Coming Soon to a Wireless Hotspot Near You: Ads

mindless4210 writes "A new generation of spam is born with the launch of FreeFi's new Wi-Fi advertising network. It is the first service of its kind, with intentions of delivering ad content to hotspots around the world starting in mid-Summer. FreeFi's President, Lawrence Laffer, says that the service displays a 'persistent set of ads adjacent to the user's browser without use of invasive advertising software or pop-up ads.' He also claims '[their] market research indicates that, except for pop-ups, people really don't mind ads.'" This seems like the kind of thing that would keep me from using "free" wireless access, but I've a feeling I'm in the minority.

Ads... so what?

[strictnein]

This seems like the kind of thing that would keep me from using "free" wireless access, but I've a feeling I'm in the minority.

Good... stay off the free service and leave bandwidth for those of us who have the amazing innate ability to ignore ads. Hosting these free hotspots costs money (as does slashdot). They need to recoup their costs or they will go bye-bye. Who f'en cares if there's a little bit of your screen taken up with ads that will be easily ignored (at least by the majority of us not included in your minority)?

It's a good thing you run a website free of ads. Oh... wait... shoot. Now, why again do you have ads? Oh... that's right, to pay for shit.

Must be closed

[Anonymous Coward]

The obvious problem with this, is that you'll need special software to be able to use it (so that the ads will be displayed). It will probably be Windows only, and you won't have acces\s to source code, so you won't know what you're really getting or have any idea if it's secure or not.

Maybe you can run it inside Vmware, and have your "real" OS route through the virtual machine. Or the crossover guys could make a hacked WINE just for running this client and network interface.

Been there done that

[MoneyT]

And it failed too, remember free dialup? Free internet access for looking at ads. Where did they all go? Out of business.

It's pure capitalism

[Jack Wagner]

Lets face it, nobody wants to look at an ad, but companies blast them out for a reason. It's the seed that drives the revenue that makes the giant capitalist machine plod onward. You need look no further than the former communist Russia if you want a failed model for how to do commerce, why do you think they never had a spam problem in Russia???

Sure the ad system isn't the best but it's functional and beats having to wait in line for 45 minutes to buy a pack of $20 ciggarettes in a Socialist/Communist society.

You can't have your cake and eat it too I'm afraid.

But how does it work?

[TooTallFourThinking]

I kept looking for how it actual works but didn't see anything. Maybe I just don't have much Wi-Fi experience. Are the ads forced through the browser? Does a custom piece of software need to run first? I'm not quite sure how the ads are going to get onto my computer screen.

Oh, this will play out as usual.

[Sevn]

Someone will write an application/patch/work-around that deactivates their ads without effecting the service. Those in the know will use it. Those not smart enough, or not clued in won't. This is how it always is. The application/patch/work-around will be brought up here of course. It always is.

And in other hot breaking market-research news...

[dpbsmith]

...they've found that the reason people don't mind ads other than pop-ups is that they don't notice them.

Oops, so much for that business model.

Re:Ads... so what?

[kallisti777]

Who f'en cares if there's a little bit of your screen taken up with ads that will be easily ignored?

Amen. I'm just waiting for the deluge of "How dare they!" posts to begin from people with Hotmail and Gmail accounts.

Somehow I doubt they'll see the irony.

No way this will last...

[PoprocksCk]

While this whole thing sounds just great on paper, I truly think it will suffer the exact same fate as NetZero --- placing ads simply does not bring in enough revenue to cover the costs of such a service and to break even, let alone to make a profit.

I'll bet that after a year or two, they'll start charging money, somehow.

Re:Been there done that

[MysticalMatt517]

Ahem... [netzero.net] They offer a free account with ads and a paid account that's inexpensive with no ads. Seems like a pretty good business model.

Re:But how does it work?

[LilMikey]

My best guess would be the free WiFi forces you through a proxy that'll insert the ads mid-stream. One major downside to that, apart from the actual advertising of course, is that it's often not perfect and may dork up the page. That's the only method I could imagine that wouldn't really piss people off or be more trouble than free WiFi is worth.

Didn't NetZero try this and fail miserably?

[kryonD]

Granted high speed has more value to it than POTS dialup, but is this company really going to be able to compete? Several states are starting to consider WiFi as a viable public utility that they provide for "free" using the Tax Base. Benefit to the people is seamless wireless access without ads. Benefit to the state is reliable high speed access for public safety and services such as fire, police, EMS, etc.. Plus, once they ensure that everyone is online, they can begin reducing costs by allowing a great deal of government red tape to be handled electronically. (i.e. paying speeding tickets or applying for building permits)

Re:Windows Only?

