jun 2008 12:39 GMT > Here comes the cell phone ad disaster > http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleI d=9097878&pageNumber=1 [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > We have nowhere to go. The disaster is coming, and there's not much > any of us can do about it ." There IS something we ALL can do. Refuse to buy any product advertised via cell phone!
I have yet to receive ANY advertising via my cell phone!
4phun - 16 Jun 2008 16:52 GMT On Jun 16, 7:39 am, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Here comes the cell phone ad disaster > >http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBas... [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > - Show quoted text - How about the prrostitutes who start advertizing this way? How are you going to explain thosr unwanted text messages to your wife?
JDa^(TM)© - 16 Jun 2008 17:04 GMT 4phun, did transcribed the following::
> On Jun 16, 7:39 am, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > going to explain thosr unwanted text messages to your wife? > Easy, get her a cell phone too! That way she'll get them as well and then she will have to explain them to "YOU"!
Kevin Weaver - 16 Jun 2008 23:55 GMT On Jun 16, 7:39 am, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net> wrote:
> 4phun wrote: > > Here comes the cell phone ad disaster [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Show quoted text - How about the prrostitutes who start advertizing this way? How are you going to explain thosr unwanted text messages to your wife?
Something you will never have to worry about.
Richard B. Gilbert - 17 Jun 2008 05:24 GMT > On Jun 16, 7:39 am, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > How about the prrostitutes who start advertizing this way? How are you > going to explain thosr unwanted text messages to your wife? Since my wife also has a cell phone, I would expect that she would get the same advertising that I did!
Since prostitution is a crime in most jurisdictions, I would not expect the prostitutes to advertise! Or at least that they would not spam cell phones at random.
Bill Kearney - 18 Jun 2008 23:22 GMT > There IS something we ALL can do. Refuse to buy any product advertised > via cell phone! That and tie up the customer service departments of any company dumb enough to spam the ads. Call and complain, repeat it every time. Make it too painful to continue their nonsense.
Thurman - 16 Jun 2008 14:56 GMT > Here comes the cell phone ad disaster > http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleI d=9097878&pageNumber=1 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > We have nowhere to go. The disaster is coming, and there's not much > any of us can do about it ." " there's not much any of us can do about it ."
Untrue.
We developers are working alternatives even as you make ill-informed statements.
What you see as a disaster, is an opportunity for something like 40,000 developers world wide.
Did you hide under the bed on Y2K?
4phun - 16 Jun 2008 16:55 GMT > > Here comes the cell phone ad disaster > >http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBas... [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I believe those statments are made by Mike Egan, ComputerWorld, who researched that article which apparently you did not bother to read in full.
Tom J - 16 Jun 2008 16:05 GMT > Here comes the cell phone ad disaster > http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleI d=9097878&pageNumber=1 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "Here are just some of the conduits through which advertising will > enter into your cell phone: The sky is not falling!! My cell phone is listed on the National "do not call list" & you should do the same thing. The "do not call list" is now permement with no experation date.
Tom J
News - 16 Jun 2008 16:18 GMT >>Here comes the cell phone ad disaster >>http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleI d=9097878&pageNumber=1 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > should do the same thing. The "do not call list" is now permement with > no experation date. R-i-g-h-t. That works SO WELL... NOT.
Tom J - 16 Jun 2008 20:55 GMT >>> Here comes the cell phone ad disaster >>> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleI d=9097878&pageNumber=1 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > R-i-g-h-t. That works SO WELL... NOT. SO?? I don't get those type calls on my home phone OR my cell phone?? Works for me!!
Tom J
George - 16 Jun 2008 23:43 GMT >>> Here comes the cell phone ad disaster >>> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleI d=9097878&pageNumber=1 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > R-i-g-h-t. That works SO WELL... NOT. Works for me. I have our cell numbers and also home VoIP numbers on the do not call list and also the businesses we have a relationship with have also been asked not to call unless it is business related per the do not call regulation and I can't remember the last unsolicited call.
4phun - 16 Jun 2008 16:58 GMT > > Here comes the cell phone ad disaster > >http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBas... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Tom J Actually all my phones have been registered with DO NOT CALL. I still received a text message in a shopping center a month ago from some local robot that sensed my nearby cellphone. I thought it was neat and at the same time I was annoyed that they could do that.
Tom J - 16 Jun 2008 20:58 GMT >>> Here comes the cell phone ad disaster >>> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBas... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and > at the same time I was annoyed that they could do that. You thought it was neat, but I wouldn't. They would hear from me & not as a customer either!
