May 2011

Advertisers' fears that, given the chance, consumers would opt out of behaviorally targeted advertising en masse appear to be vastly overblown -- but don't mistake that for thinking they don't care about privacy.

Since last year, ad organizations in the U.S. have been running a campaign meant to stiff-arm regulatory efforts of the sort that went into effect last week in Europe, where companies will now have to get permission from consumers before dropping cookies onto their computers. The centerpiece of the campaign to convince Congress and the FTC that self-regulation is good enough is the "Ad Option Icon" placed in some ads, pointing to information about behavioral targeting and offering a way to opt out of it. Thus far it's received relatively low response, a rare case where low click-through on an ad is positioned as a positive thing. The click-through rate is just 0.002% and of those people who do follow the link, only 10% opt out of the ads, according to DoubleVerify, which recently won a contract from the industry trade group to license the icon for ad clients. Two other companies, Evidon and TRUSTe, also provide the service. Evidon, which has the longest set of data, is seeing click-through of 0.005% with only 2% opting out from 30 billion impressions. But the low rates alone don't mean consumers aren't interested in the issue of how companies are monitoring and using their online behavior. After all, click rates on display ads are generally low, often well under 1% depending on the product category, the audience and the kind of website.

Indian authorities are considering revisions to new Internet regulations after criticism from free-speech advocates and companies like Google Inc. that fear they could be exposed to liability under the regime.

The rules, which took effect in April, require Internet companies to remove objectionable content from their sites, including anything "grossly harmful" or "harassing," within 36 hours of being notified by authorities. Executives could thereafter face penalties, including stiff fines or even jail time, say lawyers who have reviewed the regulations. The rules may soon be revised to add greater liability protections for Internet companies, Minister of Communications and Information Technology Kapil Sibal said. Sibal said it is fair for the government to ask Internet companies to put in place codes of conduct that restrain users from posting certain material online, as the regulations do. But he said it is "relatively unfair" to expect Internet companies—which are referred to in the rules as "intermediaries"—to be responsible for third-party content. "To make the intermediary liable for the user violating that code would, I think, not serve the larger interests of the market," Mr. Sibal said.The backlash after the rules were enacted has been growing. Civil-liberties groups are expressing fears the rules are too open to interpretation and could be used by the government to restrict free speech on the Web. The regulations represent an effort by India to get a grip on the Web without the kind of direct censorship or website-blocking practiced in countries like Iran, China and Saudi Arabia.

The Chinese government has stepped up censorship of local television in a sign of the broadening of a political crackdown that has landed many dissidents in jail.

Hunan Broadcasting System, the most commercially successful state broadcaster which also has ambitions to expand overseas, is overhauling its programming to comply with new government censorship demands. The Chinese broadcasting regulator recently warned TV stations not to focus exclusively on “entertainment”. While the order was vague, it was seen as a crackdown as Chinese censors often mix campaigns against political dissent with those against vulgar content. The tougher line comes as the government tries to strengthen its grip on power in the face of increasingly open dissent and power struggles within the party. Liberal and hardline members of the party are jockeying for position ahead of the 2012 leadership transition when the party will select members for the politburo.

Comments were filed on the Public Notice seeking input on the particular types of “need for speed” information that are most useful to consumers who are assessing which broadband service to purchase.

OPASTCO, NTCA and WTA said a voluntary industry “best practice” regarding the presentation of broadband speed information is best suited to facilitate informed consumer choice that keeps pace with technology. Pioneer Communications said the Commission should continue to work with broadband providers to find ways to inform consumers through outreach and education. New America Foundation urges the Commission to adopt standardized, comprehensive disclosure rules that ensure consumers have access to fundamental information regarding a broadband service. AT&T said contrary to the underlying premise of the Notice, consumers presently have access to information that enables them to make educated choices among broadband services and there is no basis for the Commission to impose any new customer education requirements on broadband Internet access service providers. NAD, et al., Level 3, NCTA, CenturyLink, and CTIA also filed comments. Replies due June 16.