advertising

    Old computer ads are something else.

    Source: BYTE, Vol. 6, No. 9, September 1981, page 299

    A black and white ad for an Epson printer. A little boy is standing in front of a classroom holding up a printout on fanfold tractor-fed paper. It’s a greyscale-looking picture of a woman who appears to be naked, covering her chest with one hand. The boy’s teacher is leaning over him, hand to mouth, looking astonished and dismayed. 
&10;
&10;Caption:
&10;
&10;“…And my dad says GRAFTRAX80 does better graphics than anybody. Epson.”

    Better incentives for showing web ads

    I use ad blockers on all my devices. Still, I understand that the sites I enjoy depend on ad revenue. When a site I visit a lot asks me to add them to my blocker’s “allow list”, I will (unless they’ve plastered a dozen ads across each page). Individual websites are the wrong entities to be asking for that permission, though.

    Few websites directly sell the ads they display. Instead, they’ll contract that process out to giant ad networks like Google AdSense, Amazon Publisher Services, or dozens of other companies specializing in embedding relevant ads in the appropriate sites. Those are the companies who should be asking me for permission to show their advertisements. If an ad network earns a reputation for serving legitimate ads, free of malware, I won’t mind seeing their ads on a site I like to visit. If another network develops a bad name for showing questionable ads or serving JavaScript Bitcoin miners, I don’t want to see their junk on any website, even if I’m a fan of that site.

    An ad blocker that asked me to permit ads from specific networks, or to block them from others, would be an improvement for all reputable actors involved. While almost no one wants to see advertising, users could choose to see ads from only well-behaved networks to support the sites they enjoy. Ad networks would gain viewers by acting decently and regulating themselves. Websites could increase revenue by working with legitimate ad networks and avoiding shady ones.

    Everyone involved would have an incentive to make decisions that benefit each other. That sounds much better than the mess we have now.

    How many minutes of Internet are you paying for each month?

    If you pay for a 100Mbps cable connection to the Internet and your plan sets a 300GB data cap, you can use your connection at full speed for 8.3 hours per month before hitting overuse charges.

    If your cell phone plan supports 50Mbps LTE speeds and has a 10GB data cap, you’re only allowed to use it at full speed for 33 minutes per month.

    I think it’s deceptive for an ISP to advertise an Internet connection’s speeds without disclosing how much you can actually use it without being disconnected or racking up extra fees. I’ve written to my senators asking them to introduce legislation to protect customers from this misleading and predatory practice:

    I believe that all Internet service providers should be required to disclose, as part of their advertising, how many minutes you may use their service at full speed without hitting data caps.

    For instance, a cable company advertising “100 megabits!” but imposing a 300GB data cap only allows their users to download information for about 8 hours per month. A cell phone company that advertises fast 50 megabit LTE speed but has a 10GB data limit only gives their customers about 33 minutes per month of full speed usage.

    I believe that simultaneously advertising fast Internet connections while only allowing customers to use it for a short amount of time each month is highly deceptive and should be illegal. Please introduce truth in advertising legislation requiring ISPs to disclose what portion of time customers on a typical plan would be allowed to use an Internet service being advertised.

    I don’t reasonably expect anything to come of this, but I’m going to try anyway.