Tom J
BruceR - 16 Jun 2008 22:54 GMT > You thought it was neat, but I wouldn't. They would hear from me & not > as a customer either! > > Tom J That's exactly right. As soon as the first person angrily storms into a store demanding payment for minutes or text units that the store used the practice will stop dead in it's tracks. And the smart carrier who promises to never allow the practice will see thousands of subscribers flocking to it until all the carriers get the point. The smart carriers will only allow it to happen on an opt-in basis or compensated basis where one would get discounted - or possibly even free - service for allowing the ads. I could see a construct where a pre-paid phone customer could earn more minutes by allowing him/herself to be bombarded by ads and getting a half a minute free for every ad they opened.
D - 17 Jun 2008 02:51 GMT >> You thought it was neat, but I wouldn't. They would hear from me & not >> as a customer either! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >customer could earn more minutes by allowing him/herself to be bombarded >by ads and getting a half a minute free for every ad they opened. Virgin Mobile already has it. minute for minute credit for watching ads on thier site, and (IIRC) and a minute of airtime for each two (free) text ads you reply to for more info. You can also get bonus minutes for doing surveys on-site as well.
Larry - 17 Jun 2008 03:06 GMT > Virgin Mobile already has it. minute for minute credit for watching > ads on thier site, and (IIRC) and a minute of airtime for each two > (free) text ads you reply to for more info. You can also get bonus > minutes for doing surveys on-site as well. Hmm...with a little app to automate the process, this might be a free sellphone!
D - 18 Jun 2008 01:03 GMT >> Virgin Mobile already has it. minute for minute credit for watching >> ads on thier site, and (IIRC) and a minute of airtime for each two [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Hmm...with a little app to automate the process, this might be a free >sellphone! yeah, but I think it is limited to 30 or 60 minutes a month. I would have to check to see...
Larry - 18 Jun 2008 02:03 GMT > yeah, but I think it is limited to 30 or 60 minutes a month. I would > have to check to see... Oh, I'm sure. But, with automation we could have a new one every 3 of 4 days...(c;
Gordon Burditt - 17 Jun 2008 07:04 GMT >Virgin Mobile already has it. minute for minute credit That's not good enough: I want the cost of a gallon of gasoline per message or call, just for receiving it, even if I hang up immediately or don't respond to the text message. (Cell phone companies can get 10% of what the advertiser pays for the accounting.)
>for watching >ads on thier site, and (IIRC) and a minute of airtime for each two >(free) text ads you reply to for more info. You can also get bonus >minutes for doing surveys on-site as well. Responding to a half-hour survey should pay at least the cost of a full tank of gasoline or the cost of a month of cellphone service, whichever is higher. And this should be a *CASH* credit: if advertisers call you enough, you might be able to pay for your cell phone bill, gas costs, car payment, and possibly child support each month.
George - 16 Jun 2008 23:44 GMT >>> Here comes the cell phone ad disaster >>> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBas... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > local robot that sensed my nearby cellphone. I thought it was neat and > at the same time I was annoyed that they could do that. Thinking it was "neat" wouldn't be my first thought...
Todd Allcock - 17 Jun 2008 03:48 GMT > > Actually all my phones have been registered with DO NOT CALL. I still > > received a text message in a shopping center a month ago from some > > local robot that sensed my nearby cellphone. I thought it was neat and > > at the same time I was annoyed that they could do that. > > Thinking it was "neat" wouldn't be my first thought... Funny, MY first thought was "impossible." How is the "local robot" going to sniff out your phone number to text you by "sensing your phone"? Like many of 4phun's posts, this smells fishy.
As reported in the trades, advertisers have been testing "robots" that attempt to connect with Bluetooth-enabled phones left in discoverable mode with offers of free ringtones or wallpapers to promote movies, etc., but the recipient has to permit the contact and pair with the sender, and AFAIK, the tests have been less than impressive for the sponsors (few people understand how to use their phone's BT other than using their headset.)
I fail to see how any "robot" could intercept a device's phone number to text it unsolicited. I think 4phun is having "phun" with us and passing off apocryphal urban legend as a first hand account. Next he'll tell us you can pop corn with four iPhones... ;-)
Gordon Burditt - 17 Jun 2008 06:46 GMT >Actually all my phones have been registered with DO NOT CALL. I still >received a text message in a shopping center a month ago from some >local robot that sensed my nearby cellphone. I thought it was neat and >at the same time I was annoyed that they could do that. That part is scary: your phone should not be identifying itself to the immediate area around you. If it can, that means any terrorist or hit person or ex-wife can build a bomb that goes off when YOU, and only YOU, approach it. It's great if you are a hit man. It's not so great if you are a person with a serious enemy, like most government officials of any country, or are someone who annoyed some psycho on the freeway yesterday. It may be possible to do that with a phone's ESN, anyway, but even most phone owners don't know their own phone's ESN, but they do tend to hand out their phone number to at least close colleagues.
