I am a Social Elite.

originally posted by: SolidGoal
a reply to: daftpink

Of course it can't tell if I was physically watching the screen or not.

Actually it can. If you turn the volume up, or change the channel, or are interacting with it, it gauges "high probability" you are watching it. The literal commercial space between your interactions changes the medium value of the commercial space, and can even influence you getting a different commercial. Thusly this the most sought after space.

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: SolidGoal
a reply to: daftpink


But here in Canada, a few years ago they switched from analog cable broadcast to digital.

I've been flat told by Comcast, this was to cater to us. Replacing the box was more than moving to digital, Invidi software was implemented on them to my knowledge also.

LOL, oh Comcast...Cater to us, very funny.
Here, we are with Videotron.

This is not surprising, every "upgrades" is always thought and made with corporate interests first.
They pitched a lot of reasons for switching to digital, which all made sense IMO (electronically and communication wise).
But I always knew the main reason was for increased monitoring. Information, the 21st century's gold.


Thanks for your replies imjack.

a reply to: SolidGoal

Yes. To my knowledge, digital isn't required either for targeting aspects. It just helps. Memory issues were the prime culprit, so upgrades were needed for people that already had digital boxes.

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: SolidGoal
a reply to: daftpink

Of course it can't tell if I was physically watching the screen or not.

Actually it can. If you turn the volume up, or change the channel, or are interacting with it, it gauges "high probability" you are watching it. The literal commercial space between your interactions changes the medium value of the commercial space, and can even influence you getting a different commercial. Thusly this the most sought after space.

I am aware of the channel changing monitoring.
But for the TV volume ? In my current setup, not sure if this can be monitored.
See, I have a digital SD box which is connected by coaxial cable to my TV. I doubt that my TV sends a feedback to the SD box for my volume status. I might be mistaken as I do not have detailed specs of all the electronic processes of my current TV set.
But If I had an HD box connected via HDMI (with CEC enabled and all that jazz), then I can see this being a true possibility.
Anyways, most of the time I turn the volume waaay down during commercials.

I guess by having all different setup, different behaviors and different data throughput, this is where the "fuzzy" math comes in.

Although I despise ads, I find this conversation genuinely interesting.

a reply to: SolidGoal

Oh, yes you're correct. I was referring to if you use the "cable box" volume, and lots of people use the setup you descrided.

I don't believe using the cable box UR remote to change your TV volume effects this either because it's just signaling the TV. I really actually should know this for sure, it's bugging me now.

The reason I describe it that way, is because it's the buzzy idea that catches the providers attention.


To maybe give some interesting thought to the "fuzzy math", viewership habit discrepancy is revealing on its own.

We're able to observe changes in family households that watch Motherly content in the morning, Family content in the afternoon, and Dad content at night. On Friday though, the content at night is TMZ and MTV...it's the babysitter :^).

Essentially what is crazy about this, is yeah that's interesting on its own, but the system is actively tracing viewership models, and attempting to reconnect them at the source. The babysitter viewership profile will attempt to find her home, and stay consistent with its impressions to that INDIVIDUAL, rather than targeting just the TV at the house. It even works across providers and this is the wet dream Google has with us incorporating that into browsing and YouTube.

What the hell,

I'll bite, have a couple questions imjack, I'm going with the presumption that what you said is true and just want to get your take on a couple of things.

I know that the true United States (mostly international members/conglomerates ) functions under a false umbrella. We live in a controlled market environment under what we perceive to be a free market. Our Presidents have been hand picked since JFK got capped from what I can tell, or well controlled. Our government has been bought and paid for a hundred times over.

At first it seems like just a bunch of greedy men fighting for wealth or as our US Soldiers so proudly put it (G.O.D.) Gold, Oil and Drugs). From everything I've seen, the grab of wealth, the control of the population, the disappearing middle class, the constant attack on health, education and our Bill of Rights is all a smoke screen.

At first it looks like our government is run by a bunch of idiots, but that's actually very far from the truth. It seems like You (They are building toward something) It's not a One World Government ( I thought about it about 10 years ago, but realized this goes beyond this).

My question to you is, who are they to you and what do they want from you? (I believe you know who they are and at least some conception/misconception of what they want)

Just want to where you fit as the 1% of the 1%.

Thanks

FoxStriker

a reply to: FoxStriker

My perception that is it was a One World Goverment. My personal thoughts are that influence of Power is becoming less tied to financial power. Being someone is now more important than being able to buy someone. I attribute that thought to the 'open' movements.

