Summary
The article raises a couple points. First is privacy. When determining who will receive certain ads, how will demographic information be protected and distributed. Second, can a cable operator use the public rights-of-way to send certain messages to certain groups? While this may be cost effective from the advertisers view point, some civil rights groups may challenge the practice if they perceive that the public rights-of-way is being used to limit access to opportunities. Such attacks on the practice may limit the increased revenues target advertising is expected to generate in addition to a cable operator or advertiser incurring legal and regulatory costs from defending the practice.
Analysis
While this may be cost effective from the advertisers view point, some civil rights groups may challenge the practice if they perceive that the public rights-of-way is being used to limit access to opportunities. Such attacks on the practice may limit the increased revenues target advertising is expected to generate in addition to a cable operator or advertiser incurring legal and regulatory costs from defending the practice.
Cable operators and local franchise authorities should come to some agreement before hand that the franchise agreements that they have entered do not prohibit targeted advertisement. Such coordination may head off allegations of redlining. Franchise agreements tend to contain language that require franchise-area wide deployment of facilities but such a requirement may or may not be applicable to what advertisement messages are sent to which subscribers in particular areas of an operators territory.