HEY PEOPLE WHO DESIGN USA PASSPORTS: PAY ATTENTION: RFID in American passports is great for terrorists who want to blow up Americans, since the bomb can detect American passports nearby as a trigger. WHAT THE HECK WERE YOU THINKING? Bar codes, magnetic stripes, etc. that can't be remotely read are much more secure.
How, technically, does it do this? I can see where it might sense bluetooth devices, try to connect to them, and if it does, try to get the phone number. That sounds like a really good plan (NOT) for the merchant: the way IN to the store (and probably OUT as well) is clogged with people fiddling with their phones, so anyone who really wants to go in to the store to BUY something has trouble getting around the jamup of people.
Or can it snarf cell tower polling or incoming calls from the airwaves and your phone responding?
4phun - 18 Jun 2008 02:57 GMT > >Actually all my phones have been registered with DO NOT CALL. I still > >received a text message in a shopping center a month ago from some [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Or can it snarf cell tower polling or incoming calls from the airwaves > and your phone responding? http://news.cnet.com/Advertising-seeps-into-the-cell-phone---page-2/2100-1039_3- 6115617-2.html
A couple of years ago CNet observed, "For example, advertisers could use location information to send SMS (Short Message Service) text messages to cell phone subscribers traveling to a new city. The messages could tout nearby restaurants or could include coupons to be used at certain locations. " How do they get such data? The business uses a programmed robot to monitor the exchange of passing cell phone handshakes to a nearby cell tower. They can then automatically initiate a SMS to your passing phone.
Larry - 18 Jun 2008 02:56 GMT 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:4a290238-d0a4-4261-a726- b851f606050d@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
> A couple of years ago CNet observed, "For example, advertisers could > use location information to send SMS (Short Message Service) text [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > handshakes to a nearby cell tower. They can then automatically > initiate a SMS to your passing phone. "They" could do that, but I doubt they will. This would expose their web page structure to unbelieveable tortures from DoS, Massive downloadings from redirectors across the planet, straight out hacking into webpages, databases, company records, etc.
Piss off the wrong group of people and they can just kiss that server good bye, if you get my drift......all without selling anything anywhere near worth the damages that "wrong group" would inflict.
It's not worth their time and money to spam you that way. They've already taken over the webpages noone, of consequence, cares anything about.
Just add webpages to TV, Radio, Newspapers and Magazines on the huge pile of excrement at the spam dump. Why anyone would actually PAY for a new TV, then PAY someone to deliver electronic excrement to paste up on its screen still amazes me.
It all started way back when they discovered idiot Americans would actually listen and buy things off the radio. Pretty much has been downhill since the mid 1920's.
Tom J - 18 Jun 2008 03:26 GMT > It all started way back when they discovered idiot Americans would > actually listen and buy things off the radio. Pretty much has been > downhill since the mid 1920's. And you can have "those good old days"!! I like the present a bunch better. At least I have the funds to buy what I want instead of what I had to have to survive!!
This whole thread is just so much crap & most of us know that!!!! I don't depend on any US server to deliver my newsgroups, because I have an overseas server paid for years in advance that will cover those that are dropped here. astraweb.com
Tom J
Ness-Net - 18 Jun 2008 03:29 GMT > Just add webpages to TV, Radio, Newspapers and Magazines on the huge pile > of excrement at the spam dump. Why anyone would actually PAY for a new [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > actually listen and buy things off the radio. Pretty much has been > downhill since the mid 1920's. Just a quick thought....
Mind you, I'm not a fan of advertising, but then here's a good point. Broadcast TV is free. You don't have to have cable or satellite to have TV. All they give you is more channels (and supposedly better reception) But, they certainly aren't mandatory to watch television.
So then who the hell then actually pays for the programming.? That's right - ads. Basically, a necessary evil, so to speak. You want free TV - you have advertising.
Then, with a TiVo, boop, boop, boop - no ads. Works for me....
Larry the luddite - at least you are consistent - for the umpteenth time...
Larry - 18 Jun 2008 13:25 GMT > Larry the luddite - at least you are consistent - for the umpteenth > time... Tricky Dicky....always the name caller when your face is out of reach.