[Therlin]

Actually if you look at the screenshot in the article, it looks like it's simply a new browser window that is sent to the top of the screen while slightly reducing your main browser window. In other words, I believe that this will work with many browsers (but maybe not all).

Re:Been there done that

[mconeone]

Yes it was done and wasn't profitable. Does it change the fact that people used it and enjoyed it? All this says is that its not very wise to make free wireless in the first place. I disagree. I see the real benefit in this lies not in making existing wireless cheaper, but in expanding the reach of wireless by allowing it to be in places that would not normally be covered. Think waiting rooms and fast food restaurants. The business sees a benefit without cost, the user gets free wireless. And of course, if the ads get to you, you can go to a place that provides their own wireless access without ads.

Re:Ads... so what?

[Cruciform]

Agreed. Advertising makes the market go 'round. If it pays their bills, and allows them to offer the service, then more power to them.

As long as the ads don't pop-up or pop-under what I'm viewing, or blare out annoying audio soundbites, I don't mind them.

Unobtrusiveness is the key.

I've never had a ThinkGeek ad try to commandeer my attention through brute force, but they still get my clicks now and then. The same can't be said for the ads that come with full audio and video presentations. If I can't block them, I stop visiting the host site until they're gone, or if there is a readily available contact for the advertiser, let them know just how annoying it is.

There's no chance in hell I'll every buy a "Solo" cell phone after the endless waves of annoying ringtone ads that permeated local news sites, and those using geo-specific adware. But if I could get free wi-fi at a local coffee shop and see ads for local businesses letting me know what they have to offer, I wouldn't complain. Heck, I'd even fill out an "interests" questionnaire to generate an *anonymous* cookie if it meant that the served ads were relevant to me.

Advertising does not have to be the enemy. They just need to learn how to deal with their prospective audiences. And then small businesses can offer great things like free wi-fi without eating the overhead themselves.

Re:not ads

[doublem]

Good point.

The Wi-Fi is, in the classis sense, a "Loss Leader"

If $150 / mo for a business cable modem and $300 in one time setup hardware results in an extra $200 a months in business with no extra "tech support" issues from customers, then it's worth the investment.

Handhelds

[mongolian]

So what is to happen to the use of handheld computers whose browsers are already hugely limited by screen size? I'd hate to have to use a computer on which literally half of the screen was consumed by advertisements. Still not too bad of a deal for laptop users though. But one would have to be on crack to tolerate that on a CE machine.

Re:Must be closed

[JFitzsimmons]

But maybe I'm not running a browser... what about when I'm playing online games or using ssh?

I don't see anything wrong with this...

[NitroWolf]

I don't see anything wrong with this at all... if there's a free hotspot somewhere, and the owner puts ads on it, it's not like you're forced to use it.

It's *FREE*...

If you don't like it, PAY for a hotspot that doesn't have ads. What's wrong with that?

Pocket PCs?

[tmbg37]

I for one am the owner of a Pocket PC with a built-in WiFi chipset, and I don't like the idea of mandatory ads obscuring half of my device's tiny screen. I might not even be able to use the service at all if it requires software to be installed (probably Windows only, and/or resource hogging.)

Re:heheh

[pilgrim23]

Question: Is this a Internet Explorer specific system or will these ads show up on ANY web browser? So far, I have had very few pop-up, banner or other issues when I use Lynx.

Re:not ads

[TheViciousOverWind]

Except when every café has a hotspot, and it doesn't generate extra business, then it's just an added monthly cost, and has to be paid somehow.

Re:Ads... so what?

[MrLizardo]

Not that anyone has actually visited the website, but all this is is a banner ad in its own window. Its not spam. Its not a trick to steal your immortal soul. It will not kill your first born child. Its like demanding free email without banner ads on the page. Just like free email, if you don't want to use it there is always non-free alternative. The only thing I'm worried about is if it will be compatible with Macs and the multitude of different handhelds that are also wireless enabled (Palms, Zaurus, iPaq, etc).

-Mr. Lizardo

It's subsidized, not spam

[eggboard]

First off, these guys aren't the first: a company called DotSpot (read my article) [wifinetnews.com] launched six weeks ago. Second, if you don't want the ads, don't use the free service. Spam is unsolicited commercial whatever that you're the unwilling recipient of. Terms of service are different. If you sign up for a free ISP and then promise to spam you, it's not spam. If they don't disclose they spam, it is spam.

Re:Ads... so what?

[lullabud]

Hosting these free hotspots costs money

Yes, running a hot-spot costs money, but the theory is that having "free" wi-fi will attract enough business to pay for the initial invetment, upkeep, and then some. If advertising will increase the profit then of course a wise business will choose that as well. I think that advertising income is easier to make solid numbers from, since you can't realiably track how much money your wi-fi users are spending at your shop, which makes it another plus for business owners.

