NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Google Hijacked -- Major ISP to Intercept and Modify Web Pages
|
One problem is that there is no clear line between policy and
technology at this point. In keeping with the economic value created by
decoupling (as in end-to-end) part of the NN learning is to try to establish
such boundaries. Fortunately we do have precedents as a starting point –
unlike the legal system the precedents are for learning and not avoiding
rethinking. Modifying a web page is akin to writing on a magazine cover
to tell the user that their postal box rent is due. A more reasonable way is to just send the user a message by
whatever means is in keeping with the relationship with the provider – it
could be email, a phone call or even paper mail. Too bad we don’t have a
standard messaging ID such as the email address and/or phone number and treat
each path as unrelated (but I don’t want the carriers’ idea of “unified
messaging” – another policy discussion) There is nothing special about the ISP in this situation –
it is absolutely no different from getting a notice that any other bill is due.
Putting aside the policy issues of the byte cap the idea of notifying people is
very good – cellular carriers should warn you that the $1/minute roaming
charging is effect rather than a $0/minute bucket-a-minutes charge. But they shouldn’t
interrupt a phone call (again putting aside the fact that they do say “five
more minutes on this call”). The reason is that it’s so hard to stay away from
policy issues is that each new instance is a reminder that we in a transition
from the idea that everything is a service offered by a provider and the idea
that we are just getting assistance in transporting bits. In the former model there
is a tendency to presume that the web pages are the carriers’ until they
pass them on. In the latter there is a strong line between the uninterpretted
bits they transport and our interpretation. The problem is that the former allows for value-based
pricing and the latter makes it difficult to charge above cost. -----Original Message----- I would assert that Google's "Safer Searching"
feature is not relevant to this discussion. They're simply
providing a warning page *before* redirecting to a particular search result
that they themselves have generated, for a user who has chosen to
use Google. Google is not modifying the content of the target site as
displayed, nor is Google acting as an Internet access ISP in the
first place. Apples and oranges. Now, for the sake of the argument, if one wishes to
suggest that the *only* effective mechanism an ISP has to reach users with
account information is through their Web browsers, then ISPs
could choose to simply display a click-through splash page once at the
beginning of a session, much as pay Wifi hotspots do for user
logins. But I believe that's pretty much academic. I really
don't think that ISPs are generally going to invest in Web page
modification equipment just to warn people when they're getting close
to a bandwidth cap. A look at the PerfTech home page ( http://www.perftech.com ) shows clearly what this is
all really about: "Reach any subscriber, anywhere they browse" "Revolutionize your Subscriber Communications while
realizing the unlimited potential of In-Browser
Marketing..." "Promotion Insertion" "Ad Insertion" "Message displays no matter where the subscriber
browses" "Sophisticated targeting, tracking, and
scheduling" Yes, there are other applications listed too. But
the focus on the new income streams derived from intercepting and
modifying user data is obvious. --Lauren-- NNSquad Moderator - - - > On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Lauren Weinstein wrote: > > Google
Hijacked -- Major ISP to Intercept and Modify Web Pages > > > > http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000337.html > > > > [ Due to highly
relevant screen capture content, please see the link > > above to
read this item. Thanks! ] > > Its probably only fair to also report on Google's
"Safer Searching" > program which inserts warning popup messages before
forwarding users to > particular web sites
<http://www.stopbadware.org/> > > Claiming Google only has two choices, either
providing no information > at all to retain its liability protection or being responsible
for > all illegal and bad stuff it indexes is a bit of a
strawman choice. > > Unlike the postal system and the telephone system
which have developed > many ways to add additional information, the
Internet is severly lacking. > The post office adds stamp to letters with all sorts
of messages about > postage due, return to sender, disaster area - no
forwarding address, > and even cute "advertising-like"
cancellations. The telephone system has > multiple types of busy signals and special information
messages about all > circuits are busy, line restricted to only emergency
calls, due to an > earthquake in the area please wait and try your call
later. > > It would be great if folks would come up with better
ways for applications > to pass along additional information to the user
from different layers of > the communications. > > Yes, Rogers could simply cut-off the user's Internet
access when their > account balance reaches $0.00 without any warning or
information about > what happened. That might satisfy some
network-neutrality folks, but > may be annoying for ordinary users trying to figure
out why their > Internet "broke." > > Instead of just throwing away letters without the
right postage, or > dropping your pay telephone call when you forget to
deposit enough money, > it may be preferrable to modify the letter using a
postage due stamp or > interrupt the telephone call with a message from the
operator to please > deposit additional money to continue the call. > > How should ISPs communicate those types of messages
to users, when the > Internet protocols and applications haven't yet
evolved to provide a way? > |