November 2011

Geo-targeted mobile advertising, which made its debut among political campaigns during the 2010 midterms but is just now becoming more widespread, offers presidential campaigns an attention-getting new way to stalk voters wherever they may be found — the state fair, the ballgame or the caucus site. On the presidential level, this means targeting ads at primary- and caucus-goers in the days leading up to the election — or even as they’re heading to the polls on Election Day.

After a shopping binge at Macy's, is a mallgoer more likely to refuel at Cinnabon or Cold Stone Creamery -- or both? If the latter, will said customer then head to Brookstone to recover in a massaging chair, or will he make a beeline to the mall's first aid station?

Malls and retailers had hoped to start gleaning information about shoppers' movement by discretely tracking them through their mobile devices -- but their plans are now on hold after a U.S. senator raised privacy concerns about the practice. The value of this technology is evident: Retailers can use that data to better understand shopping patterns, which in theory means they can make improvements based on their finding to enhance the customer experience while boosting sales. Inevitably, though, it raises the question as to whether this type of system represents an invasion of privacy or a potential security risk for mobile device users. Sen Charles Schumer raised the privacy flag after reports emerged last week about malls and retailers rolling out a tracking system from Path Intelligence, based in the United Kingdom. Two malls -- Promenade Temecula in southern California and Short Pump Town Center in Richmond, Va. -- had announced plans to test Path Intelligence's FootPath Technology system through the end of the year, whereas Home Depot and JC Penney were reportedly considering the system as well. According to The Register, the mall owners suspended deployment of FootPath after receiving letters from Schumer over the weekend.

The American Cable Association has asked the Federal Communications Commission to continue to exclude the majority of its members from program carriage rules, arguing that the rules were specifically targeted by Congress to operators with the incentive to protect their co-owned cable nets.

ACA, which represents small and mid-sized operators, made that pitch in comments at the FCC on its proposal to make those rules even stronger by instituting shot clocks, standstills and more. ACA was specifically responding to the FCC's question of whether the rules should be extended to cover all operators, not just the vertically integrated operators affiliated with programmers who are currently covered by the rules.

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association has urged the Federal Communications Commission to allow cable operators that have gone all digital to encrypt their basic tier.

That came in comments on the FCC's proposal to do just that. "Given the substantial public interest benefits and the lack of harms associated with encryption, NCTA endorses the Commission's tentative conclusions and urges it to act expeditiously in amending its rules," NCTA said. It added that allowing basic encryption would largely eliminate theft of service, promote innovation and investment, and reduce pollution and fuel consumption by reducing truck rolls to activate or deactivate service (NCTA said that the benefits would outweigh the minimal extra watts consumed by new boxes). Cable operators also argued that the competition has no similar ban on encryption. "When the encryption rule was adopted in 1994, cable was the dominant MVPD, and there were few competitors," said NCTA. "The situation is dramatically different today. DBS and telco IPTV providers -- each requiring set-top boxes for each of their subscribers -- serve approximately 40% of the marketplace with all-digital service on a fully encrypted basis. Likewise, online video distributors deliver video to customers on an encrypted basis. Netflix alone has 23.8 million subscribers, more than any MVPD. None of these video providers is barred from encrypting or otherwise protecting the content they provide to their customers."