Your post was interesting though, as it made me consider the possibility the "World Goverment" became fully finished and is just behind the curtain. I lean away from this though, because it would have been substantially easier to implement these systems without resistance, and there was definitely resistance. I will note walls fell away with GREAT ease once the USA adopted it, for other countries, so I again assume they're leading the way.

While I agree Presidents can be hand picked, it's still falls on the individual actions of a citizen to run, and I find that unpredictable. I'll also comment, ultimately this technology will reduce local market commercial cost to the point anyone will feasibly be able to be on TV. It will be a similar thought to YouTube. At the moment however, education of options is what keeps this power in check for people willing to abuse it's early adoption. It's available to everyone, but you can only imagine who's first in line.

I'm also not technically in the 1% of 1% :-( I mean technically I never claimed that, but I mean my family isn't either, which I did. It's 100m networth and we're not quite that. But it's super close and we're still moving, it's like the .018%~ and so it's just a turn of phrase I've been using lately.

From a morals perspective I'm not even aligned with your standard 1%rs is how I feel. Good ideas, no matter how big or small seem to be met with with theft, and if not, overcompensated to the highest levels. Nothing seems consistent about that to me, and I feel like that's a huge problem and I don't even know where to start to adress it. Facebook from a technical standpoint is poop, but I'll never be Zuckerberg, and while that may not bother me because I'm doing okay, it bothers me the implications this has on precievable achievement.

Hello Mackenzie, Welcome to ATS.

originally posted by: MathiasUnusRook
Hello Mackenzie, Welcome to ATS.

Hi! Winning quick points with me, 1 post?

Amazing detective again? But why one post?

Still far more impressive than calling out Drew.

You'll literally win a prize if you can tie yourself to Jack.($200)

Unless you're here to get me to stop; I roll over quick :/

Edit: Ps. Thread is over guys. Been fun. If he doesn't know Jack, I feel busted :-( if he does let's talk about Eygpt.

I know 3 different Matthew's that wouldn't be exactly pleased with these comments tho, and his name suggests the Lawyer one.

Hi all, I had to sign up just to reply to this thread. The OP is clearly lying. This isn't merely a claim, but can be verified mathematically. Ahhh mathematics, a schizophrenics worst enemy.

Let's narrow this down to just cable as the OP themselves have directly referenced this technology (Comcast).

ISPs transmit data over fiber (which theoretically could handle the amount of unique advertising feeds the OP purports) to the node (line card) which then converts fiber data to RF for transmission along the coaxial trunk (feeds a neighborhood).

The bandwidth of this coaxial network is ~1GHz with the lower portion reserved for upstream (sending back data/upload), leaving roughly 900MHz of bandwidth for downstream transmission (reception at the receptacle/box).

Using current QAM technologies (rf encoding), the channel space is split into 6MHz chunks, each of which averages 30mbps (max 43mbps theoretical). After we eliminate spectrum allocated to modems, we're left with about ~290 SD channel space or ~150 HD channels (back up to ~300 after the conversion from mpeg2 to mpeg4).

SDV (switched digital video) theoretically expands this as it only streams observed channels in the neighborhood.

But to make it simple...

150 HD channels using MPEG2 at any given time on a trunk feeding a MINIMUM of 250 to even 750+ subscribers....

You see where I'm going? There isn't enough bandwidth to deliver targeted ads to any one user, let alone any one household. Which is why ads are targeted based on local demographics... to a set-top box anyways.

This could and will change most likely in the future as more Americans acquire fiber and content providers stop ripping off consumers and move to H264/5 (Theoretical 1,000+ channels per trunk).

Don't even get me started on how the OPs super awesome amazing Trump advertising algorithms aren't even patentable (copyrightable, sure.)

*drops the mic*

Further reading Resource Planning and Bandwidth Allocation
in Hybrid Fiber-Coax Residential Networks

a reply to: DrThodt

Pfft you're nowhere near as impressive as the single MacKenzie line drop by someone with the name Matthew.

How is it not patentable when there are patents?
www.google.com...

My understanding is the targeting data is processed non-locally, are you telling me it's not possible to even deliver a personal ad to two seperate TVs in a household because bandwidth, when both Invidi and Visibleworld claim to do this as the main selling point?

Btw to which I would respond: "Oh." Anyway,

Or is not possible yet the only case?


Excuse me if I find this hard to believe when Cable Companies allow the same household to broadcast seperate channels in different rooms.

Second question, this is assuming every single person is using their TV at the exact same time? In the network of 750? And it's still true then?

And these implications apply to only Comcast? You sound like Comcast.

Btw, again, Matt is right over there. Chill out, this will disappear.

Closed for review...again.