Ness-Net - 19 Jun 2008 05:32 GMT >> Larry the luddite - at least you are consistent - for the umpteenth >> time... > > Tricky Dicky....always the name caller when your face is out of reach. "Name calling", or just someone pointing out pure BS - or worse (bigotry, etc).
The BS and bigotry are certainly real - and I'm not the only one that regularly calls you on it. I may just be more consistent.
You call it "name calling" I call it truth telling.... I guess the truth just stings a bit sometimes, huh?
Larry - 19 Jun 2008 06:30 GMT >>> Larry the luddite - at least you are consistent - for the umpteenth >>> time... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You call it "name calling" I call it truth telling.... > I guess the truth just stings a bit sometimes, huh? Is this where I stick out my tongue at you sitting in the sandbox?
Todd Allcock - 18 Jun 2008 03:07 GMT > > Or can it snarf cell tower polling or incoming calls from the airwaves > > and your phone responding? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > handshakes to a nearby cell tower. They can then automatically > initiate a SMS to your passing phone. No, they don't! The scenarios mentioned in that article and elsewhere all involve the cooperation of the carrier- NO advertisers are capturing numbers from your cellphone.
The idea of location-based ads is that the advertiser strikes a deal with the carrier who would then serve up the ad based on your location.
The scenario you're trying to describe isn't happening, period.
4phun - 18 Jun 2008 03:52 GMT On Jun 17, 10:07 pm, Todd Allcock <eleccon...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> > > Or can it snarf cell tower polling or incoming calls from the airwaves > > > and your phone responding? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > The scenario you're trying to describe isn't happening, period. Todd Todd you better get some medication. You are going to have your mine blown but I figured out what they are doing and it is child's play.
Do a Google search for 'IMSI catcher'. This is high tech GSM equipemnt introduced a few years ago by a German firm that exploits weaknesses in the design of the GSM network. Basically it allows for a man in the middle attack on the GSM network that forces all nearby phones to reveal their internal network number. Since the phone is nearby it is perfect for receiving advertising directing them to your business.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSI-catcher
With that knowledge you can do far more than send the sucker SMS text advertising but if you are really evil you now own their phone and can send them special SMS data messages that reprogram it to do SPY things. This is perfect for detectives, the CIA, and criminals in big business.
To quote from an article several years ago... Intercepting cellphone calls really is child's play
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/7216/127/
"I also queried his claim that interception is 'child's play' since he had given no indication as to how the call is retrieved from the compromised phone. It does indeed appear to be child's play. Here is what Hafner told me:
"We can sent a service SMS to any phone (regardless of the operating system) and reprogram the SIM card and/or parts of the phone. (A service SMS is a specially formatted SMS that contains data instructions for the reconfiguration /programming and/or update of phones and SIM cards.).
"While usually a service SMS should be sent by the provider to upgrade the SIM card and configure the phone, normal users can also simulate this and send a service SMS. Here the phone and SIM card of the victim are reprogrammed in a way that each entering or exiting phone call are silently conferenced with the attacker.
"It is the victim's phone that creates a second 'hidden' conference call to the attacker. Also the victim pays for this second telephone call. (Equivalent to a 3-way conference call) In order not to show on the monthly bill, the attacker can chose to get called on an anonymous 0800 number that is redirected through VoIP. In this way the call is not charged to the victim and the number does not appear on the monthly statement."
By goolly this stuff sounds like it was developed by Larry when he had too much time on his hands. ;>) No wonder he calls them sell phones!
Todd Allcock - 18 Jun 2008 05:31 GMT > > No, they don't! The scenarios mentioned in that article and elsewhere all > > involve the cooperation of the carrier- NO advertisers are capturing [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > mine blown but I figured out what they are doing and it is child's > play. I didn't say it was beyond the realm of technology- I said no advertisers are doing it. It would P.O. both cellular customer, who don't want the intrusion, and carriers, who'd want a piece of the action. And, if it isn't yet illegal, it would be by the time the 100th text eminated from such a device!
> Do a Google search for 'IMSI catcher'. This is high tech GSM equipemnt > introduced a few years ago by a German firm that exploits weaknesses [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSI-catcher Devices used exclusively by law enforcement, and illegal for individuals or businesses to operate (since they are unlicensed base stations on cell frequencies and disrupt service.). You really think the local Starbucks is going to break Federal law to text you about a Frappicino?