Re:Mod parent up

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Interesting to note that commercial-free TV (PBS..), is not really. Those messages between NOVA and Antiques Roadshow from Pfizer and IBM telling us how Earth-friendly they are? Those are called ads. They help pay for Public TV... Many worthwhile things are paid for with ads (Slashdot may fall into this category, only YOU can say...)

Everything should be free!

[Stevyn]

"Wait, I thought the consensus here was that everything should be free be and open. I for one find it apppaaaauuulling that they're not willing to offer a service that costs them money for free. I mean what if i'm at the park and the next kernel comes out and I can't update until I get home? This is just like the corporate fat cats, always trying to "make money to live off of!""

I know at least 20% of the people out there reading the headline to the article were thinking that. I'm also willing to bet that 40% of them are currently unemployed as they would be at work now and not slashdot. (I'm a college student so I got an excuse.) What's the big deal with this, everything "free" today is laced with ads of some type. Ads are everywhere, deal with them by not buying sugared water for $2 not by bitching on slashdot (which by the way is free to you and paid for by ads!).

Other than your internet connection, most of the content on the web is free but paid for by ads. If you're in the park and you get free web access and bitch because of some popup ad, then don't use it! Connect to the internet from your cell phone and pay for the minutes!

Re:Free with a catch isnt ok

[Joseph Vigneau]

Look at what happened with TV.. used to be free.. then commercials.. then nothing but commercials...then cable... now you got cable and dish with a fee to watch the commercials.....

TV has always had commercials. People who wanted commercial-free content, more recent movies, etc., started to pay to get cable, because they couldn't get that (for free or otherwise) over broadcast. To pay for this new content, cable companies could depend solely on customer fees. Now, with content becoming more expensive, and more demands for revenue from shareholders, cable providers are augmenting customer fees with ads. But even then, ad rates are declining due to less viewership because of the Intarwab, video games, etc. Would you rather pay more and have no ads? Cable and sattelite providers are guessing not.

web services

[chris_mahan]

as long as they can identify xml-rpc payloads. Otherwise, it's not going to be pretty.

Re:Ads... so what?

[antarctican]

My question is.... how many slashdot readers who would use this service actually would be firing up a web browser to begin with?

I mean whenever I seek out a hotspot for some quick access the only thing I do is fire up putty and ssh into my machine. Pine be thy friend. So if there were ads, I'd never see them.

There's also ways to get around this.... some of Mozilla's features might be very good at stopping these ads. Or one could blackhole them using their hosts file if you were really determined to elimiante them.

There's nothing to complain about in this. For those who don't mind ads for some free service it's great. For those who rarely use the web while on the road, it's great. It's only those who feel the need to complain whenever they see the word "ad" that should be concerned.

Re:Windows Only?

[drinkypoo]

The easiest way would be to embed your browsing of other sites in an iframe using a transparent proxy. You can do this even on nonstandard ports, by using pattern match support plus stateful filtering. This would mean you'd need a browser capable of displaying iframes, but that hardly seems like a show-stopper to me.

What has this to do with spam?

[broothal]

"A new generation of spam is born with the launch of FreeFi's new Wi-Fi advertising network....

Excuse me, but that's not spam. It's like calling the ads on the side of slashdot for spam. It's not. Spam is something you didn't ask for. You do indeed ask for these ads when you chose to use their free service.

I hate spam as much as the next guy, so no reason to cry wolf!

Re:Free with a catch isnt ok

[Anonymous Coward]

Cable providers never relied strictly on customer fees for basic cable. The only channels that have never had ads are premium channels like HBO, Cinemax, and Showtime and they still don't have ads. And the cable providers only get a part of that advertising dollar. Most of it goes to the cable networks themselves.

Re:heheh

[drinkypoo]

If I were implementing a system like this I would use a slightly customized transparent proxy to put my ads on the page, and embed whatever you were viewing in an iframe. Rewriting pages to work with frames could potentially be a PITA, though perhaps replacing all instances of _top or whatever it is with the funky psuedorandom name of your frame would be sufficient. (I have not used iframes, but AFAIK web pages don't know they're running in one.) Meanwhile if the proxy is not serving you the ads, it can be configured to refuse to serve you anything else but a "until you can see our ads you're not getting free web access sucka" message. I suggest adding a new error code number, 5000, to the list of valid HTML error codes for this purpose.

Re:It's pure capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets face it, nobody wants to look at an ad, but companies blast them out for a reason.

Because marketing companies have sold other companies on the idea that their advertising actually accomplishes anything?

Re:not ads

[aardwolf204]

WiFi should be a condiment, like catsup or salt or paper napkins...

