zlacker

>>larrys+(OP)
I can understand that when people are using a free service, they are the product. But mobile contracts are by no mean free. I find that amazing that the TelCos would even contemplate charging their customers and at the same time using them as products.

>>cm2187+w4
Cable TV is also not free, but people put up with ads (at least in the US). In fact, I'm not sure people even remember that one of the original propositions of cable was that it was ad free.

I think a more accurate adage would be that if companies can get away with ads (or gathering and selling personal data), then they will do so. Unfortunately it would appear that giving money directly to service providers does not actually protect you from such things, and I suspect the reason is fairly straightforward: All companies are driven to increase margins as much as possible, and will eventually feel financial pressure to try such measures. Unless consumers object strongly (i.e.: leave the service in numbers large enough to offset the benefits of a measure under consideration), such measures will in general find their way into use.

So what we're really saying is consumers need to pay companies more than the money would get otherwise. If consumers aren't willing to pay that price (and it shouldn't surprise us if they aren't---this can be a lot of money), then we shouldn't be surprised if such things show up, regardless of whether the service is paid or not.

>>eslaug+Bd
So what we're really saying is consumers need to pay companies more than the money would get otherwise.

And what will stop them from running ads on top of that anyway?