> With that knowledge you can do far more than send the sucker SMS text > advertising but if you are really evil you now own their phone and can [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > instructions for the reconfiguration /programming and/or update of > phones and SIM cards.). All BS. The SIM, despite it's seemingly magical qualities to some, can't "reprogram" a phone. Service SMS messages CAN configure some of the phone's parameters (data settings, MMS/SMS settings, etc.) IF the phone's software allows for such configuration but that's about it. The SIM is dumb animal- a serial number on a chip with some storage memory to hold contacts, SMS messages and lookup tables.
> "While usually a service SMS should be sent by the provider to upgrade > the SIM card and configure the phone, normal users can also simulate [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > By goolly this stuff sounds like it was developed by Larry when he had > too much time on his hands. ;>) No wonder he calls them sell phones! Sounds more like one of Larry's nutty conspiracy theories.
All this "info" was relayed to the article's aut or by the alleged creator of the technique, with no corroboration.
I'm not exactly losing any sleep over it.
Your cries of "advertising is coming to your phones and you can't stop it!" is a typical 11:00 news-style scare story ("A common chemical found under your sink can KILL YOU! Details at Eleven!") an exaggerated worst-case scenario with a small germ of truth at it's core (WAP page banner ads?- Sure.
Unsolicited phone calls? Hardly.) This reminds me of the "they're going to publish a cellular phone directory!" panic a few years ago. I'm still waiting for my copy of that world-ending tome to be delivered...
Kevin Weaver - 16 Jun 2008 23:58 GMT >> Here comes the cell phone ad disaster >> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleI d=9097878&pageNumber=1 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Tom J BFD.. There is no enforcement on that list. They know it and there is nothing anyone can do. SBC Told me they can't do anything but change my number.
The list is bogus.
Steve Sobol - 17 Jun 2008 00:51 GMT ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
> BFD.. There is no enforcement on that list. They know it and there is > nothing anyone can do. SBC Told me they can't do anything but change my > number. > > The list is bogus. SBC/AT&T? They're a bunch of lazy, incompetent a.sholes who only exist to screw everyone they do business with.
The DNC list works for my family too. You might try it.
 Signature Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol
4phun - 17 Jun 2008 04:37 GMT On Jun 16, 6:58 pm, "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithwea...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Here comes the cell phone ad disaster > >>http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBas... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > The list is bogus. Google CEO: Get Ready for Cellphone Ads May 28, 2008 05:07 PM ET | David LaGesse | Permanent Link
Brace yourself for ads on your cellphone. Google's CEO, for one, is predicting that ads on mobile devices will overtake those on the conventional Web in a matter of years.
Eric Schmidt told a German newspaper that not only will the market grow along with the use of mobile devices, but the ads can be better targeted. "The advertising gets more targeted because phones are personal," he says. "So targeted ads are possible. And that means the value of the ads will grow."
At the same time, a survey suggests consumers are growing more open to getting ads on their cellphones. And again, the ads can be more valuable because they can be personalized to a phone and its owner, says Harris Interactive's vice president, Milton Ellis.
"No other advertising medium approaches the personal relationship consumers have with their mobile devices," Ellis says. "The key is to gain consumer interest by baiting the hook and providing them with something traditional advertising cannot."
The best incentive, of course, is straight cash. Some 80 percent of adults said the best reason to accept mobile ads was some sort of direct payment. Teens, on the other hand, could be bribed more than adults with free music downloads.
Larry - 17 Jun 2008 04:32 GMT 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:e322c005-f366-41c2-802c- 6e2ce60f76b7@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
> Brace yourself for ads on your cellphone. The really sad part is millions of dumbasses are BUYING from this spam, just like the web spam, dooming them, and us, to yet more billboards in our homes, in our cars, in our pockets....
Too bad, too, because a clear message COULD be sent back up the lines that this was unacceptable behaviour....just like MPAA and RIAA....simply stop buying.
Maybe as we pass $10/gallon that might happen!
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 16 Jun 2008 19:44 GMT [snip]
> We have nowhere to go. The disaster is coming, and there's not much > any of us can do about it . Time to switch to a 'caller pays' system?
 Signature Paul Hovnanian paul@hovnanian.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Have gnu, will travel.
Dennis Ferguson - 16 Jun 2008 20:01 GMT > [snip] > >> We have nowhere to go. The disaster is coming, and there's not much >> any of us can do about it . > > Time to switch to a 'caller pays' system? Noooo. You should try living with a UK "caller pays" mobile phone for a few months, it is worse than my landline at dinner time used to be. Since the advertisers are paying for the calls they feel perfectly free to call, so for a lot of people there that future is now.
It is the fact that you pay for incoming calls and messages which has kept those guys mostly away from your cell phone in the US so far.
Dennis Ferguson
|
|
|