This is the only intelligent thing I've see posted to this story yet. WiFi isnt the business, but its a great way to get people to visit your establishment. If you think your going to get rich WiFi'ing a park and collecting ad revenue your living in 1998. If your one of these guys [seattlewireless.net] more power to you.

technology used?

[kisrael]

I know this might be a naive question, but how does the technology work? I mean usually wireless is the lower protocol level (ala TCP/IP) and ads are at a higher level (ala HTTP)...do requests for webpages serve up a dummy page that loads up the small and ad on the side and the forwards to the real thing, or what?

come on

[Scott Richter]

And once they know you're ignoring the, they'll make them flash pop-overs, etc until you're so angry you ALMOST won't use their service. Squeeze every last cent they can from you. Yay capitalism.

And if they profit gouge and annoy the customer, someone else will come along offering less obtrusive ads while still making money, stealing all of the original company's business, making everyone more happy except the original assholes. Yay capitalism...really!

Re:Ads... so what?

[TheCarp]

However it does further the intentions of advertisers.... namely to help convince people that advertising actually does something.

Remember, when your consumers are not your customers, and your product is comepletely intangible, you have to somehow justify your existance and convince executives that paying you is a legitimate buisness expense.

Thus you need to come out with wonkey statistics like how many eyeballs viewed the vapid nonsense that you are putting out.

I say fight advertising at every turn, delete it, remove it, deride people just for even viewing it or listenin got it whenever possible. Frankly I do whatever possible to never even have an ad pass my eyes or ears. I choose CDs and NPR over commercial radio. I choose dvds over commercial TV. I choose popup blockers and limited choice cookies acceptance over unique ids and innundation with ads.

Fuck advertisers, I say lets drive their entire buisness model into the ground.

-Steve

Re:Ads... so what?

[Lord Kestrel]

It's a little hard to disable when it's an application that you have to run on your windows box in order to use their service. As you said, it's trivial if it's an external thing, but once you let them run their code on your box, it's game over.

What about PDAs and other smaller-screen devices?

[Anonymous Coward]

I looked at the screenshot [freefinet.com] for the ad service and I was wondering - I have a wifi-enabled HP iPaq that runs Pocket PC 2003.
I use it at hotspots frequently, because its almost always on me.
The running resolution is 320x480. (Would the ad fill the entire screen?) Also, Internet Explorer on Pocket PC 2003 does not support two browser windows to be open simultaneously.

What happens then?

Re:Recovering the cost MY ASS.

[realmolo]

A coffee shop (or any business, or private party) can't just hook up a cablemodem and resell their bandwidth. Their ISP would have a fucking FIT. It's against their Terms of Service.

Generally, you don't get to resell your cablemodem bandwidth. You might be able to work out a deal with your ISP, but you'll definitely be paying more than $70.

Re:Ads... so what?

[_Sprocket_]

Heck, I'd even fill out an "interests" questionnaire to generate an *anonymous* cookie if it meant that the served ads were relevant to me.

I'm behind all that you had to say until this point. The issue I have with an "anonymous" cookie is that there is no guarantee that it remains anonymous. Look at Doubleclick and its plans to merge with Abacus Direct. Part of that plan was to have client sites that link names to cookies. Suddenly, an entire history of anonymous browsing is linked to a full-on identity.

As a side note - these plans were put on hold but not (as far I know) canceled. This will be a returning issue, I'm sure.

And then small businesses can offer great things like free wi-fi without eating the overhead themselves.

Fair enough point. But then, wireless access should also be a draw to the business itself. I splurge on the local coffee shop more often now that my big-cup-o-caffeine comes with connectivity. I can nip out of the office, get some coffee, and then VPN back to work and catch up on stuff without interruptions from people dropping by my desk.

All your failed economic models are belong to us

[Zhe Mappel]

Sure the ad system isn't the best but it's functional and beats having to wait in line for 45 minutes to buy a pack of $20 ciggarettes in a Socialist/Communist society.

You can't have your cake and eat it too I'm afraid.

Cake, eh?

In our system, most businesses fail. Most wealth is horded by the top few percentiles. For the majority, most real incomes have been stagnant since the 1960s. Our communities and workforces have been devastated by two decades of rapacious mergers, corporate accounting scams, and stock inflation. Millions upon millions of Americans have no health care. Millions are so overextended in debt that they're only a couple of paychecks away from the street, even as home foreclosures have hit a 30-year high. Our middle class is contracting while our masters export our jobs overseas. Our armies are bogged down losing an imperial war being fought by economic conscripts. As conspicuous consumption driven by advertising has brought our environment to the brink of calamity, our labor force has been reduced to peeing in cups to keep their Wal-Mart jobs.

But, yes, cigs are $6 a pack in New York. Eat your heart out, socialists!