In an interview with Reuters, Google CEO Eric Schmidt ruminated about a time when mobile phones would be free or subsidized if consumers agreed to watch targeted advertising. "Your mobile phone should be free," he said.. "It just makes sense that subsidies should increase" as the amount of advertising on mobile phones expands. In a world where there's advertising on trash cans, public transit vehicles, elevators, athletes' jerseys (at least outside North America), sidewalks and shopping carts, why not on mobile phones...and why not Google, which seems intent on advertising wherever it can (radio, magazines, newspapers, the Web) these days. Schmidt's proposal is not unlike some ISPs (e.g. Calgary-based CyberSurf) attempted a few years ago by offering free access if you agreed to have their ads appear in your browser. In terms of what segment of the wireless market this would be targeted at, you have to assume its customers with lower monthly bills as opposed to a power user who thinks nothing spending $100 a month on service. If advertisers are willing to foot part of the bill and consumers are willing to accept targeted advertising, I doubt the carriers would care much as long as they generated the same amount or more revenue. Tags: Google, Cybersurf, Advertising, Eric Schmidt

In the world according to Nick Carr, "Web 2.0 is so over" - an opinion cemented by the fact many people who attended the recent Web 2.0 Summit came away less than wowed. While Carr could be right - or he's found another Web issue to be curmudgeon-ly about - it would be presumptuous to use the Web 2.0 Summit has the litmus test for the Web 2.0 landscape. Why not? For one, the conference cost $3,000 so it meant the people attending were most the upper-crust of the Web world, who have already heard and seen it all. In other words, all those hot-shot speakers that a conference organizer can only dream about recruiting were simply preaching to the converted. This explains why GigaOm's Liz Gannes dismissed the Web 2.0 Summit as "not the place to be" if you were looking to learning something new. That's a pithy statement for someone living, working and operating in Silicon Valley but there are lots of people who still have to learn there is life on the Web beyond e-mail and e-commerce. Fortunately, the New York Times has come to the rescue of the restless Web elite by trumpeting the  emergence of Web 3.0, which is described as the intelligent Web as opposed to the interactive Web. A couple points: one, who's going to trademark"Web 3.0", and two, will Web 3.0 excite the "cool kids' such as Liz Gannes and Richard MacManus about the Web again? I've been writing about and using the Internet since 1995, and the pace of change and exciting new developments has never ceased to amaze me. As a mainstream tool, the Web is still in its infancy and there's plenty of experimentation still happening as people grapple with how to use it. Everything is cyclical, including the Web's development, so the restlessness about the Web elite will probably disappear soon when the next, new big thing emerges on the scene. Tags: Web 2.0, Web 3.0, Nick Carr